Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is a picture of a gentleman, Walter Samuelson. Walter Samuelson was 60 years old when he died February 1, 1992, as a consequence of a heart attack from complications he suffered in February of that year. Because of the weather in King Cove, AK, Samuelson waited 3 days after his heart attack before he could be removed out of King Cove to a hospital in Anchorage. By that time, his heart had been so severely damaged he eventually had to have a heart transplant. The Samuelson family believes that had Walter been able to get out of the village of King Cove a little earlier, he would not have had the major complications that led to his heart transplant. Mr. Samuelson was born and raised in King Cove, AK. He served in the military in the Korean war. He was a fisherman all his life, fishing with his father and brothers while growing up. And after serving in the military, he moved to Sitka and married. He and his wife, Freda, had four boys. During the summer, he would fly his plane 1,000 miles back to King Cove where his boat was and where he could continue his livelihood, fishing for salmon. He later moved back to King Cove to live and later remarried. He and his second wife, Tanna, had two more children. Mr. Samuelson was a dedicated patron of the school in King Cove and devoted much of his time and effort there, so much so that he was honored in the dedication of the school's yearbook to him as ``a great friend of King Cove schools,'' an honor which he certainly cherished. He is survived by his wife Tanna and children: Carl, Walter, Jr., Charles, John, Axel, and Tanna. His surviving brothers and sisters are: Anna Poe, Marion Walker, Thelma Hutton, Christine Christiansen, and Alex, Eugene, John, Frank, and Eric Samuelson. Mr. Samuelson required a heart transplant and died because there is no road between King Cove and Cold Bay. We wonder how many more people have to die before we do something about it. Eleven residents have perished in aircraft accidents being medevaced out of King Cove a short distance to Cold Bay, where there is a year-round crosswind runway, as opposed to the gravel strip in the village of King Cove, where sometimes the windsock is blowing at opposite ends of the runway in opposite directions because of the severe turbulence in what is classified as one of the three worst weather areas identified in the world. The point is the people of King Cove have an alternative, and that is a short, 7-mile road connection which would necessitate a gravel road of 7 miles on the edge of a wilderness area. The people of King Cove are willing to give approximately 700 acres of their land to enlarge the wilderness for access through 7 miles of wilderness. This is being objected to by the Department of Interior and by many of the environmental community. I hope, as we return from our recess, we can reflect on the human merits, so we do not have to address additional obituaries of people who died because of their inability to get medical care and have simple access that every American enjoys with the exception of people in the village of King Cove, AK. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to wish you a very pleasant recess, and the other officials who are here in the Senate Chamber. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Nation's gold repository at Fort Knox, Kentucky is an acknowledged asset--cuddled, counted and cared for. But the Nation has a potential ``black gold'' repository under the Arctic Oil Reserve (AOR) that is largely ignored by the Administration--denied, discounted and disputed. Should someone try to tunnel under Fort Knox to borrow a few tons of gold from the vaults, retribution would be swift--remember ``Goldfinger''? Yet safe, environmentally sound development at the edge of ANWR at the Sourdough site could potentially siphon off barrels of oil belonging to the U.S. Government. Where is James Bond when we need him? Certainly not in the person of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, the purported watchdog of the Nation's natural resources. To the contrary, Secretary Babbitt put his head in the tundra back in 1995 and pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil possibilities to be very low at about 898 million barrels. In May 1998, the Secretary's own scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey begged to differ. Their estimate based on three years of work by more than 40 geologists and other professionals is that a mean of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of the AOR. In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of ANWR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological Survey to participate. Three things rang clear at that hearing. First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the 1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative. For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic; Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic; Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to AOR) is deemed economic. The Second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in the Eastern portion. While the USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of that specific area, they do not have the data that industry has from actually drilling a well. And I can assure you that those with knowledge of what that well contained--the select few--remain very optimistic about the potential oil and gas reserves of the Eastern portion. Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the environment at a cost 30% less than 10 years ago. Consider this, Mr. President. In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP. Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350 million--a 70% reduction from just 4 years ago. Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with better science. Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3D) seismic data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May estimates of producible oil could soar even higher. Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by sound science and peer review, were still based on 2D seismic tests done more than a decade ago. Kenneth A. Boyd, director, division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan. He said the available information from 2D seismic as opposed to 3D seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves invaluable for exploration. This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs. This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and environmental impacts. Of course the Administration is under little pressure to allow testing or exploration of the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30- year low. However, the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It would take that same ten-year period to develop any oil production in AOR. Therefore, it seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security. I intend to introduce legislation that would allow 3D seismic testing on the Coastal Plain. This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have ``no significant impact.'' It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR. It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of resource we are talking about. It the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf War--that would require the speedup of development; that development could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the benefit of thoughtful planning. I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an informed decision about its use? And how can those in this Administration or the environmental community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of our public lands? If we are just guessing that the Sourdough drillers may have tapped an underground AOR vein then we deserve to lose the resource. It is time to get rid of the guesswork and 3D testing will help to do that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is legislation regarding the State of Alaska's sovereign right to manage its fish and game resources. The legislation will extend a current moratorium on the federal government from assuming control of Alaska's fisheries for two years until December 1, 2000. The language is similar to past moratoriums on this issue and is similar to language Congressman young added to the Interior Appropriations bill in the House, except that it is not conditioned upon action by the Alaska State Legislature. To every one of my colleagues their respective state's right to manage fish and game is absolute--every other state manages its own fish and game. In Alaska, this is not the case, and therefore, action must be taken to maintain the sovereign right of our state. Mr. President, Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires the State of Alaska to provide a rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal ``public lands'' or run the risk of losing its management authority over fish and game resources. If the State fails to provide the required preference by state statute, the federal government can step in to manage federal lands. The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982. The law was slightly revised in 1986, and remained on the books until it was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as unconstitutional because of the Alaska Constitution's common use of fish and game clause. At that time, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture took over management of fish and game resources on federal public lands in Alaska. In 1995 a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie John v. United States extended the law far beyond its original scope to apply not just to ``federal lands,'' but to navigable waters owned by the State of Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too. The theory espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' includes navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights. If implemented, the court's decision would mean all fisheries in Alaska would effectively be managed by the federal government. Indeed in April of 1996, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture published an ``advance notice of proposed rulemaking'' which identified about half of the state as subject to federal authority to regulate fishing activities. These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal lands that may have an impact on subsistence uses. There is no precedent in any other state in the union for this kind of overreaching into state management prerogatives. For that reason Congress acted in 1996 to place a moratorium on the federal government from assuming control of Alaska fisheries. That moratorium has twice been extended and is set to expire December 1, 1998. The State's elected leaders have worked courageously to try and resolve this issue by placing an amendment to the state constitution that would allow them to come into compliance with the federal law and provide a subsistence priority. Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's constitution is not easily amended and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes needed to be placed before the Alaska voters. In fact, the legislature--the elected representatives of the people-- in the most recent special session indicated that they were not supportive of amending the State Constitution and putting the issue to a vote of the people. Therefore we once again are in a position where we have no other alternative than to extend the moratorium prohibiting a federal takeover of Alaska's fisheries. The bill I am introducing today will accomplish this. It extends the current moratorium through December 1, 2000. I believe this will provide the State's elected leaders the needed time to work through this dilemma as they cannot finally resolve the matter of amending the State Constitution until November 2000. Mr. President, I do not take this moratorium lightly. I, along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence uses of fish and game should have a priority over other uses in the state. We have provided for such uses in the past, I hunted and fished under those regulations and I respected and supported them and continue to do so now. I believe the State can again provide for such uses without significant interruption to the sport or commercial fisherman. I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska. They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And, they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of those resources. They should bear their share of the responsibility for formulating fish and game laws as well enforcing fish and game laws. It is my hope that the State will soon provide for Alaska's rural residents to have this greater role while at the same time resolving the subsistence dilemma once and for all. But until that happens, I cannot stand by and watch the federal government move into the State and assume control of the Alaska fish and game resources. I have lived under territorial status and it does not work. In 1959 Alaskan's caught just 25.1 million salmon. Under State management we caught 218 million salmon in 1995. Federal control would again be a disaster for the resources and those that depend on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I can question the floor manager relative to his intent, if we are in tomorrow and votes start at 1 o'clock, might it be possible to stack the votes in the event that actuality should be determined, because the last plane that I can catch is 2:20; otherwise, I have to leave the next day. And I don't request special consideration. On the other hand, it just means another day's delay. So if we did go into tomorrow and we start voting, the 2:20 plane is the last one I can catch.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act of 1998. This Act will lead to a brighter future for rural and remote communities by establishing two new grant programs that will address the unique economic and environmental challenges faced by small communities in rural and remote areas across this country. I am pleased that this legislation is co-sponsored by the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle. The bill authorizes up to $100 million a year in grant aid from 1999 through 2005 for any commuunities across the nation with populations of less than 10,000 which face electric rates in excess of 150 percent of the national average retail price. The money can go for electricity system improvements, energy efficiency and weatherization efforts, water and sanitation improvements or work to solve leaking fuel storage tanks. The bill also amends the Rural Electrification Act to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants of an additional $20 million a year to the same communities. The grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates or provide for the modernization of electric facilities. This nation has well-established programs for community development grants. The majority of these programs were established to help resolve the very real problems found in this Nation's urban areas. However, our most rural and remote communities experience different, but equally real, problems that are not addressed by existing law. Not only are these communities generally ineligible for the existing programs, their unique challenges, while sometimes similar to those experienced by urban areas, require a different focus and approach. The biggest single economic problem facing small communities is the expense of establishing a modern infrastructure. These costs, which are always substantial, are exacerbated in remote and rural areas. The existence of this infrastructure, including efficient housing, electricity, bulk fuel storage, waste water and water service, is a necessity for the health and welfare of our children, the development of a prosperous economy and minimizing environmental problems. There is a real cost in human misery and to the health and welfare of everyone, especially our children and our elderly from poor or polluted water or bad housing or an inefficient power system. Hepatitis B infections in rural Alaska are five times more common than in urban Alaska. We just have to do better if we are to bring our rural communities into the 21st Century. The experience of many Alaskans is a perfect example. Most small communities or villages in Alaska are not interconnected to an electricity grid, and rely upon diesel generators for their electricity. Often, the fuel can only be delivered by barge or airplane, and is stored in tanks. These tanks are expensive to maintain, and in many cases, must be completely replaced to prevent leakage of fuel into the environment. While economic and environmental savings clearly justify the construction of new facilities, these communities simply don't have the ability to raise enough capital to make the necessary investments. As a result, these communities are forced to bear an oppressive economic and environmental burden that can be eased with a relatively small investment on the part of the Federal government. I can give you some examples: in Manley Hot Springs, Alaska, the citizens pay almost 70 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. In Igiugig, Kokhanok, Akiachak Native Community, and Middle Kuskokwim, consumers all pay over 50 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. The national average is around 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Further, in Alaska, for example, many rural villages still lack modern water and sewer sanitation systems taken for granted in all other areas of America. According to a Federal Field Working Group, 190 of the state's villages have ``unsafe'' sanitation systems, 135 villages still using ``honey buckets'' for waste disposal. Only 31 villages have a fully safe, piped water system; 71 villages having only one central watering source. Concerning leaking storage tanks, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs estimates that there are more than 2,000 leaking above-ground fuel storage tanks in Alaska. There are several hundred other below-ground tanks that need repair, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. These are not only an Alaskan problem. The highest electricity rates in America are paid by a small community in Missouri, and communities in Maine, as well as islands in Rhode Island and New York will likely qualify for this program. Providing safe drinking water and adequate waste treatment facilities is a problem for very small communities all across this land. What will this Act do to address these problems? First, the Act authorizes $100 million per year for the years 1999-2005 for block grants to communities of under 10,000 inhabitants who pay more than 150 percent of the national average retail price for electricity. The grants will be allocated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development among eligible communities proportionate to cost of electricity in the community, as compared to the national average. The communities may use the grants only for the following eligible activities: Low-cost weatherization of homes and other buildings; Construction and repair of electrical generation, transmission, distribution, and related facilities; Construction, remediation and repair of bulk fuel storage facilities; Facilities and training to reduce costs of maintaining and operating electrical generation, distribution, transmission, and related facilities; Professional management and maintenance for electrical generation, distribution and transmission, and related facilities; Investigation of the feasibility of alternate energy services; Construction, operation, maintenance and repair of water and waste water services; Acquisition and disposition of real property for eligible activities and facilities; and Development of an implementation plan, including administrative costs for eligible activities and facilities. In addition, this bill will amend the rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants for $20 million per year for years 1999-2005 for grants to qualified borrowers under the Act that are in rural and remote communities who pay more than 150 percent of the national average retail price for electricity. These grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates, or provide or modernize electric facilities. This Act makes a significant step toward resolving the critical social, economic, and environmental problems faced by our Nation's rural and remote communities. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska. national advanced telecommunications and applications center

Mr. MURKOWSKI. With the expectation that all the parties to the Adak exchange will sign an agreement within the next few weeks, it is also my hope that the Conference Committee on S. 2312 would consider the inclusion of the language ratifying the agreement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows, we have been working for some time with the Natives of the Aleut Corporation, the Navy and the Department of the Interior on an effective plan for the reuse of Adak Naval Base, and I thank the Chairman for the inclusion of funding to help resolve remaining environmental problems with the facilities at Adak. The Aleut Corporation, one of Alaska's 12 Native regional corporations, is the only entity that has expressed an interest in assuming the closed base, and has proposed a land exchange involving the Navy and the Department of the Interior. The Senate Energy committee, as you know, is considering and has held a hearing on S. 1488, which would authorize an exchange of property that would promote the reuse of Adak and improve the Aleutian refuge through incorporation of Aleut Corporation inholdings. This legislation is designed to ratify an agreement that will very shortly be executed by the Aleut Corporation and the Departments of the Navy and the Interior.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act of 1998. This Act will lead to a brighter future for rural and remote communities by establishing two new grant programs that will address the unique economic and environmental challenges faced by small communities in rural and remote areas across this country. I am pleased that this legislation is co-sponsored by the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle. The bill authorizes up to $100 million a year in grant aid from 1999 through 2005 for any commuunities across the nation with populations of less than 10,000 which face electric rates in excess of 150 percent of the national average retail price. The money can go for electricity system improvements, energy efficiency and weatherization efforts, water and sanitation improvements or work to solve leaking fuel storage tanks. The bill also amends the Rural Electrification Act to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants of an additional $20 million a year to the same communities. The grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates or provide for the modernization of electric facilities. This nation has well-established programs for community development grants. The majority of these programs were established to help resolve the very real problems found in this Nation's urban areas. However, our most rural and remote communities experience different, but equally real, problems that are not addressed by existing law. Not only are these communities generally ineligible for the existing programs, their unique challenges, while sometimes similar to those experienced by urban areas, require a different focus and approach. The biggest single economic problem facing small communities is the expense of establishing a modern infrastructure. These costs, which are always substantial, are exacerbated in remote and rural areas. The existence of this infrastructure, including efficient housing, electricity, bulk fuel storage, waste water and water service, is a necessity for the health and welfare of our children, the development of a prosperous economy and minimizing environmental problems. There is a real cost in human misery and to the health and welfare of everyone, especially our children and our elderly from poor or polluted water or bad housing or an inefficient power system. Hepatitis B infections in rural Alaska are five times more common than in urban Alaska. We just have to do better if we are to bring our rural communities into the 21st Century. The experience of many Alaskans is a perfect example. Most small communities or villages in Alaska are not interconnected to an electricity grid, and rely upon diesel generators for their electricity. Often, the fuel can only be delivered by barge or airplane, and is stored in tanks. These tanks are expensive to maintain, and in many cases, must be completely replaced to prevent leakage of fuel into the environment. While economic and environmental savings clearly justify the construction of new facilities, these communities simply don't have the ability to raise enough capital to make the necessary investments. As a result, these communities are forced to bear an oppressive economic and environmental burden that can be eased with a relatively small investment on the part of the Federal government. I can give you some examples: in Manley Hot Springs, Alaska, the citizens pay almost 70 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. In Igiugig, Kokhanok, Akiachak Native Community, and Middle Kuskokwim, consumers all pay over 50 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. The national average is around 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Further, in Alaska, for example, many rural villages still lack modern water and sewer sanitation systems taken for granted in all other areas of America. According to a Federal Field Working Group, 190 of the state's villages have ``unsafe'' sanitation systems, 135 villages still using ``honey buckets'' for waste disposal. Only 31 villages have a fully safe, piped water system; 71 villages having only one central watering source. Concerning leaking storage tanks, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs estimates that there are more than 2,000 leaking above-ground fuel storage tanks in Alaska. There are several hundred other below-ground tanks that need repair, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. These are not only an Alaskan problem. The highest electricity rates in America are paid by a small community in Missouri, and communities in Maine, as well as islands in Rhode Island and New York will likely qualify for this program. Providing safe drinking water and adequate waste treatment facilities is a problem for very small communities all across this land. What will this Act do to address these problems? First, the Act authorizes $100 million per year for the years 1999-2005 for block grants to communities of under 10,000 inhabitants who pay more than 150 percent of the national average retail price for electricity. The grants will be allocated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development among eligible communities proportionate to cost of electricity in the community, as compared to the national average. The communities may use the grants only for the following eligible activities: Low-cost weatherization of homes and other buildings; Construction and repair of electrical generation, transmission, distribution, and related facilities; Construction, remediation and repair of bulk fuel storage facilities; Facilities and training to reduce costs of maintaining and operating electrical generation, distribution, transmission, and related facilities; Professional management and maintenance for electrical generation, distribution and transmission, and related facilities; Investigation of the feasibility of alternate energy services; Construction, operation, maintenance and repair of water and waste water services; Acquisition and disposition of real property for eligible activities and facilities; and Development of an implementation plan, including administrative costs for eligible activities and facilities. In addition, this bill will amend the rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants for $20 million per year for years 1999-2005 for grants to qualified borrowers under the Act that are in rural and remote communities who pay more than 150 percent of the national average retail price for electricity. These grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates, or provide or modernize electric facilities. This Act makes a significant step toward resolving the critical social, economic, and environmental problems faced by our Nation's rural and remote communities. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not know how much time is left on the amendment, but I would like to speak briefly on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I rise in support of the amendment authorizing the purchase of 420 million dollars worth of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. First of all, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is my responsibility to protect the energy security interests of this country. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created for emergency purposes. This amendment today would accomplish several goals: one, replace the oil that has been sold over the past several years for budgetary purposes. Now is a most opportune time to buy oil, when prices are at a 30-year low. In this context, it is interesting to reflect on the fact that the average price of the oil in the SPR is about $33 a barrel. Over the past several years, the average price we have gotten in selling it is about $19 a barrel. So far, the Government has not done very well. I do not know whether they figured they would make it up in volume, but it is certainly poor business to buy high and sell low. By taking action earlier this year, we stopped a proposed sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was ordered in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. We saved the American taxpayers over $\1/ 2\ billion by that action, and our energy security insurance policy remained intact. We did this, Mr. President, on an emergency appropriations bill. Over the past 3 years, we have steadily drained our Nation's energy security insurance policy. The drain started in 1996 when the Department of Energy proposed the sale of $96 million worth of oil to pay for the decommissioning of the Weeks Island facility. In other words, we had a piggy bank. We broke into it. We did it in order to meet some budgetary requirements. We have had a hard time staying out of that piggy bank ever since. In addition to the sale we canceled last year, there have been three additional sales. In January of 1996, the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act authorized the sale of $5.1 million barrels from Weeks Island. The oil cost a total of $40.33 a barrel. We sold it for $18.82. We lost $110 million. In the 1996 budget agreement, we required the sale of 12.8 million barrels for $227 million. Based upon the average cost of oil in the SPR, the American taxpayer lost approximately $200 million. The fiscal year 1997 appropriations required the sale of 10 million barrels for $220 million. Oil prices were up that winter, so the American taxpayer lost only $110 million. So far we have lost the American taxpayer $\1/2\ billion by selling oil that we put in the SPR by buying it high and selling it low. And, of course, two years ago the President proposed to balance the budget in the year 2002 by selling $1.5 billion worth of SPR oil at $10 a barrel, which would be 150,000 barrels of oil. I am grateful that wiser heads have prevailed. However, we did not stop the drip, drip, drip of small sales, the appropriations process. As I indicated, we paid an average of $33 per barrel. With three sales so far, it has cost the taxpayers a great deal of money--$\1/2\ billion. But now we have an opportunity to stop that by pursuing the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Mexico, who is also a member of the Energy Committee, because we are able to at an all-time low. It is a great investment for our national energy security interests. I am told that what we are doing now is replacing, in this 28 million barrels, the amount that we have sold over the past several years for budgetary purposes. So while we are still short of our objective of a 90-day supply of net imports, we will be somewhere in the area of a 64- day supply. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Let me congratulate my friend from New Mexico for offering it. I yield the floor and yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I rise to share some of my concerns regarding H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act. First, let me state that I support the concept of H.R. 1151; that is, to prevent a current credit union member from being forced to disaffiliate, and also to allow a credit union an opportunity to reasonably expand its membership to help ensure the safety and soundness of the institution. I will support passage of H.R. 1151. However, in light of the realization of the tax-exempt status that Congress affords credit unions, I think it would be irresponsible for this body to not fully debate a serious problem that exists with this legislation; and it is the Community Reinvestment Act requirements. Madam President, we can talk about interpretation. We can talk about administering the act. But the realization is that the act calls for specific action by community banks. And the consequences of that are not only costly, but in some instances rather--well, they are rather amusing. Let us put it that way. I know of one bank in Los Angeles with numerous branches throughout the city. And those banks are primarily located in areas of high concentration of Chinese residents, both from the mainland previously, or their families, and Taiwan. So a good portion of the banks' customers clearly are Chinese. The Community Reinvestment Act mandates that these particular branches advertise in Hispanic areas of Los Angeles, advertise in areas where there are large concentrations of black residents, and move beyond, if you will, the traditional area that they serve with their branch system. This particular institution has been cited as being in violation of the Community Reinvestment Act because it did not have a certain percentage of Hispanic depositors and borrowers. So they were forced to go out and advertise in those particular areas, which they did. They still did not generate any business. If you go into this Chinese bank, so to speak, the tellers can speak English and Chinese. They are meeting, if you will, a minority service, but they are in violation, technically, of the Community Reinvestment Act. I could go on and on with numerous examples, but here, clearly, is an example where the Community Reinvestment Act is out of sync with reality. Community banks, for the most part, are small. Many of them are locally owned. Over half of the banks have only one or two branches. And they have excellent records of serving their communities because they are different than the money center banks. They are there to serve the community. They have to be there, and they have to do that or they would not survive. They have to serve the community. It is interesting to note that of the 8,970 small community banks, there are only 9--only 9--that have a substantial noncompliance CRA rating. Let me repeat that. Of the 8,970 small community banks in America, only 9 have received a substantial noncompliance rating. In other words, almost 9,000 small banks must spend hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with a Federal mandate simply because a bare 9 community banks had records that the regulators in Washington, DC, deemed bad. Well, that makes no sense, Madam President. It is just totally unrealistic. Because community banks by their very nature serve the needs of their community, community banks do not need a burdensome Government mandate to order them to do what they have already been doing a good job of for decades. The difference is the large banks don't have a difficulty in meeting the CRA requirements. The large banks have personnel. They have resources and they can easily absorb the costs of these additional CRA mandates. The small banks don't have these resources. It is very difficult for them to absorb the high cost of the Community Reinvestment Act, and even the credit unions express concern over additional costs, additional Federal mandates. How costly are the CRA requirements? Let's just take a look at this chart, because I think it shows adequately that this is a very meaningful cost. If we look at the chart, we see the financial burden of the CRAs to small community banks is costly, costly in both dollars as well as man-hours. If we look at compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act, what it costs the community banks--14.4 million employee hours; 6,900 full-time employees; $1,256 per $1 million in assets--the total cost of the CRA to community banks is over $1 billion a year. One of the curious things about the manner in which this debate is going on, it is my understanding that Senator Gramm has put in an amendment to exempt the credit unions from the CRA requirements. The CRA requirements are in the Banking Committee bill to exempt the credit unions from CRA requirements. Senator Shelby's amendment is simply to exempt small banks from the same CRA requirements. Now, is that not an equitable situation? I am surprised that the President has come down and suggested that if this passes, the Shelby amendment, it is grounds for vetoing the bill. What is the logic in that? What is the equity? What is the fairness? What we are trying to do here is to serve America's consumers. The way to do that is lower costs. If it costs the small community banks $1 billion a year, that cost has to be passed on. What many in this body don't recognize is the difficulty that the small community bank has in meeting these requirements as compared to its competitor, whether a Bank of America or Citicorp or any of the major institutions. This is just another cost of doing business that they can assimilate. But the small country banker on the corner has a real problem with this in spite of what some of the debate has suggested here today. The regulatory costs of the CRA impairs the ability of small banks to serve the needs to their local community. As this chart shows, it costs real money--$1 billion--to comply with the CRA. Banks must comply with the Truth in Lending Act. That requirement, which everyone supports, takes less than half the man-hours of the CRA and costs nearly half of what CRA costs. The banks must also meet the important Equal Credit Opportunity Act which prevents discrimination in lending, a worthy goal. Yet the cost of complying with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is barely one-fifth of the onerous costs of the CRA. I am a cosponsor of the Shelby amendment which exempts small banks, exempts small banks with $250 million in assets from CRA. Personally, I don't feel that goes far enough. I believe a $500 million threshold is a more appropriate figure. Why is an exemption for small banks with $500 million in assets more appropriate? Well, there is a good reason. That is the threshold we established 12 years ago to distinguish small banks from large banks in the 1986 reform of the Tax Code. We recognized back then that the small banks, banks with less than $500 million, should be allowed a deduction for reserve for bad debts but denied a similar reserve deduction for large banks. It only makes sense to use a definition already so well established. Obviously, by the attitude prevailing here with regard to the equity, I am not going to pursue that, but I think that is an appropriate threshold as you look at where you cut off a small bank from a large bank. I believe the Shelby amendment is a modest amendment that all of our colleagues should support. It is equitable. To have the threat of the White House come down, that they will veto this if it prevails, is absolutely unrealistic, and it is certainly unfair. I think it is time we sent a message to the White House with regard to the merits of the debate on issues of equity and fairness. To suggest that the White House simply comes down with a threat--this Senator from Alaska is not buying. If there are any financial institutions in America that do not need to have a Federal community reinvestment mandate imposed upon them, it is America's small community bankers. They are not making loans in Indonesia. They are not making loans in South Korea. Their loans are in their communities. That is how they survive. Why exempt the credit unions and penalize small banks, small banks who pay taxes? Make it fair. Make it equitable. Exempt both. That is the correct action that should be taken by this body. I hope there are enough Members who will stand up for what is right and equitable.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about another very tragic incident which took place this last weekend. Yesterday, Lieutenant General David J. McCloud, commander of all the military forces in Alaska, was killed when his YAK-54 stunt plane went down over Fort Richardson. Lewis Cathrow, of Alexandria, Virginia, was also killed in this tragic crash. I had the pleasure of knowing David McCloud; although not nearly as well as I would have liked. He and his wife Anna came to Alaska this past December, when he took over as commander of the Alaskan command. As some of my colleagues may be aware, this post carries the distinction of being responsible for all of the more than 21,000 active duty and reserve personnel from all branches of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and National Guard in Alaska. But it also means that he is a key member of our community. And, Mr. President, this is how David should be remembered, as a member of our community. David McCloud died doing what he loved--flying. Before he took the post in Alaska, he told me of his plan to purchase a stunt plane, and how he had flown virtually every type of plane in our Air Force fleet, including the B1-B bomber and most of the fighter models used by our Air Force during the last 30 years. General McCloud will be sadly missed by many. My deepest condolences go out to his wife, Anna, and to his family and friends. They will be in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of the two Capitol Hill Police officers who gave their lives in the line of duty Friday afternoon. Jacob J. Chestnut and John Gibson were dedicated officers whose deaths are mourned by all of us on Capitol Hill, and by many across America. A sense of genuine grief grips us as we come to terms with the tragedy that unfolded in our midst on Friday. At the same time, we stand in awe of the heroism they and other officers displayed in ending a gunman's rampage and saving the lives of innocent citizens. Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were committed to the United States, having sworn to protect lawmakers, citizens, and the peace as Capitol Police Officers. While I did not have the honor of knowing them personally, I am truly grateful for their dedication and service--as well as the dedication and service of all who serve as police officers. As a father of six and grandfather of eleven, I know how important family is. The loss of a son, father, husband, and friend is devastating. My thoughts and prayers and those of my wife Nancy are with those who knew and loved these two quiet heroes. Officer Gibson has left behind his wife, Evelyn, and three children. While the loss of Officer Gibson as a father and husband is immeasurable, I know his memory will be a source of strength for his family. Officer Chestnut is survived by his wife, Wen-Ling, and five children: Joseph Chestnut, William Chestnut, Janet Netherly, Janece Graham, and Karen Chestnut. Grief has surely stricken this family and the death of their cornerstone can never be as deeply felt by others, but Officer Chestnut died a hero, protecting his country as he had sworn to do both during his years in the Air Force and as a Capitol Police Officer. Mrs. Chestnut, Mrs. Gibson--please accept our condolences are prayers. We are all indebted to both your husbands for their dedication and their selfless, heroic acts. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Once again, Mr. President, the distinguished manager is correct. Based on discussions with the two agencies directly involved in this matter, and with the fishing industry, it is evident that the industry has legitimate concerns and questions that have not been answered. The moratorium will allow the agencies the time to revisit the issue in the detail that it deserves. I hope they will take the opportunity either to reopen the rulemaking with respect to fishing industry vessels or to open a new rulemaking that specifically deals with such vessels, so that the unique characteristics of the fishing industry are considered.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the manager is quite correct. This amendment will apply only to fishing industry vessels such as catcher- boats, catcher-processors, mothership processors and fish tender vessels. Other types of vessels to which the rule applies, such as cargo and passenger ships, will not be affected.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very happy to yield for a question from the distinguished manager.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment will delay for one year the application of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, abbreviated as GMDSS, to fishing industry vessels. The purpose of the delay is to allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the time to address a number of serious concerns that have recently come to light involving GMDSS for fishing industry vessels. Also Mr. President, let me make clear that the delay will not affect any other type of vessel. GMDSS is a system created by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) under the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). It was intended to improve safety for large cargo and passenger vessels on international voyages. It is scheduled to go into effect on February 1 of next year. There is no doubt that GMDSS will indeed improve safety for these types of vessels. Fishing vessels are very specifically not covered by SOLAS, but the FCC regulation requiring GMDSS for international passenger and cargo vessels is also being applied to large domestic fishing industry vessels anyway. Because these types of vessels operate very differently, there are serious questions as to whether the system should be applied in the same way. The most important of the questions that has been raised for the fishing industry involves the safety and well-being not of the fishing vessels required to carry GMDSS equipment, but of the smaller vessels that work around them. One of the things that makes GMDSS attractive to large vessels on international voyages is that it is automated, using a feature called Digital Selective Calling (DSC). Because of this, when the large vessels switch to GMDSS on February 1, they will no longer be required to maintain a continuous watch on the two emergency frequencies used under the current system. In the United States, the watchstanding requirement has been extended to the year 2005 for VHF Channel 16, but will cease on February 1 for 2182 kilohertz. These are the two frequencies used by small vessels, including the small fishing vessels that operate in and around the larger vessels that will be required to convert to GMDSS. When a fishing vessel is in distress, the vessels closest to it and in the best position to render aid are other fishing vessels working in the same area. But, Mr. President, what will happen when the small vessel sends out a distress call, only to find that the larger and better-equipped fishing vessels around it are no longer listening? This is--obviously, and with very good reason--a major concern. Under the theory of GMDSS, contact with other vessels is to be replaced by contact with a shore station. That's all well and good on an international voyage, where it may eliminate confusion and speed up response. But for fishing vessels, it may very well slow response time--and believe me, Mr. President, in the frigid waters of the Bering Sea in the winter, every second counts toward life--or toward death. Because of this, there is a very real danger that shifting the largest and most capable vessels of the fleet to GMDSS may actually degrade safety for smaller, but far more numerous vessels operating in the same areas. In fact, although the GMDSS system is supposed to replace ship-to- ship emergency communications with a unified ship-to-shore system maintained by the Coast guard, the fact is that the Coast Guard itself is not ready to implement it fully. With the system scheduled to go into effect in just a few months, there are still major shore-based components that have not yet been installed. In Alaska, for example, the Coast Guard is only this summer starting the installation of medium-frequency receivers. And throughout the country, installation of VHF receivers has been delayed indefinitely--it is ``on hold.'' According to the Coast Guard's own task force on GMDSS, the VHF system will probably not be in place before 2003 at the earliest. The fact that GMDSS was not designed for the fishing fleet is an issue itself. Most every mariner of any sort is familiar with SOLAS, and knows that it does not apply to fishing vessels. As a result, when the FCC published the proposed GMDSS rule in 1990, and when it made the rule final in 1992, the fishing industry was not made aware that it would be applied to fishing industry vessels, which are generally treated as a separate class of vessels under U.S. law. Indeed, when the proposed GMDSS regulation was printed in the Federal Register in 1990, it specified that fishing vessels would not be included: ``Small ships, such as private fishing vessels and recreational yachts, are not affected by the proposed changes.'' This same statement is still being repeated, in an informational document about GMDSS that is currently offered on the FCC's Internet site. Given this confusion, it is no wonder that the fishing industry's concerns did not surface sooner; most of the industry was unaware of the need to comment. This alone is a huge flaw in the way the rulemaking was conducted, but one that can be corrected given a little more time to explore and address the fishing industry's concerns. Mr. President, the affected fishing industry vessels already carry all but one feature of the GMDSS system. They have VHF radios and single-side-band radios, EPIRBS, radars, radar transponders and hand- held VHF radios for their life rafts, and so forth. Each vessel already carries--at a guess--$20,000 to $30,000 worth of sophisticated communications equipment. The only thing they are lacking is the Digital Selective Calling (DSC) feature. In a recent meeting with the Coast Guard and the FCC, we learned that there is no reason DSC could not be added to the existing equipment for a very reasonable cost--perhaps $5,000. However, the industry has indicated that electronics vendors have so far either declined to sell DSC as a separate component, or if they do, to offer a component warranty on it. Instead, they are insisting that the fishing industry purchase large consoles where all of the GMDSS equipment is pre- installed--at a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 dollars each. Because of the confined nature of the wheelhouse on the average vessel, significant structural changes may have to be made to fit the console in place, and of course, the existing $30,000 of equipment would have to be scrapped. That means, Mr. President, that the cost of outfitting these vessels may reach as much as $100,000--all to get a $5,000 piece of equipment on board. That, Mr. President, is why people get upset at their government. That, Mr. President, is just plain wrong. These are just a few of the very serious issues that justify a delay for fishing industry vessels so that the rule can be re-examined and improved with better input from the industry. No one wants to see safety degraded in any way--including by mandating ``improvements'' that may be no such thing. It may be that GMDSS is the way to go for fishing industry vessels as well as the large international cargo vessels and passenger liners it was designed for. If so, it should be adopted, and I'm sure it will be. But if not, we must take the time to listen first.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a good friend of the State of Alaska passed away on Sunday evening, Clifford Groh. He was a well- respected member of the Anchorage community and a leader in the Republican Party. He was educated in New York and New Mexico before settling in Alaska. He served his country in the Navy and plied his trade as a lawyer. Cliff served our state as a member of the Alaska Constitutional Research Committee, Chairman of the Anchorage Charter Commission, the Anchorage City Council, the Borough Assembly, and also as a State Senator. In 1967 he was appointed Honorary Chief by the Alaska Federation of Natives and in 1972, he was voted Outstanding Legislator of the Year by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. Cliff served as our State Party National Committeeman from 1976-78 and General Counsel from 1978 to 1990. President Bush appointed Cliff to the Arctic Reserach Commission. In 1977, I had the pleasure of presenting him with the Republican Party of Alaska's Life Service Award. He is survived by his wife, Lucy and their three children. Mr. President, we share the family's grief at their great loss and take solace in the fact that this talented, highly respected man will live on in the memory of all who had the pleasure to know him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today with 12 of my colleagues, including our distinguished Majority and Minority Leaders, I submit an important resolution that affects the health and safety of all of our children. My resolution would designate October 15th, 1998 as National Inhalant Abuse Awareness Day. What is inhalant abuse? Many of you may know it as ``sniffing'' addiction. At alarmingly high rates, today's young people are using common household products to get high. In my state of Alaska alone, 22% of the high school and 19% of middle school students admit to experimenting with inhalants. 21% of students nationally will have tried inhalants by the time they graduate from high school. Inhalant abusers often start in elementary school, as young as 7 years old. In Alaska, there is even a report of a three year old using inhalants, having probably been taught to do so from an older sibling. Inhalant abusers are both male and female and cut across all socio- economic backgrounds. It is a national epidemic which affects all of our communities. Inhalant abuse is so prevalent because of the availability and affordability of the products. The over 1,000 products being abused include nail and furniture polish, markers, whip cream aerosols, glue, gasoline, and air fresheners. These products are available in every home across the country and are sold for only a few dollars in every corner market. Unlike other substances young people abuse--alcohol, cigarettes, and harder drugs like cocaine, marijuana and heroin--these are perfectly legal products and harmless if used according to the directions. All of us have these products in our homes and at some point, we have all asked our children to follow those directions and polish the living room furniture or fix a broken dish. But how many of us knew these items, which we so casually use, could someday kill our children? According to a recent study, only four percent of parents suspected their children of inhaling when in fact, 21% of them have. With the products accessible and cheap, how do we stop the abuse without more laws? Congress can't just enact another law this time, we can't outlaw furniture polish or gasoline. Instead, I strongly believe the solution lies within our communities and our families. We, as community leaders, parents, and grandparents, should make a concerted effort to involve young people in other activities--teach them a trade or give them a summer job. I suggest that families pray together and eat their meals together. Children who have loving supportive homes and who are involved in a job or their community are less likely to be enticed by drugs, including inhalants. We can also provide information. Inhalant abuse could be reduced if parents knew what symptoms they should be looking for. The warning signs for abuse include: unusual breath odor, chemical odor on clothing, a drunk or dazed appearance, hand tremors, red or runny nose and eyes, spots or sores around the mouth and anxiety and restlessness. A sudden drop in grades and school attendance can also be an indication of drug abuse. Most importantly, teenagers and children need to be told over and over again that even one try, one sniff, can kill. What they may view as simple experimentation can kill them. If they don't die from inhalant abuse, they may be left with permanent brain, liver and kidney damage. I hope that on October 15th, my colleagues in the Senate will join me in a nationwide conversation about inhalant abuse. Together, as community leaders, parents, and concerned citizens, we can educate parents and young people while encouraging community and family oriented solutions to drug abuse.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have conversed with my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, on this amendment. It is my understanding that we have worked it out as an accommodation to rectify a situation where veterans, native Eskimo Indian Aleuts, who were on active duty during the time of the Vietnam conflict, were therefore unable to apply for their allotment. This situation should be rectified. It scores zero dollars in the first year and perhaps $1 million each year thereafter. In view of the fact that this is a $93 billion package, I think it warrants consideration to right a wrong for those who served in active duty, served their country, and yet were unable to qualify for their 160-acre allotment because they were on active duty. We have assured all parties that none of the acreage would come out of conservation units, and Senator Bumpers has been most accommodating. It is my understanding the minority will accept the amendment--subject to Senator Bumpers' input.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to thank my colleague, the Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee, Senator Bond, for including in this appropriations bill an important provision--one that would unlock and open the door to many first-time home buyers. As we are all aware, it is often the downpayment that is the largest impediment to home ownership for first-time home buyers. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) began a pilot program two years ago to help families overcome that impediment by lowering the downpayment necessary for an FHA home mortgage. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the pilot program, which is located in Alaska and Hawaii, has reported great success. This pilot program is effective because it accomplishes two feats: (1) it lowers the FHA downpayment, making it more affordable; and (2) it makes the FHA downpayment calculation easier and more understandable for all parties to the transaction. The pilot program requires--on average--only a minimum cash investment of three percent for home buyers. Earlier in the year, I and Senators Stevens, Akaka and Inouye, introduced a bill that amends the National Housing Act by simplifying the current complex downpayment formula. The simplified formula creates a lower, more affordable downpayment. Our bill would extend this lower and simplified downpayment rate to perspective home buyers across the country. Mr. President, the pilot program is a win-win situation: affordable homes are made available to responsible buyers without any increase in mortgage default rates. Here's what mortgage lenders have reported: There is no indication of increase in risk. The loans we have made to date have been to borrowers with excellent credit records and stable employment, but not enough disposable income to accumulate the cash necessary for a high downpayment.--Richard E. Dolman, Manager, Seattle Mortgage, Anchorage Branch. Is the 97% program working? The answer is a resounding YES!. . .In this current day, it takes two incomes to meet basic needs. To come up with a large downpayment is increasingly difficult, especially for those just starting out. The 3% program is a good start. . .I do not believe that lowering the downpayment increased our risk. . .--Nancy A. Karriowski, Alaska Home Mortgage, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. We have experienced nothing but positive benefits from the FHA Pilot Program Loan Calculation in Alaska and Hawaii.-- Roger Aldrich, President, City Mortgage Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. In fact, but for the pilot program, approximately 70% of the FHA loan applications in Palmer, Alaska would be rejected, simply because the buyer could not afford the downpayment. Mr. President, thanks to this pilot program, more and more deserving Alaskans are becoming home owners. Mr. President, our legislation has the support of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They believe, as I do, that borrowers in all states should benefit from the simplification of the FHA downpayment calculation. Therefore, I am pleased that the Chairman of the Subcommittee has included in this appropriation bill a provision to expand the Alaska/ Hawaii demonstration program to all states. The provision only offers the program as a two-year demonstration project, whereas, my legislation would have made it permanent--but I understand the Chairman's desire to continue evaluating the costs of this program before permanent status is granted. Mr. President, I firmly believe that helping American families realize their dream of home ownership is vital to the Nation as a whole. This important provision in the VA/HUD appropriations bill does much to assist families in owning their first home--thereby making the American dream of home ownership a reality.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have on my right an obituary. This obituary is very meaningful to the people of a small village in Alaska called King Cove. Ruth E. Croxton, 29, was killed July 15, 1981, when her twin-engine plane crashed and burned on a hillside. The plane was on approach to the King Cove, Alaska airstrip--in what was called ``typical Aleutian weather.'' Five other people died in the accident, including the pilot, Ernest D. Fife. Ms. Croxton was an anthropologist, a pilot, and a 1974 graduate of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Born in Salem, Ore., her family moved to Alaska when she was six years old. She was graduated from Juneau-Douglas High School in 1969. Ms. Croxton and her pilot were bringing four cannery workers into King Cove but would have been evacuating a medical case once they reached the Aleutian village. She is survived by Mr. and Mrs. Loren Croxton of Petersburg; a sister, Mary, of Barrow; and her maternal grandfather, William Older of Livermore, Calif. Ms. Croxton died along with her passengers because there is no road between King Cove and Cold Bay. How many more people must die before we do something about it? I yield the floor. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the Chair.)