Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from Florida, first of all, we have not been able to obtain a copy of any statement from the Speaker. The statement that has been alluded to on the floor is a statement by the Congressman from Nevada who is running for the Senate office. He released a statement which indicated that the House leader would not take up the bill. We have not been able to confirm that with the House leader. It would be my intention to offer the Senate-passed bill, Senate bill 104, with an addition of the Bingaman amendment, which was circulated at the time of the Senate consideration. If informal negotiations with the House bear fruit, which they certainly have been, I will probably offer a perfecting amendment, but there is no agreement at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the last few minutes we have heard from our friends from Nevada a good deal about the status of tobacco. How tobacco relates to high-level nuclear waste is beyond this Senator from Alaska. I think both can kill. Certainly tobacco, as we have evidenced, can kill and high-level nuclear waste, if not properly stored and not properly transported and not properly basically put to rest, can kill. But when I look at the reality of where we are in this debate, I refer my good friends to reflect on the action that was taken by the majority leader when he asked: I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, to resume consideration of the tobacco bill, notwithstanding rule XXII with respect to the nuclear waste bill. That was objected to, Mr. President. It was objected to by the minority leader. Let's not make any mistake about who is whom in wanting to go back to the tobacco bill. This was a unanimous consent request of the majority leader, a legitimate request, to guarantee going back, and it was objected to by the other side. So who is objecting to moving on tobacco? It is pretty clear. It ought to be clear to everybody. We are all concerned about the disposition of the tobacco bill, but this bill has no relation. We have an obligation on this bill to address it with a resolve. Do you have a few questions? Well, let's take a few, Mr. President. Anyone who buys the line that the tobacco industry and the nuclear power industry are somehow in bed together, why that is preposterous. It is absolutely preposterous. There is absolutely no connection, and we all know it. The Nevadans would have the alternative of doing absolutely nothing-- absolutely nothing--about high-level nuclear waste. Mr. President, this also is about Nevada politics, not about tobacco. It is Nevada politics, again, on who can generate the responsibility for killing this issue in the Congress of the United States, whether it be the House Member who is running for the Senate office or the Nevada Senator who is up for reelection. Whoever can put the best spin on it in Nevada is going to claim a victory. That is politics, but make sure we understand it, Mr. President. When my good friend on the other side says that he has no idea what the substitute is about, well, somebody's memory is short because we debated the issue. We had a vote on the issue. The substitute we debated on April 15, 1997. The substitute was adopted 65 to 34. When he indicates that he has no idea relative to the amendment proposed to be offered, that was the Bingaman amendment. That was debated and debated extensively. So the record will note that the substitute was voted on 65-34 and was adopted. The Bingaman amendment was debated on the floor; it was rejected. The Senator from Alaska is proposing to take the Bingaman amendment, if we can move off the motion to proceed, and get this issue behind us. Mr. President, let's make sure we understand what this issue is all about. It is about ducking our responsibility. It is about Nevada politics, and we are now told that the House won't take it up. I haven't seen a statement from the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Anyone can issue a press release, and it is important to recognize who is issuing the press release. It is the Congressman who is seeking the Nevada Senate seat so he can get aboard and claim that he is responsible for killing it. As I said, anyone can issue a press release, but I can tell you what is true: We have a bill that received a big bipartisan vote. This is not a partisan issue, as evidenced by the vote last time. We had 12 Democrats that voted with 53 Republicans. All right, that is a fact. I have the word of Chairman Bliley in the House that he is committed to getting this bill done. I know the majority and minority staff of the Commerce Committee spent all day every day in the last recess negotiating a compromise. I do not think they would have done that if the leadership did not intend to take up the bill. I think this is a blatant attempt to influence the vote today in effect to perhaps become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to focus on the substance of the bill and vote to do what is right, not put this off, not listen to political posturing from the other body or political posturing that affects this body. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture. You know, if you look at this picture, here is the Nevada test site, Mr. President. The last weapon there was exploded underground in 1991. Underground tests are still performed there with nuclear materials being exploded with conventional explosives, all with the wholehearted support--the wholehearted support--of whom? Well, here it is, Mr. President. Here is what the State of Nevada in its resolution says about the site. I would like to read relevant portions of the Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15 of February 26, 1975. Whereas, the people of Southern Nevada have confidence in the safety record of the Nevada Test Site and in the ability of the staff of the site to maintain safety in the handling of nuclear materials * * * [and] Whereas Nuclear waste disposal * * * can * * * be carried out at the Nevada Test Site with minimal capital investment relative to other locations; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the Assembly and the State of Nevada, jointly, That the legislature of the State of Nevada strongly urges the Energy Research and Development Administration to choose Nevada Test Site for the disposal of nuclear wastes. . . . That is what some people in Nevada and the Nevada legislature think about this idea. It is a pretty good idea. It means jobs. They want to see the ongoing development, if you will, of this area. Let me tell you what the Sierra Club has to say about it. The Sierra Club is quite succinct. And I will read it as follows: ``They're never going to be able to reclaim [this site, the Nevada test site] for 10,000 or 15,000 years,'' says Randy Harnes of the Sierra Club's Las Vegas chapter. ``They might as well do [their research] there.'' He concludes: Given the constant monitoring, the site ``is probably the safest place in the whole United States.'' There you have the Sierra Club, if you put a good deal of faith in their analysis. Why can't we leave the waste at the reactors? First of all, as my friend from Idaho indicated, the court said the Department of Energy has a contract obligation. The Government has a contract obligation to take the waste in 1998. Congress cannot change that obligation. It is a taxpayers' liability. And the spent fuel was never meant to be stored for long-term storage. We know that. It is estimated that if you are going to store it at the sites of the nuclear plants, it is going to cost you almost $8 billion. Who is going to pay for that? The ratepayers--ultimately the taxpayers. We have heard a lot about Dr. Wilson today. Let me tell you what Ivan Selin, the chairman of the NRC said. Spent fuel can be managed more effectively and efficiently at a single site rather than at multiple sites. Dr. Selin, in a statement in March of 1995 to the Senate Energy Committee, said the NRC--that is the law of the nuclear land-- ``believe[s] that a centralized facility will provide safety advantages relative to dispersed storage at individual sites. Considering the 100- year potential time frame of licensed storage, a centralized facility would allow for a more focused inspection and surveillance program by both DOE and NRC.'' So make no mistake about it, putting it in one site simply makes sense, and it is a logical observation that anybody would make relative to having temporary sites near the location of the reactors where it was never intended. Mr. President, I would like to save a few minutes on this side for concluding remarks. So I ask how much time we have remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask that we may withhold that time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask my colleague a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the President, and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me try to clarify where we stand. What we have pending is the nuclear waste bill, the motion to proceed. The cloture vote is set at 6 p.m. That is cloture to H.R. 1270. After cloture, if we prevail I will introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which will be S. 104, and that is the bill that passed this body. I propose to include in the substitute the Bingaman amendment. I know this is very important to a number on the other side of the aisle. Let me be clear about another matter. The idea of mixing resolution of the tobacco legislation with nuclear waste--that is a chemical compound that simply does not mix. The nuclear waste bill has been before this body previously, and I would like to recount a little history of S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. It passed this body 65 to 34; 53 Republicans voted for it as did 12 Democrats, specifically: Senator Cleland, Senator Graham, Senator Harkin, Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Murray, Senator Robb, Senator Wyden. It is my understanding that somehow, in the minds of some, by voting for cloture we are somehow setting aside our responsibility to address and resolve the tobacco issue. You have heard the generalization that by prolonging this effort to resolve the tobacco legislation, we are hastening the number of young people who will initiate the use of tobacco. Mr. President, we had a vacation. We had a week off for the Memorial recess. We have lost yesterday. We have lost today. The point is, at some point in time the nuclear waste policy matter has to be resolved by this body. The fact that we have voted 65 to 34 previously on the issue, and the leadership has indicated a willingness to take it up today and set aside the tobacco bill--and further, make no mistake, it is the leader's intention to go back to the tobacco bill. As a matter of fact, he proposed a unanimous consent request that was objected to. So clearly the intention of the leadership on the Republican side is to proceed with tobacco. But there is a lot going on to resolve the tobacco issue and there will be a lot more time taken in order to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to this body. So let's be realistic and recognize that today belongs to the issue of nuclear waste. The Senate has an obligation to resolve this issue, to vote for cloture. After cloture, set it aside, go back to the tobacco bill, and then come back on the issue of nuclear waste. Make no mistake about it. There is a lot of politics involved in this bill. I know what is going on in Nevada. There is an eager House Member who has issued a press release relative to the attitude of the House. I am not going to go down that particular avenue. But it is fair to say the politics in Nevada is against a nuclear waste site in that State. But to be realistic, nobody wants to have nuclear waste in their State. Yet 65 Members of this body voted on August 15, 1997, to put the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in order and designate Yucca Mountain to be a site for an interim facility. Furthermore, as passed, S. 104 set deadlines for the Department of Energy to meet its contractual obligations to accept and store at a single permanent repository the nuclear waste generated at the commercial nuclear power industry site that will be used to store all Federal nuclear waste. Congress selected Yucca Mountain, NV, as the site to be considered for the repository. So there you have it. You have a situation where we have designated an area. We have expressed, by a vote of 65 to 34, the attitude of this body. Now we are seeking cloture so we can proceed with the obligation to address and resolve this. So what is a ``yes'' vote for? Mr. President, a ``yes'' vote is for storage of nuclear waste at one, safe, Government-controlled site; responsible action to meet the Government's obligation to take our nuclear waste after collecting $14 billion from the consumers of electricity in this country. Currently, the Government is in violation of its contractual commitments to the nuclear waste industry. The suits that are pending on this could cost the taxpayers somewhere between $60- and $80 billion because the Government was supposed to take the waste beginning this year. What we are attempting to do with this legislation is address the responsibility, with finality, for the Government to deliver on its commitments. Also, as we address global warming, the Kyoto accord, and other concerns, there is definitely a role for the nuclear power industry from the standpoint of its contribution to air quality. Nuclear energy provides clean air. What does a ``no'' vote do for us? Storing high-level waste in over 80 sites instead of one site is what a ``no'' vote does for us. It is a continuation of a breach of contract that will cost the taxpayers, as I have said, untold dollars in damages, an estimated $60- to $80 billion. It will basically eliminate our largest single source of emission-free power, and it will result in moving over to another alternative which is not clean, in the sense of nuclear power. Today's vote is an opportunity for triumph, if you will. It is the issue of safety of people over politics. A successful vote today will allow us to consider and adopt a bill that will lead us to a safer future for all Americans. As we look at the history of this, as I have said, we passed this bill by large margins, bipartisan margins. The House passed the underlying bill with 307 votes. There you have a pretty good idea of the attitude in the House. It would be the height of irresponsibility to let our process down at this time, and obviously, as we look to our environmental concerns, to not have an answer to our high-level waste problem is basically a cop- out on our responsibility. We have, as the map on the right indicates, a number of sites around the country. Forty States are affected, Mr. President. There are 80 sites in the 40 States. This is in addition to the waste stored at the Department of Energy waste disposal facility. What we have is waste being stored in the backyard of constituents, young and old, across the country, near our neighborhoods, near our schools. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of nuclear waste at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way is diminished. Why, Mr. President? Because many of these sites are filling up. They are designed for a certain capacity of nuclear waste and in many of those pools, at reactor sites, we are seeing storage up to its maximum-designed capacity. As I have indicated, the Government agreed to take that waste beginning this year, in 1998, but it can't fulfill its contractual obligation, and that is a contractual obligation of every Member of this body to address the responsibility of the ratepayers who have paid in $14 billion. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. I for one am not going to let that happen. Again, I would like to identify in my State of Alaska I don't have a constituency associated with nuclear power or nuclear waste, but it is an obligation that I have as committee chairman and that we have as Members of this body who struggled with this issue of nuclear waste for more than a decade. Let me display a chart that shows the payments that have been made by each State. Here is what the electric consumers of the United States have contributed over the years to take care of nuclear waste beginning this year. There they are, Mr. President, in millions of dollars. They total $14 billion. They are asking for this Senate and the House of Representatives to mandate the removal of the waste as a consequence of what they have paid in so that the waste can safely be stored in Nevada. The U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that the Department of Energy has an obligation to take possession of this waste in 1998 whether or not a repository is ready. Last November, the court ordered the Department of Energy to pay contractual damages. I told you those contractual damages are estimated to be up to $80 billion of taxpayers' money, unless we address our obligation to put this waste out in the desert in Nevada. Neither the consumers nor the taxpayers deserve to bear the cost of the Government's failure. The administration has simply ducked this issue. They don't want to deal with it on their watch. They just as soon have the nuclear waste issue be resolved by somebody else at another time, regardless of the liability to the taxpayers, regardless of the fact that the ratepayers have paid in the $14 billion. Mr. President, we are here today trying again to address a responsible resolve, and to adopt a responsible resolve, we are going to have to get on the bill. This is a motion to proceed to the bill. That is all it is. Again, I reflect on the opening statements of my colleagues on the other side relative to tying this to the tobacco issue. Tobacco is complex enough without mixing it with nuclear waste. It doesn't belong there, and we have the obligation now to address it. The statement of the administration bases its objections on a misreading of the bill and a disregard for the reality of the Federal Government's obligation to take the waste beginning in 1998. The administration claims it cares about clean air and preventing climate change. Currently, 22 percent of our electric power is generated by nuclear energy. This is emission-free nuclear energy. The Department of Energy's information administration says the Kyoto treaty would require a 41-percent reduction of CO2 emissions from a predicted level in the year 2008 to 2012. Keep in mind, this administration isn't going to be here in the year 2008 to 2012. How do you get there from here in the Kyoto accord without the nuclear industry? You don't. You can't. There are no new emission-free sources that can economically take the place of nuclear energy. For the moment, we can forget about the Kyoto treaty and think about the present, the present time. Between 1990 and 1995, 37 percent of the sulfur dioxide reductions required by the Clean Air Act came from increased generation of existing nuclear power plants. That is where the reduction is coming from, and this administration doesn't want to accept the responsibility to take care of the waste. Why? It doesn't want to address it on its watch. Why are my colleagues on the other side mixing tobacco in the issue and saying each day that we delay when the leadership has asked unanimous consent to go back to tobacco after we resolve this matter? This is a cop-out, Mr. President. That is why I urge my colleagues to reflect on how their votes are going to be recorded. Those on the other side who voted with us last time are Senator Cleland, Senator Graham, Senator Harkin, Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Murray, Senator Robb, Senator Wyden. I encourage them to reflect, again, that this shouldn't get mixed up with Nevada politics. If we look at polling in Nevada, we have to acknowledge Nevada does not want to be the resting place, even temporarily, for our nuclear waste. But both sides are against putting nuclear waste in Nevada. So it isn't a matter of competition among the Members who are against it. They are all against it. If you ask a Nevadan whether they want nuclear waste in their State, the answer is no. You can go to 49 other States and you will get the same answer. But we have a responsibility to put it somewhere, and we are proposing to put it in the desert where we have had over 50 years of nuclear testing. There it is. This is the location for the nuclear waste storage at the Nevada site that was used previously for more than 800 tests of nuclear weapons. If you don't want to put it there, you tell me where you want to put it. We spent over $7 billion at Yucca Mountain already testing it. We are proposing that the waste be moved in accordance with the Government's contract, move it out to a temporary repository until Yucca Mountain can be licensed and certified. If it isn't licensed and certified, then it is going to have to go someplace else, but until then, this is the site, and to suggest we shouldn't take it up simply means more storage piling up at our reactors. Some of those reactors are going to shut down. We are going to have to get that power someplace else. We will probably have to go to coal-fired power which, obviously, is not going to have the same effect that this has on our air quality. EPA can pass all the regulations in the world, but if the administration really does not care about clean air--well, they can do something about it, if the President would get behind this legislation. Instead, the administration intends to delay this issue, delay this issue, delay this issue, and the whole time telling the American people that it really cares for its safety, the environment, and their pocketbook. Let me tell you again, if you are concerned about the safety, you are not going to put this around in the number of States where we have it, that is 40 States with 80 sites. If you care about the dollars, you are not going to stop the realization that the taxpayers have paid $14 billion; and now we are looking at claims for nonperformance of the contract to the taxpayers in over $70 to $80 billion. Is the President really concerned about clean air and climate change or is this a cynical diplomatic or, more realistically, a political excuse? I think it is the latter, Mr. President. There is politics in this issue. There is politics in the mix of this issue and tobacco. This issue should stand on its own. Finally, Mr. President, we have really reached a crossroad. The job of fixing this program is ours. Time for fixing this program is now. The vote before the Senate is to move forward with a motion to proceed. Then we are going to move back to tobacco. We have made progress on this issue. We have made progress at Yucca Mountain. As I have indicated, the 5-mile tunnel is complete. We spent $7 billion of the consumers' money. We have to build on this progress. Our bill continues site characteristics, activities for permanent repository. It allows each State to designate the route that the nuclear waste will move to the site proposed in Nevada. I remind the President that we have waste moving throughout the United States, military waste across State lines. We can move it safely. We know how. Europe moves it safely by rail and by ship. There is no magic in this. But the realization is that today we need a temporary storage facility or we are going to be storing spent fuel all across this Nation for decades to come. We are going to be in violation of our contract, which will cost the taxpayers more money to settle the suit. And we can choose today whether to start on this process to resolve the issue of whether the Nation is going to continue to have 80 interim storage sites or just one safe site--that arid, remote Nevada test site where I have indicated we have exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war. And it is safe and it is remote. And, unfortunately, it has to be in one of our States, and it happens to be in the State of Nevada. But it has brought a lot of jobs to Nevada, a lot of prosperity to Nevada over the years. And there is the realization that if Yucca is licensed--and it is likely to be--it is going to be a very, very easy task to move the spent fuel to the repository. And in the unlikely event that Yucca is not licensed, or found to be unsuitable, Congress and the administration are going to have to consider our options. In either case, we will be ahead of the game regardless of what happens at Yucca. This is a step that we should take. And remember today, yes is a vote for cloture. It is a vote for the storage of nuclear waste at one safe Government-controlled site. It is a responsible action to meet Government's obligation to take the nuclear waste, after collecting $14 billion from the consumers of electricity. It is for cleaner air. And a no vote, again, is for continuing to store high-level nuclear waste in over the 80 sites instead of the 1 safe site. It is a continuation of a breach of contract that is going to cost the taxpayers of this country some $70 to $80 billion as a consequence of our inaction. A no vote is for eliminating our largest source of emission-free power, resulting in dirtier air. And isn't it extraordinary that this Nation, with all of our technology, cannot address or resolve our high- level nuclear waste; but the French, the Japanese, the British, the Swedes have all addressed it responsibly? We cannot even get our Government to commit to its contractual commitment. The time is now. I urge my colleagues--I know the politics of this body. I know this is an issue in the race in Nevada, and I can understand and be sensitive of that, but each one of us has an obligation as statesmen to address responsibly the obligation we have towards taking this waste and putting it out in a temporary repository in Nevada. I understand the arguments from my colleagues from Nevada relative to their bottom line. They do not want it in their State. But we have an obligation to put it somewhere. We have voted previously to put it in Nevada, in a temporary repository. To back down now is to shirk a duty and an obligation that we were elected to address, Mr. President, address with a resolve; namely, the sanctity of a contractual commitment that is due to take that waste this year and the recognition that the Government, the administration, refuses to accept that responsibility, therefore, that obligation becomes ours; furthermore, the litigation and cost to the taxpayers who are going to be confronted with this, and the full employment for lawyers if we do not address it now. So do not let politics enter into the vote and the resolve on this issue. This issue should stand on its own. This issue does not belong in consideration of the tobacco bill. This legislation should be addressed and resolved with a vote in favor today so we can move on and meet our responsibility. Mr. President, I ask how much time I have remaining on this side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me try to finish.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Relative to powerplants, let me advise the President there are safety and economic advantages to having 1 central storage facility rather than 80. I think my colleagues would agree on the other side. Throughout the debate, we keep hearing suggestions like: ``Why don't we study the issue some more? Why don't we just leave it at the plant sites?'' which is what is suggested, and ``Why do we have to solve the problem now?'' Well, why should we leave spent fuel at the nuclear power plants in 34 States when there is a less costly storage method with an increased margin of safety in an area that has already been proven for its storage of waste?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, could the Senator identify the statement of the Speaker of the House of Representatives relative to the statement of the Senator from Nevada that the House will not take it up? I have not seen that statement from the Speaker of the House.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I defer.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Chair will advise how much time is remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am pleased to yield, but I would like to ask on whose time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have heard tobacco brought into this discussion. Tobacco certainly is a problem. We recognize that. So is nuclear waste responsibility. We have that before the Senate now. But with nuclear waste, the Government has a liability already established and established in a court of law. There is no such obligation with respect to tobacco. We are trying to address that now. On nuclear waste, we have collected $14 billion from the taxpayers for its disposal. On tobacco, we have not collected one dime. I also remind my colleagues we have had a unanimous consent request to take up tobacco next. It has been objected to by the minority leader. So make no mistake about it, Mr. President, we spent a lot of time trying to resolve this important issue. We are in the homestretch now. The House bill got 307 votes, if there is any question about the attitude prevailing in the House. The Senate bill we are voting on today had 65 votes the last time. That is the kind of overwhelming bipartisan support--and there is no reason this bill should not be passed now. Democrats who were with us last time included Senators Cleland, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Johnson, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Moseley-Braun, Murray, Robb, and Wyden. The whole business is there today. The obligation remains here today to address this and not put it off. The Senators from Nevada say not today, not today, not today. Well, when? How many dollars does the taxpayer have to address as far as his responsibility, when the ratepayers have paid $14 billion and the taxpayers are now stuck for liability when we go to court and we don't have a resolve of this problem. There is no use putting it off today. The time to act is now. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been unable to get a copy of his statement from the Speaker. I read the statement from Congressman Ensign on the issue relative to the attitude of the Speaker, but we have not been able to get a release. I suggest at this time we are perhaps misleading in the sense of suggesting that is the Speaker's position. I thank my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation, that when enacted, will provide for a cleaner electrical system for Glacier National Park and Preserve in Alaska. Vice President Al Gore in his opening remarks to the President's Council on Sustainable Development on January 13, 1994 said ``Our objective is results that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy.'' My objective for Glacier Bay National Park and the nearby Gustavus community mirrors that of the Vice President--to produce electricity that will be cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy. Glacier Bay National Park currently generates its own electrical power using diesel generators. The electrical generation equipment now in place is expensive to maintain and is unreliable. It is my understanding that over the years there have been at least two oil spills into the waters of Glacier Bay, the tank farm is leaking, and the current electrical system is in need of major repair. In short, the diesel system at Glacier Bay is unacceptable in environmental terms Before we spend tax payers dollars to add band-aids to this antiquated system, we ought to consider an environmentally sound and cheaper option for the production of electrical power. Fortunately, there is a viable option. Enactment of this legislation would allow the placement and installation of a small water powered electrical system in the Fall Creek area on the southeast corner of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Before park advocates take out their swords and start drawing lines in the sand, I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that we allow for the construction of a Hoover Dam in a National Park. I am suggesting that a ``run of stream'' small diversion weir be placed along Fall Creek within the boundaries of the Park. Since the Fall Creek area of this proposed hydro power system is in a Wilderness area designated by Congress, any redrawing of boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park or other procedure to permit the system requires Congressional approval. As envisioned, the site required will amount to approximately 78 acres. If only the ``footprint'' is considered, as little as 5 acres would be utilized. I believe there are considerable environmental benefits and economic advantages to be gained by eliminating dependence upon diesel fossil fuel and converting to a small water powered electrical system to provide power to the community of Gustavus and the National Park Service in Glacier Bay. In addition to providing clean, cheaper, stable priced, hydro electricity, substantial savings will occur to the State of Alaska, the National Park Service and to consumers. Significant economic savings from appropriations and increasing operational expenses for the existing systems, along with the environmental enhancements will have continuing long term benefits that more than compensate for a loss of some 5 acres for the Fall Creek System. These multiple benefits should be sufficient merit alone to justify a restructuring of Park boundaries to accommodate the new electrical generating system. I realize that however meritorious the proposal may be, taking Wilderness out of a system or lands out of a park will be unacceptable to some. Under the provisions of this legislation lands removed from the boundaries of the Park will be replaced with State lands in another park. In other words, there will be no net loss of Wilderness. We need to clean and protect the environment at Glacier Bay and Gustavus, this legislation is the beginning. The completed project will serve as a conservation model to other communities--an example of significant environmental advantages coupled with substantial economic savings to the public and government which could be realized elsewhere, particularly in the rural communities of Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation, that when enacted, will provide for a cleaner electrical system for Glacier National Park and Preserve in Alaska. Vice President Al Gore in his opening remarks to the President's Council on Sustainable Development on January 13, 1994 said ``Our objective is results that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy.'' My objective for Glacier Bay National Park and the nearby Gustavus community mirrors that of the Vice President--to produce electricity that will be cleaner for the environment and cheaper for the economy. Glacier Bay National Park currently generates its own electrical power using diesel generators. The electrical generation equipment now in place is expensive to maintain and is unreliable. It is my understanding that over the years there have been at least two oil spills into the waters of Glacier Bay, the tank farm is leaking, and the current electrical system is in need of major repair. In short, the diesel system at Glacier Bay is unacceptable in environmental terms Before we spend tax payers dollars to add band-aids to this antiquated system, we ought to consider an environmentally sound and cheaper option for the production of electrical power. Fortunately, there is a viable option. Enactment of this legislation would allow the placement and installation of a small water powered electrical system in the Fall Creek area on the southeast corner of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Before park advocates take out their swords and start drawing lines in the sand, I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that we allow for the construction of a Hoover Dam in a National Park. I am suggesting that a ``run of stream'' small diversion weir be placed along Fall Creek within the boundaries of the Park. Since the Fall Creek area of this proposed hydro power system is in a Wilderness area designated by Congress, any redrawing of boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park or other procedure to permit the system requires Congressional approval. As envisioned, the site required will amount to approximately 78 acres. If only the ``footprint'' is considered, as little as 5 acres would be utilized. I believe there are considerable environmental benefits and economic advantages to be gained by eliminating dependence upon diesel fossil fuel and converting to a small water powered electrical system to provide power to the community of Gustavus and the National Park Service in Glacier Bay. In addition to providing clean, cheaper, stable priced, hydro electricity, substantial savings will occur to the State of Alaska, the National Park Service and to consumers. Significant economic savings from appropriations and increasing operational expenses for the existing systems, along with the environmental enhancements will have continuing long term benefits that more than compensate for a loss of some 5 acres for the Fall Creek System. These multiple benefits should be sufficient merit alone to justify a restructuring of Park boundaries to accommodate the new electrical generating system. I realize that however meritorious the proposal may be, taking Wilderness out of a system or lands out of a park will be unacceptable to some. Under the provisions of this legislation lands removed from the boundaries of the Park will be replaced with State lands in another park. In other words, there will be no net loss of Wilderness. We need to clean and protect the environment at Glacier Bay and Gustavus, this legislation is the beginning. The completed project will serve as a conservation model to other communities--an example of significant environmental advantages coupled with substantial economic savings to the public and government which could be realized elsewhere, particularly in the rural communities of Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in 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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 4, 1998, at 9:30 A.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive GAO's preliminary comments on its review of the Administration's Climate Change Proposal and to hear the Administration's response to GAO's comments. 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 Kristine Svinicki at (202) 224-7933. subcommittee on forests and public land management

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 Thursday, June 11, 1998 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. 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) 224-3329.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning I introduce legislation to implement a settlement agreement between the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the United States Forest Service. Pursuant to section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Alaska, and the Chugach Alaska Corporation, were directed to study land ownership in and around the Chugach Region in Alaska. The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, was to provide for a fair and just settlement of the Chugach people and realizing the intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by Chugach Alaska Corporation. Second, was to identify lands that, to the maximum extent possible, are of the like, kind, and character of those traditionally used and occupied by the Chugach people, and, to the maximum extent possible, are coastal accessible and economically viable. On September 17, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement now known as the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc. Settlement Agreement in order to set forth a fair and just settlement for the Chugach people pursuant to the study directed by Congress. Among the many provisions of this agreement the United States was required to convey to Chugach Alaska Corporation not more than 73,308 acres of land in the vicinity of Carbon Mountain. The land eventually conveyed contained significant amounts of natural resources; however, they were inaccessible by road. Therefore, a second major provision of the Settlement Agreement granted Chugach Alaska Corporation rights-of-way across Chugach National Forest to their land and required the United States to also grant an easement for the purpose of constructing and using roads and other facilities necessary for development of that tract of land on terms and conditions to be determined in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. It is obvious that without such an easement the land conveyed to CAC could not be utilized or developed in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in ANILCA and ANCSA. More than fifteen years after the Settlement Agreement was signed the much needed easement has still not been granted and the CAC remains unable to make economic use of their lands. It seems absurd to me that Congress passed a Settlement Act for the Benefit of Alaska Natives; then the federal government entered into a Settlement Agreement to implement that Act where the CAC was concerned; and today, we find ourselves once again in a position of having to force the government to comply with these agreements. I have spoken directly to the Regional Forester about this issue and to the Chief of the Forest Service. While they assure me the issue is being addressed and, in fact, have signed an MOU to keep it moving forward, they cannot give me any assurance that it will conclude. Therefore, I find it necessary to once again have Congress rectify inaction on behalf of the Forest Service. The legislation is simple and straightforward. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant an easement to the CAC by December 11, of this year. It does not prevent the current process from going forward, it simply assures that there will be an end to it. It is my intent to hold a hearing on this issue in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning I introduce legislation to implement a settlement agreement between the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the United States Forest Service. Pursuant to section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Alaska, and the Chugach Alaska Corporation, were directed to study land ownership in and around the Chugach Region in Alaska. The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, was to provide for a fair and just settlement of the Chugach people and realizing the intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by Chugach Alaska Corporation. Second, was to identify lands that, to the maximum extent possible, are of the like, kind, and character of those traditionally used and occupied by the Chugach people, and, to the maximum extent possible, are coastal accessible and economically viable. On September 17, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement now known as the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc. Settlement Agreement in order to set forth a fair and just settlement for the Chugach people pursuant to the study directed by Congress. Among the many provisions of this agreement the United States was required to convey to Chugach Alaska Corporation not more than 73,308 acres of land in the vicinity of Carbon Mountain. The land eventually conveyed contained significant amounts of natural resources; however, they were inaccessible by road. Therefore, a second major provision of the Settlement Agreement granted Chugach Alaska Corporation rights-of-way across Chugach National Forest to their land and required the United States to also grant an easement for the purpose of constructing and using roads and other facilities necessary for development of that tract of land on terms and conditions to be determined in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. It is obvious that without such an easement the land conveyed to CAC could not be utilized or developed in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in ANILCA and ANCSA. More than fifteen years after the Settlement Agreement was signed the much needed easement has still not been granted and the CAC remains unable to make economic use of their lands. It seems absurd to me that Congress passed a Settlement Act for the Benefit of Alaska Natives; then the federal government entered into a Settlement Agreement to implement that Act where the CAC was concerned; and today, we find ourselves once again in a position of having to force the government to comply with these agreements. I have spoken directly to the Regional Forester about this issue and to the Chief of the Forest Service. While they assure me the issue is being addressed and, in fact, have signed an MOU to keep it moving forward, they cannot give me any assurance that it will conclude. Therefore, I find it necessary to once again have Congress rectify inaction on behalf of the Forest Service. The legislation is simple and straightforward. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant an easement to the CAC by December 11, of this year. It does not prevent the current process from going forward, it simply assures that there will be an end to it. It is my intent to hold a hearing on this issue in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the fiscal and economic implications of Puerto Rico status. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, at 9:30 A.M. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Foreign Relations. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 21, 1998, beginning at 10 a.m. in Room SD-419 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the subject of Iraq: Are Sanctions Collapsing? Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Ms. Danielle Pletka of the Foreign Relations Committee staff at (202) 224-4651 or Mr. Howard Useem of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee staff at (202) 224- 6567.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this legislation should have been the easiest thing we did this Congress. The Senate passed a bill on this issue by unanimous consent three times this Congress. This bill contains nothing less than our Nation's energy security insurance policy. This bill authorizes two vital energy security measures: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency. Both of these authorities have expired. Again, this year we have sent our soldiers to the Gulf to protect our Nation's energy security interests. We owe it to our soldiers, and the Nation's civilian consumers, to do everything we can to ensure that our energy insurance policy is in effect. However, to ensure our Nation's energy security fully, we need more than just a simple extension of these authorities. We must change the antitrust exemption in EPCA to comply with current IEA policy. The IEA changed its emergency response policy at our request, switching from command-and-control measures to more market-oriented coordinated stockdraw procedures. However, our laws haven't kept up. Right now, our U.S. oil companies don't have any assurance that their attempts to cooperate with the IEA and our government in a crises won't be a violation of antitrust laws. The IEA's efforts to respond to a crisis are already being critically impaired, because they can't coordinate with U.S. oil companies or even conduct exercises to prepare for an emergency. Our oil companies want to cooperate with our government and the IEA and strongly support this amendment. For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this Act on a year-to-year basis. Every year, we face a potential crises when these authorities go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. The provisions of this bill are not controversial. However, there are those who see any important bill as leverage. This year, we are on the edge of a real crises. We have military activity in the Gulf, and no clear authority to respond to oil supply shortages. Playing political games with this bill has always been irresponsible; now it is downright dangerous. In the future, the only way to avoid the annual crisis is to renew EPCA for more than one year. I am disappointed that we can't do that now. But for now, we must avert the immediate crisis. I have tried to address concerns about the future of the SPR. Like many of you, I am dismayed by the recent use of the SPR as a ``piggy bank''. In 1995, DOE proposed the sale of oil to pay for repairs and upkeep, opening the floodgates to continued sales of oil for budget- balancing purposes. So far, we've lost the American taxpayer over half a billion dollars. Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that ``he would make it up on volume.'' I am pleased that we were successful in canceling the oil sale ordered by the fiscal year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill. I thank the appropriators for keeping my oil-sale cancellation amendment in the conference on the Supplemental Appropriations bill. By my calculations, we have saved the American taxpayer over $500 million. I am also pleased that the President's budget does not propose oil sales. I hope we have broken the habit of selling SPR oil forever. We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer dollars in the SPR. We proved during the Persian Gulf War that the stabilizing effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those tax dollars away. So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are fully authorized and available. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The least we can do is stop holding this measure hostage to political ambition. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment.