Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act. This bill is simple; but extremely important. It makes it clear that it is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, a national missile defense system which is capable of defending the entire territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack. Alaskans have been justifiably concerned with this issue for some time. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a resolution passed by the Alaska State Legislature which calls on the Administration to include Alaska and Hawaii in all future assessments of the threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United States. More than 20% of our domestic oil comes from Alaska, all of it through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Alaskans are concerned, as should the rest of the country be concerned, that a strike at the pipeline could have dire consequences to our domestic energy production.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last year North Korean defectors indicated that the North Korean missile development program already poses a verifiable threat to American forces in Okinawa and seems on track to threaten parts of Alaska by the turn of the Century. The Taepodong missile, which is under development, would have a range of about 3,100 miles. From certain parts of North Korea, this weapon could easily target many of the Aleutian islands in western Alaska, including the former Adak Naval Air Base. The Washington Times reported last week that the Chinese have 13 of 18 long-range strategic missiles armed with nuclear warheads aimed at American cities. This is incredible, Mr. President. Opponents to the motion to invoke cloture somehow fail to understand that this threat is real and that we have a responsibility to protect the United States from attack, be it deliberate or accidental. Without question, the threat of an attack on the United States is increasingly real, and we must act now so that we can construct a national missile defense system with the capability of intercepting and deterring an aggressive strike against American soil from all parts of the United States. Mr. President, I support the motion to invoke cloture and hope that my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly in favor of this legislation in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me commend the chairman on his efforts to bring this to the floor. This is the second or third time he has done it. I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act. In our State of Alaska, we have an effort relative to awareness being put on by the Breast Cancer Detection Center of Alaska, which has provided 25,000 women in 81 villages throughout the State an opportunity for free mammograms. This has been done not with government support but with private support. We have raised about $830,000 through a series of fishing tournaments each year, which some Senators have been a party to. Mr. President, I think that the significance of this bill, which means so much to so many, is that it would put an end to the ``drive- through'' mastectomies, as we know them today. Many of my colleagues have already spoken on this issue. The bill ensures that mastectomy patients would have access to reconstruction surgery. Scores of women have been denied this procedure because insurers have deemed this procedure to be ``cosmetic.'' Far too often, breast cancer victims who believe they have adequate health coverage have become horrified when they learn that reconstruction is not covered. In my State of Alaska, of the 324 mastectomies and lumpectomies performed in Alaska in 1996, reconstruction only occurred on 11 of the patients. That means that only 3.4 percent of the women who have a breast removed have reconstructive surgery, compared to the national average of 23 percent. The reason is cost, Mr. President. And if we look at one of the physicians in my State, Dr. Troxel, of Providence Hospital in Anchorage, who states: Women who are not able to receive reconstructive surgery suffer from depression, a sense of loss, and need more cancer survivor counseling. . . .Additionally, reconstructive surgery can be preventive medicine--women who don't have reconstructive surgery often develop back problems and other difficulties. Mr. President, one out of nine American women will suffer the tragedy of breast cancer. It is today the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 35 to 54. Alaskan women are particularly vulnerable to this disease. We have the second highest rate of breast cancer in the nation: 1 in 7 Alaska women will get breast cancer and tragically it is the Number One cause of death among Native Alaskan women. Mr. President, these tragic Alaska deaths are not inevitable. Health experts agree that the best hope for lowering the death rate is early detection and treatment. It is estimated that breast cancer deaths can be reduced by 30 percent if all women avail themselves of regular clinical breast examination and mammography. But for many Alaska women, especially native women living in one of our 230 remote villages, regular screening and early detection are often hopeless dreams. For more than 20 years, my wife Nancy has recognized this problem and tried to do something about it. In 1974, she and a group of Fairbanks' women created the Breast Cancer Detection Center, for the purpose of offering mammographies to women in remote areas of Alaska--regardless of a woman's ability to pay. Now, the Center uses a small portable mammography unit which can be flown to remote areas of Alaska, offering women in the most rural of areas easy access to mammographies at no cost. Additionally, the Center uses a 43-foot-long, 14-foot-high and 26,000-pound mobile mammography van to travel through rural areas of Alaska. The van makes regular trips, usually by river barge, to remote areas in Interior Alaska such as Tanana. Julie Roberts, a 42-year-old woman of Tanana, who receives regular mammographies from the mobile mammography van, knows the importance of early screening: There's a lot of cancer here (in Tanana)--a lot of cancer. That's why it's important to have the mobile van here . . . I know that if I get checked, I can catch it early and can probably save my life. I have three children and I want to see my grandchildren. I am proud to say that the Fairbanks Center now serves about 2,200 women a year and has provided screenings to more than 25,000 Alaska women in 81 villages throughout the state. To help fund the efforts of the Fairbanks Center, each year Nancy and I sponsor a fishing tournament to raise money for the operation of the van and mobile mammography unit. After just three years, donations from the tournament have totalled $830,000. Mr. President, Nancy and I are committed to raising more funds for this important program so that every women in Alaska can benefit from the advances of modern technology and reduce their risk of facing this killer disease. The importance of mammography and screening cannot be stressed enough--however, there has long been a tragic result of the disease that Congress has either ignored or failed to recognize--and that is the so-called ``drive-through'' mastectomy. Currently victims of breast cancer who receive mastectomies are being forced to get out of their surgery bed and vacate the hospital only hours after their surgery. The reason? Because far too often it is the practice of insurance companies to treat the procedure of a mastectomy as merely an ``out-patient service.'' Here's the horror that many insurance companies cause: Nancy Couchot, a 60-year-old woman had a radical mastectomy at 11:30 a.m. She was released from the hospital only hours later at 4:30 p.m.-- even though she was not able to walk or use the rest room without assistance. Victoria Berck, had a mastectomy and lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. and was released at 2:30 p.m. She was given instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent home. Ms. Berck concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has a mastectomy as an out-patient service.'' Mr. President that is why I am proud to co-sponsor of S. 249, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act. This bill would put an end to the drive-through mastectomies. Specifically, the Act will require health insurance companies to allow physicians to determine the length of a mastectomy patient's hospital stay according to medical necessity. In other words, the bill makes it illegal to punish a doctor for following good medical judgment and sound medical treatment. Another important provision of this bill ensures that mastectomy patients will have access to reconstructive surgery. Scores of women have been denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because insurers have deemed the procedure to be ``cosmetic'' and, therefore, not medically necessary. Mr. President, far too often breast cancer victims, who believe that they have adequate health care coverage, become horrified when the learn that reconstruction is not covered in their health plan. In Alaska, the problem is even more tragic. Of the 324 mastectomies and lumpectomies performed in Alaska in 1996, reconstruction only occurred on 11 of the patients. That means that only 3.4% of women who have their breast removed have reconstructive surgery, compared to the national average of 23 percent. The simple reason for this tragically low figure is simple: women can't afford the procedure. Breast reconstruction costs average about $5,000 for just the procedure. If hospital, physician and other costs are included--the cost averages around $15,000. Dr. Sarah Troxel, of Providence hospital in Anchorage, states the importance of reconstruction: Women who are not able to receive reconstructive surgery suffer from depression, a sense of loss, and need more cancer survivor counseling . . . Additionally, reconstructive surgery can be preventative medicine--women who don't have reconstructive surgery often develop back problems and other difficulties. Mr. President, insurance companies commonly provide reconstructive surgery for other types of cancers that alter or disfigure the surface of the skin--such as melanomas and all skin cancers. Here is why federal legislation is needed: Thirty-four states, including Alaska have no state law requiring breast reconstruction after surgery. And in addition, 70 million Americans receive health benefits through federally regulated self-funded ERISA plans which are not covered by state insurance requirements. These issues are not partisan issues. We may have our differences regarding managing and financing health reform, but I think we all endorse accessible and affordable health care that preserves patient choice and physician discretion. Cancer does not look to see the politics of its victims. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Stevens in introducing legislation that will allow Alaska Native Corporations to establish settlement trusts designed to promote the health, education, welfare and cultural heritage of Alaska Natives. Mr. President, in 1987, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was amended to permit Native Corporations to establish settlement trusts to hold lands and investments for the benefit of current and future generations of Alaska Natives. Assets in these trusts are insulated from business exposure and risks and can be invested to provide distributions of income to Native shareholders and their future generations. Although the 1987 amendments were designed to facilitate the development of settlement trusts, many Native Corporations have been stymied in their efforts because the tax law, in many cases, imposes onerous penalties on the Native shareholders when the trusts are created. For example, when assets are transferred to the trust, they are treated as a de facto distribution of assets directly to the shareholders themselves to the extent of the corporation's earnings and profits. Even though the current shareholders receive no actual income at the time of the transfer into the trust, they are liable for income taxes as if they received an actual distribution. This not only requires the shareholder to come up with money to pay taxes on a distribution he or she never received, but also can result in a situation where a trust fund beneficiary is required to prepay taxes on his share of the entire trust corpus, which may be substantially more in taxes than the amount of cash benefits he or she will actually receive in the future. Our legislation remedies this inequity by requiring that a beneficiary of a settlement trust will be subject to taxation with respect to assets conveyed to the trust only when the actual distribution is received by the beneficiary. Moreover, the legislation provides that distributions from the trust will be taxable as ordinary income even if the distribution represents a return of capital. In addition, to ensure that these trusts do not accumulate excessive levels of the corporation's earnings, the legislation requires that the trust must annually distribute at least 55 percent of their taxable income. Mr. President, Alaska Native Corporations are unique entities. Unlike Native American tribes in the lower 48, Alaska Native corporations are subject to income tax. But unlike ordinary C corporations, Alaska Native corporations have diverse purposes, one of which is to preserve and protect the heritage of the Native shareholders. The settlement trust concept is well suited to the special needs of Alaska's Natives. As the Conference Committee Report to ANSCA amendments of 1987 stated: Trust distributions may be used to fight poverty, provide food, shelter and clothing and served comparable economic welfare purposes. Additionally, cash distributions of trust income may be made on an across-the-board basis to the beneficiary population as part of the economic welfare function. Settlement trusts will ensure that for generations to come, Native Alaskans will have a steady stream of income on which to continue building an economic base. The current tax rules discourage the creation of such trusts with the result that Native corporations are under extreme pressure to distribute all current earnings rather than prudently reinvesting for the future. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will be able to see this legislation adopted into law this year. For the long-term benefit of Alaska Natives, this tax law change is fundamentally necessary.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Stevens in introducing legislation that will allow Alaska Native Corporations to establish settlement trusts designed to promote the health, education, welfare and cultural heritage of Alaska Natives. Mr. President, in 1987, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was amended to permit Native Corporations to establish settlement trusts to hold lands and investments for the benefit of current and future generations of Alaska Natives. Assets in these trusts are insulated from business exposure and risks and can be invested to provide distributions of income to Native shareholders and their future generations. Although the 1987 amendments were designed to facilitate the development of settlement trusts, many Native Corporations have been stymied in their efforts because the tax law, in many cases, imposes onerous penalties on the Native shareholders when the trusts are created. For example, when assets are transferred to the trust, they are treated as a de facto distribution of assets directly to the shareholders themselves to the extent of the corporation's earnings and profits. Even though the current shareholders receive no actual income at the time of the transfer into the trust, they are liable for income taxes as if they received an actual distribution. This not only requires the shareholder to come up with money to pay taxes on a distribution he or she never received, but also can result in a situation where a trust fund beneficiary is required to prepay taxes on his share of the entire trust corpus, which may be substantially more in taxes than the amount of cash benefits he or she will actually receive in the future. Our legislation remedies this inequity by requiring that a beneficiary of a settlement trust will be subject to taxation with respect to assets conveyed to the trust only when the actual distribution is received by the beneficiary. Moreover, the legislation provides that distributions from the trust will be taxable as ordinary income even if the distribution represents a return of capital. In addition, to ensure that these trusts do not accumulate excessive levels of the corporation's earnings, the legislation requires that the trust must annually distribute at least 55 percent of their taxable income. Mr. President, Alaska Native Corporations are unique entities. Unlike Native American tribes in the lower 48, Alaska Native corporations are subject to income tax. But unlike ordinary C corporations, Alaska Native corporations have diverse purposes, one of which is to preserve and protect the heritage of the Native shareholders. The settlement trust concept is well suited to the special needs of Alaska's Natives. As the Conference Committee Report to ANSCA amendments of 1987 stated: Trust distributions may be used to fight poverty, provide food, shelter and clothing and served comparable economic welfare purposes. Additionally, cash distributions of trust income may be made on an across-the-board basis to the beneficiary population as part of the economic welfare function. Settlement trusts will ensure that for generations to come, Native Alaskans will have a steady stream of income on which to continue building an economic base. The current tax rules discourage the creation of such trusts with the result that Native corporations are under extreme pressure to distribute all current earnings rather than prudently reinvesting for the future. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will be able to see this legislation adopted into law this year. For the long-term benefit of Alaska Natives, this tax law change is fundamentally necessary.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chair. Junk E-Mail

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the chairman is including in the manager's amendment language that I offered along with my colleague, Senator Torricelli. Mr. President, one of the downsides of the technological revolution that is symbolized by communications today on the Internet is the growing multitude of junk e-mail. Junk e-mail has quickly become the scourge of the Internet. It clogs America's inboxes and raises costs to all Internet users. Among those who are regular e-mail users, junk e- mail is known as ``spam,'' which many suggest is an insult to the Hormel Corporation. I originally recognized spam as a spinoff of the Second World War where food was given to soldiers, commonly referred to as C rations, that implied a mixture of food products. In any event, it is the name that has been adopted for junk e-mail. Rural residents of our Nation and my State of Alaska are forced to pay long-distance charges to receive these unwanted solicitations, the majority of which contain fraudulent or pornographic messages. Not only are these junk e-mails objectionable, but they so clog the transmission network that Internet service providers are forced to spend tens of millions of dollars to expand their networks to handle all of these messages. America Online reports that up to 30 percent of daily incoming e-mail is junk e-mail. This volume has forced it and other Internet service providers, the ISPs, to buy more equipment and divert staff to handle users' complaints. These resources could be better spent by ISPs on improving service or even reducing monthly fees. My provision, Mr. President, is a modified version of legislation that I introduced last year--S. 771. When I introduced the bill, I put it up on the Web and asked for e-mail comments on the bill. So far, I have received over 1,500--the vast majority of which have been supportive of my efforts. So this provision is really a Truth in Advertising provision. It will simply require commercial e-mailers to identify who they are, their addresses, and their telephone numbers. The reason we have included this provision is that millions of junk e-mails are sent out with phony e-mail addresses which make it impossible for citizens to request that the sender stop cluttering their e-mail boxes. Under this provision, citizens will know exactly who the sender is and have the option of turning that sender away from their inbox. The provision further requires that a junk e-mailer must honor the request of an individual who asks that his or her name be deleted from the mailing list permanently. It's as simple as that. I doubt if there is anyone among us here today who would argue against someone's wish to simply be left alone by junk e-mailers. The amendment permits the Federal Trade Commission, the State Attorneys General, and Internet service providers to protect consumers from Internet junk e-mail by allowing them to sue those junk e-mailers who fail to identify themselves properly or refuse to remove a person's name from a mailing list. Mr. President, junk e-mail has become so pervasive that some have suggested a complete ban on such unsolicited advertisements. I believe that Internet users should control what comes into their electronic mailboxes, not the government. And I wish to emphasize that. This debate should not be about the government controlling the content of individual electronic mailboxes, but about individual users taking control of their own mailboxes. I think my provision will sufficiently reduce the problems of junk e-mail, and thus show that banning is unnecessary. Finally, I thank the floor managers for their attention to this issue, as well as the efforts of America Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for about 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 223, which I introduced yesterday on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens. Our resolution recognizes the Prince William Sound Community College and its celebration of its twentieth anniversary this Sunday, May 10, 1988. This is a notable milestone for the College and for the people of the Copper Basin Area. Prince William Sound Community College was established in 1976 as a Learning Center set up by the University of Alaska. It earned community college status just two years later. In 1987, the University of Alaska merged all community colleges in the state into the university system; however, due to overwhelming support from the local community of Valdez, Prince William Sound Community College remained the only individually accredited community college in the University of Alaska system. Today, after 20 years, the student body of the college has grown to nearly 2,000 students, and the college is a recognized leader in the University of Alaska system. Mr. President, I commend the Prince William Sound Community College for its 20 years of exceptional service to the people of Alaska and look forward to many more years of growth and contributions to the culture and economy of Alaska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I rise in strong support of this legislation which is going to overhaul the agency that is probably more feared by Americans than any other single agency--the IRS. Mr. President, at the Finance Committee hearings that began last September and ended last week, the American public heard some chilling testimony--testimony of an agency that is simply out of control and an agency that is unaccountable. Some say it was designed that way. Well, in a democracy, there is no place for the type of Gestapo tactics that we have seen. We have seen in the hearings and in the testimony that harassment, retribution, and abuse apparently have been condoned in some areas of the IRS for some time. Mr. President, when the GAO attempted to audit the IRS last year, it found that the systems the IRS had put in place were designed to ensure that there is no way--no way--for IRS personnel to be held accountable for their erroneous actions. There is no way to determine how many times the Internal Revenue Service has made a mistake in sending out a collection notice, and there is no way to determine how many complaints have been received. In effect, the managers at the IRS set up the system so that no one can trace improper behavior. There are no paper trails, there are no records. Mr. President, there is simply no accountability. The lack of accountability and the arrogance among some that pervades the IRS was best summed up last week when Tommy Henderson, a special agent and former group manager of the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division office in Knoxville, testified. He told the committee: IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants, and with almost complete immunity. Each district director and chief appears to operate from his own little kingdom. Well, there are no kingdoms in this country, Mr. President. Anyone at the Internal Revenue Service who thinks he or she is above the law ought to be summarily fired. No one enjoys paying taxes, but no one in this country should fear the agency that is charged with the collection of taxes. Yet, we have learned that frightening taxpayers is certainly a tactic that is often used by the Internal Revenue Service. Last week, Robert Edwin Davis, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Tax Division at the Justice Department, told the committee that IRS criminal agents use violent and sometimes fearful tactics against nonviolent taxpayers. He told the committee of a raid by 10 armed IRS agents on the home of a woman at 7:30 in the morning. The 10 armed agents came into her house and searched throughout the house. What were they looking for? Illegal drugs? Firearms? Unreported cash? No. Well, then, why were 10 armed agents searching her home? They were trying to appraise the value of the furnishings in the house because the Internal Revenue Service believed the executor of the woman's deceased grandmother's estate had undervalued the furnishings for estate tax purposes. Can you believe that, Mr. President? The person who ordered that armed raid should have been fired. This is America, not Nazi Germany. Mr. President, several current IRS employees had the courage to come forward during the hearings held in the Finance Committee. I want to commend Senator Roth for calling those hearings. As a member of that committee, I was deeply moved by the testimony of the witnesses that he and the staff had generated. Again, several current IRS employees did have the courage to come forward. They described situations where revenue officers, with management approval, used enforcement to ``punish'' taxpayers instead of trying to collect the appropriate amount of money for the Government. One told the committee that IRS officials browse tax data on potential witnesses in Government tax cases and on the jurors sitting on those Government tax cases. We learned last week that one rogue agent, trying to make a reputation for himself, tried to frame a former Republican leader of this body, Senator Howard Baker--at that time, he was a sitting Senator from Tennessee and the majority leader--and when a responsible IRS manager tried to stop the agent, the agency retaliated, not against the agent, but against the manager. Those are the types of actual situations the committee focused on. Mr. President, lest I be overcritical, I am well aware of the dedicated people in the Internal Revenue Service who are doing an appropriate job in carrying out the duties that they must perform in service to the IRS as well as the country. Mr. President, Commissioner Ros-sotti has a tough job. If he is going to change the culture of the IRS, he is going to have to have some new tools and support by the Congress. This bill will give him some of those tools that he needs to get that job done. For example, the bill gives him the authority to fire an IRS employee if he fails to obtain required approval for seizing a taxpayer's home or business asset. Further, an IRS agent will be fired for providing a false statement or destroying documents to conceal mistakes. The bill creates an independent board to review and recommend changes to enforcement and collection activities of the IRS. I believe the committee made a mistake in placing the Treasury Secretary and the IRS employee representative on this board, and I am disappointed that the Senate did not remove those two individuals from that board. This should be a board that is made up of people who can act with real independence on behalf of honest taxpayers. It should not represent the interests of the Government or the employees of this agency. We have set up a truly independent Taxpayer Advocate to resolve taxpayer disputes with the IRS. This is a much-needed change, since we learned last year that the current Taxpayer Advocate, in reality, faces a conflict of interest because the people who rotate through this office are often called upon to make judgments on the people in the agency who can promote the individual after he rotates out of the advocate's office. Now, in the area of computer-generated property seizures, like we had in my State of Alaska, some 800 permanent fund dividend seizure notices that were issued last September should never, ever happen again, because IRS employees are going to have to have signed approvals before attempting to seize property. And for the first time, a taxpayer will be able to appeal seizures all the way into Tax Court. We've made sure that IRS won't be able to harass the divorced woman for her ex-husband's cheating. I want to express my concern that it appears the Administration does not support the proportional liability provision we've included for innocent spouses. Last week, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Donald Lubick was quoted as saying the Administration cannot support our plan to provide innocent spouse relief. When I read the story about this comment, I asked my staff to obtain a copy of Mr. Lubick's speech but was informed there was no text for the speech. It is my hope that Mr. Lubick was not speaking for the Administration, since according to one study, there are 35,000 innocent women who must contend with attempts by IRS to collect on debts that they are not responsible for. In addition, we've added a rule suspending interest and penalties when the IRS does not provide appropriate notice to taxpayers within one year of filing. This ensures that delays by IRS, which can sometimes go on for years, will not benefit IRS by stacking penalties and interest on taxpayers who may have unwittingly made a mistake on their returns. Finally, we've changed the burden of proof in cases coming before the Tax Court. This is a long overdue change. When American citizens go into a court, they should be presumed innocent, not guilty until they can prove their innocence. That principle is enshrined in our Constitution and must apply in tax cases as well as any other cases. Mr. President, as I said earlier, the culture at the IRS must change. This bill makes very important changes that should give the American public more confidence that if they make a mistake on their tax returns, they will be treated fairly by their government and not subjected to threats and harassment. But this bill is just a first step. As I have indicated, there are certain portions with which I am not satisfied. I think it is incumbent on the Finance Committee to hold the agency accountable for implementing what is in this bill. More oversight is needed because it is only through oversight that we can hold this agency accountable to the American public. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Seeing no other Senator, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment my good friend from Florida relative to this particular issue concerning the IRS evaluation and the oversight board, in particular the position of the Secretary on this board. First of all, in this amendment that my friend from Florida has proposed, we would give the IRS Advisory and Oversight Board a far greater capacity to exercise its oversight and advisory functions, ensuring taxpayers are treated fairly. That is the object of this entire exercise. Our friends on the Finance Committee, and I am a member of that committee, as we discussed in the makeup of the nine-member board, we reflected on the debate yesterday where the Senate rejected the idea of making the board a full-time board consisting exclusively of private citizens. However, in my view, this board will have a very, very hard time fulfilling its oversight and advisory functions because, I think, as does the Senator from Florida, that its composition is basically unbalanced. First of all, let's examine the board. We have six private sector members to be selected based on their expertise in such areas as management, customer service, information technology, and, most important, the needs and concerns of the taxpayer. If those were the only members of the board, the board would be basically free to take an unbiased and objective view of how to improve the operations of this agency, with the goal of ensuring the proper treatment of the American taxpayer and the efficient and courteous delivery of services. But let's look at it realistically. Unfortunately, the board is not made up that way. As the board has emerged, it will likely be dominated by three additional people who are required to be members. First of all, we have added the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner. A representative of the employees of the IRS is the second member. And third, the Secretary of the Treasury. Does anyone in this body really believe that this board, consisting of three of the most important people--these are policy people--most important people involved in the operation of the IRS, will be free to exercise real oversight of the IRS? Why do we even need an advisory board to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the IRS when these two individuals already serve on the board? What kind of advisory group are we talking about here? You have insiders on the advisory group. These insiders are very powerful--the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, a union employee representative of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Secretary of the Treasury. So where is the objectivity? These people will control the direction and policy of this board. So where does this advisory board stand independently? It does not. That is the fallacy in the makeup. That is why I encourage my colleagues to consider the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida, which I wholeheartedly support. We have heard the horror stories of taxpayer abuse described in the Finance Committee last September and at last week's hearings. Mind you, Mr. President, this occurred on the watch of the Treasury Secretaries appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. What kind of oversight did these Treasury Secretaries perform on the IRS during their tenure in office? It appears there was very little, if any, oversight. Why? We would like to think because we don't have an independent board. But, if you put the insiders on the board, you don't have objectivity. If we allow the Secretary of the Treasury to participate on this board, along with the IRS Commissioner, I fear we will have business as usual in the IRS. That is what the Finance Committee attempted to address: no longer business as usual. I assume many of my colleagues are out there now making their sound bites, appealing to the folks back home that this is a major step forward, this legislation, in making the IRS accountable. But it is not. It is business as usual. You have the same insiders, only this time they are on the board that is supposed to oversee the IRS. Mr. President, let's stop kidding ourselves around here. The Secretary has a staff of thousands of people. They can provide him with any number of reasons to dissuade the board from recommending and implementing significant changes to the Internal Revenue Service. The Secretary and the IRS Commissioner work together. They have to. They work together on a regular basis and will form a powerful team that could prevent real and meaningful changes at the IRS. I have seen it in my own business career, where people of knowledge and responsibility who are insiders direct the activities of an objective group of outsiders simply because they have the power and influence of their position. This board should have as its No. 1 goal finding ways to improve services by the Internal Revenue Service to the American taxpayer. If the Treasury Secretary who oversees the IRS is on this board, I fear the interests of the bureaucracy--and I noted my friend from Florida mentioned time and again in his presentation ``don't underestimate business as usual''--and the power of the bureaucracy. And, don't kid yourself, it is in the Internal Revenue Service as well. So I fear the interests of the bureaucracy and the Government are simply going to be put ahead of the interests of the taxpayers because it has always been that way in the past. It is inherent in the nature of his high position and his large and sophisticated staff that the Secretary of the Treasury will dominate this board and the interests of the taxpayer will not be adequately represented. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin. He has done, and is doing, an admirable job as Secretary of the Treasury. I differed with him on the Mexican bailout, but he proved to be right. He has done, and is doing, an admirable job as Secretary of the Treasury. My support for this amendment has nothing to do with Mr. Rubin, in the interests of full disclosure. But it is my concern that the official in charge of Treasury and the IRS operations cannot bring an objective view to oversight of his own operations. I urge the adoption of the Mack amendment. Finally, I have been in the business community for 25 years. Many of my colleagues here have not. I can tell you how it works in that kind of environment, where you have insiders with positions of influence, not that they are not well meaning, but it is the very nature of the beast that you lose the objectivity that you are going to have if you have this board set up without considering the implications of the influence of the Secretary of the Treasury. I encourage my colleagues to consider the merits of this amendment and act accordingly. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will dedicate the Juneau, Alaska Federal building in honor of Hurff Saunders who passed away in 1996. Hurff was a lifelong Alaskan who touched the lives of countless people in Southeast Alaska and played an important role in Alaska's history both as a territory and as a state. Among his many accomplishments, Hurff was a federal government civil engineer in charge of the construction of the Juneau federal building. Typical of Hurff's efforts, the Juneau federal building project was completed on time and under budget. In addition, Hurff helped to correct many of the navigational charts for Southeast Alaska thereby assisting the United States Navy and the Coast Guard in safely carrying out their missions in southeast Alaska during World War II. I am privileged to have known Hurff and his family quite well. Hurff's wife Florence was one of my teachers as a young boy growing up in Ketchikan. Hurff and Florence were wonderful people, who left a long and lasting impression on those around them. Mr. President, I have received copies of a number of resolutions, including one passed by the City and Borough of Juneau, all requesting that the Juneau federal building be dedicated in Hurff's memory. Many other Alaskans who also knew Hurff have taken the time to write and to share their support. Hurff was a dedicated public servant who touched the lives of many Alaskans. Naming the Juneau federal building in his honor would be a fitting and lasting tribute to his memory. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation and supporting resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will dedicate the Juneau, Alaska Federal building in honor of Hurff Saunders who passed away in 1996. Hurff was a lifelong Alaskan who touched the lives of countless people in Southeast Alaska and played an important role in Alaska's history both as a territory and as a state. Among his many accomplishments, Hurff was a federal government civil engineer in charge of the construction of the Juneau federal building. Typical of Hurff's efforts, the Juneau federal building project was completed on time and under budget. In addition, Hurff helped to correct many of the navigational charts for Southeast Alaska thereby assisting the United States Navy and the Coast Guard in safely carrying out their missions in southeast Alaska during World War II. I am privileged to have known Hurff and his family quite well. Hurff's wife Florence was one of my teachers as a young boy growing up in Ketchikan. Hurff and Florence were wonderful people, who left a long and lasting impression on those around them. Mr. President, I have received copies of a number of resolutions, including one passed by the City and Borough of Juneau, all requesting that the Juneau federal building be dedicated in Hurff's memory. Many other Alaskans who also knew Hurff have taken the time to write and to share their support. Hurff was a dedicated public servant who touched the lives of many Alaskans. Naming the Juneau federal building in his honor would be a fitting and lasting tribute to his memory. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation and supporting resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the protocols of accession to NATO, specifically for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO expansion is clearly in the security interests of the United States and the NATO alliance as a whole. We have an opportunity in the Senate today to make a truly a historic vote that will shatter, once and for all, the artificial division of Europe that occurred at the end of the Second World War. By expanding this alliance to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, we will further erase the Cold War lines of division and broaden the scope of protection of this defensive military alliance which has played the central role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe since the end of World War II. Now, if history is any guide, it ensures and enhances the prospects for peace, prosperity, and harmony throughout Europe. It is important to remember that NATO is a defensive, not offensive, strategic military alliance. Although the new member countries were once considered so-called ``allies'' of the former Soviet Union, their so-called alliance had more to do with the presence of Soviet troops within their countries than any commitment to Soviet values or ideals. Bringing them into the NATO alliance is not a charge against Russia and should not be so construed. To the contrary, we are recognizing that the people of these countries are now our allies. We pledge to come to their defense if they are attacked by a non-member country, and they in turn make the same pledge to support all other NATO countries who may be attacked by a non-member party. Mr. President, in the nearly 50 years of its existence, NATO has provided the military security umbrella that has permitted old enemies to heal the wounds of war and to build strong democracies and integrated free economies. Expanding NATO to include the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe will, I hope, produce the same results. That is, stronger and freer economies whose people can live in the same harmony as do the people of France and Germany. Communism has collapsed. The Soviet Union is no more. This is not to say, however, that Europe no longer faces any security threats. I think that would be shortsighted. Threats continue to exist in Europe, and many of these threats are more difficult to identify and combat. Ethnic strife in many parts of Eastern Europe; the instability which we face daily with Iraq; terrorism; the list is long. These are all verifiable threats to which the United States and other NATO member countries must be prepared to respond and defend. By adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the NATO alliance, we are broadening and strengthening our ability to combat and defend against these threats. Mr. President, I would also note that the prospect of NATO enlargement has already begun as seen by the process of harmonization in Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary has settled its border and minority questions with Slovakia and Romania. Poland has reached across an old divide to create joint peacekeeping battalions with Ukraine and Lithuania. Without question, an expanded NATO will make the world safer simply because we are expanding the area where wars will not happen. As Secretary of State Albright testified last year before the Foreign Relations Committee, and I quote, ``This is the paradox at NATO's heart: By imposing a price on aggression, it deters aggression.'' At the same time, we gain new allies, new friends who are committed to our common agenda for security in fighting terrorism and weapons proliferation, and to ensuring stability in places such as the former Yugoslavia. There is no doubt in my mind that had Soviet troops not in 1945 occupied Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, and installed puppet governments, the debate over whether these three countries should be members of NATO would have long ago been resolved in their favor. The people of these countries have yearned for freedom, democracy, and peace for more than 40 years, as evidenced by Poland particularly. The blood in the streets of Budapest in 1956, the demonstrations of the people in Prague in 1968 who confronted Soviet tanks, and the public confrontations of Solidarity throughout Poland beginning in the 1970s all laid the foundation for the collapse of communism, which we have seen in our lifetime. Now as they begin to build institutions of democracy and free enterprise, as they move to further integrate their economies with the rest of Europe, they should participate in the collective security of the continent. I think this will bind these countries closer together far into the future and ensure stability and peace throughout the continent. Mr. President, there have been expressions of concern by some people that expanding NATO is a mistake because it would somehow be perceived as a threat, a threat to Russia. I find that argument hard to accept. In my opinion, NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Even during the height of the Cold War, no one seriously considered that NATO threatened the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary. NATO stood to defend-- defend--against any potential military threat to its members. There is a difference between defense and offense. And NATO is designed for defense. It was never designed as an alliance of aggression--rather, it is an alliance against aggression. I think the same holds true today, Mr. President. The people of Russia, who are slowly trying to emerge from the darkness and terror of 70 years of communism, have nothing--I repeat, nothing--to fear from NATO. Our goal is not to isolate Russia; but to engage and support her in her efforts to develop a lasting democracy and a free market. The people in the evolving democracies of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have earned the right to become full partners in Europe and full partners in NATO. I hope my colleagues will support the dreams, hopes, and aspirations of these people who have struggled for freedom for so long, after so many decades in which they have lived without hope. They have that opportunity today. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to commend these countries for the rapid progress which they have made nurturing democracy and building stable economic development based on free market principles. While some would argue that they have not evolved far enough, I would simply say that they are light years from where they were when the Berlin Wall fell and that democracy and the free market is an evolving process. They are well on their way; bringing them into the NATO alliance will only serve to help them along. The people of these nations have dedicated themselves to these democratic ideals, and it is incumbent upon us to support them in their quest. Mr. President, I strongly support expanding the NATO alliance to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and hope that the Senate speaks loudly and strongly on this issue today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. 660, known as the University of Alaska lands bill. Alaska entered the Union in 1959 as the largest State with about 360 million to 365 million acres of land, an area one-fifth the size of the United States. As part of our Statehood Compact, we were to be treated like other States and, from the standpoint of land provided for our land grant education system, namely the University of Alaska, we were to be accorded a reasonable amount of land for our land grant college. Today, Alaska ranks 48th out of 50 States in the federal land granted for higher education. We have approximately 112,000 acres. It is important that I put this in perspective, because the State of New Mexico has 1.3 million acres; Oklahoma has 1,050,000 acres; Indiana has 436,000 acres; New York, 990,000 acres. And here sits Alaska, 48th, with 112,000 acres. Something is lacking with regard to the issue of equity. We are the only federal land grant college in the country without the federal land. We received less than one-half of the Federal land that was promised. There is only one other State that has less land in its land grant system, and that is the State of Delaware with approximately 90,000 acres. Here is Alaska with 360 million acres receiving 112,000; New Mexico and Oklahoma over 1 million acres. This bill I have offered provides the university with land to support itself financially and to continue, obviously, to act as a responsible steward of the land for the education of our greatest resource, our children. Specifically, this bill would grant the university 250,000 acres of Federal land within our State. I might add that the Federal Government has approximately two-thirds of the landmass of our State, which is somewhere in the area of 200 million acres. So we are not talking about transferring very much. We are talking about 250,000 acres out of 200 million, or thereabouts. In addition to this initial grant, if the State of Alaska chooses to grant the University land, we propose an acre for acre match, up to 250,000 additional federal acres. This option would be solely at the option of the State. Again, the bill would provide 250,000 acres to be transferred to the State of Alaska, specifically for its university land grant system, and then if the State provides additional acres, there would be a provision for up to another 250,000 acres of matching Federal land. There are areas that the university cannot select land from within the Federal domain. They cannot select land within conservation units; they cannot select land within the LUD II areas designated in the Tongass National Forest. They cannot select land conveyed to the State or Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act Corporation land. They cannot select land with connection to any Federal military institution. This legislation also provides for what we think is a legitimate exchange, because the university does hold some rather sensitive land. They have land on the Alaska Peninsula in the Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The university has land in the Kenai Fjords National Park. The university has lands in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and the Denali Park and Preserve. The University would be required to relinquish these lands under this legislation. To give you some idea of some of the inholdings the university has, many, many years ago there was a major discovery in Glacier Bay National Park by the Newmont Mining Company, and that was a large nickel reserve. It has never been mined, but it was patented. The patent was turned over to the university. They are willing to give some very sensitive environmental lands back to the Federal Government in exchange for a fulfillment of their federal land grant. It is not without equity, Mr. President. I know of no other State that has given lands back to the federal government in exchange for lands given to it for its higher educational system. S. 660 allows the State the option to participate in the process, as I indicated. I think it is time the Federal Government lived up to its commitment to the State of Alaska, as it has to the other States, by allowing Alaska to participate in a realistic Federal land grant for the education of the young people of our State. Let me advise the Presiding Officer how this process would basically be addressed. The University of Alaska, like most universities, has a board of regents. In our case, the board of regents is appointed by the Governor. They bear the responsibility of responding not only to the legislature and the Governor but the people of Alaska on how they utilize the land. Clearly, some of the land would be for development to help fund the university and would set up an endowment. We often look with envy to our sister State, the State of Washington to the south, where the University of Washington has large landholdings in the downtown Seattle area. From those leases which the university holds, there has been significant real estate development. The funding from the lease payments goes to the university, an endowment of sorts, and funds the university's needs. Some have expressed the concern that this land may be developed and there will not be the careful consideration given relative to the balance associated with how the land is used. But that is a legitimate responsibility of the board of regents. My answer is, if you cannot trust the board of regents, appointed people who are accountable to other Alaskans, as well as our Governor and the legislature, who can you trust? So I think what we have here, Mr. President, is an issue that begs the question of why Alaska should be treated any differently than any other State. We should have a reasonable amount of land for our land- grant college. We are faced with a situation where we have an institution somewhat in crisis because it does not have the ability to have funding from an endowment, and, as a consequence, its entire operational budget must be met annually by the State legislature, which has resulted in a decline in maintenance and other normal types of expenditures that most land grant university systems enjoy from the endowment that is generated from the landholdings that they have. But that is not the case with Alaska, and that is why we feel it is so important to rectify this situation. I conclude by indicating that some of America's environmental groups are in opposition to this. They are fearful that the university will make Federal land selections and develop that land. My answer to that is, what is wrong with responsible development? It provides jobs, it provides a tax base, and it would provide a regular source of funding for the university. To suggest that we cannot develop certain areas within strict accordance with environmental considerations I think is really selling Alaska and America's can-do technology short. We can responsibly develop these areas if given the opportunity. In the interest of equity and fairness, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits of treating Alaska in the same manner in which other States were treated when they came into the Union by adequately funding their land-grant holdings so that they can meet the needs of the higher education system; namely, the University of Alaska. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for about 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and Majority Leader Lott, Senator Baucus, and Senator Campbell, to introduce legislation which would permanently authorize and expand the Medicare and Medicaid direct collections demonstration program under section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This act will end much of the redtape and bureaucracy for IHS facilities involved with Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and will mean more Medicaid and Medicare dollars to Native health facilities to use for improving health care. Our bill will allow Native hospitals to collect Medicare and Medicaid funds directly from the Health Care Financing Administration instead of having to go through the maze of regulations mandated by HIS. This bill is an expansion of a current demonstration project that includes Bristol Bay Health Corporation of Dillingham, Alaska; the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation of Sitka, Alaska; the Mississippi Choctaw Health Center of Philadelphia, Mississippi; and the Choctaw Tribe of Durant, Oklahoma. All of the participants in the demonstration program--as well as the Department of Health and Human Service and the Indian Health Services--report that the program is a great success. In fact, the program has: Dramatically increased collections for Medicare and Medicaid services, which in turn has provided badly-needed revenues for Indian and Alaska Native health care; significantly reduced the turn-around time between billing and the receipt of payment for Medicare and Medicaid services; and increased the administrative efficiency of the participating facilities by empowering them to track their own Medicare and Medicaid billings and collections. In 1996, when the demonstration program was about to expire, Congress extended it through FY 1998. This extension has allowed the participants to continue their direct billing and collection efforts and has provided Congress with additional time to consider whether to permanently authorize the program. Because the demonstration program is again set to expire at the end of FY 98, it is time to recognize the benefits of the demonstration program by enacting legislation that would permanently authorize it and expand it to other eligible tribal participants. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and Majority Leader Lott, Senator Baucus, and Senator Campbell, to introduce legislation which would permanently authorize and expand the Medicare and Medicaid direct collections demonstration program under section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This act will end much of the redtape and bureaucracy for IHS facilities involved with Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and will mean more Medicaid and Medicare dollars to Native health facilities to use for improving health care. Our bill will allow Native hospitals to collect Medicare and Medicaid funds directly from the Health Care Financing Administration instead of having to go through the maze of regulations mandated by HIS. This bill is an expansion of a current demonstration project that includes Bristol Bay Health Corporation of Dillingham, Alaska; the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation of Sitka, Alaska; the Mississippi Choctaw Health Center of Philadelphia, Mississippi; and the Choctaw Tribe of Durant, Oklahoma. All of the participants in the demonstration program--as well as the Department of Health and Human Service and the Indian Health Services--report that the program is a great success. In fact, the program has: Dramatically increased collections for Medicare and Medicaid services, which in turn has provided badly-needed revenues for Indian and Alaska Native health care; significantly reduced the turn-around time between billing and the receipt of payment for Medicare and Medicaid services; and increased the administrative efficiency of the participating facilities by empowering them to track their own Medicare and Medicaid billings and collections. In 1996, when the demonstration program was about to expire, Congress extended it through FY 1998. This extension has allowed the participants to continue their direct billing and collection efforts and has provided Congress with additional time to consider whether to permanently authorize the program. Because the demonstration program is again set to expire at the end of FY 98, it is time to recognize the benefits of the demonstration program by enacting legislation that would permanently authorize it and expand it to other eligible tribal participants. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would alleviate an IRS paperwork hassle that confronts every citizen of Alaska who has a child. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in introducing this legislation. Mr. President, when this nation was facing the oil crisis of the 1970s, Alaskan oil from Prudhoe Bay was in large part responsible for allowing our nation to bridge the oil crisis and overcome the blackmail the world faced from the OPEC cartel. The state of Alaska made a foresighted decision at that time that it would take a portion of the oil royalty money and place it into a trust fund for the benefit of the citizens of our State. This trust fund has grown significantly in the past two decades and has allowed the state to issue dividends to every citizen of the state each year. Mothers, fathers and children are all entitled to an equal share of the dividend. Yet when it comes time to file tax returns, every family with a child in Alaska is forced to file a separate tax return for the child based on the fact that the child's only income is the permanent fund dividend. Children under 14 must pay income tax it they have investment income of more than $650. If their investment income is greater than $1,400, a special ``kiddy tax'' is levied that taxes the child's income at the parents' highest tax rate. The kiddy tax was designed for one simple purpose: To prevent high income taxpayers from shifting income to their children for tax avoidance purposes. Mr. President, in the case of nearly every child in Alaska, there is no effort for parents to shift income to their children. A two-year old is required to file a tax return simply because the state had the foresight to invest state oil royalty income for the benefit of all it's citizens. In recent years, the annual Permanent Fund dividend checks have averaged nearly $1,000 per person. For a two-year old child who received that dividend, the child's parents are responsible for having a tax return prepared for the child that will show a tax liability of $52.50. As all of my colleagues know, filling out tax returns has become ever more complicated. Fewer and fewer individuals are filling out their own returns. Instead, they are having to pay professional prepares to fill out these returns. In fact, IRS reports that returns filled out by paid prepares are a record high this year--54% of all returns filed had been prepared by professionals. For an Alaskan family with two children, that means a paid preparer must fill out three separate tax forms--one for the mother and father and one for each of the two children. How much additional cost does the prepare charge for the additional returns? The simplest form to file--the 1040 EZ costs $16.50 at the local H&R block. For two children that's an additional $33, on top of the costs of the parents' return. And what does it cost the IRS to process that return? I've heard costs that range from $5 to $30. I don't think anyone knows the real answer. Mr. President, the bottom line is that families with children under 14 in Alaska are subjected to additional IRS paperwork and filing requirements simply because their children's permanent fund dividends are subject to a few dollars of federal income tax. The legislation we are introducing today would exclude from income permanent fund dividends received by children under 14. This will eliminate the paperwork burdens that families in our state face simply because their children receive a dividend from the state. Although I am sure this will be scored as losing a modest amount of revenue, about $50 for every Alaskan child, IRS will have to process far fewer tax returns from Alaska's children and parents in Alaska will not have to incur additional tax preparation fees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being not objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would alleviate an IRS paperwork hassle that confronts every citizen of Alaska who has a child. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in introducing this legislation. Mr. President, when this nation was facing the oil crisis of the 1970s, Alaskan oil from Prudhoe Bay was in large part responsible for allowing our nation to bridge the oil crisis and overcome the blackmail the world faced from the OPEC cartel. The state of Alaska made a foresighted decision at that time that it would take a portion of the oil royalty money and place it into a trust fund for the benefit of the citizens of our State. This trust fund has grown significantly in the past two decades and has allowed the state to issue dividends to every citizen of the state each year. Mothers, fathers and children are all entitled to an equal share of the dividend. Yet when it comes time to file tax returns, every family with a child in Alaska is forced to file a separate tax return for the child based on the fact that the child's only income is the permanent fund dividend. Children under 14 must pay income tax it they have investment income of more than $650. If their investment income is greater than $1,400, a special ``kiddy tax'' is levied that taxes the child's income at the parents' highest tax rate. The kiddy tax was designed for one simple purpose: To prevent high income taxpayers from shifting income to their children for tax avoidance purposes. Mr. President, in the case of nearly every child in Alaska, there is no effort for parents to shift income to their children. A two-year old is required to file a tax return simply because the state had the foresight to invest state oil royalty income for the benefit of all it's citizens. In recent years, the annual Permanent Fund dividend checks have averaged nearly $1,000 per person. For a two-year old child who received that dividend, the child's parents are responsible for having a tax return prepared for the child that will show a tax liability of $52.50. As all of my colleagues know, filling out tax returns has become ever more complicated. Fewer and fewer individuals are filling out their own returns. Instead, they are having to pay professional prepares to fill out these returns. In fact, IRS reports that returns filled out by paid prepares are a record high this year--54% of all returns filed had been prepared by professionals. For an Alaskan family with two children, that means a paid preparer must fill out three separate tax forms--one for the mother and father and one for each of the two children. How much additional cost does the prepare charge for the additional returns? The simplest form to file--the 1040 EZ costs $16.50 at the local H&R block. For two children that's an additional $33, on top of the costs of the parents' return. And what does it cost the IRS to process that return? I've heard costs that range from $5 to $30. I don't think anyone knows the real answer. Mr. President, the bottom line is that families with children under 14 in Alaska are subjected to additional IRS paperwork and filing requirements simply because their children's permanent fund dividends are subject to a few dollars of federal income tax. The legislation we are introducing today would exclude from income permanent fund dividends received by children under 14. This will eliminate the paperwork burdens that families in our state face simply because their children receive a dividend from the state. Although I am sure this will be scored as losing a modest amount of revenue, about $50 for every Alaskan child, IRS will have to process far fewer tax returns from Alaska's children and parents in Alaska will not have to incur additional tax preparation fees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being not objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Wednesday is Earth Day--a good time to reflect on our responsibilities to preserve and protect the environment that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. I have six children, and, at last count, eleven grandchildren. I obviously care about the environment they will grow up in. I am encouraged by the fact that the air we breathe and the water that flows though America's rivers are far cleaner today than they were on the first Earth Day in 1970. You might not know that is the case if you listen exclusively to the gloom and doom pronouncements of many institutional environmental groups. Sometimes, these groups place my name on a list or issue a ``report card'' on my voting record that might lead one to believe that I do not care about the environment. This is, of course, nonsense. You cannot have eleven grand kids at the center of your life while working to shortchange the environment. Having said that, I must join my colleagues in reporting to the Senate that Vice President Gore returned from Kyoto with a climate treaty so fatally flawed that it will never be ratified by the Senate or enter into force. Nor should it. While the climate issue must be taken seriously, the Senate would be shirking its constitutional responsibilities if it were to ratify a treaty that is so blatantly unfair, economically burdensome, and of no benefit to the environment. The unfairness of the treaty lies mainly in its exclusion of ``developing'' nations such as China, India, South Korea and Mexico. Emissions from these nations will exceed ours in about 15 years, and their exclusion will only encourage the shift of manufacturing (and resulting emissions) from the nations subject to controls to the nations that are not. Thus, global emissions would not decrease. Since developing nations are less energy-efficient than we are, emissions might even increase. Under the treaty there would be no global environmental gain--but America would suffer economic pain. According to the respected economic firm Wharton Econometrics, the Kyoto Treaty would reduce Gross Domestic Product by more than $2,000 per household in 2010--and $30,000 per household between 2001-2020. Moreover, 2.5 million Americans would lose their jobs. Since the climate change problem will one day be addressed through technological innovation fostered in a healthy economic environment, the last thing we want to do is adopt a treaty that would create a national economic decline reminiscent of the oil shocks of the 1970s. If we are truly concerned about carbon emissions, we will revitalize nuclear energy and hydropower--our only large-scale, base-load sources of carbon free electricity. Nuclear energy generates 22% of our electricity, and hydropower adds an additional 11%. Solar and wind energy, in comparison, fill one-tenth of one percent of our total energy needs. Although solar and wind energy will grow, the immutable laws of physics limit that growth to just a few percent. Presidential initiatives to place solar panels on a million roofs around the country may have symbolic value, but what is the administration doing to promote nuclear and hydropower--the carbon-free emission sources that can really make a difference? Unfortunately, the President opposes the nuclear waste bill that has passed the Senate twice by a wide, bipartisan margin. Any failure to address the nuclear waste issue will result in the premature closure of nuclear power plants, whose capacity will be replaced with carbon- emitting, fossil-fuel plants. Bruce Babbitt aspires to be the first Interior Secretary to tear down hydropower dams. Additionally, other dams around the country are endangered by a cumbersome regulatory process that can make it cheaper to tear down the dam and purchase fossil-fuel generated power rather than endure the ordeal of relicensing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. On the international energy front, administration policy is in opposition to China's Three Gorges hydroelectric project--the alternative to which is thirty six new carbon-belching 500 megawatt coal plants. Is this part of a consistent carbon reduction strategy? In an intellectual contortion that defies common sense, Administration energy policy is anti-nuclear and anti-hydropower while professing to be anti-carbon. To appreciate that, one only needs to read the President's Climate Initiative unveiled last October. Nuclear energy isn't even mentioned, and hydropower is explicitly discounted in the document's exclusive discussion of ``non-hydro'' renewable energy. What is the President's answer? The President's strategy is to push the issue off to someone else's watch. The Kyoto Treaty doesn't require carbon reductions until the year 2008. Meanwhile, by agreeing to a fatally flawed treaty in Kyoto, the Vice President revealed his own Achilles' heel--he can't say no to any environmental cause, even if it directly harms U.S. interests and jobs here at home. Kyoto has exposed that weakness, and now it is the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to ensure that a bad treaty will never be ratified. Ninety-five Senators rarely agree on anything--but they agreed with passage of the Byrd-Hagel resolution that any climate treaty must be globally applied, without harm to our economy. In the case of the Kyoto treaty, the President failed to take our advice--so he cannot expect to receive our consent. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important pieces of legislation relating to oil and gas production on federal lands. The first is a bill to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide permanent regulatory authority to reduce the royalty rate for stripper oil and gas wells on federal lands. This legislation is necessary, Mr. President, because of the depressed world oil price situation. With oil prices falling below $15 per barrel, it is more and more difficult for domestic energy companies to produce oil at a reasonable price. While this is good news to U.S. consumers because gasoline is at its lowest price ever when adjusted for inflation, it is not welcome news to small and independent oil and gas producers who will be especially hard hit. Under ``normal'' circumstances, stripper wells are on the edge of profitability. Low world oil prices threaten stripper wells and the jobs associated with those wells. That, in turn, has ripple effects elsewhere in the economy through loss of jobs in the industries that supply goods and services to producers, and in the communities where they operate. Mr. President, according to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, there are approximately 430,000 stripper oil wells and 170,000 stripper gas wells in the U.S. A sizeable number of these, perhaps as many as 30,000, are on federal lands. What is absolutely astounding, Mr. President, is the fact that stripper wells individually average a little more than 2 barrels of oil and 16 thousand cubic feet of gas production per day, yet in 1996 collectively contributed 352 million barrels of oil (more than 11 percent of U.S. production, and 5 percent of U.S. consumption), and almost 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas. There are 38,000 jobs associated with stripper wells, and another 46,000 outside of the industry related to stripper wells. We cannot afford to lose stripper well production and the vital role they play in national energy security. Nor can we afford to lose the jobs associated with them. That is why I am introducing today the Federal Oil and Gas Stripper Well Preservation Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Nickles and Senator Hutchison in sponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, our bill is very simple: it authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide permanent regulatory authority to reduce the royalty rate for stripper oil and gas wells on federal lands. The Secretary already has limited authority to grant stripper oil well royalty reductions. We want to ensure that there is permanent authority to do so. We also want to make sure that the Secretary has permanent authority to grant royalty rate reductions for stripper gas wells, something that the Secretary recently has declined to do. Second, our bill requires the Secretary to suspend any minimum royalty (if applicable) and per acre lease rental on stripper oil and gas wells on federal lands during the time of any royalty rate reduction. This will ensure that stripper well operators are afforded the greatest leeway during hard times. And finally, our bill requires the applicable lease rental and minimum royalty to be reinstated once the Secretary terminates a stripper well royalty rate reduction. Mr. President, I believe this legislation will make a significant contribution in stemming the tide of lost production from our Nation's stripper oil and gas wells. Once plugged and abandoned, these wells-- and their vital contribution to national energy security--are more likely than not permanently lost. We should not lose this valuable national asset. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Nickles, Senator Hutchison and me in sponsoring the Federal Oil and Gas Stripper Well Preservation Act of 1998. Transfer of Certain Federal Oil and Gas Lease Management Functions Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I introduce today relating to federal oil and gas production addresses the performance of oil and gas lease management activities on federal lands. We have been hearing for some time now that States are very much interested in assuming certain oil and gas lease management functions that are now performed by the U.S. on federal oil and gas leases. We saw strong interest from States in assuming certain royalty management functions when we considered and ultimately enacted the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act in 1996. Devolution of federal oil and gas regulatory functions to States is a concept whose time has come. The legislation I introduce today along with Senator Nickles and Senator Hutchison would do the following: transfer the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) authority to perform certain oil and gas regulatory duties to States; institute distinct and reasonable time frames for leasing decisions and appeals; require responsible actions to increase leasing; and reduce federal appeals delays by rejecting stay requests from parties that have no standing. We believe this legislation will generate savings to the Treasury by increasing administrative efficiencies, eliminating duplication of effort, decreasing time frames on leasing and appeals decisions, and increasing certainty in leasing. We also believe the bill will increase federal acreage available for exploration and development, improve the domestic oil and gas resource base, and promote oil and gas production on federal lands. The key feature of the bill is the transfer from BLM to States authority over such activities as: well drilling and production operations; well testing and completion; conversion of a producing well to a water well; well abandonment procedures; inspections; enforcement activities; and site security. Many States already perform these functions on federal leases, and are willing to do so on a permanent basis. By transferring federal responsibility for these activities, federal resources could be used for other purposes. Our bill also requires BLM and the Forest Service to offer competitive oil and gas leases 90 days after lands are ``nominated'' by prospective lessees. The bill requires BLM and the Forest Service to render final decisions on administrative appeals within two years. These provisions will eliminate costly delays and litigation, allow realization of lease revenues (bonuses, rents, royalties) sooner, and provide stability and clarity to planning. Mr. President, we believe the transfer of lease management functions can be achieved with significant savings to States and the Treasury and will not disrupt lease management functions or impair important resource production. We urge our colleagues in the Senate to join in supporting this important legislation.