Frank Murkowski

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let's be sure we understand each other. The budget resolution before us already provides a $2.5 billion increase for the IDEA program, that is, individuals with disabilities, and it does so without raising taxes and creating a new entitlement program. The Senator from Arkansas is aware of that. When you strip away all the rhetoric, the issue boils down to the basic question of whether this Senate wants to go on record to support a nearly $311 million tax increase on the domestic mining industry. Retention of the depletion allowance, for those who do not understand it--and there are a few--is important to the health of the domestic mining industry because it recognizes the nature, the uniqueness of the mineral industry as an extraction industry by providing a realistic method of measuring the decreasing value of a mineral deposit which declines when you take it out, while generating the necessary capital to build a replacement project, so we can have employment. Metal prices are down, as has been evidenced. Gold has dropped from over $400 an ounce to $300 an ounce, the lowest price in 18 years. On a daily basis, newspapers throughout the West announce further mine closures. The Senator from Arkansas wants to tax the industry now. Lost jobs, lost futures. I ask my colleagues if they really believe this country has lost its hunger for raw materials, or do we simply want to send the industry overseas, import our minerals from overseas? If you do not think increased costs of operation such as proposed by the amendment by Senator Bumpers pose a real threat to the domestic mining industry and local economies, ask the people of Lead, SD. ``Homestate Mining just laid off 466 workers at the Lead mine due to increased costs of operations and diminished gold prices.'' This is not the time to be launching punitive action against an industry that contributes over $130 million annually to the American economy. We have a bill in my committee to accomplish comprehensive mining reform. The Senator from Arkansas is aware of that. I will be holding hearings on comprehensive reform on April 28. That is the place, in the hearing room, and the time to go about reforming mining law, not in a 10-minute debate on the floor of the Senate during consideration of the budget. I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me and defeat Senator Bumpers' amendment. One more time. Do not be fooled. This budget resolution already provides a $2.5 billion increase for the IDEA program without raising taxes and creating a new entitlement program. So I encourage my colleagues to recognize what this is. It is a $311 million tax on our mining industry that is going to cause a job loss, and we are going to be more dependent on imported minerals. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today is National Breast Cancer Survivors Day and I want to take this opportunity to focus my colleague's attention on the importance of continued research and early detection efforts for this tragic disease. 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. One 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 woman in Alaska can benefit from the advances of modern technology and reduce their risk of facing this killer disease. Mr. President on this day that we recognize survivors of breast cancer, I want take a moment to discuss legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senator D'Amato to end the practices of so-called ``drive-through'' mastectomies. In too many cases women who survive the trauma of a mastectomy are being forced to get out of the hospital only hours after their surgery. How can medical care professionals allow this? Simply because many insurance companies demand that the procedure of a mastectomy be considered 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 five hours-- 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. 7 hours late. 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 the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997, which 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, are horrified when they learn that reconstruction is not covered in their health plan. In Alaska, of the 324 mastectomies and lumpectomies performed 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%. Mr. President, 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 costs escalate to around $15,000. Dr. Sarah Troxel, of Providence hospital, the only doctor in the Mat- Su Valley who does breast reconstruction, states the importance of reconstruction: Women who are unable 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 other medical problems or complications with their spine. Mr. President, 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. It is my hope that we will adopt this legislation this year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this past New Year rang in a harsh reality for senior citizens of America: As of January 1, 1998, senior citizens, for all practical purposes, have been stripped of a health care right afforded to any other insured American--the right to pay out-of-pocket for the doctor of their choice. I am outraged over this provision--a provision that was added into the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in the twelfth hour of negotiations between the White House and Congress. The provision prohibits doctors who privately contract from treating Medicare patients for a period of two years. Therefore, it is now unlawful for a doctor to take a private payment from a Medicare- eligible patient if during the previous two years he has billed Medicare for any service rendered to a patient over the age of 65. What is the reality of the provision? The reality is that it will be almost impossible for a senior citizen to contract privately for medical services because few or no physicians are going to be able to make ends meet if they can't accept Medicare patients for two years. The reality is that, unlike every other insured American, senior citizens have now lost a significant right--a right of choice in who provides their health care. Currently seniors are being prohibited from going outside of the Medicare system for procedures that are not covered by Medicare. For example, if a senior fell and broke his hip, Medicare only reimburses for the lowest-cost hip prosthesis. Since seniors cannot pay extra to upgrade, they must settle for lower quality. (Private contracting would enable them to opt for quality.) Why is the federal government making that decision for seniors? If a 75-year-old women in Fairbanks, Alaska, fell and broke her hip, do you think that the government is competent enough to decide what hip prosthesis is best for her to gain the best mobility for the rough weather conditions of Fairbanks? Last week I turned 65 years old. The week before--when I was still 64 years old--I could choose any doctor I wanted and pay for that doctor in any manner I wanted. But now I'm 65, and the federal government is suddenly telling me I can't make my own medical decisions--that I no longer may enter into a private contract with my doctor. Mr. President, I ask you, isn't this a form of age discrimination against seniors? How can the Health Care Financing Administration restrict such a fundamental liberty--the freedom to choose the care and quality of health providers? The need for a senior citizen to be able to privately contract is magnified in Alaska. Alaska has no HMOs, physician shortages exist in two-thirds of the state and health care costs that are on average 70 percent higher than the rest of the country. All these factors combine to create a system where doctors can't afford to treat Medicare patients--which means that patient choice for Alaskan seniors is extremely limited. I've received letters from Alaskans who have been turned down by three or four physicians--because the doctors cannot afford new Medicare patients. I am pleased with Senator Kyl's sense of Congress--I believe it is an important stand for Congress to make. The body must do all it can to ensure that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who choose to pay out of pocket will have an unrestricted right to health care. Mr. President, even in the socialized medical system of Great Britain, choice is offered to the elderly. In Great Britain, a senior citizen has the choice to pay privately for his or her medical services. Don't the elderly of America deserve that same choice?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, recently some of my colleagues on the Energy Committee and I traveled to Venezuela to tour some of the oil and gas operations run by the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), and to learn more about the U.S.-Venezuela relationship on energy matters. Not many weeks prior to our trip, I had traveled to Venezuela for the first time to attend and address the Hemispheric Energy Conference in Caracas, which was co-chaired by Energy Secretary Federico Pena. As Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I believe my colleagues should know the important role Venezuela plays in U.S. and hemispheric energy security. And, as a Senator strongly committed to preserving and strengthening the U.S. oil and gas industry, I believe it is essential that we understand to the fullest extent possible the relationships between our countries and energy industries, and how we stand in relation to the rest of the world. I think it is safe to say, Mr. President, that very few people in our country appreciate Venezuela's importance in the global energy picture. Our visit to Venezuela was particularly timely in light of the recent drop in world oil prices and the agreement among OPEC and non-OPEC members to curtail production to halt the downward fall in prices. Venezuela is a member of OPEC, and is a country others are looking to for cooperation in scaling down production. What my colleagues and I learned about Venezuela's energy industry from our brief visit, Mr. President, is very impressive. I want to share some of the information we gathered with the rest of our colleagues in the Senate. The United States and Venezuela have a long history of cooperation on energy matters. Venezuela has continuously provided oil to the U.S. for more than 70 years. During World War II, the Korean War, the conflict in Vietnam, and more recently the oil embargos and Persian Gulf War, Venezuela has been a stable and reliable source of oil for the United States. The U.S. presently imports just under 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela, making Venezuela the largest supplier of crude. Venezuela, Mexico and Canada are the leaders in the Western Hemisphere in supplying oil to the U.S., which imports 52 percent of its daily production from that region. Because of the proximity of our two countries, and certain synergies in our energy industries, the U.S. and Venezuela now enjoy a robust energy relationship that is triggering economic development and opening new trade and investment opportunities in both countries. To date, Venezuela's oil company has invested $2 billion in the U.S., and is importing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. goods and services used for energy production in Venezuela. A new bilateral investment protection treaty presently being negotiated between the two countries will afford U.S. investors greater safeguards in such important areas as capital transfers, international arbitration, intellectual property rights and others, and will put U.S. investors on an even playing field with investors from other countries. Venezuela has 75 billion barrels of proven conventional crude oil reserves, ranking fifth-largest in the world and first outside of the Middle East. By comparison, U.S. crude oil reserves are three times smaller. In Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, which we visited, there are 1.2 trillion barrels of extra-heavy oil in place. Using a conservative rate of recovery of 20 to 25 percent at today's technology, it is estimated that 270 to 320 billion barrels of this resource could be recovered and used as a boiler fuel. In addition, Venezuela has 146 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, which rank seventh-largest in the world. The U.S. is sixth in the world with 165 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. Mr. President, Venezuela is prepared to share its abundant oil resources with the rest of the world, and is implementing plans to almost double oil production from 3.7 to 6.5 million barrels per day by the year 2007. In order to do so, PDVSA plans to invest $65 billion in the next 10 years, $37 billion of which will come from its own revenue stream. $18 billion will come from PDVSA's foreign partners, and $10 billion will come from strategic alliances with foreign firms. Of the $65 billion total investment, PDVSA plans to invest $1.5 billion in the U.S. To expand production and improve operating efficiency, PDVSA has undertaken several rounds of ``oil openings,'' a process in which participation of companies operating around the world is solicited in an open bidding process. In the first round of bidding, ten light- and medium-crude fields were opened to foreign investment. Eight of the ten successful bidders were companies operating in the U.S.--Amoco, BP America, Benton Oil and Gas Company, Dupont Conoco, Enron Oil and Gas Company, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, Maxus Energy Corp., and Mobil Corp. PDVSA is involved in five joint ventures with U.S. companies to open Venezuela's extensive heavy oil reserves in the eastern Orinoco Belt and the western Boscan field. Those companies are Arco, Chevron, Conoco, Mobil and Total, N.A. In addition, PDVSA has issued more than a dozen contracts to companies to develop marginal and inactive oil fields that contain approximately 2 billion barrels of light and medium crude oil. Those companies include Amoco, Benton Oil and Gas Co., Chevron, Mosbacher Energy Company, Occidental, Pennzoil, Total, and Shell. Similar opportunities for investment in Venezuelan joint ventures lie ahead for U.S. companies. Mr. President, the harsh reality is that the U.S. will import greater and greater amounts of oil to meet its domestic energy needs in the coming decades, notwithstanding our efforts to maintain a viable domestic oil and gas industry. Presently, the U.S. is importing about 54 percent of its daily crude oil needs, and that level is expected to exceed 60 percent in a few short years. I believe U.S. government policies should favor reasonable oil and gas exploration and production efforts, fair royalty and tax treatment, and balanced environmental and conservation measures so that we can produce our own energy for our growing economy. Unfortunately, the Administration does not have those goals in mind, and does not see the importance of setting a national energy policy. In my State of Alaska, we have potentially large untapped crude oil reserves in the ANWR and on the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf. The Administration does not support environmentally responsible exploration of ANWR, however. Elsewhere in the lower 48 states, the Administration is frustrating exploration and production activities on federal lands by removing promising acreage from inventory of lands accessible for exploration purposes, and is making more difficult the job of producing energy by imposing onerous economic and regulatory requirements. Now, at a time when world oil prices are plummeting to record lows, it will be more and more difficult for American companies to produce oil at a reasonable price. While this is good news to the people of the U.S. 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, or to the larger energy producing companies. It stands to reason, Mr. President, that the U.S. economy and industrial sector will benefit during times of low energy prices. The bad news is that there is a down-side to lower energy prices, and one that few people fully appreciate. When world oil prices fall below a certain level, as they have recently, the U.S. stands to lose production from stripper wells and marginally economic wells, along with 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. While we can take comfort in knowing that Venezuela is prepared to meet our oil import needs now and in the future, Mr. President, our trip served to bring more clearly into focus the U.S. energy situation and the need for policies and programs to preserve domestic production so that the current price situation does not cause permanent loss of jobs and domestic oil and gas reserves. I intend to take important steps in the coming weeks to address the U.S. energy situation, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, am I correct that we are in morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for not more than 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first let me say in response to the recent statement by my good friend from Massachusetts about the degree of compassion associated with the Republican Members of the Senate that I disagree. I am sure that the Budget Committee and its able chairman, Senator Domenici, will respond in detail to the generalizations that have been expressed by my friend from Massachusetts. But let me just make one specific point. We have heard that the Republicans and the Republican budget do not invest enough in education; that they have not adopted the two key plans of the President's budget: $5 billion for school construction, and $7.3 billion to hire 100,000 more teachers over the next 5 years. The facts show that, indeed, the Republicans have kept their word. We have increased education spending by exactly what the President and the Congress agreed to do last year in the balanced budget agreement. We have provided $8 billion in additional discretionary education funding over the 5-year period, and in total we will provide close to $20 billion in kindergarten-through-grade 12 education funding this year. That is a 98-percent increase over the last 10 years. I would not take criticism relative to the Republicans' commitment to education. It supports exactly what the President has asked for. Again, that is $20 billion for kindergarten through grade 12 education funding and a 98-percent increase over the last 10 years. I am sure others on the Budget Committee will address other generalizations in more detail.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the occupant a good day. Mr. Johnson address the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my purpose in seeking time this morning is to communicate to the other Members of a grievous trespass occurring on public lands, a trespass that would certainly not be allowed in the State of Minnesota or in my State of Alaska. Today we have a significant standoff in the southern California desert between the Federal Government and trespassers at the Ward Valley site. For several years, the State of California and Governor Wilson have sought to purchase from the Federal Government the 1,000- acre Ward Valley site in southern California out in the Mojave Desert, a pretty inhospitable area. Large transmission lines go over the property. You can hear the buzz of the electrical energy going through those wires. And it has been determined to be a suitable site for low- level waste. California wants to build a low-level waste disposal facility on this Federal property which is located in a federally designated utility corridor, as I have indicated, with the power lines going over it. It is close to an interstate highway. The State of California has proposed to purchase this land from the Department of the Interior. It is appropriate to reflect that this waste has to go somewhere. Nobody wants waste, either high- or low-level, but we have to acknowledge the merits of the technologies that produce the waste. They improve our health. Because most of this waste is biotech, used for the treatment of cancer and other medical uses, x ray and radiological type of medical treatments that we all receive. It lengthens our lives and eases our misery. Currently this waste is located at just the State of California, over 800 temporary sites throughout the State. Many of these locations are in urban areas, near universities, communities, clinics. It has been determined that Ward Valley would be an appropriate disposal facility. The State of California, as well as other States, has been given the authority under certain terms and conditions to basically provide long-term waste storage, assuming that the Federal and State criteria are met. In this case Ward Valley has met the State of California criteria, yet the Department of the Interior refuses to support the selection of this site and move with the land purchase. We have had is a decade of environmental tests. I guess we are stuck with decades and a confirmation by the National Academy of Science--the last word, if you will, in science--that this property is suitable for low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. It is either this property or leave it where it is, 800 sites throughout California, on the way to schools, churches, shopping centers; facilities that have never been designed to hold this waste. However, the Interior Department still is not satisfied with the tests that have taken place. It is not satisfied with the report from the National Academy of Sciences. In February of 1996, the Interior Department announced it had planned on conducting additional environmental tests at Ward Valley. Let's do some more tests. These tests were finally scheduled to begin last month, 2 years after the original announcement. That is how long it takes, and I am not sure it is over yet. The tests still have not begun. They have not begun now because protesters at the site have refused to move off the site. These are protesters, trespassers on Federal land. Last month, the California State Office of the Bureau of Land Management ordered the protesters at the Ward Valley site to relocate by February 18 so the tests could begin. The protesters have been occupying the property for the last couple of years under a land use permit, issued by the BLM. I did not know this, but you can evidently get a land use permit to initiate civil disobedience. These protesters are already in violation of their original land use permit. They have refused to comply with the February 18 deadline. Incredibly, the protesters, who are clearly trespassing on Federal land, are still there today. February 18 has come and gone. Federal rangers made no effort to evict them from the property. In fact, on February 25 all Federal rangers were withdrawn from the property. The question is, why? Even more incredibly, over the past 6 weeks the trespassers have now taken control of the property. They now, the trespassers, mind you, refuse to allow the BLM employees access to the property to initiate the testing. The protesters have also refused to allow the U.S. Ecology, the State's licensee who is going to do the test, access to the property for environmental monitoring and refueling of its generators. When the BLM and the U.S. Ecology employees have been allowed to enter the property, they have been frisked by the protesters and all vehicles have been searched by the protesters' so-called security forces. Isn't that a turnaround? This is Federal property. The trespassers have taken it over and are dictating the terms and conditions by which the Federal agencies can have access to their own property. Where in the world is the Secretary of the Interior? Where in the world is the Attorney General? As chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am extremely disappointed with how the Department of the Interior has handled this entire matter. The Department of the Interior is allowing persons who are in clear violation of the law to not only occupy Federal land but also control the Federal land by determining whether or not tests can occur. Even more incredible, the Department is allowing the trespassers, who are now outfitted with knives, cans of Mace and handcuffs, to dictate the terms and conditions under which the Federal employees have access to the Federal lands. What message does this send to our Federal employees? What message does it send to our citizens? The Department of the Interior says they are in negotiation with the trespassers, who include representatives of environmental groups and Indian tribes. However, there should be no room for negotiation with trespassers. They are just holding the Federal government hostage. The trespassers say that they will not leave Ward Valley until the Department of the Interior promises that no testing will occur and the property will not be transferred to the State of California. So they are saying, in effect, it cannot be used. The Federal government has spent tens of millions of dollars, to date, on Ward Valley. The State of California has spent tens of millions of dollars. California's licensee alone has spent about $80 million in preparation for their license to build the facility. Yet, protesters are dictating the terms and solutions. With such an absolute position, well, there doesn't appear to be much room for negotiation. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, to inform me and advise me how he intends to deal with the trespassers on the Department of the Interior land and how he intends to deal with them on other Federal lands he controls. I also want to know what the Department intends to do if the standoff continues. Does the Department intend to allow our public land to be controlled by trespassers? This is an unacceptable and dangerous precedent. I have also written the Attorney General, Janet Reno. As this Nation's chief law enforcement officer, I want to know how she plans to handle the trespassing at Ward Valley. Does she condone this illegal activity? Is she prepared to enforce Federal law? Will she fully and faithfully prosecute those trespassers? I hope this standoff can be peacefully resolved, but it needs to be resolved now--now, rather than later. It has already been 6 weeks in the making. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent correspondence I have directed to both the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, and Janet Reno, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on March 24, 1998, I joined Senators Sarbanes and Murray in a bipartisan effort to correct a policy that is a disservice to our veterans. The issue we are addressing is the failure of the military to provide appropriate representation at a veteran's funeral in a military cemetery. To remedy this failure, we have introduced the ``Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998'' that corrects this failure. Currently, the Department of Defense allows commanders in the field to decide what level of military representation there will be at the funeral of a veteran. It is becoming a common practice for the military to send a single representative to provide the mourning family with the American flag along with an audio tape recording of Taps. Mr. President, I find it astounding that families mourning the loss of a veteran would be expected to bring a boom box to a funeral in order that a tape of Taps can be played. Is this the way the military thinks it is appropriate to honor the memory of a serviceman or woman who has served their country honorably? For the sacrifice that veterans have made, DoD can only respond with a single person and a tape recording. This is a slap in the face of the honor of all who have served. Mr. President, because I believe veterans deserve more, I have worked with my colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Sarbanes to set a minimum level of effort by the military for veteran funerals. As a former Chairman and member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I know that it is impossible to completely repay our debt to our veterans. However, I believe Congress can find ways to show our gratitude and respect. On Tuesday, we introduced legislation that requires at least a five person honor guard for veteran burials upon request. DoD, if it chooses, can send a larger contingent, but the five person honor guard will be minimum representation. And the legislation requires that one of the five representatives plays Taps--not a tape recording! This legislation will also allow National Guard and Reserves to perform this duty, thus increasing the resources available to DoD for this duty. Serving in the honor guard will not count as a period of drill or training. I believe this is necessary to preserve the readiness of the Guard and Reserves, who are playing a larger role in our downsized military. Mr. President, I know when I have seen funerals with a military honor guard, I walk away humbled. When we pay our respects for those who have served, it is the little things that make the difference. Five men or women participating in the service not only gives a final honor to the veteran but also recognizes the sacrifice the veteran and the family have made. I hope that my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the ``Veterans Burial Rights Act of 1998.'' A veteran should be remembered for their service and sacrifice. There is no better way to remind everyone of this, than with a military honor guard. It is the least that we can do to show our respects and gratitude for our veterans.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the amendment before the body that I have proposed addresses a genuine emergency. Indeed, it belongs on the supplemental appropriations bill, and, as a consequence of its emergency status, no offset is needed. The amendment allows the President to stop the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was ordered in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. Perhaps a little history is in order. Some of us in this body and this Nation remember that in 1973-1974 we had an energy crisis. The oil embargo from the Arab world resulted in a shortage. There were lines blocks long in front of gas stations, and the American public was indignant that their oil supply should be interrupted. They had not seen such a curtailment since gas rationing in the Second World War. But it was very real. I find it rather disquieting that many people today do not remember what I am talking about and the fact that this occurred. But there was great concern in this body in 1973 and 1974 as a consequence of that outcry from the public over the shortage of gasoline. So Congress wisely created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in Texas and Louisiana in salt caverns, and the idea was that we would never be held in a position where we could be, in effect, a hostage to our increased dependence on imported oil. The important thing to note is that at the time we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we were about 37 percent dependent on imported oil. The idea was to have a 90-day supply at all times. The oil could be lifted in case of national emergency. At one time, we had a 118-day supply. The irony associated with this amendment today is that we are now selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the purpose of generating a cash-flow sufficient to manage and run the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is estimated to cost $207 million in 1998. The irony is that, today we are 52 percent dependent on imported oil. So if there was any logic at all to the decision back in 1975 to create the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because we were 37 percent dependent, it is completely illogical that today we are selling it when we are 52 percent dependent on imported oil. This suggests the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, which is not necessarily uncommon around here. In the 1998 Interior appropriations bill, the order is for the sale of $207 million worth of oil from the SPR. I think this is where the bear goes through the buckwheat. We are selling this oil at $9 to $12 a barrel, and we paid $33 a barrel for it when we put it in. We would have to sell 23.1 million barrels of oil, that we paid an average of $33 a barrel for, for somewhere around $9, $10, $11, $12. It is poor-quality oil. That is how we are going to raise the $207 million to pay for the operation of the SPR. Again, the oil cost $33 a barrel. The American taxpayer is going to lose $550 million on this deal. This is an emergency because we are about to lose a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. Buying high and selling low certainly never made sense to me, but there is an old joke out there about the guy who is buying high and selling low and claims he is going to make it up in the volume. Maybe that is the logic here; I don't know. But if this sale from the SPR goes through, these sales will have cost the American taxpayer, over 3 past years, roughly $1 billion, because we have been selling the oil at a price that is substantially lower than what we paid for it. As we look at where we are on this issue, I think we have to recognize a couple of pertinent points. The Secretary of Energy indicated in an Associated Press article that this is the worst time to be selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He says that the Congress has given him no choice. This is unfortunate, because I have fought, and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have fought, to ensure that we discontinue selling oil out of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly at a price that is substantially lower than we paid for it. The Secretary says that Congress has given him no choice. Today, we have a choice. We can choose to pay over a half a billion dollars for the privilege of throwing away some of our energy security, or we can save the taxpayer half a billion dollars and have this valuable resource when we need it the most. Again, we are 52 percent dependent on imported oil. Some may argue we should require an offset to the amendment. But let me make it clear again, this amendment saves the American taxpayer money. The American taxpayer understands clearly, if you bought it at $33, you don't sell it at $9. Selling $33-a-barrel oil for $9 and calling it income is a budget gimmick, make no mistake about it, and the taxpayer does not understand those kinds of gimmicks. Further, we are not offsetting funds for Bosnia because of its supposed national security importance. The importance of the SPR is significant to our national security. It could not be more clear. The health of our economy and the ability to defend ourselves is significant. Furthermore, we should look back at a couple of significant events in the history of this matter. Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, my good friend on the committee, and I, cosponsored a successful amendment to stop the sale on the Interior Appropriations bill. It was dropped in conference. Why? Well, a lot of things are dropped in conference. Selling oil from the SPR is a budget gimmick that, again, costs the taxpayer real money. Stopping the sale will save the taxpayer over half a billion dollars and our Nation's energy insurance policy. This is an emergency, and it should be part of the emergency supplemental. Let me conclude by saying Webster defines an ``emergency'' as a sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action. This amendment certainly addresses such an issue, and I think the amendment certainly qualifies for the Emergency Supplemental. Again, the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill orders the sale of $207 million worth of oil from the SPR to operate the SPR. As a consequence, that would cost the American taxpayer roughly $500 million, because we are proposing to sell that oil at $9 to $12 a barrel, when we paid in excess of $33 a barrel for the oil. That is the issue, Mr. President. I hope the managers of the bill will consider this on the merits of what it would save the American taxpayer. If anybody can explain the extraordinary accounting mechanism that would justify this as a good deal for the American taxpayer, the Senator from Alaska would certainly like to hear it. I thank the Chair and urge the floor managers to consider the merits of this amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague and good friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, for his acknowledgment of the importance of this amendment, with my hopes that it will survive the conference. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was derelict in not thanking the senior Senator from West Virginia, my good friend, Senator Byrd, as well, who just came on the floor. I appreciate his understanding. I know we have a great deal in common with regard to energy issues in our States.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S.J. Res. 42, a resolution to disapprove the President's certification that Mexico is fully cooperating in the War on Drugs. Last year, the Administration convinced Congress not to vote on a similar resolution, arguing that voting on such a resolution would hinder cooperative efforts with Mexico. So here we are, one year later, and the situation in Mexico is the same, if not worse than it was last year. Just today, a front page New York Times story cites a Drug Enforcement Administration report that indicates that the Mexican military is helping drug traffickers. As one anonymous official observed, if the indications of wider military involvement with traffickers are borne out, ``it points to much of our work in Mexico being an exercise in futility.'' Mr. President, I have not seen this report so I can't say how accurate this story is, but it does raise the same concerns I had last year about the level of corruption in Mexico. Last year, I joined 38 of my colleagues in signing a letter initiated by Senators Coverdell and Feinstein, the sponsors of today's resolution, calling on the President not to certify that Mexico was cooperating fully in anti-narcotics efforts. That letter went through in detail 6 examples of where Mexico was unable or unwilling to deal with drug trafficking problems effectively. Those areas were: cartels; money laundering; law enforcement, cooperation with U.S. law enforcement; extraditions; and, corruption. Based on the information I have received, it does not appear that the situation is improved in any of these 6 areas: Mexican cartels continue to expand their ties, operations, and violence in the U.S.; anti-money- laundering legislation is on the books, but is not being enforced; concerns about the safety of DEA agents in Mexico remain unresolved; the much-touted cooperative Bilateral Task Forces are not operational; no Mexican nationals whatsoever have been extradited to the U.S. on drug-related charges; and corruption remains chronic at every level in the military, the police and the government. Therefore, I think the President made the wrong choice to simply say that Mexico was ``fully cooperating'' in efforts to combat international narcotics trafficking. Mr. President, I do not make this decision lightly. Mexico is an important neighbor and we share a 1600 mile border. I do not want to cut off our relations with Mexico over this issue, but I also think we make a mockery of our law by simply glossing over issues to make a certification. I believe we would be better off if the President would say that Mexico is not fully cooperating, but then exercise his authority to waive the restrictions on bilateral assistance on national security grounds, as he did with Colombia this year. Unfortunately, the President did not choose that path, and we in Congress are left with only one option--a straight up or down vote on decertifying Mexico. Although it is not a perfect solution, I will vote for telling the truth to Mexico. She can and must do better to combat the nagging problem plaguing our borders.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For clarification, to offer those amendments we can offer them at any time? Tomorrow morning? Whenever?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if we could find out if our amendments are on the list?

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. I think this is truly a historic decision in the sense that it shatters once and for all the artificial division of Europe that occurred at the end of the Second World War. Now, if history is any guide, it ensures and enhances the prospects for peace, prosperity, and harmony throughout Europe. 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. 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. Mr. President, 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 product 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 to have 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 5, 6 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I listened to my friend and colleague from the State of Nevada speak relative to the movement of high-level nuclear waste across various States. I think it is important to reflect on two points. I won't extend the debate at this time, because we will have an opportunity to do that, hopefully, in the near future. I point out that what we are advocating in the pending legislation is to authorize the storage of waste in a temporary repository in the general area of Yucca Mountain, where we have already expended more than $6 billion to develop a permanent waste repository. The idea of moving it there and putting it in temporary storage is simply to alleviate the situation in some of our nuclear power plants where they have reached the maximum storage capability allowed by their respective States and State regulations. My purpose in bringing this up is simply to note that while we are attempting to move this material and get the authorization out to the Nevada test site, where we have had tests for some 50 years, high-level radioactive nuclear tests, the issue of moving is, I think, relative to the reality associated with when Yucca Mountain receives certification and licensing, then the waste will have to be moved and simply go there. By moving it now, we simply allow our nuclear industry to continue to provide the 22 percent of the power generation until we get the permanent repository licensed and certified. The point is, we will move it sooner or later. So the question of moving it safely, while a legitimate point, eludes the reality that we have to move it. And whether we move it now or later is simply a matter of recognizing that the Government entered into a contract with the nuclear industry some 14, 15 years ago. The Government has collected about $14 million from ratepayers over that period of time, and the Government agreed to take the waste this year. So the Government is in violation of its contractual commitment. This is another full employment act for the lawyers here in Washington as they represent the various power companies that are suing the Federal Government for nonperformance of a contract to take the waste. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that while efforts are being made to put the fear of God into the various States and communities where the waste would move, the reality is that at some point in time we will have to address the issue. We have been moving military waste and high-level waste throughout the country and throughout the world for many decades and can certainly do it safely. I urge my colleagues to evaluate the merits of reality and recognize the contribution of the nuclear power industry. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a workshop on the status of Puerto Rico has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The workshop will take place on Thursday, April 2, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, Senior Counsel, (202/224-2564) or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202/224-0765).