Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens, legislation that will provide Alaska Native Veterans of the Vietnam era, from 1964-75, a chance to apply for Native Allotments. Because these brave men and women were outside of the country, serving America with distinction, they missed the opportunity to apply for these allotments. Our bill will create a year-long open season for these veterans and their heirs to apply for and select allotment parcels. The Alaska Native Allotment Act, in effect from 1906-71, allowed Alaska Natives who had continuous use of either vacant land or certain mineral lands set aside for federal use, the opportunity to apply for, select, and ultimately be granted conveyance of these lands. Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans did not receive the outreach and assistance in applying that other Alaska Natives received during the time the act was in effect, and were effectively denied the opportunity to apply for allotments when they were serving their country. Our legislation calls for the same standards that were in effect under the Allotment Act be used to evaluate these new applications. It calls for DOI to develop rules to implement this bill, in consultation with Alaska Native groups. Congressman Young has introduced a companion measure in the House, and our respective committees plan to hold hearings this winter on these pieces of legislation. Mr. President, I am pleased that my 1995 authorizing legislation, Public Law 104-2, that required the Department of the Interior to produce a report on the possible impacts of allotment legislation, has led to this day. The time has come to give these veterans the opportunity to join their fellow Alaska Natives in reaping the benefits of the historic Alaska Native Allotment Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens, legislation that will provide Alaska Native Veterans of the Vietnam era, from 1964-75, a chance to apply for Native Allotments. Because these brave men and women were outside of the country, serving America with distinction, they missed the opportunity to apply for these allotments. Our bill will create a year-long open season for these veterans and their heirs to apply for and select allotment parcels. The Alaska Native Allotment Act, in effect from 1906-71, allowed Alaska Natives who had continuous use of either vacant land or certain mineral lands set aside for federal use, the opportunity to apply for, select, and ultimately be granted conveyance of these lands. Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans did not receive the outreach and assistance in applying that other Alaska Natives received during the time the act was in effect, and were effectively denied the opportunity to apply for allotments when they were serving their country. Our legislation calls for the same standards that were in effect under the Allotment Act be used to evaluate these new applications. It calls for DOI to develop rules to implement this bill, in consultation with Alaska Native groups. Congressman Young has introduced a companion measure in the House, and our respective committees plan to hold hearings this winter on these pieces of legislation. Mr. President, I am pleased that my 1995 authorizing legislation, Public Law 104-2, that required the Department of the Interior to produce a report on the possible impacts of allotment legislation, has led to this day. The time has come to give these veterans the opportunity to join their fellow Alaska Natives in reaping the benefits of the historic Alaska Native Allotment Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the debate that we begin today on campaign finance reform must be prefaced with one question: To what extent, if any, should the Federal Government regulate political speech in our country? The President has endorsed Senator McCain and Senator Feingold's campaign finance reform legislation. However, I cannot. Campaign finance reform debate is not just about politicians and their campaigns. At the core of this issue is the First Amendment. The government must tread lightly in attempts to place limitations on speech. The government can no more dictate how many words a newspaper can print than it can limit a political candidate's ability to communicate with his or her constituents The McCain-Feingold legislation bristles with over a dozen different restrictions on speech--provisions that, I believe, flagrantly violate the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I cannot overemphasize this point. George F. Will, in a Washington Post editorial stated of the McCain Feingold bill: Nothing in American history--not the left's recent campus speech codes,' not the right's depredations during the 1950s McCarthysim or the 1920s `red scare,' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign `reforms' advancing under the protective coloration of political hygiene.' Mr. President, I would point out that the 1996 presidential system of campaign finance clearly reveals that two significant problems exists with our current election process: 1. Too much money is spent on campaigns; and 2. Current laws are not enforced. Unfortunately, McCain-Feingold would do little to end the vicious cycle of fundraising. In fact, if anything, it would only prolong the campaign calendar. Since McCain-Feingold contains restrictions on express advocacy'' financed by soft money only 60 days before an election--that will mean that money will simply be raised earlier in the calendar year, and the election season will seem virtually unending. And what is ``express advocacy?'' If this proposal ever becomes law, we can change the name of the Federal Election Commission to the Federal Campaign Speech Police. Every single issue advertisement will be taped, reviewed, analyzed and litigated over. The Speech police will set up their offices in all 50 states to ensure the integrity of political advertising. Is that what we in this chamber really want? I don't think so. But that is what will inevitably happen if we adopt McCain-Feingold. Mr. President, the political tactics and schemes of the 1996 Presidential election campaign reveal the abuses involved in our current system. Bottom-line, our current election laws are not being enforced. It's interesting to note that where the lack of law enforcement has become the most apparent is in the one area that receives guaranteed federal funding via a tax subsidy--federal presidential elections. As grand jury indictments amass with regard to Democratic fundraising violations in the 1996 Presidential election, we learn more and more about President Clinton's use of the perquisites of the Presidency as a fund-raising tool. It's important to recall some of those abuses as we begin our debate on campaign reform. And please keep in mind my point here is existing campaign laws are not being enforced. First, the Lincoln bedroom. During the five years that President Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938 guests have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom, and generated at least $6 million to the Democrat National Committee. Presidential historian, Richard Norton Smith, stated that there has ``never been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of the White House for fundraising purposes. . .it's the selling of the White House.'' Presidential Coffees. President Clinton hosted 103 ``presidential coffees.'' Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms-trading company, donated $27 million to the Democrat National Committee. President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, recently turned over a large number of documents that show figures for both expected and actual donations from nearly every White House coffee. Mr. Ickes gave the President weekly memorandums which included projected monies he expected each ``Clinton coffee'' would raise. He projected each would raise no less than $400,000. Here's a comparison: President Bush hosted one ``presidential coffee.'' No money was raised. The cost was $6.24. Foreign Contributions. Investigations by both the Senate Government Affairs Committee and the Department of Justice into campaign abuses in the 1996 presidential campaign have revealed that the Democrats recklessly accepted illegal foreign donations in exchange for presidential access and other favors. A few examples: First John Huang. John Huang, raised millions of dollars in illegal foreign contributions for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which the DNC has already returned. Huang, despite being wholly unqualified according to his immediate boss, received an appointment to the Department of Commerce, where he improperly accessed numerous classified documents on China. Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often meeting with senior officials on US trade policy. Senator Specter stated that the activities of Mr. Huang at the Commerce Department had ``all the earmarks of. . .espionage.'' Second Charlie Trie. Longtime friend of Bill Clinton, raised and contributed at least $640,000 contributions to Clinton, Gore and the DNC. Shortly thereafter, Clinton signed an executive order to increase the size of the US Commission on Pacific Trade and appointed Trie to the Commission. On January 29th of this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trie on charges that he funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to buy access to top Democratic Party and Clinton Administration officials. money laundering Vice President Gore was present at an event at a Buddhist Temple where $80,000 in contributions to the DNC were laundered through penniless nuns and monks. Vice President Gore offered differing characterizations of the Buddhist Temple event. First, the vice-president described the event as a ``community outreach.'' He later characterized it as a ``donor- maintenance'' event where ``no money was offered or collected or raised at the event.'' However, last week, the Department of Justice determined otherwise. On February 18, veteran Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia was charged in a six-count indictment by the Justice Department for her part in raising the illegal contributions for the Democrat National Committee at the Buddhist Temple event. These abhorrent abuses in our current campaign laws must end. Healthy reform can begin with this debate. So my point is that current laws are not being enforced. Mr. President, there is clearly one area where reform is certainly needed. During the 1996 election, the AFL-CIO spent $35 million to defeat Republican candidates. Where did the AFL-CIO get the resources to fund this campaign? From the dues of both union and nonunion members. Were these hard-working Americans asked by their unions how those dues should be spent? We all know the answer--No. The leaders of the AFL-CIO, headquartered here in Washington, just sat down and decided they would use their members' dues to target Republicans, whether those due-paying workers liked it or not. I believe this practice should end. I applaud Senator Lott for offering a sensible alternative. The Lott Substitute requires full public disclosure. Just as someone cannot donate money to a campaign in someone else's name under existing law, the Lott Amendment would close the loophole for labor unions by requiring that members approve of ads that their dues are spent on. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer amendments to this bill that will address several issues related to campaign finance reform. One of those amendments will address what I believe is a fundamental inequity in the rules governing Senatorial activities. The amendment I will offer will conform the rules that we have for transportation and lodging in connection with a charitable event with the rules that exist for transportation and lodging in connection with a political event, such as a political fundraiser something we all know. Under rules we adopted in 1995, private entities cannot reimburse Members for the cost of transportation and lodging to a charitable event. But, members are still permitted to be privately reimbursed if they travel to a fundraising event for another member. In other words, lobbyists and PAC Committee contributions can be used to reimburse members for taking a night off and flying to Hollywood for political fundraisers. Under the Senate Ethics Committee's Interpretative Ruling No. 193, a Senator may accept travel expenses from an official of a district's political party organization in return for his appearance at a rally sponsored by the organization. Now, Mr. President, every Member of this body has at one time or another made a campaign appearance for his or her party or for a candidate of his party. Often, that means flying to another Member's home state, attending a party function; maybe making a speech and sharing a meal; maybe attending an entertainment or sports function. And the entire cost is almost always covered by lobbyists and other political contributors. So we have a situation where a Senator can travel all over the country attending political fundraisers and have lodging and transportation reimbursed, but a Senator can't attend charity events-- events that raise money for very worthwhile causes such as breast cancer detection--and have those costs reimbursed. Does that make sense? Why is it all right for a political action committee to host a $500 a plate political fundraiser, or give a campaign check for $5,000 to an elected official, but there can be no solicitation of corporations and other individuals to participate in a charitable event that only benefits a small community or state? I believe this whole notion of preventing Senators and corporations from sharing in raising money for a worthy cause outside the Beltway, but allowing $5,000 and $10,000 political gifts smacks of sheer hypocrisy. Since we adopted this change in our rules, it has become far more difficult for Senators to participate in charitable events. A recent article in Roll Call pointed out that charitable golf and ski events have dried up as a result of our rule change. But as Roll Call notes: ``But Members and their staff can still flock to sports tournaments or wine and dine with lobbyists--as long as it's part of a fundraiser.'' Mr. President, the amendment I intend to offer will end this hypocrisy. My amendment simply provides that Senators would be permitted to be privately reimbursed for the costs of lodging and transportation in connection with charitable fund-raising events in the same manner they can be reimbursed for political travel. This is a very simple amendment. It merely conforms the charitable travel rules with the political travel rules. Mr. President, I believe one of the most important responsibilities of a public official is to promote worthwhile charitable causes. Not everything that can be done for the public good derives from government. Private charities play a vital role in servicing many of the needs of our citizens. In my own case, for the past 4 years, my wife Nancy and I have been the honorary chairs of a fishing tournament in Alaska which has raised $830,000 for a mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center and a mobile detection van. And as a result, the center has been was able to provide free breast cancer examinations and mammograms for 25,000 women who from 81 villages in Alaska. The units we've been able to finance have been vital in helping preserve the health of Alaska's women, especially the women in the small villages. The State's cancer mortality is the third highest in the nation--one in eight Alaska women will develop breast cancer. Breast cancer screening can reduce these amounts by 30 percent. I believe that without the money raised from these two fundraisers, the health of Alaska's women would be severely marginalized. I am proud of the work that my wife Nancy has done to get these units operating. If we change the rules on charitable events, I am convinced that neither of these units would have become a reality. What we have here is a situation that discriminates against distant States. Mr. President, even though Senators are permitted to attend charitable events, the rules relating to transportation and lodging clearly discriminate against charitable events in distant States. Large national charitable organizations have the clout and resources to hold events in Washington, D.C. where Members can easily attend. But if you are a small organization, like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center or you are not going to have the resources or the capability to have your event held in the Nation's Capital. And if Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging reimbursement, events like mine and events sponsored by other Senators in their home states are just going to disappear because it costs too much to get to Alaska and other small States. Mr. President, I think we have a very clear choice here. Do we want to establish the same lodging and transportation rules for charitable fund raisers as we have for political fundraising? Or do we want to make it harder to raise money for worthy charities, while at the same time continuing the unlimited reimbursement for political fundraising. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment when it is offered. And I want to assure my colleagues that should my amendment fail, I will offer an amendment to conform the transportation and lodging rules with the charitable rules so that Members will have to pay out of their own pockets to participate in fund raisers for other political candidates. Mr. President, I am hopeful that sensible campaign reform will come forth during this debate--reform that: does not violate free speech rights; provides greater enforcement for current laws; and ends loopholes that circumvent the intent of campaign laws. Any reform taken by this Body must not infringe upon individual liberties. Reform should limit the elected official --not the electorate. The American public deserves no less. I defer to my good friend from Iowa.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the President a good morning. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 76 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that several hearings have been scheduled before the Full energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the President's proposed FY 1999 budget. The Committee will hear testimony from the following: 1. The Forest Service on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, beginning at 9:30 A.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. 2. The Department of Energy on Wednesday, March 4, 1998, beginning at 10:00 A.M., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. 3. The Department of the Interior on Thursday, March 5, 1998, beginning at 9:30 A.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill should have been the easiest thing we did this Congress. The Senate passed legislation on this issue by unanimous consent twice last year. This bill contains nothing less than our Nation's energy security insurance policy. This bill authorizes two vital energy security measures: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency. Both of these authorities have expired. At this moment, sabers are rattling in the Gulf. Very soon, there may be more than sabers rattling. As I speak, more American troops are headed to the Middle East. We owe it to our soldiers, and the Nation's civilian consumers, to do everything we can to ensure that our energy insurance policy is in effect. The House bill before us, H.R. 2472, would provide a simple extension of these authorities through September of this year. However, this is not enough to ensure our Nation's energy security. We must change the antitrust exemption in EPCA to comply with current IEA policy. The IEA changed its emergency response policy at our request, switching from command-and-control measures to more market-oriented coordinated stockdraw procedures. However, our laws haven't kept up. Right now, our U.S. oil companies don't have any assurance that their attempts to cooperate with the IEA and our government in a crises won't be a violation of antitrust laws. The IEA's efforts to respond to a crisis will be critically impaired if it can't coordinate with U.S. oil companies. Our oil companies want to cooperate with our government and the IEA and strongly support this amendment. We also need to amend H.R. 2472 to extend the authorization beyond September. For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this Act on a year-to-year basis. Every year, we face a potential crises when these authorities go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. The provisions of this bill are not controversial. However, there are those who see any important bill as leverage. This year, we are on the edge of a real crises. We have ongoing military action in the Gulf, and no clear authority to respond to oil supply shortages. Playing political games with this bill has always been irresponsible; now it is downright dangerous. In the future, the only way to avoid the annual crisis is to renew EPCA for more than one year. I am disappointed that we can't do that now. But for now, we must avert the immediate crisis. I have tried to address concerns about the future of the SPR. Like many of you, I am dismayed by the recent use of the SPR as a ``piggy bank''. In 1995, DOE proposed the sale of oil to pay for repairs and upkeep, opening the floodgates to continued sales of oil for budget- balancing purposes. So far, we've lost the American taxpayer over half a billion dollars. Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that ``he would make it up on volume.'' I am pleased that President's budget does not propose oil sales. I hope we have broken the habit of selling SPR oil forever. We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer dollars in the SPR. We proved during the Persian Gulf War that the stabilizing effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those tax dollars away. So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are fully authorized and available. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The least we can do is stop holding this measure hostage to political ambition. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment and immediate passage of H.R. 2472. I also urge our colleagues in the other body to adopt this measure before we go home for recess during this dangerous and uncertain time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution addressing the international sanctions regime that has been in place against Iraq since the end of the Persian Gulf war. As we all know, there has been a great deal of deliberation in this Chamber relative to potential action that might be initiated by our Government against Iraq. And there is a feeling of, I think, growing concern as to just what type action we might take and what it will accomplish. But, Mr. President, I think I bring a different approach to this dilemma. As we acknowledge the risk of the approach to this dilemma. As we acknowledge the risk of the approaching confrontation with Iraq that has been brought about by Saddam Hussein's continuing unwillingness to allow the U.N. inspectors the right to inspect the facilities in Iraq, what we also know is that Saddam Hussein is very likely continuing to manufacture and develop weapons of mass destruction, probably of a biological nature. I was in Iraq in the early 1980s with a number of Senators and had an opportunity to visit with Saddam Hussein before the Persian Gulf war. It was clear from that meeting that we had a very unusual personality, one who is dangerous and clearly unpredictable. As a consequence, we find ourselves in the position that until the U.N. inspectors are allowed unfettered access to the facilities in Iraq, the world will continue to be held hostage to the destructive and threatening tendencies of Saddam Hussein. With the world's economy so heavily dependent on the free flow of oil from the Mideast, so long as these weapons of mass destruction exist, the economic stability of every nation in the world is somewhat at risk. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the Persian Gulf war was a war to ensure that Saddam did not take over the oil fields of Kuwait. That was Saddam's objective. It was a war about oil and the necessity of keeping oil flowing to the free markets of the world. So, Mr. President, one question that seems to be lost in the debate is, how--how--has Saddam been able to obtain the technology and the resources to construct facilities capable of producing poison gas and biological weapons? The U.N. economic embargo has been in place for 7 years, but somehow--somehow--he appears to have been able to maintain a cash flow to purchase the necessary technology for building these laboratories of death. Just this morning, the Washington Post is reporting that U.N. inspectors have uncovered evidence that in 1995 the Russian Government may have entered into a multimillion dollar deal to sell Iraq specialized fermentation equipment that could be used to develop biological weapons. If this story turns out to be true, Russia's credibility in its alleged efforts to broker a diplomatic solution to the current crisis could be seriously called into question. More importantly, the question remains, how could Iraq have financed this deal? Well, surely the Russians were not going to sell such equipment in exchange for worthless Iraqi dinars. The deal had to be financed with dollars, had to be financed with hard currency. But how could Iraq amass millions in hard currency in the face of 7 years of U.N. sanctions? Well, Mr. President, there is only one answer. It is an obvious one. The only mechanism that Iraq has to enable it to gain hard currency is to export its oil. There is virtually nothing else, besides dates and some agriculture products, that Iraq has to export. Prior to the U.N. sanctions in 1990, Iraq had exports of $10.4 billion. Of that amount, more than 95 percent--or almost $10 billion-- was derived from oil exports. Clearly, Iraq's capacity to purchase equipment in the world market to develop weapons of mass destruction is directly linked to its ability to sell oil, and only oil. Ever since the gulf war ended, Iraq has been shipping oil into Jordan. Initially, Jordan received about 60,000 barrels of Iraqi oil a day. That figure has recently climbed to over 80,000 barrels a day, and in an agreement reached in December, the oil trade between Iraq and Jordan is scheduled to climb to 96,000 barrels a day. Although the Jordanians claim that the oil is traded for food and medicine, I personally find it hard to believe that, with millions of dollars worth of oil and products daily crossing the Iraq/Jordanian border, that some of that oil is not leaking into the world market or that hard currency and sophisticated machinery are not flowing back into Iraq. As a matter of fact, we know that oil is leaking out. Moreover, there is a great deal of evidence that Iraqi oil is being shipped across the border into Turkey. Dollars are surely being traded in exchange for the oil, and those dollars are likely to be used to finance Saddam's factories of death. In addition, Mr. President, the Multinational Interdiction Force, the MIF, that conducts maritime searches in the Persian Gulf reported factually last fall that exports of contraband Iraqi oil through the gulf and jumped sevenfold in the past year, from $10 million in diesel fuel sales in 1996 to $75 million in 1997. Much of that oil is believed to be transshipped through Iran and the United Arab Emirates and on to the world market. What does Saddam do with the revenues from those contraband sales? Well, he keeps his weapons factories running, keeps the Republican Guards well armed and fed. Mr. President, the United States has been concerned about the hardships, of course, that the economic sanctions have imposed on the people of Iraq. Our conflict is not with the Iraqi people; it is with the dictator who has run that country for some 19 years while depriving the people of the basic dignities of life and slaughtering some tens of thousands of minority citizens of Iraq. In 1995, the United States supported a fundamental weakening of the economic sanctions against Iraq. We supported a resolution permitting Iraq to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days under the oil-for- food program. I believe this was a weakening of the sanctions, and as a consequence was a mistake. What this has done is it has allowed Saddam to import food and medicine for the Iraqi people, which is true and certainly worthy, but it has also made it far easier for Saddam to divert some of the investment billions that he has hidden in accounts around the world. Prior to the oil-for-food program, Saddam had to use these investment profits to import food and medicine. The oil-for-food program frees up his investment profits to purchase equipment that can enhance all of his weapons capabilities, including his capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, I believe that the United States must make every effort now to ensure that Saddam cannot use his oil assets to obtain more hard currency for weapons programs. That is why I am introducing the resolution today. The resolution specifically urges the President to oppose any measure that weakens the international sanctions that permit Iraq to export oil. Recently, the Secretary-General of the United Nations recommended a significant easing of the Iraq sanctions and proposed that Iraq be permitted to sell more than twice as much oil as is currently permitted. Under this proposal, Iraq could conceivably sell $10.4 billion worth of oil in a single year. I was shocked to learn that this administration has indicated it would support this unwarranted expansion of Iraqi oil exports. Mr. President, if this U.N. proposal is adopted we might just as well end all sanctions on Iraq. Mr. President, $10.4 billion dollars was the amount of oil that Iraq exported before her invasion of Kuwait. Are we going to allow Iraq to to return to that level of exports and still retain a public stance in support of sanctions? That proposal makes a mockery of the sanctions. My concurrent resolution would also urge the President to develop measures that will tighten the oil embargo on Iraq and prevent the leakage into the would marketplace that we have seen over the past few years. It also urges the President to try and convince both the Governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to end their boycott of Jordan and begin making subsidized oil sales to Jordan to replace the Iraqi oil. The Jordanian border is one of the most porous in the Middle East and the Jordanians are forced to trade with Iraq primarily because the Saudis and Kuwaitis will not sell Jordan oil. That policy may have made sense immediately after the gulf war but today it must be reconsidered. If we can replace 96,000 barrels of oil that Jordan imports from Iraq, we will have made a significant step toward tightening the flow of dollars to Iraq. Mr. President, oil is the key to controlling the future military capacity and capabilities of Iraq, and we must move more vigilantly in our efforts to stop the leakage of Iraqi oil onto the would market if we are going to contain Saddam Hussein. Mr. President, let me again highlight the specifics of the resolution I just introduced. The resolution urges the administration to oppose any further weakening of economic sanctions against Iraq. The resolution urges the President to propose to the United Nations measures to significantly tighten the international embargo on the sale of oil from Iraq, including efforts to strengthen the multilateral interdiction force so that these illegal shipments can be stopped. And finally, the resolution urges the President to enter into negotiations with oil producing nations in the gulf to encourage these nations to make subsidized sales of oil to Jordan. Mr. President, recognizing the concern that we all share over developments in Iraq since the Persian Gulf war, we are faced with the necessity to take a hard look at our options. One option is the strategic bombing of the sites where we believe we have enough information to satisfy ourselves that a strike will have a meaningful impact. On the other hand, strategic bombing is likely to result in television shots of injured children and women that undoubtedly will be placed as human shields around strategic sites in Iraq. Another option is the use of ground forces to back up an air campaign to try and take out Saddam Hussein himself. Although the United States has significant resources, there is a recognition that a ground strike under current circumstances is unlikely given the increasing likelihood that American solders would lose their lives. Of course there is also the unanswered question of what we would do if Saddam survived such an attack? With either of these options we must address the reality that we do not have the multilateral coalition which included our Arab neighbors that we had when the Bush administration initiated Desert Storm. I think it is unfortunate that this administration has not maintained that coalition. So now we are pretty much alone. Great Britain, Canada and Australia are with us, and for that we are grateful, but from there on it gets pretty lonesome. Going it alone or going it with others, we still must talk about the end game. If Saddam Hussein survives, do we continue these same efforts in another few years? Are we going to give Saddam Hussein carte blanche in his ability to recover? Because he will recover by selling oil. That is what he has. Saddam Hussein has been able to generate roughly $1 billion per quarter from the sale of oil. There is information--and unfortunately I can't reveal some of the information because it is classified-- concerning the large amount of illegal oil that is flowing out of Iraq. And we are not able to stop this flow both because there are not enough multilateral intervention force (MIF) vessels in the area and because the rules of engagement under which the MIF forces operate don't allow them to stop such illegal movement. It is these illegal sales that are primarily fueling Iraq's economy. Mr. President, it simply makes sense to this Senator to recognize that oil is the lifeblood of Iraq. We need to shut off this lifeblood, maybe through a combination of increased enforcement of the embargo and jawboning some of our allies who are purchasing Iraq's oil. Perhaps we need to go further, and consider the merits of a maritime blockade of some sort. A blockade certainly is not an unreasonable alternative when you consider that we might initiate a military action against Saddam. Stop Saddam Hussein's oil and you shut down his ability to funnel resources into his war machine and the economy, and ultimately, I think his regime will collapse. As a Congress, we must address the issue of oil sales and we must do it in a prompt manner. I believe we must terminate these illegal sales of oil and we must be more vigilant in our oversight to ensure that the oil that is allowed to be sold under the sanctions and the dollars generated are really going for the benefit of the people and their social needs. That is the basis of my resolution. We must stop Saddam Hussein's ability to fund his war machine by cutting off his ability to supply the markets with Iraqi oil. That is an action that we should have taken some time ago. I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of my concurrent resolution. It is certainly appropriate to consider this action as we address the merits of any further military action that might be contemplated to stop Saddam from whatever his ultimate objective is. Cut off his oil and you are going to get his attention.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this bill to rename the Washington National Airport ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I am disappointed in the partisanship and delay tactics involved in stalling this legislation. Personally, I can think of no more fitting tribute to our 40th President then renaming the main airport facility for visitors to our nation's capital. During his eight years in as President, Ronald Reagan stood as a President of principle, integrity and optimism. He took America at a time of great disillusionment--gasoline shortages, hyper-Inflation and American diplomats held hostage abroad--and transformed our spirit through vision and leadership President Reagan showed America that leadership is not making promises, it's keeping promises. Ronald Reagan promised us a better future and he delivered. His message was simple: America can be better. His charm, wit and eloquence combined to communicate exactly the message that Americans needed to hear. And the nation reacted: Interest rates, inflation and unemployment fell faster under President Reagan than they did immediately before or after his Presidency; The nation experienced a 31% increase in real, inflation-adjusted gross national product; Exports increased 92.6% and manufacturing increased by 48%; Median family income grew every year during his Presidency for an increase of nearly $4000, after years of zero-growth in pre-Reagan years; In short, during the Reagan era, economic growth was stronger, job creation was faster, incomes were higher and productivity was healthier. President Reagan's accomplishments were achieved because he believed that a healthy economy should create opportunities and reward responsibility and work. In his first inaugural address he told us: It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. Some people believe that President Reagan's greatest legacy was the restoration of pride and optimism in America. He made us believe in ourselves and told us: ``There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.'' Americans reawakened to themselves as a great people with a great future. A notable Democrat, our former colleague, Majority Leader George Mitchell said, ``Like President Roosevelt, President Reagan possesses a legendary ability to inspire in Americans pride in their nation and faith in its future.'' And, perhaps, our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy said it best in a quote from the Boston Globe in 1989: ``He (Reagan) has restored the public's confidence in the presidency. For that alone, he deserves our appreciation.'' Not only did President Reagan restore our sense of purpose and meaning as a great country, but it was because of his vision and commitment to freedom and democracy that today there is no longer a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is today, no longer a Berlin Wall. These two seminal events of the 20th century are a direct result of the policies of President Reagan. Our children and grandchildren will know a level of security and peace well into the next century because President Reagan understood that peace can only be achieved and maintained when we provide the full measure of resources to our men and women in the military who stand guard to protect liberty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Mr. President, I ask my fellow colleagues to help demonstrate to President Reagan that appreciation. I ask my colleagues to help me in passing S. 1575.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nomination of Margaret H. Greene to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Enrichment Corporation will be considered at the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Allyson Kennett at (202) 224- 5070.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1069, a bill to designate the American Discovery Trail as a national discovery trail, a newly established national trail category, and S. 1403, a bill to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program, within the National Park Service. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send 2 copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Kelly Johnson at (202) 224- 3329. committee on energy and natural resources subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nomination of Donald J. Barry to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. The hearing will take place Wednesday, February 4, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Allyson Kennett at (202) 224- 5070.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will allow more sensible investment of the funds jointly received by the Federal Government and the State of Alaska from the civil settlement of damages arising from the Exxon Valdez oilspill. The settlement provided for Exxon to pay the Federal and State governments a total of $900 million over a 10-year period ending in 2001. Approximately $280 million remains to be paid under this agreement. Under the consent decree, the money is to be used for the recovery of damaged resources, and is to be managed as a joint Federal- State trust fund, administered by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which includes representatives of three Federal and three State agencies. Under the consent decree, moneys not immediately expended are to be placed with the U.S. District Court, Fifth Circuit Court Registry Investment System. Recently, the trustees requested that Congress adopt measures to allow them to invest this money outside the Court Registry Investment System, in which earnings are limited to approximately 5 percent, and are further reduced by fees of 10 percent of the earnings. In the opinion of the trustees, even extremely conservative investment outside the court registry could yield an additional $20 to $30 million by 2002, which could greatly enhance continuing restoration projects. This bill responds to the trustees' request. It will allow investment outside the court registry system. Let me emphasize, however, that this authority is entirely discretionary. The trustees may use it to reinvest settlement moneys or not, as they deem appropriate. Further, Mr. President, as an added protection, the district court must approve any reinvestment. The bill also directs that the earnings on the new investment be used for marine research and monitoring, and for community and fishing industry economic restoration. This provision is needed to ensure attention to these important areas. Here again, let me make sure I am absolutely clear. The bill I am offering does not prevent the purchase of land or easements. It simply directs that the earnings--and only the earnings--on new investment go to other, equally valid purposes. The trustee council has already spent a large part of the money received from Exxon on land acquisition and easements that limit the use of land it has not purchased outright. To date, the total is about 424,000 acres, and the trustees' intention is to purchase or restrict as much as 750,000 acres. The Federal Government already owns 248 million acres of Alaska--more than the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida, which is home to one- third of the entire population of the United States. Inside the spill area, there already are 20 different parcels of protected State and Federal lands, including the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Katmai National Park and Preserve, and the Chugach National Forest and Copper River Delta Critical Habitat Area. Many of the trustees' additional land acquisitions have been for the purpose of habitat protection, and are valuable to the trustees' restoration mission, but some have included the purchase of land that has already been logged or land on which public access is restricted despite being purchased by public funds. These purchases are not so easy to justify. The trustees have already published plans to spend almost all of the $900 million. By the time Exxon makes its last payment, the only money not already spent will be the 12 percent the council is tucking away in a restoration reserve. After inflation-proofing, interest on this account could provide about $2.1 million annually for long-term research and economic reconstruction projects--or could vanish in more land acquisitions. Finally, Mr. President, my bill also provides for the new investment authority to sunset in 2002 unless the trustees bring to Congress their thoughts on how an independent board might be created to administer the funds remaining after 2002. Personally, I'd like to see them recommend an independent, scientifically-oriented group to guide a long-term research program--a board that would call for proposals, arrange for scientific peer review, publish findings, and so forth, without the appearance of conflict that exists when the trustees are funding projects in which their own agencies are involved. This is a responsible approach to a difficult issue. It gives the trustees the additional investment authority they want without prohibiting them from spending principal or the earnings from investments that remain in the court registry system however they choose, including more land acquisition. It does, however, encourage them to look at some areas that are equally important to the task of once again making whole both the resources and the people affected by the oil spill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the Record. I hope that we can take it up early next year, and urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will allow more sensible investment of the funds jointly received by the Federal Government and the State of Alaska from the civil settlement of damages arising from the Exxon Valdez oilspill. The settlement provided for Exxon to pay the Federal and State governments a total of $900 million over a 10-year period ending in 2001. Approximately $280 million remains to be paid under this agreement. Under the consent decree, the money is to be used for the recovery of damaged resources, and is to be managed as a joint Federal- State trust fund, administered by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which includes representatives of three Federal and three State agencies. Under the consent decree, moneys not immediately expended are to be placed with the U.S. District Court, Fifth Circuit Court Registry Investment System. Recently, the trustees requested that Congress adopt measures to allow them to invest this money outside the Court Registry Investment System, in which earnings are limited to approximately 5 percent, and are further reduced by fees of 10 percent of the earnings. In the opinion of the trustees, even extremely conservative investment outside the court registry could yield an additional $20 to $30 million by 2002, which could greatly enhance continuing restoration projects. This bill responds to the trustees' request. It will allow investment outside the court registry system. Let me emphasize, however, that this authority is entirely discretionary. The trustees may use it to reinvest settlement moneys or not, as they deem appropriate. Further, Mr. President, as an added protection, the district court must approve any reinvestment. The bill also directs that the earnings on the new investment be used for marine research and monitoring, and for community and fishing industry economic restoration. This provision is needed to ensure attention to these important areas. Here again, let me make sure I am absolutely clear. The bill I am offering does not prevent the purchase of land or easements. It simply directs that the earnings--and only the earnings--on new investment go to other, equally valid purposes. The trustee council has already spent a large part of the money received from Exxon on land acquisition and easements that limit the use of land it has not purchased outright. To date, the total is about 424,000 acres, and the trustees' intention is to purchase or restrict as much as 750,000 acres. The Federal Government already owns 248 million acres of Alaska--more than the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida, which is home to one- third of the entire population of the United States. Inside the spill area, there already are 20 different parcels of protected State and Federal lands, including the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Katmai National Park and Preserve, and the Chugach National Forest and Copper River Delta Critical Habitat Area. Many of the trustees' additional land acquisitions have been for the purpose of habitat protection, and are valuable to the trustees' restoration mission, but some have included the purchase of land that has already been logged or land on which public access is restricted despite being purchased by public funds. These purchases are not so easy to justify. The trustees have already published plans to spend almost all of the $900 million. By the time Exxon makes its last payment, the only money not already spent will be the 12 percent the council is tucking away in a restoration reserve. After inflation-proofing, interest on this account could provide about $2.1 million annually for long-term research and economic reconstruction projects--or could vanish in more land acquisitions. Finally, Mr. President, my bill also provides for the new investment authority to sunset in 2002 unless the trustees bring to Congress their thoughts on how an independent board might be created to administer the funds remaining after 2002. Personally, I'd like to see them recommend an independent, scientifically-oriented group to guide a long-term research program--a board that would call for proposals, arrange for scientific peer review, publish findings, and so forth, without the appearance of conflict that exists when the trustees are funding projects in which their own agencies are involved. This is a responsible approach to a difficult issue. It gives the trustees the additional investment authority they want without prohibiting them from spending principal or the earnings from investments that remain in the court registry system however they choose, including more land acquisition. It does, however, encourage them to look at some areas that are equally important to the task of once again making whole both the resources and the people affected by the oil spill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the Record. I hope that we can take it up early next year, and urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until noon today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today we are on the verge of a revolution, the revolution of the transmission and distribution of electricity that is fast bringing about competition and deregulation to both the wholesale and retail level. Nowhere has the competitive model advanced further than in the State of California, where full deregulation will become a reality at the beginning of 1998. As many as 13 other States representing one-third of America have moved to competition in the electric industry. These are States with a significant population center. On Saturday, November 8, I introduced legislation referred to the Finance Committee, and I believe that it will enhance the States' ability to facilitate competition. The legislation arises from the Energy Committee's intensive review of the electric power industry and from the Joint Tax Committee's report that I requested. Over the past two Congresses, the committee has held 14 hearings and workshops on competitive change in the electric power industry, receiving testimony from more than 130 witnesses. One of the workshops specifically focused on how public power utilities will participate in the competitive marketplace. At these and in other forums, concerns have been expressed by representatives of public power about the potential jeopardy to their tax-exempt bonds if they participate in State competitive programs, or if they transmit power pursuant to FERC Order No. 888, or pursuant to a Federal Power Act section 211 transmission order. The Joint Tax Committee report, titled ``Federal Income Tax Issues Arising in Connection with Proposal to Restructure the Electric Power Industry,'' concluded that current tax laws effectively preclude public power utilities from participating in State open access restructuring plans without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of their bonds. Under the tax law, if the private use and interest restriction is violated, the utility's bonds become retroactively taxable. These concerns have been echoed by the FERC. For example, in FERC Order No. 888, the Commission stated the reciprocal transmission service by a municipal utility will not be required if providing such service would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the municipal utility. A similar concern exists if FERC issues a transmission order under section 211 of the Federal Power Act. Mr. President, if consumers and businesses are to maximize the full benefits of open competition in this industry it will be necessary for all electricity providers to interconnect their facilities into the entire electric grid. Unfortunately, this system efficiency is significantly impaired because of current tax law rules that effectively preclude public power entities--entities that financed their facilities with tax-exempt bonds--from participating in State open access restructuring plans and Federal transmission programs, without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds. No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in a State open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial markets and could undermine the financial stability of many municipalities. At the same time, public power should not obtain a competitive advantage in the open marketplace based on the Federal subsidy that flows from the ability to issue tax-exempt debt. Clearly we must provide for the transition to allow public providers to enter the private competitive marketplace without severe economic dislocation for municipalities and consumers. To remedy this dilemma, I have introduced legislation that will allow municipal utilities to interconnect and compete in the open marketplace without the draconian retroactive impacts currently required by the Tax Code. My bill is modeled after legislation that passed Congress last year which addressed electricity and gas generation and distribution by local furnishers. My bill removes the current law impediments to public power's capacity to participate in open access plans if such entities are willing to forego future use of federally subsidized tax-exempt financing. If public power entities make this election, and choose to compete on a level playing field with other electric power suppliers, tax exemption of the interest on their outstanding debt will be unaffected. They will be allowed an extended period during which outstanding bonds subject to the private use restrictions may be retired instead of retroactive taxation, which is the situation under existing law. The relief provided by my bill applies equally to outstanding bonds for electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. This would occur 6 months after the date of the bonds. Mr. President, without this legislation, public power will face an untenable choice: either stay out of the competitive marketplace or face the threat of retroactive taxability of their bonds. With this legislation, public power will be able to transition into the competitive marketplace. Let me provide a few examples of real-world choices that public power faces today. According to the Joint Tax Committee report, the mere act of transferring public power transmission lines to a privately operated independent service operator [ISO] could cause the public entity's tax exempt bonds to be retroactively taxable. Similarly, a transfer of transmission lines to a State operated ISO could, in many instances, trigger similar retroactive loss of tax-exemption depending on the amount or value of the power that is transmitted along those lines to private users. Moreover, participation in a State open access plan could, de facto, force public power entities to take defensive actions to maintain their competitive position which could inevitably lead to retroactive taxation of their bonds. Such actions would include offering a discounted rate to selective customers or selling excess capacity to a broker for resale under long-term contract at fixed rates or discounted rates. I have also heard from the California Governor and members of the California Legislature about many of these problems and the need for legislation to address them. I stand ready to work with them and representatives from other States to solve this problem as part of the legislation I have introduced. Mr. President, my bill allows public power to participate in the new competitive world and provides a safe harbor within which they can transition from tax-exempt financing to the level playing field of the competitive marketplace. In addition, the legislation recognizes that there are some transactions that public power entities engage in that should not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of their bonds under current law and seeks to protect those transactions by codifying the rules governing them. This list may need to be expanded and I look forward to the input of the affected utilities in this regard. In general, the exceptions contained in this bill closely parallel the policies enunciated in the legislative history of the amendments made in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. For example, the sale of electricity by one public power entity to another public power entity for resale by the second public power entity would be exempt so long as the second public power entity is not participating in a State open access plan. In addition, a public power entity would be allowed to enter into pooling and swap arrangements with other utilities if the public power entity is not a net seller of output, determined on an annual basis. Finally, the bill contains a de minimis exception for sale of excess output by a facility when such sales do not exceed $1 million. Mr. President, this legislation attempts to balance many competing interests. This will be a difficult transition and this legislation does not address all the difficult problems to be faced. This is why I emphasize today that this is a starting point for discussion over the months ahead. I look forward to receiving comments from all interested parties and will encourage Finance Committee Chairman Roth to hold hearings on this bill early next year. I am open to making revisions to this bill consistent with a public policy that emphasizes a level playing field and a soft transition to competition for our important public utilities. I look forward especially to working with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, who has been a leader in addressing tax issues relating to competition in this industry.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe we are in a period of morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to legislation pending before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which will facilitate and promote the successful commercial reuse of the Naval Air Facility being closed on Adak Island, Alaska. The underlying legislation will ratify an agreement between the Aleut Corporation in Alaska, the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Navy concerning the reuse of lands occupied by the Navy. When the Navy's lease expires in October of next year the lands and facilities are to be relinquished back to the Department of the Interior for inclusion into the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The legislation introduced yesterday will facilitate the transfer of that land to Aleut Corporation in exchange for other ANCSA land selections made by the Aleuts. The amendment I offer today will ensure that the private property on Adak Island is transferred to the Aleuts as well as the land and interests in that land. Without this amendment, Mr. President, the facilities constructed on Adak Island by the Navy cannot be placed into productive civilian use. If we are to help the Aleut Corporation establish a community on Adak the ability to use these facilities is critical. I look forward to moving the underlying legislation and this amendment through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee early next year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today we are on the verge of a revolution in the transmission and distribution of electricity that is fast bringing about competition and deregulation at both the wholesale and retail level. Nowhere has the competitive model advanced further than in California, where full deregulation will become a reality at the beginning of 1998. As many as 13 States representing one-third of Americans have moved to competition in the electricity industry. Today, I am introducing legislation that I believe will enhance all States' ability to facilitate competition. This legislation arises from the Energy Committee's intensive review of the electric power industry and from the Joint Tax Committee's report that I requested. Over the past two Congresses, the Committee has held 14 hearings and workshops on competitive change in the electric power industry, receiving testimony from more than 130 witnesses. One of the workshops specifically focused on how public power utilities will participate in the competitive marketplace. At these and in other forums, concerns have been expressed by representatives of public power about the potential jeopardy to their tax-exempt bonds if they participate in State competitive programs, or if they transmit power pursuant to FERC order No. 888, or pursuant to a Federal Power Act section 211 transmission order. The Joint Tax Committee report, titled Federal Income Tax Issues Arising in Connection with Proposal to Restructure the Electric Power Industry, concluded that current tax laws effectively preclude public power utilities from participating in State open access restructuring plans without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of their bonds. Under the tax law, if the private use and interest restriction is violated, the utility's bonds become retroactively taxable. These concerns have been echoed by the FERC. For example, in FERC Order No. 888, the Commission stated that reciprocal transmission service by a municipal utility will not be required if providing such service would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the municipal utility. A similar concern exists if FERC issues a transmission order under section 211 of the Federal Power Act. Mr. President, if consumers and businesses are to maximize the full benefits of open competition in this industry it will be necessary for all electricity providers to interconnect their facilities into the entire electric grid. Unfortunately, this system efficiency is significantly impaired because of current tax law rules that effectively preclude public power entities--entities that financed their facilities with tax-exempt bonds--from participating in State open access restructuring plans and Federal transmission programs, without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds. No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in a State open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial markets and could undermine the financial stability of many municipalities. At the same time, public power should not obtain a competitive advantage in the open marketplace based on the Federal subsidy that flows from the ability to issue tax-exempt debt. Clearly we must provide for the transition to allow public providers to enter the private competitive marketplace without severe economic dislocation for municipalities and consumers. Top remedy this dilemma, I am today introducing legislation that will allow municipal utilities to interconnect and compete in the open marketplace without the draconian retroactive impacts currently required by the Tax Code. My bill is modeled after legislation that passed Congress last year which addressed electricity and gas generation and distribution by local furnishers. My bill removes the current law impediments to public power's capacity to participate in open access plans if such entities are willing to forego future use of federal subsidized tax-exempt financing. If public power entities make this election, and choose to compete on a level playing field with other power suppliers, tax- exemption of the interest on their outstanding debt will be unaffected. They will be allowed an extended period during which outstanding bonds subject to the private use restrictions may be retired instead of retroactive taxation, which is the situation under existing law. The relief provided by my bill applies equally to outstanding bonds for electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. Mr. President, without this legislation, public power will face an untenable choice: either stay out of the competitive marketplace or face the threat of retroactive taxability of their bonds. With this legislation, public power will be able to transition into the competitive marketplace. Let me provide a few examples of real-world choices that public power faces today. According to the Joint Tax Committee report, the mere act of transferring public power transmission lines to a privately operated independent service operator [ISO] could cause the public power entity's tax exempt bonds to be retroactively taxable. Similarly, a transfer of transmission lines to a State operated ISO could, in many instances, trigger similar retroactive loss of tax-exemption depending on the amount or value of the power that is transmitted along those lines to private users. Moreover, participation in a state open access plan could, de facto, force public power entities to take defensive actions to maintain their competitive position which could inevitably lead to retroactive taxation of their bonds. Such actions would include offering a discounted rate to selective customers or selling excess capacity to a brokers for resale under long-term contract at fixed rates or discounted rates. I have also heard from the California Governor and members of the California Legislature about many of these problems and the need for legislation to address them. I stand ready to work with them and representatives from other States to solve this problem as part of the legislation I introduced today. Mr. President, my bill allows public power to participate in the new competitive world and provides a safe harbor within which they can transition from tax-exempt financing to the level playing field of the competitive marketplace. In addition, the legislation recognizes that there are some transactions that public power entities engage in that should not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of their bonds under current law and seeks to protect those transactions by codifying the rules governing them. This list may need to be expanded and I look forward to the input of the affected utilities in this regard. In general, the exceptions contained in this bill closely parallel the policies enunciated in the legislative history of the amendments made in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. For example, the sale of electricity by one public power entity to another public power entity for resale by the second public power entity would be exempt so long as the second public power entity is not participating in a State open access plan. In addition, a public power entity would be allowed to enter into pooling and swap arrangements with other utilities if the public power entity is not a net seller of output, determined on an annual basis. Finally, the bill contains a de minimis exception for sales of excess output by a facility when such sales do not exceed $1 million. Mr. President, this legislation attempts to balance many competing interests. This will be a difficult transition and this legislation does not address all the difficult problems to be faced. This is why I emphasize today that this is a starting point for discussion over the months ahead. This will be a difficult transition and this legislation does not address all the difficult problems to be faced. This is why I emphasize today that this is a starting point for discussion over the months ahead. I look forward to receiving comments from all interested parties and will encourage Finance Committee Chairman Roth to hold hearings on this bill early next year. I am open to making revisions to this bill consistent with a public policy that emphasizes a level playing field and a soft transition to competition for our important public utilities. I look forward especially to working with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, who has been a leader in addressing tax issues relating to competition in this industry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will facilitate and promote the successful commercial reuse of the Naval Air Facility being closed on Adak Island, AK. This legislation will ratify an agreement between the Aleut Corp. in Alaska, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Navy. While not yet complete, the Aleut Corp. has been working together with the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Navy on the agreement that would be ratified by this legislation. I know from my Aleutian constituents that a good number of issues have been resolved through extracted negotiations, but that important issues remain on the table. it is my hope that the remaining issues can be resolved through mutual agreement prior to hearings on this bill early next year. In the meantime, it is imperative that the Navy make the facilities at Adak available for interim reuse, as has been done with transfers at other closed facilities. For many decades the Navy has been an important and steadfast constituent in Alaska's Aleutian Chain. Their presence was first established during World War II with the selection and development of the island because of its combination of ability to support a major airfield and its natural and protected deep water port. The Navy's presence there contributed greatly to the defense of our Pacific coast during World War II and throughout the cold war. Through the Navy's presence, Adak became the largest development in the Aleutians as well as Alaska's sixth largest community. The facility was selected for closure during the last base closure round, and while the importance of using the island for defense purposes has diminished, it has not lost any of its unique geographic advantages. Adak is a natural stepping stone to Asia and is at the crossroads of air and sea trade between North America, Europe, and Asia. The Aleutian Islands, although stark and desolate to some, are the ancestral home to the shareholders of the Aleut Corp. This legislation will allow Adak's natural constituents, the Aleut people, to reinhabit the island and to make use of its modern developments. These very same features that made Adak strategically important to the Navy for defense purposes make the island strategically important for commercial purposes. Adak Island is at the middle of the great expanse of the Aleutian Islands, and is among the island chain's southernmost islands, near to the great circle route shipping lanes. With the ability to use Adak commercially, the Aleut Corp. aims to make the island an important intercontinental location with enterprise enough to provide year round jobs for the Aleut people. These goals are consistent with the promises and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the legislation that created the corporation. The legislation supports the broader interests of the country as well. In addition to the Navy, Adak has housed the Department of the Interior's Aleutian Islands subunit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation promotes the Department of the Interior's interests in managing and protecting the refuge by the exchange of base lands for certain property interests the Aleut Corp. holds throughout the rest of the Aleutian Islands refuge. In addition to the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense is promoting this exchange as the most effective way to meet this country's objectives of conversion of closed defense facilities into successful commercial reuse. Many potential concurrent reuse possibilities of the Adak lands are being explored. These include but are certainly not limited to an air and sea transhipment, refueling and reprovisions facility, a new ecotourism cruise ship destination, a law enforcement or Job Corps training facility or a somewhat less glamorous but nonetheless needed correctional facility. All these are possibilities available through enactment of this legislation. Mr. President, it is my intention to hold a hearing on this legislation at the earliest opportunity when Congress returns next year. I suggest to all the parties to this agreement that I will be keeping a close eye on progress toward expedient closure on the final issues. If progress is not made, or if negotiated commitments are not honored, I am prepared to modify this legislation and direct an appropriate structure for this land exchange.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended for about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of low-level waste in this country and the issue of Ward Valley. California is the first State to site a low-level waste facility under legislation passed by Congress which granted States with the authority and responsibility for low-level waste. Low-level radioactive waste is produced from cancer treatments, medical research, industrial activities, and scientific research. In the State of California there are some 800 sites where this medical waste is being stored. It is being stored in temporary facilities that were not designed for permanent storage. This waste is stored near homes, schools, it's stored at college campuses, medical facilities, and so forth. This radioactive waste is vulnerable to accidental release from the fires and earthquakes, neither of which are uncommon in California. Public health and safety demands that this waste be moved from locations scattered across California to a single, monitored location-- preferably, in a remote and sparsely populated area. The State of California is the first State to take advantage of the Federal process that we authorized for the States to develop their own low-level waste sites. But it is interesting to note how the progress has gone--not because of the lack of commitment by California, but the lack of cooperation from the Department of Interior to simply conduct a very simple land exchange. The State of California, in a process which began a decade ago, is trying to get their facility opened. They selected a site known as Ward Valley in the remote Mojave Desert. The California license was issued in accordance with all State and Federal laws, and has withstood all court challenges. The license contains 130 specific conditions designed to protect public health, safety, and the environment. But here comes the villain--the Department of Interior--having earlier agreed to sell California the land for the site--changed its mind, returned the check, and has refused to transfer the land. Since that time, the Department of the Interior has engaged in continuous, purposeful delay. They seek more studies, allegedly to assure that the site will be safe. We all insist on a safe disposal site, and we expect no less. Thus far, we have had two environmental impact studies and a special National Academy of Science study that all point to the safety of the site. Now, the State of California, in accordance with the guidelines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and all applicable State and Federal laws, has done its job and done it well. But the Interior Department is still not satisfied. They want more studies. For starters, they insist on an additional water infiltration study and a third impact environmental statement. The State of California has generously agreed to perform the water infiltration study prior to any land transfer which was a tremendous concession on California's part. However, Interior has not thus far allowed California access to the land to conduct the very tests that Interior insists upon. Instead of working to resolve the matter, the Department of the Interior seems to be engaged in a cycle of continuous study and endless delay. One has to wonder why the Department of the Interior is taking such a tack. Are these delays and demands for more tests designed to assure public safety? Or are they merely part of a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign? Well, we can answer that question. Several weeks ago, a memo we uncovered from the Department of the Interior shed an extraordinary light on this question. In fact, this memo makes the motivations behind the Interior Department's actions absolutely clear. I have read this memorandum once on the floor of this body. I think it needs to be read again. This is a memo from Deputy Secretary John Garamendi, to Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Department of the Interior. It is short enough to read in its entirety. It says: February 21, 1996 Memorandum To: Bruce Babbitt From: John Garamendi Subject: Ward Valley Attached are the Ward Valley clips. We have taken the high ground. [Governor Pete] Wilson is the venal toady of special interests. I do not think GreenPeace will picket you any longer. I will maintain a heavy PR campaign until the issue is firmly won. There you have the words of John Garamendi relative to his willingness to work with California to act in order that the low-level waste at some 800 sites in California can be removed and put in one area that will be monitored out in the Mojave Desert. I think this memorandum shows that Ward Valley has become a political football, a public relations issue. It also suggests that Interior has no plans other than to delay the transfer of the land. They just want to wage a PR campaign and delay a decision until somebody else's watch. They don't want to make this decision on their watch. They are putting it off because they know this administration is a few years from becoming history. They don't want to address it, they don't want the responsibility. But what has Secretary Garamendi told the Senate with regard to Ward Valley? How do his private statements compare to his public ones? At his confirmation hearing on July 27, 1995, John Garamendi testified under oath to our committee that the Ward Valley issue should and would be resolved quickly. Two years later, at a hearing on July 22, 1997, John Garamendi told the committee that he would work in good faith to resolve the matter in further negotiations with the State of California. Well, we still don't have a resolution. California does not even have permission to do the additional testing Interior seems to want to see performed. Instead of moving a process forward and transferring the land, Interior seems intent on waging a public relations campaign designed to further delay rather than enlighten. Now, what have others said about the Interior Department's handling of this issue? Let's look at the experts. The General Accounting Office, GAO, contends that the Department of the Interior is attempting to assess the site's suitability--a job that belongs to California by law and that California has already undertaken and completed--despite the fact that Interior ``lacks the criteria and expertise'' for the job. That is the opinion of the General Accounting Office--that Interior lacks the criteria and expertise. The GAO report also contends that there is no need for the new environmental impact statement sought by Interior since the substantive issues have already been addressed and that new information uncovered since the last environmental impact statement is generally favorable to the facility. Well, this report is too lengthy to insert into the Record, but for the benefit of my colleagues, I am referring to GAO report RCED-97-184, dated July 1997, for anybody who might want to look it up. To again summarize what GAO says, Mr. President, it says: First, Interior is trying to do a job that belongs to the State of California. The State of California was given the authority to do it; second, Interior is calling for new studies that aren't needed; third, Interior lacks the technical expertise to even perform these tasks. GAO isn't alone in their criticism of the Department of Interior's handling of this issue. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, has joined in the process as well. Specifically, the NRC has been critical of the Interior Department for distributing fact sheets which contain errors, misleading statements, and information falsely attributed to the NRC that was actually provided by project opponents. That is pretty strong stuff, Mr. President, but that is factual. So not only is Interior waging a PR campaign, they are playing fast and loose with the truth in the conduct of that campaign, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Chairman of the NRC to the Secretary of the Interior, dated July 22, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a little oversight on an issue that will be coming before this body again, and it covers the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions taking place in both California and Montana. I have the obligation as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to initiate authorization of these matters. I have had an active interest in the decisions of the Clinton administration to acquire the Headwaters Forest in northern California, and the New World Mine Site in Montana. These decisions were made by the administration with little congressional involvement and the administration has now gone out of its way to, in my opinion, limit the role of Congress in how these properties actually are acquired. Originally, the administration proposed acquiring both of these properties through land exchanges. When that proved to be very difficult and impossible to do without going through Congress, the idea of land exchanges was abandoned. So clearly the objective was to circumvent Congress. The Clinton administration then proposed using $315 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase both of these properties. The administration then insisted, contrary to the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, that such money could be spent without specific congressional authorization, clearly intending to go around Congress. Ultimately, that argument failed. While I would have preferred to enact separate authorizing legislation, authorizations were contained within the 1998 Interior Appropriations bill. However, the authorizations do not take effect and the money cannot be spent until a minimum of 180 days after enactment, and then only if no separate authorizing legislation is enacted. During the 180-day review period, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I intend to conduct a series of oversight hearings to examine the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. One focus of these oversight hearings will be the appraised value of the properties. To date the Clinton administration has refused to conduct appraisals to determine fair market values. This failure is in direct contradiction of existing law, which requires the appraisals be conducted for any Federal land acquisition. The appropriators had the foresight, of course, to recognize this hypocrisy. Fair market value appraisals for both properties must be submitted to Congress within 120 days of enactment. The appraisals also must be reviewed, and independently analyzed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Once these appraisals are completed, I intend to closely examine them. I plan to look at the methodology and data used in the appraisals. Among the specific questions, I will ask: Do the appraisals comply with the Department of Justice's Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions? What criteria were employed to determine fair market value? What assumptions were made about the property and the use of the property? What was the scope of the appraisal? It is important to remember that neither the Headwaters Forest nor New World Mine acquisitions can proceed, absent these appraisals. So these appraisals must be done. Further, Congress will have, at a minimum, 60 days to examine the appraisals. For every day, after 120 days, that appraisals are not submitted to Congress, the 180 day period will be extended by 1 day. I also intend to examine during the 180 day review period, the true cost to the American taxpayer of the Headwaters Forest acquisition. A condition to the Headwaters Forest acquisition is that the current owner of the property can take on his Federal taxes, as a business loss, the difference between what he contends is the property's fair market value and the price the Federal Government and California are paying for the property. That differential is $700 million. In the event the owner receives such a ruling from the IRS, there will be a lost of tax revenue to the Federal treasury. This lost tax revenue could amount to $100 million or more. It is inaccurate to say that the Headwaters Forest is costing the American taxpayer $250 million. It could well cost the American taxpayer not only the $250 million cash purchase price but also this lost tax revenue. Under no circumstances should this total cost exceed the appraised value of the Headwaters Forest. As to the New World Mine acquisition, I intend to examine exactly what land or interests in the land the Federal Government is acquiring for $65 million from the mining company. This issue needs to be examined because the agreement, committing the United States to buy this property, incredibly does not answer this question. The mining company, which agreed to sell, owns or has under lease, interests in nearly 6,000 acres. However, the mining company has fee title to only 1,700 acres. The remainder is unpatented mining claims. The ownership situation is further complicated by the fact that most of the interests in the 6,000 acres are owned by a third party not a signatory to the agreement with the Federal Government. Congress, and the American taxpayer, have a right to know, what we are getting for $65 million. There are many other issues that my committee will examine about these acquisitions including: What is the status of the Habitat Conservation Plan for the land surrounding the Headwaters Forest? What impact will that Habitat Conservation Plan have on other property owners in the western United States and Pacific Northwest? Has California come up with its $130 million share of the purchase price for the Headwaters Forest? Do both acquisitions comply with the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act? How will the properties be managed? By whom? At what cost? How will the public access the Headwaters Forest? Is it good public policy to settle constitutional takings cases against the United States in this manner? Is it good public policy to settle environmental litigation in this manner? How does the Clinton administration interpret the phrase ``priority Federal land acquisitions?'' Are the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions consistent with the Federal land management policy on Federal land acquisitions? While this may seem like an exhaustive list of issue, I only have skimmed the surface of the numerous unanswered questions about the acquisitions. I want all of these questions answered before the acquisitions occur. It is in the interest of the taxpayers. It is the responsibility of this body. My goal is to ensure, despite the uncommon circumstances which have led us to this point, that Congress and the American people can have confidence in the decisions to acquire the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine in the interest of the taxpayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see several Senators seeking recognition, including the majority leader.