Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the historic lighthouse preservation bill. This legislation would amend the National Historic Preservation Act to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program within the Department of the Interior. The legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of General Services to establish a process for conveying historic lighthouses which are around our coastal areas and Great Lakes when these lighthouses have been deemed to be in excess of Federal needs of the agency owning and operating the lighthouse. For entities eligible to receive a historic lighthouse, it would be for the uses of educational, park, recreation, cultural, and historic preservation. And the agencies that would be included would be Federal or State agencies, local governments, nonprofit corporations, educational agencies, and community development organizations, and so forth. There is no question that the historic lighthouses would be conveyed in a nonfee structure to selected entities which would have the obligation to maintain these historic structures and maintain their integrity. The historic lighthouses would revert back to the United States if a property ceases to be used for education, park, recreation, cultural or historic preservation purposes, or failed to be maintained in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to introduce legislation that will establish a national historic light station program. Lighthouses are among the most romantic reminders of our country's maritime heritage. Marking dangerous headlands, shoals, bars, and reefs, these structures played a vital role in indicating navigable waters and supporting this Nation's maritime transportation and commerce. These lighthouses served the needs of the early mariners who navigated by visual sightings on landmarks, coastal lights, and the heavens. Hundreds of lighthouses have been built along our sea coasts and on the Great Lakes, creating the world's most complex aids to navigation system. No other national lighthouse system compares with that of the United States in size and diversity of architectural and engineering types. My legislation pays tribute to this legacy and establishes a process which will ensure the protection and maintenance of these historic lighthouses so that future generations of Americans will be able to appreciate these treasured landmarks. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program. The Secretary is charged with collecting and sharing information on historic lighthouses; conducting educational programs to inform the public about the contribution to society of historic lighthouses; and maintaining an inventory of historic lighthouses. A historic light station is defined as a lighthouse, and surrounding property, at least 50 years old, which has been evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and included in the Secretary's listing of historic light stations. Most important, the Secretary, in conjunction with the Administrator of General Services, is to establish a process for identifying, and selecting among eligible entities to which a historic lighthouse could be conveyed. Eligible entities will include Federal agencies, State agencies, local communities, nonprofit corporations, and educational and community development organizations financially able to maintain a historic lighthouse, including conformance with the National Historic Preservation Act. When a historic lighthouse has been deemed excess to the needs of the Federal agency which manages the lighthouse, the General Services Administration will convey it, for free, to a selected entity for education, park, recreation, cultural, and historic preservation purposes. My legislation also recognizes the value of lighthouse friends groups. Often, these groups have spent significant time and resources on preserving the character of historic lighthouses only to have this work go to waste when the lighthouse is transferred out of Federal ownership. Under current General Services Administration regulations, these friends groups are last on the priority list to receive a surplus light station in spite of their efforts to protect it. My bill gives priority consideration to public entities who submit applications in which the public entity partners with a nonprofit friends group. Everyone agrees that the historic character of these lighthouses needs to be maintained. But the cost of maintaining these historic structures is becoming increasingly high for Federal agencies in these times of tight budgetary constraints. These lighthouses were built in an age when they had to be manned continuously. Today's advanced technology makes it possible to build automated aids to navigation that do not require around-the-clock manning. This technology has made many of these historic lighthouses expensive anachronisms which Federal agencies must maintain even if they no longer use them as navigational aids. My legislation ensures that the historic character of these lighthouses are maintained when the lighthouses are no longer needed by the Federal Government. When the historic lighthouse is conveyed out of Federal ownership, the entity which receives the lighthouse must maintain it in accordance with historic preservation laws and standards. A lighthouse would revert to the United States, at the option of the General Services Administration, if the lighthouse is not being used or maintained as required by the law. In the event no government agency or nonprofit organization is approved to receive a historic lighthouse, it would be offered for sale by the General Services Administration. The proceeds from these sales would be transferred to the National Maritime Heritage Grant Program within the National Park Service. Congress established the National Maritime Heritage Grant Program in 1994 to provide grants for maritime heritage preservation and education projects. Unfortunately, funding for this program has been nonexistent so the proceeds from any historic lighthouse sales would help ensure the program's viability. It is my intent to ensure that coastal towns, where a historic lighthouse is an integral part of the community, would receive a historic lighthouse when it is no longer needed by the Federal Government. These historic lighthouses could be used by the community as a local park, a community center, or a tourist bureau. It also would ensure that historic lighthouse friends groups or lighthouse preservation societies, which have voluntarily helped to maintain the historic character of the lighthouse, could receive an excess lighthouse. Mr. President, I know firsthand the importance and allure of these historic lighthouses. When I was in the Coast Guard, I helped maintain lighthouses and other navigational aids. These lights were critical to safe maritime traffic and I took my responsibilities seriously knowing that lives were dependent on it. By preserving historic lighthouses, we preserve a symbol of that era in American history when maritime traffic was the lifeblood of the Nation, tying isolated coastal towns through trade to distant ports around the world. Hundreds of historic lighthouses are owned by the Federal Government and many of these are difficult and expensive to maintain. This legislation provides a process to ensure that these historic lighthouses are maintained and publicly accessible. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to introduce legislation relative to the benefits of community health aides. This particular legislation would be titled the Alaskan Community Health Aide Program Expansion Act of 1997. The purpose of the act would be to provide a link to health care for rural communities, primarily in my State. The Alaskan Community Health Aide Program Expansion Act would enable the health aides to have access to rural, non-Native communities throughout Alaska. The act will authorize training and continuing education of Alaskans as community health aides to small communities that do not currently qualify for the Indian Health Services' Community Health Aide Program. Mr. President, some 50 years ago, this unique system of community health aides was formed in my State. In the early 1940's, due to an extreme outbreak of tuberculosis across Alaska, volunteers were selected by local communities and trained as community health aides. These communities, of course, suffered from distance, extreme isolation. They were often located hundreds of miles from the nearest physician. And the community health aides, through radio contact to a distant hospital in the region, became the eyes, the ears and hands of a physician and administered life-saving medications to remote patients throughout the State. Today, through the Indian Health Services, the aides reside in 176 Alaskan-Native communities, small isolated communities throughout our State--which if you spread Alaska across the United States, in a proportional map it would run from Canada to Mexico, from California to Florida. So we are talking about a big piece of real estate, Mr. President. These aides, today, through telecommunications capability with physicians in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other urban areas, provide health care, provide disease prevention throughout our State. The health aides are broadly acknowledged as the backbone of rural health delivery for Alaska's Native people. However, Mr. President, there is a large void in Alaska's Community Health Aide Program. Approximately 50 of our local Alaskan communities do not have community health aides because the people who live there are non-Native, and thus they do not qualify for the service under current law. In these 50, 51 communities, there is no physician, there is no other health care provider of any kind. Instead, these communities are served by public health care nurses who come and go on an itinerant basis. In other words, Mr. President, health care access in these communities is infrequent at best. Often these non-Native communities are characterized by geographic isolation and cultural isolation, especially in areas such as the Russian communities of Nikolaevsk, Vosnesenda, Katchmaksel, and Rassdonla. Most of these communities are completely unconnected by roads. Access is only available by airplane, boat, and sometimes snowmachine or dogsled. The needs of these communities is a daunting task. The Community Health Aide Program Expansion Act would remedy this dilemma. For the first time in the history of our State, all communities and villages will have the opportunity to have health care available within a village. This legislation will enable the trained health aide to live within a community, teach basic disease prevention and health promotion, in other words, the basic skills for good health. Mr. President, this legislation will enable affordable and consistent access to health care to all Alaskan communities. I ask my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Akaka, Stevens, and Inouye, I am introducing legislation that will provide a measure of relief to the citizens of Alaska and Hawaii who must rely on air transport far more than citizens in the lower-48. When Congress adopted the balanced budget legislation last summer, one of the provisions of the tax bill re-wrote the formula for calculating the air passenger tax for domestic and international flights. As part of this formula change, Congress adopted a per passenger, per segment fee which disproportionately penalizes travelers to and from Alaska and Hawaii who have no choice but to travel by air. Th legislation we are introducing today would reinstate the prior law 10 percent tax formula for flights to and from our states. In addition, the $6 international departure fees that are imposed on such flights would be retained at the current level and would not be indexed. I see no reason why passengers flying to and from our states must face a guaranteed increase in tax every year because of inflation. We don't index tobacco taxes, we don't index fuel taxes; why should government automatically gain additional revenue from air passengers simply because of inflation? Mr. President, this legislation requires that intrastate Alaska and Hawaii flights will be subject to a flat 10 percent tax if such flights do not originate or terminate at a rural airport in our states. In addition, the definition of a rural airport is expanded to include airports within 75 miles of each other where no roads connect the communities. In many towns in Alaska, air transport is the only viable means of transportation from one community to another. There is no reason these airports should be denied the benefit of the special rural airport tax rate simply because our state does not have the transportation infrastructure or geographic definition that exists in most of the lower-48. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

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. President, you might ask, why would a Senator from Alaska even care about a facility in California that is not needed to dispose of radioactive waste generated in Alaska? We don't generate hardly any. Part of the answer involves my responsibilities as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and our oversight responsibilities. Not surprisingly, my position on Ward Valley is the same one taken by my predecessor as chairman, Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. He understood, as I do, that Ward Valley is really more than a debate over the future of a thousand acres of land in the Mojave Desert; it is more than a debate over the disposition of low-level radioactive waste in California, Arizona, and the Dakotas; it is even more than the debate over the viability or even the future of the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. I suggest there is much more at stake. I am taking on this battle because there is an intrinsic value in opposing the careless disregard of science and the decisionmaking process. It's important to stand up against those who engage in this dangerous manipulation of public fear. It is my job to work against the oppression of the public good by a vocal few. Because I very much care about human health, safety and the environment, I believe it makes sense to store this radioactive low-level waste at a single, monitored location in the desert, rather than at 800-some locations throughout California, near schools, neighborhoods, hospitals, medical centers, and so forth. Finally, I believe it is important to ensure that the Government keeps its promises. It was the intent of Congress, when it passed the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980, and further amended it in 1985, that the safe management of low-level radioactive waste would be a responsibility of the States. That is precisely what the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, lobbied for when he was Governor. He argued that low-level waste should be a State responsibility. At that time, he was serving with the now President, but then Governor, Bill Clinton in the National Governors' Association. Well, he has changed his position. I know the view from the top floor of the Department of the Interior changes one's perspective from time to time, but it's difficult to appreciate, much less justify, the actions of the Department in this regard. Are the continuing delays at Ward Valley the good-faith actions of public officials purporting to act in the public interest? I think not. To answer those questions, I am announcing today that we are going to explore, in great detail on the committee, the Ward Valley issue in the next session, with a series of investigatory oversight hearings. What we are attempting to obtain, obviously, are the facts on why this administrative bungling seems to continue. I would like all who have an interest in this issue to be aware that these hearings will commence early in the next session. In the interim, we will be seeking relevant documentation from the Department of the Interior and the White House. With that notice given, I thank you, Mr. President, and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. There has been an awful lot of concern relative to the issue of global warming, greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide emissions, et cetera. This December, representatives of 166 nations are going to meet in Kyoto, Japan, to broker a new international climate treaty. This treaty will set new emissions controls for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, 130 of the 166 nations, including China, Mexico, and South Korea, are explicitly exempt from the new emissions controls or any new commitments whatsoever. As a consequence, it is my opinion that such a treaty simply cannot work and will not be ratified by the Senate. Even if one favors strong action to curb carbon emissions, there are three key reasons to oppose the approach embodied in the draft treaty. The first reason is, selectively applied emissions limits will harm large sectors of our economy. Analysts expect even the most modest versions of the treaty to cost over a million and a half jobs by the year 2005, along with cumulative losses in gross domestic product exceeding $16 trillion from the year 2005 to the year 2015. While the President claims the new global climate treaty will not harm the economy, the administration abandoned its internal analysis after their economic models predicted disaster --even when rosy assumptions were factored in. So bad were the results that the administration refused to even appear at a hearing of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee to comment on the treaty's economic impacts. Second, the environmental benefits of this treaty are really questionable, Mr. President. Any treaty without new commitments for developing nations will encourage the movement of production, capital, jobs, and emissions from the 36 nations subject to emissions controls to the 130 nations that are not. Actual global emissions will not decrease. Only their point of origin will change. Ironically, because of our industrial processes, which are more energy efficient than those found in developing nations, global carbon emissions per unit of production would, in my opinion, actually increase. In other words, we would endure economic pain for no identifiable environmental gain. Third, selectively applied emissions controls will doom any climate treaty that contains them. By an overwhelming vote of 95 to 0, this body, the U.S. Senate, passed a resolution in July demanding any new climate treaty contain new obligations--new obligations--for developing nations. At the same time, Mr. President, developing nations refuse to sign up to such a treaty. Thus, selectively applied emissions controls have become the so-called poison pill that is preventing the world from reasonably addressing the climate change issue. So I think it is time to be a bit pragmatic. If we want to keep a new climate treaty from becoming an international embarrassment, we should reconsider the rush to Kyoto and expand solutions that really work. What can really work, Mr. President? One is nuclear energy. One is hydropower. For instance, nuclear energy produces roughly a third of our electricity without significant emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet, President Clinton's global warming explicitly ignores these sources of virtually carbon-free energy. Even worse, Mr. President, the Clinton administration threatens--and has threatened numerously--to veto any nuclear waste legislation and continues to consider proposals to tear down hydropower dams, policies that endanger the carbon-free solutions that are in place today, and calls into question the administration's commitment to reduce our carbon emissions in a balanced, responsible manner. We even see the Sierra Club come out against wind power claiming that the windmills are some kind of Cuisinart that decimates the bird population. What does our President propose? It is rather interesting to reflect on where we are now because he has come almost full circle. The President hints at some vague notion of meeting our emissions targets through electricity restructuring, but he is very short on specifics. Perhaps the President is playing to the headlines today, but leaving the details to tomorrow or to the next administration. His proposal is that we, by the year 2008 to 2011, reduce our emissions to the level of 1990. Well, where is his administration going to be by that time? So they are just putting these things off as opposed to coming up with the mechanics that will work. There are, in fact, things that we can do in the context of energy restructuring that can help restabilize our carbon emissions. We have had some 13 hearings on this subject in my committee, the Energy Committee, and we have heard from 120 witnesses. Thus, I am prepared to suggest some of the specifics that the President has not suggested. For example, we can provide for stranded cost recovery of the more than 100 nuclear power reactors that together provide some 22 percent of our total electric power generation. We can provide incentives to encourage or require regions to employ a mix of carbon-free wind, solar, nuclear, or hydropower adequate to achieve a specified carbon-free emissions standard. We can offer a means to certify the claims of power producers who wish to market their power to consumers as low-carbon or carbon-free. And we can offer assistance for market-led investments in new research towards carbon-free or low-carbon energy. There is no shortage of policies we can pursue if we really want to address the issue of carbon emissions. We can be encouraged about recent technology breakthroughs in fuel cell technology, wind energy, solar technologies, and advanced nuclear plant designs. In the end, I think, Mr. President, American ingenuity, technological innovation, and common sense will produce the solutions that the U.N. negotiations thus far have been unable to provide. Finally, Mr. President, we need to employ these new technologies to increase energy efficiency, promote conservation, and stabilize our carbon emissions--but we do not need a flawed treaty that cannot get the job done. The climate issue is serious, but so are issues of equity, economic prosperity, and pragmatism. During the last round of negotiations at Bonn, the draft treaty got worse. It got worse, not better. As a consequence, we need to prepare ourselves and the American people for the prospect that the new treaty will be unworthy of support, even if you are deeply concerned about the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as I am. In other words, it doesn't do us any good to board a fast train, a fast train that is going in the wrong direction, particularly if all nations of the world aren't aboard. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Senate bill 1360, Senator Abraham's Border Improvement and Immigration Act introduced November 4. This legislation has already numerous cosponsors and is bipartisan in nature. This bill clarifies a provision included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 110 of last year's immigration law requires the establishment of an automated entry and exit control system. While the merits of this provision are admirable, unfortunately, the reality is that this is not a feasible concept. The section would require documentation of every alien entering and leaving our country. Can you imagine? To document entry and exit of every foreign national, every alien entering the United States would be required to hold a visa or passport or some sort of border crossing identification card. In my State alone, Mr. President, Canadians are at our border. We are separated from the rest of the United States by Canada. We enjoy relatively free passage between the two countries as Americans. This facilitates trade and strengthens our historical ties of friendship. To require the documentation of entry and exit of Canadians would result in Canada requesting the same type of consideration. Of course, our Canadian neighbors would be forced to wait in long lines. Trade would be disrupted. And it would develop a feeling of distrust. This is simply unacceptable. When former Senator Simpson crafted this immigration reform proposal last year, he did not intend to create a new documentation requirement for our northern neighbors. Rather, the issue he wished to address was the illegal overstay rates of foreign nationals. I cannot agree more that the illegal overstays need to be addressed. The Immigration and Naturalization Service currently cannot provide accurate data on overstay rates. However, the answer does not lie in requiring documentation of every alien entering through our land points of entry. Section 110, if implemented as is, will only create more headaches for our friends and neighbors attempting to enter the United States and slow both trade and commerce that crosses our land border each day. It will do little to address my primary concern about overstay rates and subsequent illegal immigration. For these reasons, I am supporting Senator Abraham's efforts to correct section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and exempt land entry border points from collecting a record of arrivals and departures. I hope that my other colleagues join me in cosponsoring S. 1360, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. Mr. President, I would like to make one more statement, if I may, with the indulgence of my friend from Wyoming.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Mr. Thurmond regarding section 2812 of the conference report, the section of the bill authorizing the sale of military utility assets.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish to draw the Senator's attention to the plain meaning of section 2812 so that there is no confusion in its application or implementation. First, the plain meaning of the provision does not limit the Secretary of a military department's authority to convey electric utility assets present at a military base. There is no requirement that both electric generation and distribution facilities be present at a base in order for the Secretary of a military department to convey assets. Indeed, the plain language of section 2812 states that such Secretaries may ``convey a utility system, or part of a utility system.'' Second, section 2812 has no effect whatsoever on existing preference power allocations. If an entity that is not currently eligible for--or is not currently receiving--preference power buys an electric utility system at a base which is entitled to receive preference power, the base will continue to receive that preference power--subject of course to the terms of existing contracts, rights, or obligations. There is nothing whatsoever in the plain meaning of section 2812 to the contrary, nor is there any language in the provision supporting the idea that a base's preference power allocation will transfer to any asset purchaser that buys a military base utility system. Federal military bases, as customers of the Federal Government's utilities--the Power Marketing Administrations--will not be defeased of their rights to purchase preference power, regardless of the purchaser of military base assets. Finally, I wish to reiterate that there is nothing in the plain language of section 2812 which in any way supports the notion that a particular purchaser (either a municipal, private, regional, district, or cooperative utility or other entity) should be given any particular preference with respect to the purchase of military base utility assets. Indeed, the section is intended to create a level playing field for all to compete for the purchase of the facilities. There is no language whatsoever in the section supporting the idea that preference power recipients should receive an advantage in competitive bidding for military base utility assets. Moreover, regardless of who purchases the utility system, the base will continue to receive Federal preference power pursuant to the terms and conditions of contracts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators on the floor, I wish to address my views on the passage of the nuclear waste legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives, which occurred last week. Mr. President, last week Congress took a very important step toward ending our Nation's 15-year struggle with how to solve our high-level nuclear waste problem. Last week, the House passed H.R. 1270 by an overwhelming, bipartisan 307-to-120 vote. The House bill is a companion to S. 104, the nuclear waste bill passed by the Senate by a 65-to-34 vote last spring. Like the Senate bill, the House bill would take nuclear waste from 80 sites in 40 States, from the backyards of our constituents all across this land, and move it to one safe, central storage site. The Federal Government has a contractual commitment to take this nuclear waste for safe and central storage by next January. Will that happen? The answer is clearly ``no,'' even though over $13 billion has been collected from America's ratepayers to pay for the permanent storage of that waste, and even though a Federal court order has reaffirmed the Government's legal obligation to take nuclear waste in January 1998. The same court is now considering what remedy the Government must provide for its failure to meet this obligation. This is the Government's failure, but it is the American taxpayer that is going to bear the burden. The American public paid that $13 billion into the nuclear waste fund and now will have to pay a second time. Estimates of potential damages for the failure of the Department of Energy to meet its obligations range from $40 billion to as high as $80 billion. That is $1,300 per American family. How important is the nuclear power industry in this country? It contributes around 22 percent of the total power generation in this country. It provides electricity with no emissions, so air quality is not a problem. The problem is what do you do with the waste? You cannot throw it up in the air. It has to come down somewhere. The reality is that no one wants it. The French reprocess their spent fuel and recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors and burn it. The Japanese are moving in that direction, as well. We are hopelessly tied to a dilemma: no one wants nuclear waste and we don't have any place to put it. Some of the plants are reaching their maximum capacity. Without the licensing of proper storage and without the Federal Government meeting its obligations to take this waste, we stand to lose a significant portion of our Nation's nuclear generating capacity. How are we going to make up for this lost generation? Are we going to put more coal fired plants on-line? How does the Clinton administration reconcile this position with their professed concern about emissions? If we lose a portion of our nuclear power generating capability, it is going to have to be replaced with something, and the Clinton administration has not provided us with any answers. Nor has it adequately addressed its contractual responsibility to take this waste. Mr. President, without the legislation passed by the both the House and the Senate, there is no plan for action except more lawsuits, more employment for the lawyers. As we move to conference, opponents of the bill will continue to sing the same old, tired refrain. They call it ``Mobile Chernobyl,'' emasculating NEPA, running roughshod over our environmental laws. These scare tactics are a coverup, an excuse for no action. That is what we have had so far, no action in 15 years. They will say the fuel is safely stored where it is. It is stored in temporary facilities next to the reactors that were designed for just that, temporary storage. But if it is safely stored where it is, then why isn't it safe to store it in Nevada at the Nevada test site, near where we have spent over $6 billion to develop a site that is facing, in the near future, licensing and suitability decisions? In fact, there is no question in my mind it must be safer to have one central, monitored site than to have nuclear waste at 80 sites scattered around the country at facilities that have been designed for temporary storage. Then, of course, they argue that somehow it is unsafe to move nuclear fuel to one central site. But we have shown how we have been safely moving fuel around this country and abroad for many, many years. The French, the Japanese, and the Swedes move it by vessel, they move it by rail, they move it by truck. They say the transportation casks cannot stand a 30-mile-per-hour crash or survive a diesel fuel fire. These are more emotional arguments that have no foundation. We have shown that the casks have been tested by locomotives going 90 miles an hour crashed into brick walls. They have been submerged in water, bathed in fire. The casks are designed to withstand any type of imaginable impact associated with transportation. We have shown that, while we have had a few minor accidents, there has never been a release of radiation. We have shown how our national laboratories have certified that the transportation casks can survive any real-world crash. They say the radiation protection standard is unsafe. We have shown how our standard is more protective than the current EPA guidance that allows five times as much, and we will allow EPA to tighten the standards further if need be. The doomsayers say the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says there is no compelling or technical or safety reason to move fuel to a central location. We have shown that a more complete reading of the technical review report and testimony indicates that there is a need for an interim storage and that there is a need for it at Yucca Mountain, if, indeed, Yucca is determined to be suitable for a permanent repository. They say, ``We can delay the decision.'' We have shown that delay is what got us into this mess in the first place; inactivity. Any time now, the courts will tell us what damages we will face when the Government is in breach of its contract. With each delay, the damages are going to mount. With each delay, the liability of the taxpayer will mount. With each delay, there will be pressure to yield a further delay. That is the way this place works. When we have a problem, we simply delay. The call for delay is a siren song and, ultimately, a trap. We stand at a crossroads. The job of solving this problem is ours. The time for solving the problem is now. We have made much progress at Yucca Mountain. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel is complete. We can build on this progress. Both the Senate and House bill contain site characterization activities for the permanent repository. But we cannot put all our eggs in the Yucca basket. We need a temporary storage facility now or we are going to be storing spent fuel all across the Nation for decades to come. We can choose whether this Nation needs 80 interim storage sites or just one. Where is that? The arid, remote, Nevada test site where we exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war. It is a safe, remote location. It is monitored, and it is appropriate for an interim site. If Yucca Mountain is licensed, it will be an easy task to move the spent fuel a short distance to the repository. If Yucca is not licensed and is found to be unsuitable, we will need a centralized interim site anyway, so we will be way ahead of the game. Regardless of what happens at Yucca, this is a responsible step that we should take. Mr. President, the time is now. This legislation passed the House and the Senate. It is the answer. I urge my colleagues over the recess to reflect on the merits of our obligation to take this waste, to recognize the dependence we have on the nuclear industry, and move to take a responsible position to uphold the contract that has been made by the Government to take this waste in conformance with the terms of the agreement and the $13 billion paid by the ratepayers. For those who are still in doubt as to the merits of this legislation, I encourage them to recognize that it is irresponsible to object to what has happened in both the House and the Senate without providing an alternative. The development of this legislation has required a great deal of time and effort and a great deal of examination of alternatives. So I hope the critics come up with a workable alternative, as opposed to just criticism of the plan that is currently pending in the Congress of the United States, to meet our obligations to address the high-level nuclear waste issue. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to chat very briefly in morning business concerning a matter that has come before the Senate from time to time that is of great interest to those of us in the Western States. That is the national issue of what is termed ``Teaming With Wildlife.'' The Teaming With Wildlife initiative has grown, and those of us in the West recognize that we are very fortunate in having probably the best area on Earth to fish, hunt, and explore the great outdoors. I know the occupant of the Chair from the State of Oregon, and myself from the State of Alaska, are great boosters of that great outdoors with unsurpassed natural beauty and wildlife, particularly the Western States. I am not suggesting other States don't have the same. But perhaps ours is a little larger and the magnitude is a little greater. But we have extraordinary natural beauty, wildlife, and I particularly look forward every time I am back home in Alaska to enjoy the outdoors. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction overseeing our public lands in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am well aware that this bounty we enjoy doesn't come free. It takes huge sums of money to acquire and maintain our legacy of public lands which we enjoy. That is why I support providing additional funds to the States for all outdoor recreation programs, including fish and wildlife conservation. This brings me to the goals associated with the Teaming With Wildlife proposal, which I support along with many Alaskans, and I know many of my colleagues in this body. But I would like to point out some of the concerns because in the enthusiasm for Teaming With Wildlife some of these things are overlooked. So let me share a few of them with you. Mr. President, the proposal advanced by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies would impose a new tax on the American people where that connection between the products being taxed and the use of the tax revenue in some cases is tenuous, to say the least. Mr. President, for decades hunters and anglers have worked very well in contributing to the management, conservation, and restoration of wildlife habitat and fisheries resources through an excise tax imposed at the manufacturing level. These targeted taxes have been a resounding success for one reason. That reason, Mr. President, is there is a direct link between the items taxed and the use of the tax revenue. The Pittman-Robertson Act, for example, imposes an excise tax on sporting arms, on handguns, on ammunition and archery equipment. The Wallop-Breaux fund does basically the same thing with fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. Money raised from this generates revenue that goes directly back in enhancing fishing and motoring in our various lakes and waterways. So States use the resulting tax revenue for the purchase and restoration of public wildlife habitat, and wildlife management research. Hunters like myself don't mind at all paying the extra tax on rifles and shells because we know that the revenue will be spent on increasing and improving habitat where we can hunt and recreate. Yet, the direct link--this is the key, Mr. President--between the items taxed and the use of the resulting tax revenue is broader in the Teaming With Wildlife proposal. That legislative proposal would result in a tax being imposed on virtually everything from backpacks to tents, from hiking boots to sports utility vehicles, from film to binoculars. The revenue would be used by States for a worthwhile purpose, which I support, of wildlife research planning, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation, and research projects. But the facts are that while many of the items being taxed would be used in the great outdoors to benefit the expanded use of the outdoors, many of these products would not. We looked at a 1995 survey by the Sports Market Research Group that indicates that 69 percent of all backpacks sold--you might think they are going for camping--are used by schoolchildren while 27 percent of all sleeping bags sold are for indoor use. Is that a fair tax to those consumers? Some suggest a new tax is not needed when an existing program could meet many of the needs for outdoor recreation resources throughout the Nation. Over 30 years ago, we created in Congress the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the LWCF, for the sole purpose of meeting America's needs for outdoor recreation, including the acquisition of property for fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Money in the fund would come from offshore oil and gas royalties--OCS activities off the shores of our various coastal States. Up to 60 percent of the $900 million annually available is to be passed on to the States. Unfortunately, the States have not received any money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the past 4 years. And many in this body have even forgotten the benefits of the program. What we have done with that money is use it to reach our budget objectives, solely ignoring the purpose of the program. I think we should do more to encourage the States to support offshore oil and gas development in a responsible manner using our science and technology. As evidence is the tremendous development occurring in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, Texas, and other areas. Perhaps we could by guaranteeing States some portion of the revenue from OCS activities. That would instill a sense of belonging and a sense of interest that those States currently don't have. Further, a portion of the Federal mineral receipts perhaps could be set aside in a dedicated permanent fund and the income generated from the fund could be passed on to the States in the form of matching grants for outdoor recreation. In many State parks in the West, including my State of Alaska, land was purchased with money from the land and water conservation Fund. And much of what Teaming with Wildlife seeks to accomplish should be done with funds generated from such areas. I think offshore oil and gas development would gain us a broader support necessary to pass legislation such as Teaming with Wildlife, and I think we must explore fully using existing funding resources to help meet these laudable goals because I fear that we are going to have a hard time differentiating just what portion is a legitimate tax on this broad area, as I have indicated before that we have identified, including sleeping bags, film, binoculars, hiking boots, and so forth. I encourage those who are interested to help us as we address responsibly how to fund equitably for this purpose of Teaming with Wildlife that, indeed, addresses those who are active in utilizing the great outdoors and purchase legitimate items that can be legitimately attached without getting into the situation where we are in dispute over the portion and the formula and the use. So as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am committed to help bringing the States together to meet the growing demand for fish and wildlife habitat, for outdoor recreation resources, and I certainly encourage all Alaskans to join me in providing input on what we think is a fair and workable method to raise funds for the great outdoors and not overlooking the intention of the land and water conservation fund which has been, I think it is fair to say, observed by the budgeteers as a place to pick up significant funding to meet some of our budget obligations. So I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and encourage everyone to work in a positive manner to meet the challenges associated with Teaming with Wildlife for a fair and equitable funding mechanism. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not necessarily support every provision in this legislation as drafted, but I do support the underlying objective of redressing the balance of power and authority between Washington and Agana. As a result of my trip to Guam last year, I introduced legislation to deal with the disposal of surplus Federal property and prevent any future land grabs such as the one engaged in by the Fish and Wildlife Service. That legislation was not everything that either the Governor or I would have preferred, but I think that the end result of the Senate action, if finally enacted, will be a significant improvement in Federal- territorial relations. I intend to take the same constructive approach to the provisions of this legislation. I appreciate that questions have been raised over some of the provisions from constitutional as well as policy grounds, but that should not be an excuse to avoid addressing the underlying concerns that led to the drafting and approval of those provisions by the voters in Guam. As I said before, we have a lot of experience with foolish and petty restrictions from Federal agencies. As a percentage, far more of Alaska is subject to Federal land domination and our communities suffer the consequences of an inability to obtain transportation and utility corridors across the Federal lands. I have sympathy and sensitivity to local cultural concerns as well because we also see Federal agencies trying to frustrate the benefits and protections afforded our Native Alaskans. Guam is concerned over the loss of the economic potential of its marine resources and Alaska holds the single most promising petroleum area on the continent. I hope to meet shortly with the Governor and with members of the Guam Legislature to discuss the provisions of this legislation. I fully expect that the next few years will be particularly active for our Committee as we consider not only how to improve and strengthen local self-government in and revise Federal relations with Guam, but also deal with concerns that have arisen with some of the expectations and implementation of provisions of the Northern Marianas Covenant, political status in Puerto Rico, and renegotiation and extension of certain provisions of the Compacts of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. Much has happened in the north Pacific since World War II and it is our responsibility to be as sensitive and responsible as possible to the needs and aspirations of the local governments who are either within or in free association with the United States. I encourage my colleagues to take the time to become more familiar with these areas and to take their particular needs and problems into consideration when crafting legislation. It is far easier to address the situation of the noncontiguous areas at the outset of legislative efforts, than it is to come in later when we have entrenched bureaucrats who see their power threatened if we act responsibly. Exhibit 1 Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam. Robert A. Underwood, Member of Congress, October 29, 1997. Senator Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Murkowski: Today we had our first hearing on H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act, before the House Committee on Resources. As we work with the Members of the House Committee to perfect their version, we believe it is time to move forward and proceed to the next step in the process. Therefore, we respectfully request your support for the introduction of companion legislation to this bill in the Senate and consideration of a hearing at the earliest possible convenience of the committee. We pledge to work closely with you and your staff and assist you in any way we can. Sincerely, Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam. Robert A. Underwood, Member of Congress.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate reference, legislation to establish the Commonwealth of Guam. This measure is identical to H.R. 100 which was introduced by Congressman Underwood. I am introducing this measure at the request of Congressman Underwood and Governor Gutierrez of Guam. The quest for self-government and recognition of the authority to determine the laws and programs that facilitate or impede our social, political, and economic growth are an integral part of the territorial history of this Nation. Even before the Constitution had been ratified, the Northwest Ordinance set the pattern for the territory subject to the new Federal Government. The ordinance set a policy that the territory would be settled as soon as possible and admitted into the Union with the other States. That policy, of full self-government and limited governance from the Federal Establishment, marked territorial policy until the beginning of this century. While this century has seen the admission of States such as Arizona and New Mexico, as well as the more recent admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the progress of full self-government has been slower for most of the areas acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War or since that time. In 1898, a century ago, the United States acquired the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. In 1900 and 1904 treaties of cession confirmed the extension of sovereignty over American Samoa. In 1916 we acquired the Virgin Islands. In 1976 the covenant that provided the basis for the acquisition of the Northern Mariana Islands was enacted following a plebiscite in the islands. These areas, with the exception of the Philippines, have not followed the path taken by the other territories of the United States. The Philippines achieved commonwealth and independence, although World War II delayed full implementation. Shortly after World War II, Puerto Rico was permitted to replace the local government provisions of federal organic legislation with a locally drafted Constitution and to elect its Governor. Not until the 1970's were Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa afforded the opportunity to popularly elect their own Governor. Also, during that period, Guam and the Virgin Islands were provided the opportunity to develop a constitution to govern local matters. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are in a slightly different situation. American Samoa has a locally developed constitution promulgated by secretarial order and the Northern Marianas operate under the local constitution authorized under the covenant. The process of local self-government and improvements in Federal- territorial relations has not stopped for any of these areas. This Congress has already seen as much attention as has occurred over the past decade. The Senate has passed legislation that provides the Virgin Islands with the same flexibility to issue short-and long-term bonds as the States enjoy. The Senate has also passed legislation that would reform the way surplus Federal lands are disposed of in Guam, providing the Government of Guam with an effective voice in decisions with respect to future land use management. We have also considered modifications requested by the executives in Guam and the Virgin Islands to the powers of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Both the Senate and the House have pending legislation to provide a referendum in Puerto Rico on future political status. In that context we are considering status in the larger constitutional context of Statehood or independence as well as possible refinements to the present relationship. We also have pending in the Senate legislation forwarded by the administration that would revise Federal-territorial relations with the Northern Marianas in the areas of minimum wage, immigration, and trade. The legislation that I am introducing today is a very broad approach to Federal relations with Guam. The provisions address several different issues ranging from problems over resource allocation and use to operations of government to social and cultural issues. In the past decade since the voters in Guam approved the present draft, some of the provisions, such as judicial reform or disposal of excess Federal lands, have been addressed individually. Others may no longer be relevant due to other changes. The central issue, however, is as current and relevant as it was in 1982 when the voters in Guam decided to seek commonwealth as a means to obtain greater self-government. The central issue is the proper role and authority of Federal versus local government. Where should decisions be made, be they right or wrong, and who should bear the burden of providing for the future? Should the Federal or local government have the authority to safeguard and manage local resources and provide for the health, safety, education, and welfare of the local residents? Should noncontiguous areas bear the burden of regulations crafted to meet the needs of the contiguous United States and for the administrative convenience of bureaucrats in Washington? I use the word noncontiguous because the concerns that led Guam to seek the provisions of this legislation are equally applicable to areas in Alaska or Hawaii. Status, in the constitutional sense, is not the problem or the answer, but rather the allocation of power and authority under the Constitution between Federal and local government. An example of this would be the application of provisions of the Clean Air Act to Guam. Notwithstanding the fact that Guam is a relatively small island located in the western Pacific in the middle of the trade winds, it had to comply with the same emission requirements as did places like Los Angeles or Washington. My colleagues should remember that what made Guam so valuable to the Spanish was that the galleons leaving Acapulco were blown by the trade winds to Guam, where they reprovisioned prior to heading to Manila. The powerplants in Guam were required to install expensive scrubbers even though the nearest point of land was the Philippines. Eventually we managed to obtain a waiver for Guam, but it was only after years of effort by our committee, with the help I would note of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to convince EPA that granting a waiver for Guam was not a precedent for exempting the State of Nebraska. Alaska and Hawaii have not been as successful, I would note. Another example is the visa waiver that we finally managed to obtain for Guam for tourists. These are not unique problems. Administrative convenience seems to always outweigh the realities of life in the noncontiguous areas, nor are our provisions uniform. In some instances, the difference in treatment aggravates the local unhappiness with Washington. Guam is the southernmost of the Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands, which can be seen from Guam, are not subject to the Jones Act, but Guam is. The Virgin Islands has an exception, but Guam does not. While I would never argue for uniformity as an inflexible principle, I do think that Washington can be considerably more creative than it has been, and certainly can be more understanding of the uniqueness of the noncontiguous areas. Insensitivity is also a reason underlying some of the provisions of the legislation. The most recent example is the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Service in carrying out its land grab in Guam. Rather than devoting resources to the eradication of the brown tree snake, the Fish and Wildlife Service rushed to use the depredation caused by the snake as a reason for creating a refuge and overlay covering almost one-third of Guam. Well know habitat such as runways were covered. The reason for the rush to create the refuge is understandable since several of the native species are already extinct and the rest are scurrying for what little remains of their existence from the snake. If the Fish and Wildlife Service had not moved quickly, they would have had to defend creating the only refuge for non-existent species. I suppose they could have used it as a precedent for creating a refuge for dinosaurs in Utah and locking up whatever lands the President and Secretary Babbitt missed last year. In that context, I would suggest that at the next meeting of the Western Governors, the Governors of Guam and Utah swap stories of Federal land grabs. I am in full sympathy with the objectives of this legislation. The Governor of Guam may feel that he is alone, but we in Alaska know full well what dealing with Washington entails. We also must deal with insensitive bureaucrats, acquisitive Secretaries, irrelevant stateside standards, and a wealth of officious and fussy Federal agencies who seem to have as their sole mission making life as difficult, expensive, and complex as possible. Guam at least has a central road system and the possibility of developing the southern end of the island--an option that Federal managers are committed to denying Alaska. I fully understand the frustrations that led the U.S. citizens in Guam to develop this legislation. Unfortunately, I must say that the problem is not the plenary authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause. As I stated, this legislation is a companion measure to one introduced by Congressman Underwood and I am introducing it at his request and at the request of the Governor of Guam. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not necessarily support every provision in this legislation as drafted, but I do support the underlying objective of redressing the balance of power and authority between Washington and Agana. As a result of my trip to Guam last year, I introduced legislation to deal with the disposal of surplus Federal property and prevent any future land grabs such as the one engaged in by the Fish and Wildlife Service. That legislation was not everything that either the Governor or I would have preferred, but I think that the end result of the Senate action, if finally enacted, will be a significant improvement in Federal- territorial relations. I intend to take the same constructive approach to the provisions of this legislation. I appreciate that questions have been raised over some of the provisions from constitutional as well as policy grounds, but that should not be an excuse to avoid addressing the underlying concerns that led to the drafting and approval of those provisions by the voters in Guam. As I said before, we have a lot of experience with foolish and petty restrictions from Federal agencies. As a percentage, far more of Alaska is subject to Federal land domination and our communities suffer the consequences of an inability to obtain transportation and utility corridors across the Federal lands. I have sympathy and sensitivity to local cultural concerns as well because we also see Federal agencies trying to frustrate the benefits and protections afforded our Native Alaskans. Guam is concerned over the loss of the economic potential of its marine resources and Alaska holds the single most promising petroleum area on the continent. I hope to meet shortly with the Governor and with members of the Guam Legislature to discuss the provisions of this legislation. I fully expect that the next few years will be particularly active for our Committee as we consider not only how to improve and strengthen local self-government in and revise Federal relations with Guam, but also deal with concerns that have arisen with some of the expectations and implementation of provisions of the Northern Marianas Covenant, political status in Puerto Rico, and renegotiation and extension of certain provisions of the Compacts of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. Much has happened in the north Pacific since World War II and it is our responsibility to be as sensitive and responsible as possible to the needs and aspirations of the local governments who are either within or in free association with the United States. I encourage my colleagues to take the time to become more familiar with these areas and to take their particular needs and problems into consideration when crafting legislation. It is far easier to address the situation of the noncontiguous areas at the outset of legislative efforts, than it is to come in later when we have entrenched bureaucrats who see their power threatened if we act responsibly. Exhibit 1 Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam. Robert A. Underwood, Member of Congress, October 29, 1997. Senator Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Murkowski: Today we had our first hearing on H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act, before the House Committee on Resources. As we work with the Members of the House Committee to perfect their version, we believe it is time to move forward and proceed to the next step in the process. Therefore, we respectfully request your support for the introduction of companion legislation to this bill in the Senate and consideration of a hearing at the earliest possible convenience of the committee. We pledge to work closely with you and your staff and assist you in any way we can. Sincerely, Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam. Robert A. Underwood, Member of Congress.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate reference, legislation to establish the Commonwealth of Guam. This measure is identical to H.R. 100 which was introduced by Congressman Underwood. I am introducing this measure at the request of Congressman Underwood and Governor Gutierrez of Guam. The quest for self-government and recognition of the authority to determine the laws and programs that facilitate or impede our social, political, and economic growth are an integral part of the territorial history of this Nation. Even before the Constitution had been ratified, the Northwest Ordinance set the pattern for the territory subject to the new Federal Government. The ordinance set a policy that the territory would be settled as soon as possible and admitted into the Union with the other States. That policy, of full self-government and limited governance from the Federal Establishment, marked territorial policy until the beginning of this century. While this century has seen the admission of States such as Arizona and New Mexico, as well as the more recent admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the progress of full self-government has been slower for most of the areas acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War or since that time. In 1898, a century ago, the United States acquired the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. In 1900 and 1904 treaties of cession confirmed the extension of sovereignty over American Samoa. In 1916 we acquired the Virgin Islands. In 1976 the covenant that provided the basis for the acquisition of the Northern Mariana Islands was enacted following a plebiscite in the islands. These areas, with the exception of the Philippines, have not followed the path taken by the other territories of the United States. The Philippines achieved commonwealth and independence, although World War II delayed full implementation. Shortly after World War II, Puerto Rico was permitted to replace the local government provisions of federal organic legislation with a locally drafted Constitution and to elect its Governor. Not until the 1970's were Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa afforded the opportunity to popularly elect their own Governor. Also, during that period, Guam and the Virgin Islands were provided the opportunity to develop a constitution to govern local matters. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are in a slightly different situation. American Samoa has a locally developed constitution promulgated by secretarial order and the Northern Marianas operate under the local constitution authorized under the covenant. The process of local self-government and improvements in Federal- territorial relations has not stopped for any of these areas. This Congress has already seen as much attention as has occurred over the past decade. The Senate has passed legislation that provides the Virgin Islands with the same flexibility to issue short-and long-term bonds as the States enjoy. The Senate has also passed legislation that would reform the way surplus Federal lands are disposed of in Guam, providing the Government of Guam with an effective voice in decisions with respect to future land use management. We have also considered modifications requested by the executives in Guam and the Virgin Islands to the powers of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Both the Senate and the House have pending legislation to provide a referendum in Puerto Rico on future political status. In that context we are considering status in the larger constitutional context of Statehood or independence as well as possible refinements to the present relationship. We also have pending in the Senate legislation forwarded by the administration that would revise Federal-territorial relations with the Northern Marianas in the areas of minimum wage, immigration, and trade. The legislation that I am introducing today is a very broad approach to Federal relations with Guam. The provisions address several different issues ranging from problems over resource allocation and use to operations of government to social and cultural issues. In the past decade since the voters in Guam approved the present draft, some of the provisions, such as judicial reform or disposal of excess Federal lands, have been addressed individually. Others may no longer be relevant due to other changes. The central issue, however, is as current and relevant as it was in 1982 when the voters in Guam decided to seek commonwealth as a means to obtain greater self-government. The central issue is the proper role and authority of Federal versus local government. Where should decisions be made, be they right or wrong, and who should bear the burden of providing for the future? Should the Federal or local government have the authority to safeguard and manage local resources and provide for the health, safety, education, and welfare of the local residents? Should noncontiguous areas bear the burden of regulations crafted to meet the needs of the contiguous United States and for the administrative convenience of bureaucrats in Washington? I use the word noncontiguous because the concerns that led Guam to seek the provisions of this legislation are equally applicable to areas in Alaska or Hawaii. Status, in the constitutional sense, is not the problem or the answer, but rather the allocation of power and authority under the Constitution between Federal and local government. An example of this would be the application of provisions of the Clean Air Act to Guam. Notwithstanding the fact that Guam is a relatively small island located in the western Pacific in the middle of the trade winds, it had to comply with the same emission requirements as did places like Los Angeles or Washington. My colleagues should remember that what made Guam so valuable to the Spanish was that the galleons leaving Acapulco were blown by the trade winds to Guam, where they reprovisioned prior to heading to Manila. The powerplants in Guam were required to install expensive scrubbers even though the nearest point of land was the Philippines. Eventually we managed to obtain a waiver for Guam, but it was only after years of effort by our committee, with the help I would note of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to convince EPA that granting a waiver for Guam was not a precedent for exempting the State of Nebraska. Alaska and Hawaii have not been as successful, I would note. Another example is the visa waiver that we finally managed to obtain for Guam for tourists. These are not unique problems. Administrative convenience seems to always outweigh the realities of life in the noncontiguous areas, nor are our provisions uniform. In some instances, the difference in treatment aggravates the local unhappiness with Washington. Guam is the southernmost of the Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands, which can be seen from Guam, are not subject to the Jones Act, but Guam is. The Virgin Islands has an exception, but Guam does not. While I would never argue for uniformity as an inflexible principle, I do think that Washington can be considerably more creative than it has been, and certainly can be more understanding of the uniqueness of the noncontiguous areas. Insensitivity is also a reason underlying some of the provisions of the legislation. The most recent example is the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Service in carrying out its land grab in Guam. Rather than devoting resources to the eradication of the brown tree snake, the Fish and Wildlife Service rushed to use the depredation caused by the snake as a reason for creating a refuge and overlay covering almost one-third of Guam. Well know habitat such as runways were covered. The reason for the rush to create the refuge is understandable since several of the native species are already extinct and the rest are scurrying for what little remains of their existence from the snake. If the Fish and Wildlife Service had not moved quickly, they would have had to defend creating the only refuge for non-existent species. I suppose they could have used it as a precedent for creating a refuge for dinosaurs in Utah and locking up whatever lands the President and Secretary Babbitt missed last year. In that context, I would suggest that at the next meeting of the Western Governors, the Governors of Guam and Utah swap stories of Federal land grabs. I am in full sympathy with the objectives of this legislation. The Governor of Guam may feel that he is alone, but we in Alaska know full well what dealing with Washington entails. We also must deal with insensitive bureaucrats, acquisitive Secretaries, irrelevant stateside standards, and a wealth of officious and fussy Federal agencies who seem to have as their sole mission making life as difficult, expensive, and complex as possible. Guam at least has a central road system and the possibility of developing the southern end of the island--an option that Federal managers are committed to denying Alaska. I fully understand the frustrations that led the U.S. citizens in Guam to develop this legislation. Unfortunately, I must say that the problem is not the plenary authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause. As I stated, this legislation is a companion measure to one introduced by Congressman Underwood and I am introducing it at his request and at the request of the Governor of Guam. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 1373 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to introduce a bill as in morning business at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the nominee to be Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Charles Rossotti. Mr. Rossotti is unique among nominees for this position since he is the first nontax-lawyer nominated for the post. In fact, he is a businessman who is chairman of American Management Systems, a company he cofounded in 1970, which now employs some 7,000 people. Mr. President, if this man is confirmed, and I expect that he will be, he faces a daunting challenge in turning around an agency which has very serious credibility problems with this Senator and, I think, a majority of the American public as well. As this country learned some 6 weeks ago in the hearings at the Senate Finance Committee, the IRS is an agency with structural and personnel problems that have led to an agency culture that is abusive, unresponsive, and to some extent arrogant. Far too often, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be out of control, with no accountability to the public or to the policymakers here in Washington. For anyone who has tried to phone the IRS lately, why, I think you get the flavor for my generalizations. The bipartisan Kerrey-Portman Commission that examined the Internal Revenue Service recommended a series of changes at the IRS, including the creation of an independent board to oversee IRS operations. Recently, the House passed a measure incorporating nearly all of the Commission's recommendations. However, I believe that the lessons learned from the Finance Committee September hearings suggest that far more needs to be done if the public is going to regain a measure of confidence in the Internal Revenue Service. I applaud the Finance Committee chairman, Chairman Roth, for his commitment to hold a series of hearings that will build on the achievements of the House and bring a tough reform bill to the floor of the Senate next year. To give you an idea of the structural problems that exist at the Internal Revenue Service, consider the following description of the Service that was done by Paul Light, author of ``The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995.'' Just imagine a bureaucracy that goes something like this: an agent reports to a district group manager, who reports to a district group manager, who reports to a branch chief, who reports to an assistant chief of the division, who reports to the assistant district director, who reports to the assistant regional commissioner, who reports to the deputy assistant commissioner, who reports to the assistant commissioner, who reports to the chief operating officer, who reports to the deputy commissioner, and so on. What we have here, Mr. President, is a layered bureaucracy which implies accountability on paper but which, in reality, is designed by its very nature to be unaccountable. Consider, Mr. President, the testimony the committee heard from Lynda Willis of the General Accounting Office [GAO]. IRS systems, both manual and automated, have not been designed to capture and report comprehensive information on the use and possible misuse of collection authorities. IRS cannot readily produce data on the overall use or misuse of its collection enforcement authorities or on the characteristics of affected taxpayers. In effect, GAO said they couldn't audit IRS because the systems IRS has put in place are designed to ensure that there is no way for IRS personnel to be held accountable for their erroneous actions. There is no way to determine how many times IRS has made a mistake in sending out a collection notice. No way to determine how many complaints have been received. And this is the way the managers at IRS set up the system--set it up so that no one can trace improper behavior. Mr. President, the committee also heard testimony to the effect that the Problem Resolution Office [PRO], the office designed to resolve taxpayer disputes with IRS is, and I quote one of our witnesses, ``utterly useless'' in protecting the American taxpayer. The reason the PRO cannot function as designed is because employees at PRO are evaluated for promotions by the same Collection Division management they are supposed to police while assigned to the PRO. Mr. President, there is no reason that that kind of conflict of interest should exist. I plan on working with the Finance Committee chairman to develop legislation that will fundamentally change the PRO structure to ensure that taxpayers get a fair shake when there's a conflict with the IRS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee hearings had a profound effect on the American public and on the President of the United States. Shortly after those hearings, and seeing the polls, the President did a 180-degree U-turn on the recommendations of the IRS Commission and decided to back the House reform legislation creating an independent IRS management board. That's not the end of this matter. Instead we need a top-to-bottom review of the IRS. In the past, we adopted two taxpayer bill of rights bills which many of us thought would improve taxpayer-IRS interactions. The hearings in the Finance Committee suggest that these bills did little to alleviate tensions between the IRS and the American taxpayer. That is why the Finance Committee needs to hold further hearings on IRS reform. It has taken decades for the IRS to develop internal procedures that appear to make it unaccountable. We've learned of these problems 6 weeks ago. I am willing to admit that we don't know all the answers, but I know that now is not the time to merely take the House bill, pass it, and tell the public we fixed the problems at IRS. We haven't. Mr. President, Charles Rossotti is to be admired for his willingness to leave the private sector and take on this challenge at a time when IRS is in serious trouble. I look forward to receiving his recommendations for change at the Service after he has been there a few months. And I am sure his hands-on experience will assist the Finance Committee in drafting a comprehensive IRS reform bill.