Frank Murkowski

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nominations of Curtis L. Hebert and Linda Key Breathitt to be members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The hearing will take place Tuesday, November 4, 1997 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Allyson Kennett at (202) 224- 5070. committee on rules and administration

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on October 29, 1997, I filed Report 105-119 to accompany S. 967, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to benefit Alaska Natives and rural residents, and for other purposes. At the time the report was filed, the estimates by Congressional Budget Office were not available. The estimate is now available and concludes that enactment of S. 967 would ``increase direct spending by about $10 million over the 1998-2002 period.'' I ask that a complete copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record. The estimate follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, October 29, 1997. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 967, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to benefit Alaska Natives and rural residents, and for other purposes. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria V. Heid (for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the impact on state, local and tribal governments). Sincerely, James L. Blum (For June E. O'Neill, Director). Enclosure. S. 967--A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to benefit Alaska Natives and rural residents, and for other purposes Summary: CBO estimates that enacting S. 967 would increase direct spending by about $10 million over the 1998-2002 period. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay- as-you-go procedures would apply. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, implementing S. 967 also would result in discretionary spending of about $1 million over the next five years. S. 967 contains at least one intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), but CBO estimates that any costs imposed on state, local, and tribal governments would be minimal and would not exceed the threshold established in that act ($50 million in 1996, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. Description of the bill's major provisions: S. 967 would affect the terms and conditions of various property transactions involving Alaska native corporations. Several provisions would affect the property rights of specific native corporations. S. 967 would amend existing law by assigning a value of $39 million to properties to be conveyed by the Calista Corporation in exchange for monetary credits to certain federal properties if the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the corporation have not agreed on the value of the exchange by January 1, 1998. The bill would allow the Doyon, Limited, native corporation to obtain the subsurface rights retained by the federal government in up to 12,000 acres of public lands surrounded by or contiguous to corporation-owned properties. Another provision would expand the entitlement of the Cook Inlet Region Incorporated (CIRI) to include subsurface rights to an additional 3,520 acres. S. 967 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to allow the native residents of five native villages in southeast Alaska to organize as native corporations. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $1 million for planning grants to the five villages. The bill would permit individual natives to exclude bonds issued by a native corporation from the assets used for determining financial eligibility for federal need-based assistance or benefits. The bill would extend certain protections to lands exchanged among corporations, clarify the status of applications involving land allotments, and exempt a corporation's revenues from sand, gravel, and certain other resources from the income distribution requirements that apply to regional corporations' development of subsurface property. The bill would specify the method of distributing mining claim revenues related to the Haida Corporation or Haida Traditional Use sites. Finally, the bill includes administrative provisions affecting training of federal land managers, subsistence uses in Glacier Bay National Park, certain access rights to federal land, contracting preferences for visitor services, and a status report by the Secretary of the Interior on implementing current laws on local hiring and contracting with regard to public lands. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase direct spending by about $10 million over the 1998-2002 period and about $17 million over the 1998-2007 period. This bill also would authorize to be appropriated about $1 million for planning grants to certain native villages. The estimated budgetary impact of enacting S. 967 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal years in millions of dollars--

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act of 1997. I am pleased that the junior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas is cosponsoring this bill. Our bill clarifies the intent of Congress to allow health clinics to participate in the new Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. Mr. President, great advances in health care have occurred during the past decades, however, some communities in remote areas continue to struggle to provide primary care services. These communities face unparalleled geographic, climatic and economic barriers to quality health care. They simply do not have the resources, surface transportation nor the demand to provide full service inpatient and outpatient care--yet the community might be located hours from an acute care hospital in an urban center. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 addresses part of this dilemma. It exempts many rural hospitals from burdensome Medicare regulations designed for large urban hospitals and does not straight jacket them under the prospective payment system. This limited-service model has already helped to reduce unnecessary overhead and prevent cost shifting in eight States. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Act means that extremely rural communities will finally be able to provide more complete health care to the elderly. However, Mr. President, this important Medicare provision needs legislative clarification. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program addresses part of the dilemma faced by communities located in remote areas, but misses a piece of the health care puzzle for our frontier communities--health clinics. Frontier communities face conditions even more extreme than rural communities. For example, the communities on the Fox Islands in Alaska are 400 miles from the nearest limited-service hospital and 650 miles from the nearest major, acute care hospital. There are no hospitals or even limited-service hospitals on the Fox Islands--just health clinics. This legislation will enable clinics in frontier communities such as the Fox Islands to participate in the program. A frontier area is defined in the bill as borough with six or fewer people per square mile. Additionally, to ensure this extension goes to frontier communities who are truly in need, participating clinics must be located in health professional shortage areas, and be more than a 50- mile drive from another facility. Mr. President, the Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act of 1997 is the answer for ensuring health care for our elderly who live in extremely rural and frontier areas. Demonstrations conducted by the Health Care Financing Administration have already proven the cost effectiveness of limited-service facilities. I would also point out that yesterday, the National Rural Health Association [NRHA], in a letter to Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, the nominee to be Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, endorsed the concept of allowing rural clinics to participate in this program. I urge my colleagues to consider the health care needs of frontier communities and adopt this bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act of 1997. I am pleased that the junior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas is cosponsoring this bill. Our bill clarifies the intent of Congress to allow health clinics to participate in the new Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. Mr. President, great advances in health care have occurred during the past decades, however, some communities in remote areas continue to struggle to provide primary care services. These communities face unparalleled geographic, climatic and economic barriers to quality health care. They simply do not have the resources, surface transportation nor the demand to provide full service inpatient and outpatient care--yet the community might be located hours from an acute care hospital in an urban center. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 addresses part of this dilemma. It exempts many rural hospitals from burdensome Medicare regulations designed for large urban hospitals and does not straight jacket them under the prospective payment system. This limited-service model has already helped to reduce unnecessary overhead and prevent cost shifting in eight States. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Act means that extremely rural communities will finally be able to provide more complete health care to the elderly. However, Mr. President, this important Medicare provision needs legislative clarification. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program addresses part of the dilemma faced by communities located in remote areas, but misses a piece of the health care puzzle for our frontier communities--health clinics. Frontier communities face conditions even more extreme than rural communities. For example, the communities on the Fox Islands in Alaska are 400 miles from the nearest limited-service hospital and 650 miles from the nearest major, acute care hospital. There are no hospitals or even limited-service hospitals on the Fox Islands--just health clinics. This legislation will enable clinics in frontier communities such as the Fox Islands to participate in the program. A frontier area is defined in the bill as borough with six or fewer people per square mile. Additionally, to ensure this extension goes to frontier communities who are truly in need, participating clinics must be located in health professional shortage areas, and be more than a 50- mile drive from another facility. Mr. President, the Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act of 1997 is the answer for ensuring health care for our elderly who live in extremely rural and frontier areas. Demonstrations conducted by the Health Care Financing Administration have already proven the cost effectiveness of limited-service facilities. I would also point out that yesterday, the National Rural Health Association [NRHA], in a letter to Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, the nominee to be Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, endorsed the concept of allowing rural clinics to participate in this program. I urge my colleagues to consider the health care needs of frontier communities and adopt this bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over many of the agencies funded by this appropriations bill, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I rise to express several concerns about the Interior appropriations conference report that is before us today. Included in the conference report are numerous provisions that are important to my State of Alaska; none more critical than language extending a moratorium preventing a Federal takeover of the management of Alaska's fisheries until December 1, 1998. Mr. President, last year, the Alaska congressional delegation was successful in temporarily preventing the Federal Government from taking over the management of our fisheries. That moratorium is about to expire. If this conference report is not adopted, the Federal takeover is inevitable, forcing the citizens of my State of Alaska to live with fisheries management not seen since territorial days. This is what statehood was all about, Mr. President, giving the people of Alaska the authority to manage our fish and game. We have just about come full circle. I cannot in good conscience turn the clock back on all of the advances that we have made in 38 years since statehood. It is for that reason primarily that I am inclined to vote for this conference report. However, Mr. President, I want to express my objection to several areas, specifically in the process that has led to the inclusion of amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, as a part of the extension of the moratorium, as a consideration for the moratorium, Mr. President, several months ago the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Bruce Babbitt, informed the Alaska delegation that he would recommend a Presidential veto of another moratorium extending the prohibition of the Department of the Interior to take over the management of fish and game. The Secretary has now withdrawn the veto threat, but only under the condition that a provision which effectively amends ANILCA title VIII be included in this conference report. The provision also requires that the Alaska Legislature act and the people of Alaska approve the changes in a referendum before the amendments to ANILCA are effective. These amendments were worked out by Alaska's Governor, the Secretary of the Interior, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I was not a party to these negotiations, and I believe that there were other options that should have been explored. Nevertheless, Mr. President, rather than a congressional moratorium, my hope specifically would have been for the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor to have worked together so that the Secretary could have applied to the court for an extension of time to avoid a Federal takeover, based specifically on progress that was being made. And, indeed, Mr. President, there was a good deal of progress. A task force was established by the Governor. That task force met several times and made its final recommendations. The Alaska Federation of Natives held a number of meetings and came up with its seven-point proposals. The State house resources committee held statewide hearings. And the State senate held hearings in September. So there was a good deal of evidence that progress was being made. Perhaps this would have led to a special session and a resolve by the legislature, along with the input from the AFN, to give all Alaskans an opportunity to vote on the issue next year. Unfortunately, there was no input by the legislature, the elected representatives of the people. My fear is now that some in our State, some Alaskans, will have the unreasonable expectation that future moratoriums can simply be obtained by the delegation--we have done it before--and the State legislature would therefore have an excuse not to finally resolve the issue. The legislature will have a chance to receive input and provide recommendations on the proposed amendments to title VIII of ANILCA. I tell the people of Alaska that it will be highly unlikely that we are going to see another moratorium legislated by Congress. The extension of the moratorium will provide the State legislature with an additional 14 months to work toward a resolve on the subsistence issue. As I indicated, the legislature will have the chance to receive input and provide recommendations to the proposed amendments of title XIII of ANILCA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my intention, after the State legislature acts, is to conduct hearings here in Washington to cover the context of the language in the Interior appropriations bill and to receive input from the legislature and the State of Alaska, native groups, sportsmen's groups, and other interested parties on any further amendments to ANILCA title VIII that might be appropriate. Mr. President, avoiding a Federal takeover of fish and game management is simply critical in my State. When Alaska became a State, Alaskans were united in our desire to take over the management of our fish and game. Many Alaskans still have vivid memories of the disaster of Federal control. Alaska salmon runs plummeted to 25 million fish with Federal bureaucrats in control in Washington, DC. Under State management, our runs are increasing and have approached 200 million in the last few years. Alaskans must act now by participating in a process and agreeing to a solution to prevent a Federal takeover of our fisheries and gaining back control of our game management. The State, not the elusive Federal bureaucrats with no accountability to Alaskans, should manage our fish and game. They are responsible to the people of Alaska. And they are certainly accountable in Alaska as to managing the fish and game. A subsistence solution I think must follow four basic principles that must be laid down as objectives. First must be the protection of our resource. It must return and keep management of fish and game to the State of Alaska. It must provide all the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, and it must be fair to all Alaskans. This issue must be resolved while both Congressman Don Young and I retain our respective chairmanships of the committees of jurisdiction on this issue. Some have suggested we simply repeal the Federal subsistence law. But the Clinton administration, of course, would oppose this and would undoubtedly veto the bill. Even if we did, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, would still have the authority to enforce a Native-only subsistence priority based on his trust responsibilities to Alaska Natives established by Indian law. As I indicated earlier, we have made more progress in the past year on resolving the subsistence issue than any time in the past. We have involved the Governor, the Natives, and the legislature in moving forward on this issue. These constructive actions are why I support the moratorium contained in the conference report but object to the process or lack thereof by which the ANILCA amendments were included without the input of the representatives of Alaska; namely, the State legislature. In the meantime, Mr. President, let me commend and support the ongoing process in the State to come to a general consensus and put a solution on the ballot in November 1998 so that Alaskans have the ability to vote on a final solution. This is an Alaskan issue, Mr. President. It mandates an Alaskan solution. As chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, I stand ready to work on amendments to Federal subsistence in concert with Alaska. Ketchikan Health Care Another item of note, Mr. President. I want to express my disappointment that the conference report does not contain a provision that prevents the Indian Health Service, IHS, from entering into two contracts for Native health care clinics in the community of Ketchikan, AK. This was a provision that passed the Senate and would have prevented the Indian Health Service from entering into those two contracts. Mr. President, this is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, the Indian Health Service declined to exercise their administrative discretion. Although I personally made contacts with the administrator, they refused to exercise their administrative discretion to contract with only a single facility. Had IHS done so, it would have avoided paying $500,000 a year in additional and unnecessary administrative costs that will be borne by the America taxpayer at the expense of health care, in my opinion, for Alaska Natives. As we increase our administrative funds that leaves less for care. Instead, Mr. President, the Indian Health Service ducked the cost issue, hiding behind the policy of the Indian Self-Determination Act. They are choosing to satisfy two Native entities rather than looking at ways to deliver the most efficient and the best health care for the money. It seems incredible that at a time when we have been slowing spending and other Federal health programs, Indian Health Service would choose to waste money on administrative overhead instead of making the tough health care decisions as to who is best qualified. The final conference report allows for the possibility of two Native health clinics to be operated within a couple of miles of each other in Ketchikan, AK. I still fail to see the logic of the decision by IHS to authorize both clinics in a small community, and I intend to pursue this matter again with IHS. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Further, Mr. President, another area I want to address, is my dismay at the recent practice of using the strategic petroleum reserve, or SPR, as a piggy bank. The trend continues in this year's Interior appropriations bill. Last year we sold oil in the SPR that cost $33 a barrel for $18 to $20 a barrel. As a result, we lost the taxpayers almost half a billion dollars. But it doesn't look like we have learned our lesson. The fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill sells another 207.5 million dollars worth of SPR oil, a sale that will cost the taxpayers an additional $170 million. Buying high and selling low never makes sense. I wonder if we are like the man in the old joke who is buying high and selling low, claiming ``he would make it up on volume.'' This is a complete waste of taxpayers' money, and it must be stopped. priority land acquisitions and exchanges Finally, Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have taken an active interest in how the additional $700 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is appropriated for priority lands acquisitions and exchanges. I have strongly advocated appropriating moneys from the fund in a manner consistent with the terms and the spirit of the Land and Water Conservation Act. I want to express my disappointment with how this money was ultimately appropriated. However, I do want to commend my good friend, Senator Gorton, and his extraordinary staff for a job well done and to thank him for the efforts that he took to accommodate my concerns with these provisions. Title V of H.R. 2107, as it emerged from conference, differs dramatically from the bill which was passed by both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate last month. First, the $100 million that the Senate appropriated for the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund matching grant program has been eliminated. This is unfortunate. This program provides vitally needed matching funds for State and local parks and recreation projects. Unfortunately, for the fourth year in a row, no moneys are provided for this program, which is universally supported by mayors, Governors, environmental groups, and many others who care about park and recreation issues. Second, title V appropriates Land and Water Conservation moneys to the Federal land management agencies for uses not otherwise authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Act: namely, critical maintenance activities and mitigation payments associated with the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. While I do not disagree that the money needs to be appropriated for these purposes, I believe this sets a very dangerous precedent for use of the Land and Water Conservation moneys. Finally, and most significantly, I object to the decision to authorize the Headwaters Forest of New World Mine acquisitions on the appropriations bill. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in the authorizing committee. This decision is clearly within the purview of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and not the Appropriations Committee. If appropriators are allowed to circumvent the authorizers as blatantly as they have tried, then what role are authorizers, all authorizing committees, to play in future Congresses? Nonetheless, I again commend Senator Gorton and Senator Stevens, along with the majority leader, for ensuring that the members in my committee are provided a meaningful opportunity to review the authorizations contained within the bill. I intend to hold them to their commitment to provide the supplemental appropriations bill as a vehicle for any amendments to this authorization reported by the committee. I also appreciate the fact that the authorization requires the administration to perform appraisals on these acquisitions and provides time for Congress to review the appraisals before the funds appropriated for the acquisitions are released. The American taxpayers are entitled to know whether or not the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine purchases are the great deals that the Clinton administration claims. Mr. President, this is a flawed conference report. But I cannot turn my back on the people of Alaska and vote against it because there are many provisions that benefit the people of my State. Most importantly, this conference report prevents a Federal takeover of fish and game management and I will therefore vote for the conference report. alaska-specific appropriations Mr. President, although the extension of the moratorium contained in this conference agreement is critical to every Alaskan, there are several other provisions that should not go unnoticed. NPR-A: The conference agreement contains language amending the lease terms in the National Petroleum Reserve which allows leases to be offered for an initial period of not less than 10 years. In addition, this provision allows for an extension of the lease for as long as the oil and gas is produced in paying quantities. Additionally, the change will allow lease holders to unitize, providing for more efficient development of the NPR-A area if, in fact lease sales are offered next years. PILT: The funding level for the payment in lieu of tax [PILT] program has been raised from $113.5 to $120 million. This is especially important for Alaska communities especially since Congress last year provided that communities within unorganized boroughs are eligible for PILT payments. RS2477: The conference report also makes clear that previous appropriations language preventing final rules or regulations from taking effect regarding the validity or recognition of RS2477 claims is, in fact permanent law. Glacier Bay: The conference report also ensures safer access to Glacier Bay National Park for those people who use the ferry from Juneau, including the handicapped and elderly. Stampede Mine: Mr. President, I must commend the appropriators for also including a provision that allows, after 10 years, that the University of Alaska will finally get just compensation for mining properties that the Park Service destroyed. Spruce bark beetle: Also included in this conference agreement is an appropriation of $500,000 to the U.S. Forest Service to work with the stakeholders in Alaska to develop an action plan to manage the spruce bark beetle infestation in south-central Alaska, and to rehabilitate the infested areas. Appendix C: The conferees have also provided a 1-year extension for five small villages in the Lake Clark area of Alaska to file a lawsuit regarding lands these villages were promised more than 20 years ago under ANSCA. Kantishna: Language is also included in the conference report that provides both claim owners in the park and the National Park Service with an expedited mechanism to resolve these claims. Consenting owners will be allowed to obtain compensation 90 days after enactment of this act. However, taking matters will be left to the parties or the court system to resolve. Red cedar: I am also pleased that in working with Senator Patty Murray, we were able to foster greater utilization of Alaska red cedar and achieve greater efficiency in Tongass timbers sales in general. Forest Service: This conference report also provides direction to the U.S. Forest Service that it not waste any money on expensive forest planning revisions until new regulations concerning forest planning are issued. Title V--Priority Land Acquisitions and Exchanges As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I rise today to speak about title V of H.R. 2107. Throughout the appropriations process, I have taken an active interest in the additional $700 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] for priority land acquisitions and exchanges. While I am disappointed with how this money was ultimately appropriated, I want to commend Senator Gorton and his staff for a job well done and thank him for the efforts he took to accommodate my concerns with these provisions. Since last spring, I have strongly advocated appropriating moneys from the LWCF in a manner consistent with the terms, and spirit, of the LWCF Act. The LWCF provides funds for two purposes: the purchase of Federal land by the land management agencies--the Federal-side LWCF Program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal, State, and local governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities--the state-side LWCF matching grant program. Title V of H.R. 2107, as passed by both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate, appropriated LWCF moneys for both of these programs. In that bill, $100 million was appropriated to the stateside LWCF matching grant program, with the remainder appropriated for Federal land acquisitions and land exchanges, including $250 million for the purchase of the Headwaters Forest in northern California and $65 million for the purchase of the New World Mine property outside of Yellowstone National Park. Both of these acquisitions, which were requested by the Clinton administration, were made contingent on the enactment of separate authorizing legislation. They are not land acquisitions otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act and raise substantial land policy questions which reach well beyond the property being acquired. Unfortunately, in conference, the Senate's efforts to reinvigorate the LWCF were undermined. While the total commitment from the LWCF included in this bill is by the far the largest in nearly two decades, no money is provided for the stateside LWCF matching grant program. At the same time, the LWCF moneys appropriated to the Federal land management agencies are authorized for uses inconsistent with the LWCF Act. Moreover, the conferees chose to authorize the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine property in this appropriations bill. As anyone involved with the conference can attest, I objected to this decision and was, at best, an unwilling participant in the process to authorize these acquisitions on H.R. 2107. I am left to wonder what role the authorizing committees, and the Senate for that matter, are to play in the writing of the laws which authorize the spending of the taxpayers money and the management of the public's lands. The conferees did include requirements which will provide the authorizing committees with an opportunity to conduct meaningful review of the acquisitions and provide protections to the American taxpayers. stateside lwcf matching grant program The stateside LWCF matching grant program is one of two purposes for which LWCF moneys can be appropriated. The LWCF Act recognizes that a significant portion of the annual LWCF appropriation will be spent on the stateside matching grant program and, before the 1976 amendments to the LWCF Act, mandated that 60 percent of the annual LWCF appropriation go to the stateside LWCF matching grant program. The LWCF Act now implies such an appropriation by specifying that ``not less than 40 percent of [the annual LWCF] appropriations shall be available for Federal purposes.'' 16 U.S.C. 460l-7. Stateside LWCF matching grants have played a vital role in providing recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans. Stateside LWCF matching grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation projects in all 50 States, including campgrounds, trails, and open space. While trips to our national parks create experiences and memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day-out, people recreate close to home. In fiscal year 1995, the last year for which the stateside LWCF matching grant program was funded, there were nearly 3,800 applications for stateside grants. Unfortunately, there was only enough money to fund 500 projects. In the intervening 3 years, the local and State demand for those resources only has increased. That is why stateside LWCF matching grants are so important. Stateside LWCF matching grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for stateside LWCF grants, they provide vital seed-money which local communities use to forge partnerships with private entities. Unlike the Clinton administration, and its House counterparts, the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Senate, recognized the value of the stateside LWCF matching grant program and appropriated $100 million to the program over the next 4 years. The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee noted, in its report, that ``resource protection is not solely the responsibility nor the domain of the Federal Government, and that States can in may cases extract greater value from moneys'' appropriated from the LWCF. While this $100 million appropriation would only have met a fraction of the demand for stateside LWCF matching grants, it would have helped to restore the historic balance between the State and Federal sides of the LWCF. With the action of the Clinton administration and the Congress to shut down the stateside LWCF matching grant program in fiscal year 1996, the LWCF has become a Federal-only land acquisition program. The balance created by the LWCF Act--between the State and local communities and the Federal Government; between urban and rural communities; between the Western and Eastern States--for the acquisition of outdoor recreation resources has been lost. As I have expressed before, I believe the loss of this balance is a tragic mistake and only serves to increase the already significant pressure on the Federal Government to meet the recreation demands of the American public. Unfortunately, H.R. 2107 compounds this imbalance. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I plan to continue in the 2d session of the 105th Congress, my efforts to reinvigorate the stateside LWCF matching grant program. I intend to work with the members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to fund the stateside LWCF matching grant program in fiscal year 1999. I also will search to find a permanent source of funding for the stateside LWCF matching grant program so that this annual appropriations battle can be avoided. The stateside LWCF matching grant program is too important to the America people for Congress to do anything less. Federal Use of the LWCF The LWCF Act also authorizes LWCF moneys to be used by the Federal land management agencies to acquire property, otherwise authorized by Congress. Congress envisioned that a substantial part of the LWCF moneys allocated for Federal land acquisition should go toward the purchase of privately owned inholdings within the authorized boundaries of national parks, forests, and refuges. Moreover, because the LWCF Act was enacted to establish a funding mechanism for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation resources, LWCF moneys generally must be spent to purchase such lands. The Bureau of Land Management only can use LWCF moneys to purchase lands which are primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes. 43 U.S.C. 1748(d). Similarly, in the absence of a specific authorization, the National Park Service only can use LWCF moneys to acquire inholdings within national parks for outdoor recreation purposes. 16 U.S.C. 460l-9(a)(1). Limitations also exist with respect to Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service use of LWCF moneys. However, even with these limitations, the demand for LWCF moneys is significant. The four Federal land management agencies have identified more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands lying within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, and national wildlife refuges. These inholdings increase the operating and management costs of the land management units. Much of this acreage is small isolated parcels which complicate overall resource planning. These inholdings increase the time and cost of management as Federal land management agencies must maintain the boundaries, monitor illegal uses, enforce use restrictions, process requests for special uses, address trespass issues, in addition to many other management responsibilities. At the same time, many of these inholders have been waiting decades to receive promised compensation from the Federal Government for their property. The National Park Service alone, in its fiscal year 1998 budget request, estimates that the cost to acquire all the private land identified for acquisition within the authorized boundaries of the units of the National Park System, excluding the Alaska parks, is $1.5 billion. Obviously, the costs to purchase these private lands will only increase, Nonetheless, despite this significant demand for Federal land acquisition dollars and the costs associated with inholdings, the conferees have chosen to allow LWCF moneys to be spent on uses not otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act--critical maintenance by the four Federal land management agencies. The LWCF Act does not authorize any agency--Federal, State, local to use LWCF moneys for operations and maintenance activities. The conferees also authorized $22 million in mitigation payments to Humboldt County, CA, and the State of Montana-- again, a use not otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act. I am troubled by these decisions which set a dangerous precedent by expanding the purposes for which LWCF moneys can be spent. LWCF moneys not spent on the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions should be limited to the purchase of private land now owned by willing sellers within the authorized boundaries of existing land management units, consistent with the terms of the LWCF Act. Headwaters Forest/New World Mine Authorizations The conferees also decided to authorize the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine acquisitions in H.R. 2107. While the Clinton administration has conceded that these acquisitions need specific authorizations, I strongly believe that such authorizations should not be included in an appropriations bill. Rather, such authorizations should be the subject of separate legislation which has gone through the regular authorization process. I want to reiterate that my unwillingness to embrace authorizing these two acquisitions on H.R. 2107 comes not from any personal opposition to these purchases. I have repeatedly stated over the past 6 months that I have not formed an opinion on whether or not these properties warrant inclusion in the Federal estate because I, and the members of my committee, do not know enough about the acquisitions to even form an opinion on their merits. Bills authorizing these acquisitions have never been introduced in the Senate and my requests for information from the administration over the past year have been largely ignored. On several occasions I have come to the Senate floor to voice my concerns about these acquisitions, but even these efforts have failed to get the attention of the administration. It is this very lack of information and cooperation, and the resulting unanswered questions about the acquisitions, which I believe counseled against authorizing these purchases absent a thorough, and open, review by the authorizing committees. Nonetheless, the appropriators chose to proceed differently. And, while I disagreed with this decision, I again would like to thank Senator Gorton for his efforts to ensure that the authorizations contained in H.R. 2107 protect the role of the authorizing committee and the interests of the American taxpayer. The conferees provided this protection by prohibiting expenditure of the appropriated funds for 180 days. During this time, if no separate authorizing legislation is reported, the acquisitions will proceed according to the authorizations contained in H.R. 2107. The Appropriations Committee has committed to allow any authorizing language reported by my committee or the House Resources Committee to be attached to the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill. During the 180 day review period, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are to provide Congress with fair market value appraisals for both properties. This requirement is critical to protect the American taxpayers. The most significant unanswered questions about both properties concern their fair market value. Because the purchase prices for both the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine property were the result of negotiation and dependent, in part, on other terms, the actual fair market value of the properties is unknown. The appraisals must comply with the Department of Justice ``Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions,'' along with other applicable laws and regulations. The Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office also must evaluate both appraisals. In that review, the Comptroller General should examine the methodology and data used in the appraisals. With respect to the New World Mine, an appraisal is already required pursuant to the August 1996 agreement. A 1995 National Park Service report estimates the fair market value of the property is less than $50 million but the Federal Government has agreed to a $65 million purchase price. As to the Headwaters Forest, there is enormous discrepancy as to the property's value. The owner contends the property now has a value of close to $1 billion. A 1993 Forest Service appraisal values the property at $500 million. However, a 1996 analysis of the property conducted for the Department of Justice concludes that the property has a value between $20 million, applying current environmental restrictions, and $250 million, without any environmental restrictions. The Federal Government and the State of California have agreed to purchase the Headwaters Forest for $380 million. To further exacerbate this situation, the Federal tax consequences of the Headwaters Forest acquisition have not been considered. The sale of the Headwaters Forest is conditioned upon the current landowner receiving a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that it can take as a business loss the difference between the appraised value of the property and the Federal purchase price. The Headwaters Forest acquisition will cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues, in addition to the $250 million cash purchase price. In the absence of the appraisal requirements, Congress would have found itself in the uncomfortable position of appropriating sums for Federal land purchases without any idea whether or not the purchases were good deals for the American taxpayers. This is what the Clinton administration sought. The Clinton administration wanted Congress to ratify the purchase prices for the New World Mine property and Headwaters Forest in order to avoid complying with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act--the act which requires a fair market value appraisal of any private property to be acquired by the Federal Government. By requiring the completion of appraisals before the expenditure of the appropriated funds, Congress can determine for itself, and the American taxpayer, the fair market value of these properties. The authorizations contained in H.R. 2107 also require Secretary of the Interior, with respect to the Headwaters Forest acquisition, and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the New World Mine acquisition, to submit reports to Congress 120 days after enactment of H.R. 2107. These reports must detail the status of the conditions imposed in H.R. 2107 on the acquisitions. The reports also will provide information which Congress can use in reviewing the acquisitions. One of these conditions, imposed on the Headwaters Forest acquisition, is the issuance of a incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act based on an acceptable habitat conservation plan [HCP]. There currently are a number of questions about the status of the Headwaters Forest HCP. The Agreement to purchase the Headwaters Forest requires that the Federal Government and the property seller agree to an HCP for timber harvesting activities which will occur on the remaining 200,000 acres owned by the company. In fact, because of difficulties in negotiating an acceptable HCP for this property, the timber company sued the Federal Government. Because of the significance of the HCP, within 60 days of enactment of H.R. 2107, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce must report to the authorizing committees on scientific and legal standards and criteria for species used to develop the HCP. All of these issues will be examined during the 180-day review period. There are questions, with respect to the New World Mine acquisition, about the amount of land or interests in land the Federal Government will be acquiring. The mining company, which agreed to sell, owns, or has under lease, interests in nearly 6,000 acres outside of Yellowstone National Park. However, the mining company only has fee title to 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. In conversations, the mining company has stated that this third party has agreed to forego her rights to develop the mineral reserves of the property for some undisclosed price but that she will retain her surface rights. There has been no written verification of this arrangement and it remains unclear exactly what interests and interests in land the Federal Government will acquire for the $65 million purchase price. Again, this information needs to be provided to Congress so that it can be examined during the 180-day review period. My committee also will evaluate the long-term management plans for the properties. Who will manage the properties? For what purposes? At what costs? With respect to the Headwaters Forest acquisition, how will management responsibilities be divided between the Federal Government and the State of California? With respect to the New World Mine property, how will other mineral containing private property outside Yellowstone National Park be treated? Should the Federal Government be acquiring those properties in order to prevent other mineral development in this area? While an effort has been made to address, at least partially, some of these questions in the context of an authorization on H.R. 2107, a number of them remain unanswered and need to be analyzed in greater depth. Again, I would have preferred examining the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine property through the usual authorization process; thereby, respecting the roles of the appropriation and authorizing committees. Nonetheless, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will undertake, in good faith, a thorough review of the purchases and, if necessary, report out changes to the authorizations contained in H.R. 2107 at the beginning of next year for inclusion in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill. My goal is to ensure that, despite the uncommon circumstances which have led us to this point, Congress and the American people can have confidence in the decisions to acquire Headwaters Forest and New World Mine properties. Denali Mining Acquisitions Today, the Senate will agree to passage of the conference report for H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. Contained within this bill is a provision dealing with mining claims in Denali National Park. As chairman of the authorizing committee for Department of Interior activities, I regret that the Department has delayed resolution of this issue until this year. I would prefer to see stand-alone legislation to enact this provision in order to allow those affected by repeated Park Service delays to be able to testify on the record about them. Those Denali inholders who wished to sell their inholdings to the Park Service have waited for just compensation for some time in some cases. Many inholders have been forced to abandon their claims in order to avoid paying the annual maintenance fee. Others have lost their claims due to payment of this fee only days late. This is not the way to treat Alaskans and it is my personal belief that a taking occurred long ago. As such, the date of taking has not been fixed by this provision. As required by section 202(3)(b) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, a study of the mineral values of this area was completed in 1983. This study, known as the DOWL report, clearly identifies the high mineral values of the claims in question. With the passage of this legislation, it is my hope that the courts will use this congressionally authorized report as a guide to determining the proper valuations. It is my intent to continue to oversee the Park Service's activities in regards to this provision to ensure that a resolution to this problem is finally reached. I hope that a nearly 15-year-old problem will finally be resolved. Mr. President, for the record I wish to clarify an important point regarding the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. That point concerns the Minerals Management Service's rulemaking proceedings on the valuation of crude oil from Federal oil and gas leases, proceedings which have been underway since January of this year. Those proceedings began with a proposed rule to replace the longstanding practice of valuing crude oil royalties at the lease where the oil is produced with a new system--a system under which valuation for oil from any Federal lease anywhere in the country would begin with prices bid for future contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX. Concerned about the fairness of the proposal and the fiscal impacts of an ill-considered rule, the managers of the appropriations bill have charged the MMS to continue to meet with representatives of affected states and of Federal leesees. Those meetings should be conducted in a manner to permit a full, careful airing of MMS's proposal and the several alternatives that have been recommended by States and producers. More importantly, those meetings should be conducted in a manner designed to move the stakeholders in this issue toward consensus. MMS has begun the process of continued consultation by holding a series of workshops in October. I am aware that Secretary Babbitt has received sharp criticism from some who portray these meetings between MMS, States, and producers as backroom sessions, even though notice of those meetings was published in the Federal Register inviting the public to attend. Those critics, however, have already predetermined that MMS's NYMEX-price proposal is the only correct way to value royalty and that MMS must adopt it immediately. The workshops MMS has begun are in fact the beginning of the detailed consultation the managers have directed the agency to undertake. From statements made by representatives of the MMS and of producers, I gather that there is disagreement over whether the current regulations need amending to address recent concerns, and significant disagreement over how to amend them if amendment is needed. According to statements made by MMS representatives, its rulemaking proceedings arose because of the agency's concern that the current regulations allowed large, integrated oil companies to value royalties by using their own posted prices, the prices they publicly state they will pay to purchase oil from third parties. The workshops MMS has begun are the first real effort directly to address and fix the problems MMS and State representatives have identified from their audits. I was disappointed to learn, however, of MMS's announcement that the workshops would be limited to 30 days. While the managers expect the agency to continue to work with dispatch, the haste of the workshops evidently has resulted from political pressure MMS is receiving from certain quarters. A few workshops in 30 days cannot adequately explore how to restore confidence in all quarters that the royalty valuation program is fairly collecting the full value of production at the lease. For my part, I intend to ensure that the agency carries out the charge the managers have given it. If necessary, I will hold oversight hearings next year to assure that the agency explains why the current regulations are not working, that it explains how whatever alternative it then is pursuing assures that the public is receiving royalties based on the fair market value of the oil at the lease, and that it reports on its efforts to resolve the issues by consensus.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I inquire whether or not there is a time allocation under the standing orders of the Senate?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. During the past Congress, both the House Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held hearings on this dispute. We heard from members of the villages seeking their lands as well as from the Department of the Interior. At the end of the Senate hearing in September 1996, I asked if the Department of the Interior was willing to work with the villages to come to a resolution. While its initial indication was yes, more than 6 months later, no action had been taken. On January 2 of this year, Chairman Young and I wrote to Secretary Babbitt requesting again that appropriate department policy level officials meet with the affected villages and the regional corporation as soon as possible to negotiate a resolution acceptable to the administration and the Alaska Native corporations. Again, there was no serious effort to seek a resolution. Having no indication that the Department was willing to even try to negotiate a settlement of this dispute, Chairman Young and I wrote to Chairman Stevens on April 25 asking him to include language in the Interior appropriations bill to ensure conveyance of the disputed land to the villages.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I noted that the White House recently released a strategy for climate change talks. The President said the United States would not assume binding obligations until developing countries agree to participate meaningfully in the climate-change issue. White House officials said they expect requirements for developing countries would be fleshed out in negotiations. This is what concerns me, Mr. President, ``fleshed out in negotiations.'' The senior Senator from West Virginia and the occupant of the chair, Senator Hagel, authored a resolution that has been supported in this body by an overwhelming vote of 95 to 0. The Byrd- Hagel resolution said developing nations must have targets and timetables in the same timeframe as the United States. Mr. President, it is my contention that the President is glossing over the issue of developing-country participation. The Berlin Mandate says ``no new commitments for developing nations.'' Has the President repudiated the Berlin Mandate? Otherwise, how in the world can President Clinton simply state that this is something that can be taken care of in negotiations when the Berlin Mandate clearly says no new commitments for developing nations? Our President only says ``meaningful commitments for developing nations.'' I wonder what meaningful really means. At this time, we are somewhat at the mercy of our negotiators on this matter. We have seen comments in the Record from various members of the Senate praising the President's plan, stating that they are encouraged by the policy announcements and pleased with the White House plan. Another member said that the President's position should satisfy demands of the Byrd-Hagel resolution as expressed in this body. Those demands are not met, Mr. President, because Byrd-Hagel says developing nations must have targets and timetables in the same timeframe as the United States. That is the test. Another Senator indicates this is a green light that speaks to our Nation's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. I am a bottom line person, a nuts and bolts kind of guy. How are we going to get there from here? How will we reach the goal the President expressed, which is to go back to emissions levels of 1990 by the years 2008 to 2012? Let's do the math. Fifty-five percent of our U.S. energy production is coal. What is happening to coal? If a new climate treaty is signed, there will be reductions in coal use. EPA's new air quality standards on ozone and particulate matter are likely to decrease coal use. EPA's tightened air quality standards on oxides of sulfur and nitrogen will put more emphasis on coal reduction. EPA's proposed regional haze rule will put more pressure on coal as will any new EPA mercury emission rules. So there is going to be more pressure to reduce use of the resource supplying 55 percent of our electricity. What about nuclear? Well, the President threatens to veto our nuclear waste bill. There have been no new orders for new plants in the United States since 1975. There is the potential inability to recover stranded costs of nuclear plants in electric restructuring, so nuclear use is likely to fall. Nuclear is the largest carbon-free generator of power. The President didn't even mention it in his plan. Let us go to our next contributor--10 percent of our energy comes from hydroelectric. Yet, there are considerations in the administration to tear down dams. An example that has been discussed is the Glen Canyon Dam. If we tear down Glen Canyon, we would drain Lake Powell-- 252 square miles. That is a lake that provides the water for Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. It would eliminate sources of carbon- free electricity for 4 million consumers in the Southwest. We would scuttle a $500 million tourist industry. What about gas that supplies 10 percent of our power? Gas also emits carbons, but not as much. Demand would increase, prices would increase, and shortages might result. Some people say we will pick up the slack with wind and solar. I like wind and solar, but you can't always count on it. It is kind of interesting to see the Sierra's Club announcement the other day opposing wind farms. They refer to them as ``Cuisinarts for birds.'' So they are opposed to that. So the point is, Mr. President, how do you get there from here if the administration does not consider nuclear or hydroelectric? In his speech, the President specifically excludes hydro from renewable energy. What about the rest of the world? Let me tell you what one of our witnesses said at a hearing yesterday. Mr. Bill Martin, former Deputy Secretary of Energy, said the world is likely to increase its dependence on coal primarily due to energy demand in China. This dependence is likely to result in the doubling of sulfur dioxides in Asia and at least a 30-percent increase in global CO2, in 1990 levels, by the year 2000. To reach a sustainable energy with respect to carbon, the world will have to triple natural gas production, increase coal efficiencies through clean coal technology, triple renewables, triple nuclear power to a worldwide total of 1,000 gigawatts and increase energy efficiency by at least 25 percent. Mr. President, these are the real terms and conditions in the world that we are living in. Nuclear energy, renewables and energy efficiency emerge as the only viable source to date that are emissions-free and offer some energy independence to nations which adopt them. The point I want to make here, Mr. President, is that nuclear and hydro, a big part of the solution, are not addressed in the administration's proposal on how to reduce emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2008 to 2012. The witnesses at the hearings we held yesterday said you cannot get there from here. You cannot physically do it unless you triple nuclear and the renewables, including hydro. Let me conclude with one other thing. The President says we can do this without a carbon tax. The Department of Energy says you need a carbon permit price of $50/ton. There is no difference. There are no free rides. Somebody has to pay it. If it is a carbon tax, it is $50 a ton, and it goes to the consumer. If we set up some kind of a market in emissions, somebody like the Board of Trade starts trading permits, they are estimated to equate to $50 a ton. Somebody is going to have to pay for that, and that is the U.S. consumer. Let me conclude with just one observation as we address China, as we address the question of whether we should sell nuclear reactors and technology to China. China has the availability of nuclear power reactors from France. They have it from other nations. Canada is selling; Russia is selling. And certainly they are a nuclear power. Do we want China to burn more coal? We already have a prohibition against assisting China in the development of the world's largest hydroelectric project. It is called the Three Gorges Dam. The Eximbank will not assist. Let me tell you how big Three Gorges is. That plant would produce 18,000 megawatts, equal to 36 500-megawatt coal plants. So that is how China will address some of its energy demands from carbon-free hydropower. But we are prohibited from participating. And we are prohibited from participating in their nuclear power program. So I think, Mr. President, we have to be realistic. As the administration comes down with its plan, again, I suggest to you that the President has glossed over the issue of the developing countries' participation. I suggest and remind my colleagues of the Byrd-Hagel vote that was 95 to 0. It said developing nations must have targets and timetables in the same timeframe as the United States. And the Berlin Mandate says, no new commitments for developing nations. So I conclude by saying the President only says ``meaningful commitments for developing nations.'' And I say ``meaningful'' means what? Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the old adage says everybody likes to talk about the weather, but nobody can do anything about it. A particularly strong El Nino has meteorologists predicting strange weather this year, so expect lots of people to be talking about the weather in the months ahead. But in a new twist, many will claim that there is something we can do about the weather as well. I'm talking about efforts to curb global warming. And if you'll pardon the pun, this is one of the hottest debates we are likely to see over the next year. Is human activity the cause of this particularly strong El Nino, or the warming that some say is underway? Or is this just natural climate variation? Scientists are divided. The prestigious journal Science, in its issue of May 16, says that climate experts are a long way from proclaiming that human activities are heating up the earth. Indeed, the search for the human fingerprint in observed warming is far from over with many scientists saying that a clear resolution is at least a decade away. We continue to spend over $2 billion each year on the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program for the simple reason that the science is not settled. One thing that scientists can agree on is that the Earth's climate has always changed--the ice core and fossil records bear that out. Hippos once grazed in European rivers. Sea levels were low enough during periodic ice ages to allow humans to walk from Asia to North America. The climate changes. It always has. And it will continue to change regardless of what we do or don't do. Yesterday, the President revealed his negotiating position on a new climate treaty. He has proposed reducing our carbon emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The Department of Energy estimates that we will have to engage in a crash course of research and development, plus impose a $50 per ton carbon permit price--or tax--to achieve this target. Talks are underway at this moment in Bonn, and everyone is preparing for December negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. It is almost certain that legally binding targets and timetables will be a central feature of the new climate treaty expected to emerge in Kyoto--and that these targets and timetables will not apply to developing nations. Even if you are a proponent of strong action to address increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases thought to warm the Earth's climate, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose selectively applied, legally binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas reductions as the President has proposed. First, these are really just emissions controls targeted at just a few of the 168 nations that are parties to this treaty. Aside from being just plain unfair, these new emissions controls will be devastating to large sectors of our economy. They will raise energy prices in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe--while China, South Korea, and Mexico are specifically exempted from them. As a consequence, energy-intensive industrial production, capital, jobs, and emissions will shift from the U.S. to developing nations not subjected to the new controls. What will result from that? According to a study by the Department of Energy: 20 to 30 percent of the U.S. chemical industry could move to developing countries over 15 to 30 years, with 200,000 jobs lost; U.S. steel production could fall 30 percent with accompanying job losses of 100,000; All primary aluminum plants in the United States could close by 2010; many petroleum refiners in the Northeast and gulf coast could close, and imports would displace more domestic production. Needless to say, China, South Korea, Mexico, and some of our other most competitive trading partners salivate at the prospect of this monumental shift in capital, production, and jobs. Putting economic and competitive aspects aside for a moment, it's important to ask the questions: Will these emissions controls applied only to a few nations work? Can they decrease emissions and stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations? The answer is no. Actual global emissions won't decrease--only their point of origin will change. In fact, because our industrial processes are more energy efficient than those found in most developing nations, global carbon emissions per unit of production would actually increase under the administration's approach. In other words, the United States and a few leading industrial nations would suffer domestic economic pain, without realizing any global environmental gain. The U.S. Senate has passed a resolution by a vote of 95 to 0 urging that the new climate treaty avoid legally binding targets and timetables on developed nations unless there are ``new, specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.'' Thus, we have the makings of a train wreck: The developing nations will not participate in a climate treaty that contains legally binding targets and timetables that apply to them. Yet, the U.S. Senate is unwilling to ratify a treaty that does not contain new commitments for developing countries. There are other practical problems as well. Legally binding targets and timetables would be impossible to verify and enforce. For example, how does one measure the methane being produced by a rice paddy or landfill? How do you calculate the carbon dioxide being sequestered by a forest? While good scientific estimates can be offered, the legally binding nature of the controls might require greater precision. What kind of new strict and intrusive international regulatory regime would be needed for enforcement? These are all questions that have not been answered in the rush toward Kyoto. Practically speaking, legally binding targets and timetables won't reduce global emissions. In addition, they present potentially insurmountable implementation problems, and would even kill the treaty. Thus, they endanger well meaning efforts to address the global climate issue. If we want to keep the new treaty from becoming an international embarrassment as an environmental initiative, we should reconsider the rush to Kyoto and hammer out solutions that can really work. So, you may ask--what can really work? How does one generate large amounts of carbon-free electricity for a growing economy here at home and a developing world abroad? There are two ways in the short term-- hydropower and nuclear. So what is our official U.S. policy toward hydropower? Domestically, we are studying tearing down a few dams out west. Environmental interests want to tear down, for example, the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Northern Arizona in hopes of ``restoring the natural wonder of the once wild Glen Canyon.'' In so doing, we would: Drain Lake Powell--a 252 square mile lake which guarantees water supplies for Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas; Eliminate the source of carbon- free electricity for four million consumers in the Southwest; Scuttle a $500 million tourist industry and the water recreation area frequented by 2.5 million visitors each year. On the international front, we have refused to participate in efforts such as China's ``Three Gorges Dam,'' a project that will produce electricity equivalent to thirty-six 500 megawatt coal plants. Of course, all this makes no sense if you claim that carbon emissions are your preeminent environmental concern. Let's turn to nuclear, which produces 22% of our electricity and about 17% of global electricity. The President says he will veto our nuclear waste bill, and that could cause some of our nuclear plants to close prematurely as they run out of space for spent fuel. And we can't sell nuclear technology to China, something we hope to change in the very near future. Well, you can't be anti-nuclear, anti-hydropower, and anti-carbon. Let's do the math: Coal produces 55% of our electricity, and our coal use is likely to decrease in the face of: A new climate treaty; the EPA's new air quality standards on ozone and particulate matter; the EPA's tightened air quality standards on oxides of sulphur and nitrogen; the EPA's proposed regional haze rule; and the possibility of a new EPA mercury emissions rule. So if you knock coal out of the picture, what's next? Nuclear is in second place with 22% of our electrical generation. But as I mentioned, the President has threatened to veto our nuclear waste bill, and we haven't ordered a new nuclear plant since 1975. Moreover, if we can't recover ``stranded costs'' of nuclear power plants in the electricity restructuring effort, you can say goodbye to nuclear. What's next? Hydropower produces 10%. But all of our large hydropower potential outside Alaska has been tapped, and as I mentioned earlier, the administration is entertaining notions of tearing down some dams. What's next? Natural Gas produces 10% of electricity generation. Gas also emits carbon, although not as much as coal. So expect gas generation to increase, demand to rise, prices to increase and shortages to result from time to time. Does that sound like a solid strategy on which to gamble our economy? No coal, no nukes, no hydro; that leaves us with 13% of our generation capacity. What's left? Wind power? I like wind and solar, but you can't count on them all the time. And recently, the Sierra Club came out against wind farms in California, calling them ``cuisinarts for birds.'' So the choices are tough, and a dose of realism is badly needed down at EPA and the White House. To sum things up, we are negotiating a treaty in Kyoto that is unrealistic, can't be verified, and can't achieve the advertised results. If this were an arms control treaty, we'd be guilty of unilateral disarmament if we were to agree to it. We should reconsider this rush to Kyoto and a new treaty. There is no reason to join the lemmings in their rush over the cliff. The carbon problem didn't appear overnight. It won't be addressed overnight. We have time to devise and consider balanced approaches that can work. Time will allow new energy and efficiency technologies to mature. Time will provide for global solutions that include the developing nations. Time will allow us to sharpen our science and better understand the true threat of climate change, if it is indeed a dangerous threat. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is often useful to compare the public statements of Government officials with their private statements. Such a comparison can say a great deal about an official's true motives, not to mention their character. Last week, in response to a question I posed for the public record, the Department of the Interior provided me with a copy of a memo written by Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi to his boss, Secretary Bruce Babbitt. This memorandum was dated February 21, 1996, and it concerns the Ward Valley low-level waste disposal issue. For those who do not know, Ward Valley is the site of a low-level radioactive waste facility licensed by the State of California under the Federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. The site sits on the Bureau of Land Management land in a remote and sparsely populated area of the Mojave Desert. But the Department of the Interior reversed an earlier decision to sell the land to California, and has insisted on study after study to achieve endless delays. Meanwhile, low-level radioactive waste is piling up at hundreds of urban locations all across California. It is stored in basements, stored in parking lots, stored in trailers, stored in warehouses, and temporary shelters. It is on college campuses, it is in residential neighborhoods, it is in hospitals--sites that were not designed for permanent storage. As long as the waste in these temporary locations in populated areas is where it is, it is subject to accidental radioactive release from, fire, earthquakes, and floods. Governor Wilson is understandably concerned about the health and safety of Californians. That is his job. He is frustrated by the delays California has faced in trying to get this facility open, and so am I. I am further frustrated by the fact that the President's nominee to be the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Mr. John Garamendi, appeared before our committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on July 27, 1995, and testified under oath that Ward Valley and the issue should and would be quickly resolved. Mind you, this was July, 1995. It may interest my colleagues to know that Ward Valley was scrutinized by two--not one, but two--environmental impact statements under NEPA, and two biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act. Although all these environmental reviews have been favorable to the Ward Valley facility, the Secretary of the Interior continues to opt for further studies rather than just transferring the land to California. In 1994, having seemingly exhausted the studies available to delay the process under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary turned to the National Academy of Sciences and asked for yet another study. But in May 1995 the National Academy of Sciences study was complete, and again it was favorable to the Ward Valley site. Finally, it appeared that Secretary Babbitt had little choice but to transfer the land, and announced his intention to do so in May 1995. Environmentalists bitterly complained. Greenpeace even picketed the Secretary. Movie stars and pop singers rallied against the facility. It did not matter what the science said. The facts didn't seem to matter. It was simply good politics in California to oppose a radioactive waste site and I guess the Secretary did not like the unfavorable press he was getting at the time. Indeed, the politics of Ward Valley seems to loom large in another memorandum that we have uncovered, going back to 1993. I have a memorandum to the Secretary from October 19, 1993, that speaks to the prevailing mindset at Interior, and it says: And I quote: This memorandum addresses only the politics of Ward Valley. I can imagine no scenario that allows us to go forward with the land transfer and retain credibility with Boxer and the enviros. So to keep themselves out of hot water with environmental groups, Deputy Secretary Garamendi had to devise a new way to delay Ward Valley while simultaneously waging a public relations and political campaign against the site. As far as John Garamendi was concerned, a new excuse for a new study and further delay simply had to be found. So in February 1996, the Department of Interior evidently struck gold, or thought they had. A former low-level waste facility in Beatty, NV, was determined to be ``leaking.'' Ignoring the fact the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey told him that you could not relate Ward Valley with the Beatty, NV, site, Deputy Secretary Garamendi knew a good excuse for another study when he saw one and a PR campaign to go with it. So environmental and radiological factsheets were prepared by the Department for the press and the public, factsheets that were later criticized by the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the errors and misinformation they contained. Press conferences were held where Deputy Secretary Garamendi announced that new tritium tests would be conducted, and another new EIS would be performed because of so-called new information about the Beatty, NV, site. These new studies and the lawsuits that would surely follow might take years. But what were Interior's true motivations? Did Interior ever intend to transfer the site under their watch? Was Interior interested in the public health and safety or good PR and political advantage? Mr. President, I now have the internal memo that cuts through the public statements and press releases to provide clear insight into the Department's motivations. Let me read this memorandum for my colleagues. It is dated February 21, 1996, memorandum to Bruce Babbitt from John Garamendi. Subject: Ward Valley: Attached are the Ward Valley [press] clips. We have taken the high ground. Wilson-- Meaning Governor Pete Wilson-- is the venal toady of special interests (radiation business). It goes further to state: I do not think Greenpeace will picket you any longer. I will maintain a heavy PR campaign until the issue is finally won. Mr. President, here is the Deputy Secretary of Interior engaged in a PR campaign to portray the Governor of California as a venal toady. For those in this Chamber who may not know the precise definition of a ``venal toady,'' it means a deferential, fawning parasite who is open to bribery. A venal toady. That is Secretary Garamendi's characterization of the Governor of California, or the goal of his PR campaign. I am not sure which. Is this what Deputy Secretary Garamendi calls the high ground? Is it taking the high ground to call for study after study and create delay after delay while ignoring all the studies that show the site is safe so far? Is it taking the high ground to keep radioactive waste spread around 800 locations in California subject to some accidental release, a flood, fire or earthquake, where literally millions of people could be exposed to radioactivity, or finding a site and put it there, which we have given California the authority to do? Is it taking the high ground to say you are working to protect public health when you are, in fact, endangering the public's health? Is it taking the high ground to pretend to be pursuing a careful deliberative process following standards of good Government when, in fact, you are waging a ruthless PR campaign in which misstatements and half-truths are used? Remember, I am not the one claiming that misstatements have been made. President Clinton's own selection as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Shirley Jackson, has highlighted the Interior Department's misleading errors and misstatements in her letter to me of July 22, 1997, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I might add, I did not seek this letter from the NRC. It came unsolicited. Perhaps one might give the Department the benefit of the doubt and recognize that it is human to err. But then you encounter a memorandum such as that of February 21 to the Secretary and the Department's intent becomes obvious. This is nothing more than a political and public relations game. Secretary Garamendi seems to be saying: Let's not worry about the waste or danger it may pose. If nothing is done, that's fine. Let somebody else take care of it on their watch. But let's just make the Governor of California look like a ``parasite open to bribery,'' as the definition of ``venal toady'' describes. I believe that the Department of Interior has absolutely no intention of transferring the Ward Valley land until they are ordered to do so by the Congress or the courts. If the Senators from California and I cannot work out something with respect to land transfer legislation, we will either have to have a floor fight of some kind or be content to let the courts decide the issue. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the significance of the administration's attitude toward the Ward Valley issue and refer to the memorandum that I have highlighted of February 21, 1996, from John Garamendi to Bruce Babbitt where he criticizes, in inappropriate terms, the motivation of the Governor of California and suggests to the Secretary that he does not think Greenpeace will picket him any longer. So again, Mr. President, the terminology, referring to the Governor of California as ``the venal toady of special interests,'' deserves reflection by my colleagues on the total inappropriateness of such a memorandum from the Deputy Secretary, John Garamendi, to the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, as Congress prepares to leave for the Columbus Day recess, I notice that there are other celebrations going on around Washington, including ``National Day'' celebrations in Chinatown. These celebrations brought to mind several issues that I wanted to share with my colleagues regarding United States relations with Taiwan. As Washington prepares for the State visit of President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China, some press reports have speculated that the issue of Taiwan might be on the summit agenda. First, let me say that I welcome the visit of President Jiang. High-level dialogue with the Chinese should be regular and routine, and this summit presents an opportunity to discuss many issues of mutual concern to our two countries. But let me add that improving relations with the PRC need not, and indeed, should not, come at the expense of our relationship with Taiwan. Therefore, I sent a letter, signed by 10 of my colleagues including Majority Leader Trent Lott, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms; and East Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee Chairman Craig Thomas, to President Clinton urging him to oppose any efforts at the summit by the PRC leadership to diminish American support for Taiwan. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I wish President Clinton and his administration success at the upcoming summit, and I urge him to respect the views of me and my colleagues, which I think represents the views of many Americans, that our support for Taiwan's democracy and freedom cannot be sacrificed. I also want to use this opportunity to express my gratitude to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her efforts to consult more closely with Members of Congress with regard to issues related to Taiwan. I refer specifically to consultations regarding the recent selection of Richard Clarence Bush III as Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan [AIT]. Some of my colleagues, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, in particular, will remember that the consultation process did not work when the prior AIT Chairman, Mr. James Wood, was selected. Mr. James Wood resigned from his position on January 1997 among various charges and countercharges with regard to foreign contributions during the election campaign. I leave the legitimacy of those charges to the investigators, but I simply wanted to note that congressional concerns regarding Mr. Wood were ignored by our State Department. In response to this incident, I considered offering an amendment to the State Department authorization legislation that would have required establishing a post within the State Department that would be directly responsible for Taiwan Affairs. As part of negotiations over that amendment, I had the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary my dissatisfaction with the consultation process on matters relating to Taiwan. The Secretary promised that she would rectify this situation and would in the future consult with Congress prior to naming future officers of AIT. She followed up on this oral promise with a letter dated July 30, 1997, that states that if the Foreign Relations Committee ``expresses reservations about a prospective trustee, we will undertake to discuss and resolve the matter fully with the Committee before proceeding.'' Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the July 30 letter be printed in the Record. The Secretary held to her word and consulted with me and others prior to the selection of Richard Bush. I must admit, Mr. President, that this was an easy case. Mr. Bush is a talented individual who is well qualified to take this sensitive position. I had the opportunity to negotiate with Mr. Bush when he was advising Congressman Lee Hamilton on Taiwan-related issues, and I found him well-spoken and honest. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with him in his new role. I hope that Mr. Bush will use his new position to further strengthen and enhance United States relations with the people and the Government of Taiwan. Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner, and I am confident that trade will increase further when Taiwan joins the World Trade Organization. In addition, I encourage the administration to send high-level officials to Taiwan to further strengthen our relationship and to work out the occasional disputes that cloud our relationship. The letters follow: U.S. Senate Washington, DC, September 23, 1997. Hon. William J. Clinton, The President, The White House. Dear Mr. President: As you prepare for your summit with the President of the People's Republic of China, we thought it appropriate to share with you our thoughts regarding U.S. relations with the people and the government of Taiwan. We believe Taiwan has made extraordinary progress in recent years as the Republic of China has moved to establish a vibrant democracy with free elections, free press, strong trade unions and improved trading practices. We believe the American people are united in their support for freedom and democracy on Taiwan. Time and again, Congress has made clear our commitment to Taiwan, beginning with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and through many resolutions and bills since then. With your important meetings in Washington with the leadership of the People's Republic of China scheduled for late October, there has been much discussion about how the U.S. government would respond to possible demands by the PRC Government regarding U.S. relations with the people and the government of Taiwan. Mr. President, we urge you to oppose any efforts at the summit by the PRC leadership to diminish American support for Taiwan. We urge you to reject any plans for a ``Fourth Communique'' on issues related to Taiwan; to not weaken our defensive arms sales commitment to Taiwan; and, to not make any commitment to limit future visits by the elected representatives of the Republic of China. We in Congress are prepared to reiterate the commitment of the American people to freedom and democracy for the people and government of Taiwan. We look forward to working with you and your Administration team on these issues in the weeks ahead. Sincerely, Frank H. Murkowcki; Trent Lott; Jay Rockefeller; Tom Daschle; Craig Thomas; Sam Brownback; ------ ------ Jesse Helms; Robert G. Torricelli; Charles Robb; Larry E. Craig.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Indian Employment and Training Improvements Act of 1997, making technical amendments to the Indian Job Training and Consolidation Act of 1992. I was an original cosponsor of this law because I saw a need to reduce unnecessary, repetitive administrative costs in job development programs geared toward American Indians and Alaska Natives. I am glad to say that after only a few years, it is clear that this program is working. Alaska tribal groups tell me that they have reported great savings in administering employment and training programs through consolidation of application and reporting requirements. The Cook inlet Tribal Corporation in Alaska alone reports a near tripling of jobs in the Anchorage area since the passage of this act, from 500 to nearly 1,500 jobs. The Aleutian Pribiloffs Island Association, the Bristol Bay Native Association, Tlingit-Haida Indian Tibes in southeast Alaska, and Kawerak corporation in Norton Sound all report satisfaction with this program. I thank these Alaska Native groups for working with my staff to complete these amendments. I would also like to thank Senator Campbell for his work on this issue and for introducing his fine bill. I look forward to combining the best aspects of our bills at a mark-up to be held later this year. I appreciate his sensitivity to Alaska-specific concerns on this and other Indian Affairs issues. Mr. President, my bill would make several technical corrections that would encourage more tribes to take advantage of this demonstration. Let me highlight a few of these changes. First, it would establish the Office of Self Governance as the lead agency, replacing the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This change is needed because the BIA has shown resistance to allowing two of its programs to be included in the program: the Johnson O'Malley education program and general assistance dollars. The Office of Self governance, in contrast, has shown itself to be an effective administration in working with tribes to meet their needs. Second, it would allow the regional non-profit corporations in Alaska to act on behalf of the tribes, without having specific authorizing resolutions on the exact subject at hand, though the tribes could always object and opt out of the regional's actions. Third, it would enable tribes to establish one consolidated advisory committee to encompass all the advisory councils currently required by the programs that are included in the demonstration. All these changes will allow the participating tribes to get more out of the Indian Job Training and consolidation Act by enabling them to better tailor their programs for their individual needs and by reducing regulatory barriers to efficient consolidation of Indian job training programs. Mr. President, the drop-out rate from college of Alaska Native kids in the Anchorage area is usually between 80-90 percent. We need to provide these young Alaskans with both educational and job skills so they can fully participate in Alaska's economy. The technical amendments I am introducing today will lead to further economic growth and more efficient use of Indian job training dollars. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate and the public I am announcing that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, will hold an oversight hearing to receive testimony on the issue of peaceful nuclear cooperation with China. The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 23, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those interested in testifying or submitting material for the hearing record should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 attn: David Garman or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-8115. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Indian Employment and Training Improvements Act of 1997, making technical amendments to the Indian Job Training and Consolidation Act of 1992. I was an original cosponsor of this law because I saw a need to reduce unnecessary, repetitive administrative costs in job development programs geared toward American Indians and Alaska Natives. I am glad to say that after only a few years, it is clear that this program is working. Alaska tribal groups tell me that they have reported great savings in administering employment and training programs through consolidation of application and reporting requirements. The Cook inlet Tribal Corporation in Alaska alone reports a near tripling of jobs in the Anchorage area since the passage of this act, from 500 to nearly 1,500 jobs. The Aleutian Pribiloffs Island Association, the Bristol Bay Native Association, Tlingit-Haida Indian Tibes in southeast Alaska, and Kawerak corporation in Norton Sound all report satisfaction with this program. I thank these Alaska Native groups for working with my staff to complete these amendments. I would also like to thank Senator Campbell for his work on this issue and for introducing his fine bill. I look forward to combining the best aspects of our bills at a mark-up to be held later this year. I appreciate his sensitivity to Alaska-specific concerns on this and other Indian Affairs issues. Mr. President, my bill would make several technical corrections that would encourage more tribes to take advantage of this demonstration. Let me highlight a few of these changes. First, it would establish the Office of Self Governance as the lead agency, replacing the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This change is needed because the BIA has shown resistance to allowing two of its programs to be included in the program: the Johnson O'Malley education program and general assistance dollars. The Office of Self governance, in contrast, has shown itself to be an effective administration in working with tribes to meet their needs. Second, it would allow the regional non-profit corporations in Alaska to act on behalf of the tribes, without having specific authorizing resolutions on the exact subject at hand, though the tribes could always object and opt out of the regional's actions. Third, it would enable tribes to establish one consolidated advisory committee to encompass all the advisory councils currently required by the programs that are included in the demonstration. All these changes will allow the participating tribes to get more out of the Indian Job Training and consolidation Act by enabling them to better tailor their programs for their individual needs and by reducing regulatory barriers to efficient consolidation of Indian job training programs. Mr. President, the drop-out rate from college of Alaska Native kids in the Anchorage area is usually between 80-90 percent. We need to provide these young Alaskans with both educational and job skills so they can fully participate in Alaska's economy. The technical amendments I am introducing today will lead to further economic growth and more efficient use of Indian job training dollars. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate reference, legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka that the administration has provided me in response to my request for a drafting service. This legislation represents the language that the administration believes will implement its recommendations contained in the most recent report on the Federal-CNMI Initiative on Labor, Immigration, and Law Enforcement in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In 1994, Congress directed this Initiative in Public Law 103-332 and provided $7 million for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 with an additional $3 million for fiscal year 1997. In testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the administration committed to provide an annual report on the progress of the Initiative. Partially in response to concerns that had been raised about conditions in the Commonwealth, Senator Akaka and I visited Saipan in February of last year. In addition to extensive briefings and meetings with Commonwealth officials, we also met with Federal agency personnel and the U.S. attorney. We also visited a garment factory and talked with some Bangladesh workers who had not been paid and who were living in appalling conditions. We were assured that corrective action would be taken. I want to note that my concerns were not exclusively with the Commonwealth government, but also went to the willingness of the administration to commit the needed resources to address the problems that we saw. I specifically asked the Attorney General for the appointment of a full-time U.S. attorney for the Northern Marianas rather than having the U.S. attorney for Guam also serve the Northern Marianas. The Attorney General responded that there wasn't enough work to justify a U.S. attorney. On June 26 of last year, I chaired a hearing that examined what progress had been made. In addition to the administration, the acting Attorney General of the Commonwealth appeared and requested that the committee delay any action until the Commonwealth could complete a study on minimum wage and assured me that the study would be completed by January. I agreed to the delay. My intention was to revisit this issue in the April-May period after the administration had transmitted its annual report. While the CNMI study was not finally transmitted until April, the Administration did not transmit its annual report, which was due in April, until July. On May 30, 1997, the President wrote the Governor of the Northern Marianas that he was concerned over activities in the Commonwealth and had concluded that Federal immigration, naturalization, and minimum wage laws should apply. That letter provoked a flurry of statements, letters, articles, stories, and legislation, most of which generated more heat than light. It quickly became clear that unless there was some definition as to exactly what the problem was and what solution was being proposed, little would happen other than a series of bewildering and increasingly hostile statements. The atmosphere also made the possibility of a useful oversight hearing increasingly remote. I must say that I have not been particularly impressed by either the advocates of Federal legislation or the opponents. One side responds to concerns over workers living in barracks, abuse of domestics, prostitution, and other problems by suggesting that the answer is to raise the minimum wage. The response to allegations of abuse of workers, especially women, is not to propose raising the minimum wage. Paying a person more does not justify abuse. The other side of the argument seems to me to also miss the point. The last time we heard a justification that economic advances would be jeopardized if workers were treated properly was shortly before Appomattox. Whatever economic benefits some may have realized, that does not justify worker abuse, indentured servants, or the conditions that I saw those Bangladesh workers living in. There are certain issues that I believe need a full hearing and careful review. The minimum wage study that the Commonwealth commissioned noted at one point that the Marianas has used its control over immigration and minimum wage to import foreign workers who would be paid more than they would receive in their home countries, but less than the Federal minimum wage. These workers would produce garments that would be subject to quotas if produced in their home country, but which could be imported duty free into the mainland United States since the Marianas is outside the customs territory of the U.S. but subject to preferential treatment under General Note 3(a) of the Tariff Schedules. That is an issue that the Congress should review. When we considered the Covenant for the Marianas, we were sensitive to the fact that the Marianas had been under the minimum wage provisions of the Trust Territory and that immediate introduction of the Federal minimum wage might have an adverse effect on a developing economy that was still heavily dependent on annual Federal grants for basic Government services. We also recognized the concern expressed by the negotiators for the Northern Marianas that their small population could be overrun easily by migration. In response, we permitted the Marianas to control the timing of minimum wage and to exercise control over immigration. We also provided restraints on land alienation to protect the population. We did not consider that entrepreneurs would discover a loophole that would allow a lower minimum wage and immigration to create a non-indigenous industry that is Marianas in name only. Congress should examine whether this is a situation that should be permitted under the tariff schedules. There are also legitimate questions concerning minimum wage and immigration. We should now have sufficient experience to assess whether the Marianas is capable of providing the pre-clearance for any persons who attempt to enter the Marianas. The United States routinely does this in foreign countries as part of our visa process. The situation that I saw with the Bangladesh workers should never have happened. Reports of other workers who arrive only to find no jobs should also never happen. There should be no unemployment among the guest workers. These are legitimate immigration related issues. They do not necessarily lead to a Federal takeover, but they are legitimate issues and it serves no purpose to distort history and pretend that the current situation was the goal of the Covenant negotiators. Minimum wage is also a fairly straightforward issue. It does not appear that any U.S. citizens in the Northern Marianas are paid less than the current Federal minimum wage. Is there a justification and a need to pay foreign workers less and to what extent does the ability to import skilled foreign labor at less than Federal minimum wages contribute to the unemployment rate in the Marianas? Is there a reason to pay less than the minimum wage to attract skilled positions? There are issues that should be reviewed in a hearing. Given the furor that followed the President's letter, I decided to ask the administration to provide me with a drafting service of the language that would implement whatever the recommendations were in their report. The report was finally submitted in July, and I received the drafting service on October 6, 1997. On July 16, 1997, I wrote the Governor of the Commonwealth to inform him that I had made the request and the schedule that I intended to follow. I want to reiterate my statement. I am committed to holding hearings on this legislation. I am not wedded to any particular provision in the legislation, but I am not happy with the situation in the Commonwealth. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter be printed in the Record as well as a copy of the transmittal letter from the administration, the text of the legislation, and a section-by-section analysis. Mr. President, I appreciate that elections are only a few weeks away in the Marianas. I do not think that hearings prior to the elections would be particularly productive. Our committee has tried to be nonpartisan in our approach to our responsibilities for the territories and we have tried to avoid local politics. Given the seriousness of these issues, I think they should be raised after the elections. I want to make it clear, however, that whatever the results of the elections in the Marianas, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee intends to proceed impartially and expeditiously.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the October 8, 1997, hearing to receive testimony on S. 1064, a bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to more effectively manage visitor service and fishing activity in Glacier Bay National Park and for other purposes which is scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been postponed until further notice. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nomination of M. John Berry to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget. The hearing will take place Thursday, October 9, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Flint at (202) 224-5070.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor to the Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997. Offered by my colleague on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs-- Senator Jeffords, this legislation will correct a current injustice where service connected disabled veterans, who participate in the special separation benefits program [SSB], are wrongly doubled taxed on their benefits. In 1991, the Department of Defense [DOD], in an effort to downsize the armed services, established the SSB, which gives military personnel a lump sum payment to retire. However, for those veterans who are subsequently determined to have a service-connected disability, their SSB benefit amount is offset by withholding the veteran's disability compensation from the VA. A veteran only receives the SSB benefits after taxes are withheld. At the same time, disability compensation is not taxed. The injustice is that the veteran must repay with his or her disability compensation the pre-tax amount of the SSB payment--in effect double taxing the veteran's benefits. The Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997 eases the double taxation for all members who participated in the SSB program retroactively to December 5, 1991. These servicemembers will receive payment for their lost compensation portion that was taxed. According to the Congress Budget Office [CBO], the near term costs are estimated to be less than $500,000 through the year 2000. For this small amount, Congress has the opportunity to correct an injustice against our veterans who have given so much. I hope that my colleagues can join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor to the Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997. Offered by my colleague on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs-- Senator Jeffords, this legislation will correct a current injustice where service connected disabled veterans, who participate in the special separation benefits program [SSB], are wrongly doubled taxed on their benefits. In 1991, the Department of Defense [DOD], in an effort to downsize the armed services, established the SSB, which gives military personnel a lump sum payment to retire. However, for those veterans who are subsequently determined to have a service-connected disability, their SSB benefit amount is offset by withholding the veteran's disability compensation from the VA. A veteran only receives the SSB benefits after taxes are withheld. At the same time, disability compensation is not taxed. The injustice is that the veteran must repay with his or her disability compensation the pre-tax amount of the SSB payment--in effect double taxing the veteran's benefits. The Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997 eases the double taxation for all members who participated in the SSB program retroactively to December 5, 1991. These servicemembers will receive payment for their lost compensation portion that was taxed. According to the Congress Budget Office [CBO], the near term costs are estimated to be less than $500,000 through the year 2000. For this small amount, Congress has the opportunity to correct an injustice against our veterans who have given so much. I hope that my colleagues can join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me wish the Presiding Officer a good morning. Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership in this area, and my good friend from Montana for the points he made so succinctly. Good morning, Madam President. I have an obligation and an opportunity as a member of the Finance Committee to address this problem. As a member of the committee of jurisdiction, I had the privilege of participating in an extraordinary set of hearings that were chaired by Senator Bill Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee. These hearings really illuminated for the first time the internal workings of an agency of the Government that really generates fear, anger, frustrations and oftentimes public outrage, and that is the Internal Revenue Service. No matter how scrupulous and honest the citizen is in filling out his or her tax return, when that taxpayer opens the mailbox and receives an envelope from the IRS, a shiver of fear shudders through that citizen. And after this week's hearings, it is clear to all of us why the public holds this view of the IRS. A witness--some of those witnesses were hooded, I might add-- testified that her 17-year ordeal--let me say that it wasn't just an ordeal, it was more of a nightmare--involved improper liens and unwarranted demands from the IRS for more than $10,000 simply because there was a mixup in the taxpayer's employment identification number-- 17 years, and still the matter is not resolved. Another witness testified about her 14-year ongoing dispute with the IRS involving a joint return she had filed with her former husband. Although this matter could have been easily resolved, the IRS demands caused her to lose her apartment and ultimately forced her second husband to file for divorce to avoid improper IRS liens. Neither of these cases have been finally resolved even though it is clear that at every stage the IRS simply acted improperly. A former IRS employee told the committee of a common IRS tactic of assessing a tax twice for the same 1040 tax form. A current IRS employee, an employee who did not want his identity known for fear of IRS retaliation, told the committee of situations where revenue officers with management approval used enforcement to punish taxpayers instead of trying to collect the appropriate amount of money for the Government. Another anonymous current IRS employee told the committee that IRS officials browsed tax data on potential witnesses in Government tax cases, and on jurors sitting on these Government tax cases. Madam President, this is a portrait of an agency of Government which appears to be out of control. Is there political influence in the IRS? The answer is clearly yes. One witness testified that she had been advised by her senior official to be somewhat lenient on union returns or returns from union officials. This, obviously, smacks of political influence in the IRS. Earlier in the week it was reported that 800 Alaskans from my State received notices from the IRS that their permanent fund dividends--this is a payment that comes from the yield of oil revenues distributed to our citizens by our State government--were being seized; 800 seized with a tax lien. The reason for the seizures? The IRS claimed these Alaskans owed back taxes. In one case the notice claimed a deficiency of 4 cents. In another, 7 cents. That's right, Madam President, notices to 800 Alaskans based on alleged underpayments of 4 to 7 cents. An IRS spokesman apologized and, you guessed it, Madam President, blamed the computer. But who programmed the computer? Who checked the program? Is the programmer still working for the IRS? Who approved sending out 800 notices to Alaskans? From what I know about the IRS, no human being approved that mailing or the millions of other mailings that go out from the IRS. It appears to me that the managers of the IRS have set up a system that minimizes human oversight so that whatever and whenever there is a foulup, no employee, no manager can be held accountable. It is easier to blame an impersonal machine for a problem than hold an individual accountable. Madam President, I believe a culture that affixes blame on machines and not human beings reflects on an institution that has for far too long not been held to account for its activities. What we learned from the General Accounting Office is that the system the IRS has in place is designed to ensure that there is no way for IRS personnel to be held accountable for their erroneous actions. I can assure the American taxpayer that I will be working closely with my colleagues on Finance Committee to change the culture of the IRS and demand a system be put into place that makes the individuals who work for the IRS accountable to the American people. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Stevens in sponsoring this important legislation. This is a necessary follow-on to legislation I first introduced in 1986, the Commercial Fishing Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act, which was enacted in 1987. That act attempted to control an anticipated influx of foreign-owned fishing vessels by prohibiting them from reflagging as U.S. vessels except in certain circumstances. At the time, I backed a move to impose, for the first time, an American ownership provision that would ensure U.S. control of corporations owning such vessels. Had that legislation been implemented the way it was intended, today's bill would probably not be necessary. Our intention was to gradually eliminate foreign control by requiring new owners to be U.S.- controlled. Unfortunately, in making a decision on implementation, the Coast Guard decided to rely primarily on its past practice, and permitted all vessels with U.S. documentation to continue fishing regardless of existing or new ownership. That, as much as any one factor, led to today's crisis, in which there are far too many large vessels operating. Something has to give, and the laws of nature and economics say that it has to be one of two things: either the resource itself or the number of vessels. This bill will help insure that the resource will be held harmless; if change occurs, it will come to the number of large vessels allowed to operate in U.S. fisheries. The bill we are introducing today will increase the American ownership requirement for vessels to 75 percent from the 51-percent level required by current law. This new level is consistent with other laws affecting ownership of vessels involved in the coastwise trade, which are also required to meet the 75-percent test. It will also correct the mistake made by the Coast Guard a decade ago by requiring fishery endorsements to be removed from vessels which do not qualify for the ownership criterion within a reasonable period of time--18 months under this bill. Under this bill, the Coast Guard will no longer be responsible for reviewing the ownership of fishing vessels. This authority will rest more appropriately with the Maritime Administration, which currently has the same responsibility for vessels seeking title XI loan guarantees and Maritime Security Program assistance, among other things. The bill will also begin the process of restoring the number of large fishing vessels operating off our shores to a reasonable and manageable level, by eliminating the entry of new vessels, regardless of ownership, and by allowing attrition to take its toll on the existing fleet. Large vessels are those over 165 registered feet in length, greater than 750 gross registered tons, or with engines totaling more than 3,000 horsepower. The bill also eliminates Federal loan guarantees that have been used to subsidize and accelerate the unrestrained growth of this fleet. Further, currently operating vessels which were rebuilt for fishing in foreign shipyards using the loophole created by the Coast Guard's interpretation of the earlier act, and which are sold to new owners in the future, will not be eligible to fish under the new owners unless a similarly sized vessel is also removed from the fishery. Taken together, these provisions will help to move us away from a fleet that is only nominally U.S.-controlled to one which is truly U.S.-controlled. Moreover, in reducing the total number of these large vessels over time, this measure will also provide tremendous benefits to the many small communities which depend not on these large vessels, but on the far greater numbers of small fishing vessels and shore-based processing plants that hire locally, deliver locally, process locally, and support their communities through local taxes. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Stevens in sponsoring this important legislation. This is a necessary follow-on to legislation I first introduced in 1986, the Commercial Fishing Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act, which was enacted in 1987. That act attempted to control an anticipated influx of foreign-owned fishing vessels by prohibiting them from reflagging as U.S. vessels except in certain circumstances. At the time, I backed a move to impose, for the first time, an American ownership provision that would ensure U.S. control of corporations owning such vessels. Had that legislation been implemented the way it was intended, today's bill would probably not be necessary. Our intention was to gradually eliminate foreign control by requiring new owners to be U.S.- controlled. Unfortunately, in making a decision on implementation, the Coast Guard decided to rely primarily on its past practice, and permitted all vessels with U.S. documentation to continue fishing regardless of existing or new ownership. That, as much as any one factor, led to today's crisis, in which there are far too many large vessels operating. Something has to give, and the laws of nature and economics say that it has to be one of two things: either the resource itself or the number of vessels. This bill will help insure that the resource will be held harmless; if change occurs, it will come to the number of large vessels allowed to operate in U.S. fisheries. The bill we are introducing today will increase the American ownership requirement for vessels to 75 percent from the 51-percent level required by current law. This new level is consistent with other laws affecting ownership of vessels involved in the coastwise trade, which are also required to meet the 75-percent test. It will also correct the mistake made by the Coast Guard a decade ago by requiring fishery endorsements to be removed from vessels which do not qualify for the ownership criterion within a reasonable period of time--18 months under this bill. Under this bill, the Coast Guard will no longer be responsible for reviewing the ownership of fishing vessels. This authority will rest more appropriately with the Maritime Administration, which currently has the same responsibility for vessels seeking title XI loan guarantees and Maritime Security Program assistance, among other things. The bill will also begin the process of restoring the number of large fishing vessels operating off our shores to a reasonable and manageable level, by eliminating the entry of new vessels, regardless of ownership, and by allowing attrition to take its toll on the existing fleet. Large vessels are those over 165 registered feet in length, greater than 750 gross registered tons, or with engines totaling more than 3,000 horsepower. The bill also eliminates Federal loan guarantees that have been used to subsidize and accelerate the unrestrained growth of this fleet. Further, currently operating vessels which were rebuilt for fishing in foreign shipyards using the loophole created by the Coast Guard's interpretation of the earlier act, and which are sold to new owners in the future, will not be eligible to fish under the new owners unless a similarly sized vessel is also removed from the fishery. Taken together, these provisions will help to move us away from a fleet that is only nominally U.S.-controlled to one which is truly U.S.-controlled. Moreover, in reducing the total number of these large vessels over time, this measure will also provide tremendous benefits to the many small communities which depend not on these large vessels, but on the far greater numbers of small fishing vessels and shore-based processing plants that hire locally, deliver locally, process locally, and support their communities through local taxes. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to do the same.