Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Gorton, Burns, Craig, Kempthorne, and Senator Smith of Oregon, in introducing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997. Our legislation will create a new twelfth circuit comprised of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. This legislation will ease the current burdens of the ninth circuit, as well as effectively create a new northwest circuit that is historically, economically, culturally, and philosophically united. Mr. President, one look at the contours of the ninth circuit reveals the need for this reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the international dateline to Guam and the Marianna Islands, by any means of measurement, the ninth circuit is the largest of all U.S. circuit courts of appeal. There is also no denying the ninth circuit's mammoth caseload. It serves a population of more than 45 million people, well over one-third more than the next largest circuit. Last year, the ninth circuit had an astounding 7,146 new filings. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the ninth circuit's population will be more than 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 13 years, which inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload. We believe that this legislation is long overdue. Because of its size, the entire appellate process in the ninth circuit is the second slowest in the Nation. As former Chief Judge Wallace of the ninth circuit stated: ``It takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal in our court as compared to the national median time.'' Mr. President, what this means is that while the national median time for filing a notice of appeal to final disposition is 315 days, the ninth circuit median time is 1 year and 2 months. Furthermore, the massive size of the ninth circuit often results in a decrease in the ability to keep abreast of legal developments within its own jurisdiction. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in constitutional interpretation. In fact, ninth circuit cases have an extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. During the Supreme Court's 1994-95 session, the Supreme Court overturned 82 percent of the ninth circuit cases heard by the Court. This lack of constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to unnecessary litigation. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing is not novel. Since the day the circuit was founded, over a century ago, there were discussions of a split. Nearly a quarter century ago, in 1973, the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of Appellate System recommended that the ninth circuit be divided. Additionally, the American Bar Association has adopted a resolution expressing the benefits of dividing the ninth district. Since 1983, Senator Gorton and many others in this Chamber have initiated legislation to split the circuit. There have been Senate hearings. In December 1995, Senator Hatch stated in a committee report that: The legislative history, in conjunction with available statistics and research concerning the Ninth Circuit, provides an ample record for an informed decision at this point as to whether to divide the Ninth Circuit . . . Upon careful consideration the time has indeed come. Furthermore, splitting a circuit to respond to caseload and population growth is by no means unprecedented. Congress divided the original eighth circuit to create the tenth circuit in 1929, and divided the former fifth circuit to create the 11th circuit in 1980. The legislation that I and my colleagues introduce today is the sensible reorganization of the ninth circuit. The new ninth circuit would embrace California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories. And the new 12th circuit would be comprised solely of States in the Northwest region. Most importantly, this split would respect the economic, historical, cultural, and legal ties which exist between the States involved. Mr. President, no one court can effectively exercise its power in an area that extends from the Arctic Circle to the tropics. The legislation introduction today will create a regional commonality which will lead to greater consistency and dependency in legal decisions. Mr. President, we have waited long enough. The 45 million residents of the ninth circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate process. In brief, the ninth circuit has become a circuit where justice is not swift and not always served. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 417, a bill ``to extend energy conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002,'' S. 416, a bill ``to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to extend the expiration dates of existing authorities and enhance U.S. participation in the energy emergency program of the International Energy Agency,'' and S. 186, a bill ``to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to purchases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by entities in the insular areas of the United States and for other purposes,'' has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, March 18, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, and will be reschedule later. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me wish the occupant of the chair, my good friend from Utah, a good morning. I extend my good wishes. Mr. President, I will proceed in accordance with the anticipated vote this afternoon on the Pena nomination, and I believe both the chairman of the Energy Committee, myself, and Senator Bumpers, the ranking member, have 10 minutes equally divided.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. The reality is that the final repository won't be ready until the year 2015. That is where we are; the permanent repository. We need that. But it will not be ready. We have a 50-50 chance of taking that waste. This poses an environmental and public safety challenge. I have indicated the risk to the taxpayers--currently $59 billion. Some electricity production may be shut down. Mr. President, we simply need the action now. However, we had a problem when the administration, in a communication by the Vice President, told a congressional leadership group this was not a matter that was up for consideration at that meeting. He inferred that we could leave the waste where it was until Yucca Mountain was built. After I heard about that statement, I postponed consideration of S. 104 and the vote on Mr. Pena so we could begin a process of attempting to work with the administration to get this back on track. In a meeting with the White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, I asked him to empower the new Energy Secretary to work with us. I said the Senate cannot accept the Vice President's ``leave it there'' policy. I asked Mr. Bowles to send down a nominee who had flexibility. I have had several conversations with Mr. Pena, Mr. Bowles, and the White House, and judging from those conversations and a recent letter from Mr. Bowles, it seems that the administration has now decided to choose dialog over the Vice President's stonewalling, which is the only way I can put it. I am glad to see that the new Energy Secretary will now have a portfolio to work with the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Bowles to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens, introduce legislation that will more accurately reflect the appropriate Federal/State funding formula for Alaska's Medicaid Program. One-sixth of Alaska's population is eligible to receive Medicaid, and the population is growing. These Medicaid recipients are the needy children, pregnant women, disabled, and elderly poor of Alaska. Ever since the Medicaid Program was established in 1965, the Federal/ State funding formula has failed to recognize the extraordinarily high cost of living that all Alaskans face. Under current law, the funding formula that is used to determine the Federal matching payment is based on a comparison between average per capita income in the United States and each individual State's per capita income. Under the current formula, the minimum Federal Medicaid match is 50 percent. The highest Federal match is 77.2 percent and is provided to the State with the lowest per capita income--Mississippi. By contrast, Alaska has a 50/50 Federal/State match based on the fact that it has the seventh highest per capita income in the United States, $17,961 based on 1993 data. However, many Federal programs recognize that per capita income, by itself, is not a fair measure of wealth. For example, a special Federal Government cost-of-living adjustment is provided to Federal employees in Alaska to reflect our cost differential. Other Federal formulas, such as the formula for the Federal School Lunch Program, Food Stamp Program, and certain housing programs each recognize and take into consideration Alaska's high cost of living. Mr. President, I recognize that Alaska's $17,961 per capita income suggests it is one of the wealthier States. However, when the 25 percent higher cost of living is factored in, the State looks far less wealthy. In fact, when Alaska's high cost of living is factored into the equation, it would appear that an Alaskan with an income of $17,961 lives at the same economic level as a person in Iowa with a per capita income of $14,399. Yet Iowa enjoys a 62/38 Federal/State Medicaid match. Why is Alaska's cost of living higher than the lower 48 States? The answer is primarily because of the high cost of shipping goods to Alaska. Almost everything of substantial size or volume comes to Alaska by water, and despite healthy competition among carriers, prices remain high due to the distance traveled and the fact that Alaska remains an importer of goods, not an exporter. That means most vessels are unable to carry a backhaul cargo that would lower the overall cost of the round trip. Moreover, because of an undeveloped road structure, most food transported to remote villages in Alaska rely exclusively on air freight. What this high shipping cost means is that it costs a family of four in Bethel, Alaska's largest rural community, nearly $30 more each week to feed their family, compared to the average family in the United States. And, it is these rural Alaska areas that have the highest number of Medicaid recipients. The present Medicaid formula is fundamentally unfair because it doesn't reflect these facts. What it means is that more people in Alaska are eligible for Medicaid, but the Federal match isn't adjusted accordingly. Basically, the current Federal formula gives us more Medicaid users and provides less money to pay for their services. to exacerbate this inequity--health care costs in Alaska are estimated to be 71 percent higher than the national average. The legislation we are introducing today, The Alaska Medicaid Equity Act, finally resolves this inequity. It adjusts the Medicaid formula for Alaska to factor in the State's high cost of living. Passage of this legislation would result in an estimated savings of $40 to $50 million for the State of Alaska Legislature. This adjustment was included in legislation that was reported from the Senate Finance Committee as part of the reconciliation bill that was adopted in 1995. However, that omnibus bill was ultimately vetoed for unrelated reasons. Mr. President, we in Alaska have endured this historic inequity for nearly a third of a century. I hope my colleagues will agree, the time to right this wrong is this year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens, introduce legislation that will more accurately reflect the appropriate Federal/State funding formula for Alaska's Medicaid Program. One-sixth of Alaska's population is eligible to receive Medicaid, and the population is growing. These Medicaid recipients are the needy children, pregnant women, disabled, and elderly poor of Alaska. Ever since the Medicaid Program was established in 1965, the Federal/ State funding formula has failed to recognize the extraordinarily high cost of living that all Alaskans face. Under current law, the funding formula that is used to determine the Federal matching payment is based on a comparison between average per capita income in the United States and each individual State's per capita income. Under the current formula, the minimum Federal Medicaid match is 50 percent. The highest Federal match is 77.2 percent and is provided to the State with the lowest per capita income--Mississippi. By contrast, Alaska has a 50/50 Federal/State match based on the fact that it has the seventh highest per capita income in the United States, $17,961 based on 1993 data. However, many Federal programs recognize that per capita income, by itself, is not a fair measure of wealth. For example, a special Federal Government cost-of-living adjustment is provided to Federal employees in Alaska to reflect our cost differential. Other Federal formulas, such as the formula for the Federal School Lunch Program, Food Stamp Program, and certain housing programs each recognize and take into consideration Alaska's high cost of living. Mr. President, I recognize that Alaska's $17,961 per capita income suggests it is one of the wealthier States. However, when the 25 percent higher cost of living is factored in, the State looks far less wealthy. In fact, when Alaska's high cost of living is factored into the equation, it would appear that an Alaskan with an income of $17,961 lives at the same economic level as a person in Iowa with a per capita income of $14,399. Yet Iowa enjoys a 62/38 Federal/State Medicaid match. Why is Alaska's cost of living higher than the lower 48 States? The answer is primarily because of the high cost of shipping goods to Alaska. Almost everything of substantial size or volume comes to Alaska by water, and despite healthy competition among carriers, prices remain high due to the distance traveled and the fact that Alaska remains an importer of goods, not an exporter. That means most vessels are unable to carry a backhaul cargo that would lower the overall cost of the round trip. Moreover, because of an undeveloped road structure, most food transported to remote villages in Alaska rely exclusively on air freight. What this high shipping cost means is that it costs a family of four in Bethel, Alaska's largest rural community, nearly $30 more each week to feed their family, compared to the average family in the United States. And, it is these rural Alaska areas that have the highest number of Medicaid recipients. The present Medicaid formula is fundamentally unfair because it doesn't reflect these facts. What it means is that more people in Alaska are eligible for Medicaid, but the Federal match isn't adjusted accordingly. Basically, the current Federal formula gives us more Medicaid users and provides less money to pay for their services. to exacerbate this inequity--health care costs in Alaska are estimated to be 71 percent higher than the national average. The legislation we are introducing today, The Alaska Medicaid Equity Act, finally resolves this inequity. It adjusts the Medicaid formula for Alaska to factor in the State's high cost of living. Passage of this legislation would result in an estimated savings of $40 to $50 million for the State of Alaska Legislature. This adjustment was included in legislation that was reported from the Senate Finance Committee as part of the reconciliation bill that was adopted in 1995. However, that omnibus bill was ultimately vetoed for unrelated reasons. Mr. President, we in Alaska have endured this historic inequity for nearly a third of a century. I hope my colleagues will agree, the time to right this wrong is this year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 417, a bill ``to extend energy conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002,'' S. 416, a bill ``to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to extend the expiration dates of existing authorities and enhance U.S. participation in the energy emergency program of the International Energy Agency,'' and S. 186, a bill ``to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to purchases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by entities in the insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes.'' The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 18, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill is very simple, yet it is extremely important to our Nation's energy security. This bill contains the authorizations for two vital energy security measures, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency, which will expire at the end of this fiscal year. This bill would extend those two vital authorities, as well as several other important DOE programs, through 2002. For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this act on a year-to-year basis, and we have faced a potential crisis as these authorizations go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. We always seem to end up facing a situation where the President does not have authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if an energy emergency occurs. Further, if these authorities are not renewed, our Government does not have authority to participate in International Energy Agency emergency actions in an international energy emergency. There will be no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow them to cooperate with the IEA and our Government to respond to the crisis. These provisions are not controversial in and of themselves, but this bill has a tendency to become a vehicle to address concerns over unrelated issues. In an attempt to avoid the annual crisis, I am introducing legislation today that will renew these authorities for 5 years. The bill also provides for the leasing of extra capacity in our reserve facilities and changes to the antitrust exemption in the bill to comport with the policies adopted by the IEA at our request. Although it appears to be easy for some to disregard these dangers, recent events have underscored exactly how precarious this Nation's energy security is. Events in the Middle East clearly demonstrate the instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps this Nation moving. The situation is only getting worse. Since the establishment of the Department of Energy, our reliance on imported oil has passed 50 percent, and is expected to rise to 71 percent by 2015. The OPEC countries are steadily regaining lost market share and it is projected to exceed 50 percent by 2000. The U.S. economy appears to be as exposed as it was in the early 1970's to supply disruptions and losses from monopoly oil pricing. We are talking about jobs and people's lives. In the face of these numbers, DOE has no real plan to stop our slide into near complete dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the President's budget contains a proposal to sell 67 million barrels of oil from the SPR in the year 2002. I am dismayed by a recent trend toward using the SPR as a piggy bank to pay for other programs. The oil in the SPR cost an average of $27 per barrel. We have sold it for anywhere from $18 to $20 per barrel. Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that he would make it up on volume. In the face of our growing oil dependence, and the administration's proposal to sell oil from the SPR, I can't resist noting the administration's opposition to the production of our domestic oil resources. The administration does not support the domestic storage or production of oil. They do not appear to like the reality that this Nation will continue to need petroleum. However, reality doesn't cease to be reality because we ignore it. We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer money in these stockpiles. As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those tax dollars away. So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are fully authorized and available to dampen the effects of the most severe supply disruptions. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The least we can do is try to limit the possibility that this measure will be held hostage to political ambition. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I would also like to introduce, by request, proposed legislation transmitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's transmittal letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill is very simple, yet it is extremely important to our Nation's energy security. This bill contains the authorizations for two vital energy security measures, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency, which will expire at the end of this fiscal year. This bill would extend those two vital authorities, as well as several other important DOE programs, through 2002. For every year in recent memory, we have authorized this act on a year-to-year basis, and we have faced a potential crisis as these authorizations go unrenewed until the very end of the Congress. We always seem to end up facing a situation where the President does not have authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if an energy emergency occurs. Further, if these authorities are not renewed, our Government does not have authority to participate in International Energy Agency emergency actions in an international energy emergency. There will be no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow them to cooperate with the IEA and our Government to respond to the crisis. These provisions are not controversial in and of themselves, but this bill has a tendency to become a vehicle to address concerns over unrelated issues. In an attempt to avoid the annual crisis, I am introducing legislation today that will renew these authorities for 5 years. The bill also provides for the leasing of extra capacity in our reserve facilities and changes to the antitrust exemption in the bill to comport with the policies adopted by the IEA at our request. Although it appears to be easy for some to disregard these dangers, recent events have underscored exactly how precarious this Nation's energy security is. Events in the Middle East clearly demonstrate the instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps this Nation moving. The situation is only getting worse. Since the establishment of the Department of Energy, our reliance on imported oil has passed 50 percent, and is expected to rise to 71 percent by 2015. The OPEC countries are steadily regaining lost market share and it is projected to exceed 50 percent by 2000. The U.S. economy appears to be as exposed as it was in the early 1970's to supply disruptions and losses from monopoly oil pricing. We are talking about jobs and people's lives. In the face of these numbers, DOE has no real plan to stop our slide into near complete dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the President's budget contains a proposal to sell 67 million barrels of oil from the SPR in the year 2002. I am dismayed by a recent trend toward using the SPR as a piggy bank to pay for other programs. The oil in the SPR cost an average of $27 per barrel. We have sold it for anywhere from $18 to $20 per barrel. Buying high and selling low never makes sense. We're like the man in the old joke who was buying high and selling low who claimed that he would make it up on volume. In the face of our growing oil dependence, and the administration's proposal to sell oil from the SPR, I can't resist noting the administration's opposition to the production of our domestic oil resources. The administration does not support the domestic storage or production of oil. They do not appear to like the reality that this Nation will continue to need petroleum. However, reality doesn't cease to be reality because we ignore it. We have already invested a great deal of taxpayer money in these stockpiles. As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing effect of an SPR drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the SPR is available can have a calming influence on oil markets. The oil is there, waiting to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we don't ensure that there is authority to use the oil when we need it, we will have thrown those tax dollars away. So, the first step is to ensure that our emergency oil reserves are fully authorized and available to dampen the effects of the most severe supply disruptions. We are talking about people's lives and jobs. The least we can do is try to limit the possibility that this measure will be held hostage to political ambition. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I would also like to introduce, by request, proposed legislation transmitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's transmittal letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony from the Department of Energy and FERC on the President's 1998 budget, has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, and will be rescheduled later. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to inform the Senate of recent events which relate to the nomination of Federico Pena to be Secretary of the Department of Energy. I would like to state up front, the issue is not Mr. Pena's qualifications, the issue is whether or not Secretary Pena will have the ability to work with Congress to solve the nuclear waste problem. As you know, I have been working for the past 2 years to find a solution to the Nation's nuclear waste storage problem. Currently, civilian nuclear waste is piling up in 41 States at 80 reactor sites and defense facilities around the country. We have waited many years for a solution--we cannot wait any longer. There is a critical need right now to find a safe central storage facility to eliminate the current threat to the environment and to the American people posed by existing storage. The administration's position has been that it would not support any nuclear waste legislation until Yucca Mountain has been found viable as a permanent repository. An event which was not scheduled to occur until late in 1998. This position completely ignored the fact that a Federal court had ruled that the Department of Energy was required to take title to the waste in January 1998. This administration's attitude toward nuclear waste storage is improper, irresponsible, and unacceptable. The American people deserve better. I looked forward to working with the new Energy Secretary in the post-election spirit of bipartisanship. Indeed, when Mr. Pena testified during his confirmation hearing on January 30 that he would work with Congress to find a solution for nuclear waste storage, I was encouraged. I was hoping to open a real dialog with the administration to explore possible compromise. However, before the committee voted on Mr. Pena, the summit between the President and congressional leaders took place on February 11. Because I was encouraged by Mr. Pena's statements at his confirmation hearing, I asked Senator Lott to raise the nuclear waste issue at that meeting. It was already an issue which had broad bipartisan support in Congress. I was extremely disappointed when I received a report of what happened when Senator Lott attempted to raise the issue. The Vice President said words to the effect: ``That waste is going to stay right where it is until we have a permanent place to put it.'' He went on to say that he thought the meeting was to discuss items on which compromise was possible and nuclear waste was not such an item. I found that to be a totally irresponsible position on the part of the Vice President. It also demonstrated a complete insensitivity to one of our most urgent environmental problems and ignored the contractual commitment. The Vice President had categorically ruled out safe, centralized interim storage. He said ``leave it where it is.'' I had planned to go ahead with a markup of the reintroduced nuclear waste bill and the Pena nomination the very next day, February 12, but I canceled that business meeting in an attempt to see if the new Secretary would have authority to work with Congress on the impending nuclear waste crisis. Again the issue was not Mr. Pena's credentials, it was a question of would he have the power and authority as Secretary to work with Congress on the nuclear waste problem. During the following week, I requested a meeting with White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, to discuss this matter. That meeting occurred last Tuesday. I asked Mr. Bowles if there was any way the administration could start a dialog to find a responsible solution to our disagreement on the waste issue. Mr. Bowles said he would look into it and get back to me. The meeting was cordial and I had hoped productive. Mr. Bowles got back to me last Wednesday morning by telephone. It was a short conversation. I was told that there would be no discussions at all on nuclear waste until after Mr. Pena was confirmed. Let me repeat that--no discussions at all on nuclear waste until after confirmation. This is the message from an administration which has had its head in the sand on this issue for 4 years. They have refused to discuss or take any kind of responsible position on this issue, yet they want me and the rest of the Senate to move forward on the nominee which will have responsibility over nuclear waste policy. A nominee, who when Secretary, would have absolutely no authority to even discuss areas of compromise. It's no wonder Secretary O'Leary waited until she was free from the administration to articulate her support for centralized interim storage. A CQ Monitor story last week reported ``O'Leary blamed * * * opposition [to interim storage] on White House officials connected with Vice President Al Gore. She said they see the issue more in political than technical terms.'' ``You'll get more clarity from someone like me outside the system,'' O'Leary said. Unfortunately, we cannot wait until the next Secretary leaves office before we hear his views on this subject. Safe nuclear waste storage should not be a political issue. It is a scientific issue and an environmental issue--and we need a solution now. Sadly, the administration has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. In addition to threats to the environment and safety, 20 percent of our electric generating capacity is at risk--20 percent. Starting in January 1998, there is a substantial likelihood that American taxpayers will either be paying for or be deprived of billions of dollars a year as a result of this administration's inaction. That's right, Mr. President, estimates of the Federal Government's liability under a recent lawsuit brought by the States run between $40-$80 billion. Inaction is not an option. Inaction is irresponsible. Mr. President, I have not asked the administration to change its position prior to Mr. Pena's confirmation. I would like that, but I'm trying to be reasonable. I have identified areas where S. 104 can be modified to alleviate concerns. I am working with Democratic colleagues on the committee to address some of their concerns. I would like to have the same opportunity for dialog with the administration. Contrary to some White House leaks, that dialog has not been linked to any specific Alaska issue and it has not been about Mr. Pena's qualifications. It has been largely about the administration's lack of a plan to accept the waste by 1998. Americans have paid $12 billion into the fund. I look forward to working with a Secretary of Energy who can work with me and other Members of Congress on the nuclear waste problem. It is very hard to explore compromise if one side won't talk. It is also hard if one of the sides ducks the issue for years, and won't take a position until it is forced to. The Vice President says no talk and no interim storage. Period. He says ``Leave it where it is''--in 41 States. Other elements of the administration seem to want to be more cooperative. It took a meeting with Mr. Bowles, a lot of other conversations, and a couple delays in the confirmation vote to get them to focus on this important safety and environmental issue. The national news attention has also raised visibility. Now, they seem willing to face the issue. And they are beginning to sort out their real position. The current policy squabble inside the administration suggests it is finally facing up to this pressing issue. I received a letter from Mr. Bowles. It signals that the administration is willing to engage in constructive dialog; it comes close to finally articulating a policy; and it contradicts the Vice President's non-policy policy of leaving the waste where it is until the final repository is built. I am pleased to receive the letter. After 2 years, I think we finally may have a real dialog. The letter says Mr. Pena will have the portfolio to talk and work with Congress. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bowles' letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, based on Mr. Bowles involvement and the good faith commitment by the administration to treat this as a policy and not a political issue, I am announcing the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will vote on the nomination Thursday at 9:30 a.m. We look forward to resolving our differences with the administration and moving forward with legislation addressing the nuclear waste crisis by the end of this month. I look forward to working with Mr. Pena to stop the irresponsible policy of piling high-level radioactive waste at 80 locations in 41 States, near our homes and schools. Taxpayers are being exposed to billions of dollars in liability and American ratepayers are being cheated out of the $12 billion they have paid into the nuclear waste fund. Let's get on with it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in this debate on the balanced budget amendment, I believe the Senate has lived up to its reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world, bar none. We have spent nearly a month debating this measure and I want to especially commend the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his stamina and intellect in managing this measure. Now as the time for debate draws to a close, I hope all of my colleagues will reflect on the simple principle that we are attempting to incorporate into our Constitution. It is simply that one generation of Americans has no right to mortgage future generations to finance our daily spending habits. Think about it. There is one thing for certain, Mr. President. When the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, and we enter the new century, America will have run deficits for 31 consecutive years and we will have a national debt of more than $6 trillion. If we are ever going to reverse that endless tide of red ink, if we are going to ease the economic burdens on our children and grandchildren, then as a matter of moral responsibility, we will adopt this constitutional amendment. If we don't pass the amendment this will truly be an American tragedy.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Not on this subject.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak in morning business for 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired on the pending issue?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens to introduce legislation that would resolve a dispute that has existed for several years between the IRS and native whaling captains in my State. Our legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that a charitable donation tax deduction would be allowed for native whaling captains who organize and support subsistence whaling activities in their communities. Subsistence whaling is a necessity to the Alaska Native community. In many of our remote village communities, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on for generations over many millennia. It is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages, and equipment costs associated with this important activity. In most instances, the captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuck, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the captain is required to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive. The proposed deduction would allow the captain to deduct up to $7,500 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service. Mr. President, I want to point out that if the captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. This is a very modest effort to allow the Congress to recognize the importance of this part of our Native Alaskan tradition. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this provision would cost a mere $3 million over a 10-year period. I think that is a very small price for preserving this vital link with our natives' heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens to introduce legislation that would resolve a dispute that has existed for several years between the IRS and native whaling captains in my State. Our legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that a charitable donation tax deduction would be allowed for native whaling captains who organize and support subsistence whaling activities in their communities. Subsistence whaling is a necessity to the Alaska Native community. In many of our remote village communities, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on for generations over many millennia. It is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages, and equipment costs associated with this important activity. In most instances, the captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuck, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the captain is required to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive. The proposed deduction would allow the captain to deduct up to $7,500 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service. Mr. President, I want to point out that if the captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. This is a very modest effort to allow the Congress to recognize the importance of this part of our Native Alaskan tradition. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this provision would cost a mere $3 million over a 10-year period. I think that is a very small price for preserving this vital link with our natives' heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, February 13, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on S. 207, the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act of 1997.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, February 13, at 2 p.m., hearing room (SD-406), on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and Transportation trends, infrastructure funding requirements, and transportation's impact on the economy.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have several things I want to discuss this morning. I have some charts, and I want to proceed as the charts are put up.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the difficulty we have here with Yucca Mountain is not knowing whether we will ever get it licensed because it has to withstand a scientific analysis regarding any possible source of exposure--earthquake, volcanic activity, any leeching into the ground-- for approximately 10,000 years. We do not know whether science can come up with that kind of certification. But, in any event, in order to try to make this case we have to proceed with the tunneling, and spend the money. However, we simply do not know whether it will ever be a permanent repository. But the idea of moving this waste from 41 States, 80 sites, to a place where we have had extensively studied certainly seems to make sense. If Yucca Mountain is determined to be permanent, we will have the waste there and ready to put in a permanent repository. If Yucca Mountain is not the permanent repository site, it will be dozens of years before another permanent repository site can be located and studied, and a central interim storage facility will still be needed. It is my understanding that the Vice President apparently was saying two things. The administration no longer supports any form of centralized interim storage. In the meantime, we can only conclude that their policy is, ``Leave it where it is.'' Leave it where it is. Ignore the problem. Put off the decision. Act like an ostrich--put your head in the sand. Let nuclear waste build up in 41 States, near the homes, near the schools. This is the administration's irresponsible and dangerous policy on nuclear waste storage. As I said, the Federal Government has a 1998 deadline. Taxpayers have paid billions of dollars only to have the Vice President say, ``Leave it where it is.'' I have another chart that I will refer to very briefly. These are the States where ratepayers have paid into the Federal Government's nuclear waste fund to provide for nuclear waste storage. The Federal Government did not hold this money in escrow. They put it in the general fund. They have spent it. The point is, there is $12 billion that has been paid in by the ratepayers for the Federal Government to take this waste in 1998. Virtually every State has bought nuclear power and paid into the fund. That is where the Government's contractual commitments really lay. Why is the administration simply saying no to any form of interim storage when Yucca Mountain has only a 50-50 chance of opening? Some who are on the fringes of the environmental movement think that this sort of foot dragging may help them close down the entire nuclear industry. Those people apparently have no responsibility for replacing that 22 percent of our power that we will lose. Twenty-two percent of our electricity, Mr. President, is generated by nuclear power. Even if all of the reactors shut down, we would be stuck with the utility waste and the defense waste still. We would not have an answer for what to do with it. If they shut down the industry, we still have the waste to dispose of. Mr. President, we won the cold war with the help of our nuclear deterrent. Now we have an obligation to clean up the mess. We can win the war on nuclear waste. Leaving it where it is is not an option, and 41 States are watching us. In addition to the nuclear waste of our power generators, we have nuclear waste that resulted from nuclear weapons development. I was at Hanford 2 weeks ago and went through the old plants that developed the plutonium to make the Hiroshima bomb, and those that made advanced nuclear devices. One must seriously consider what those facilities contributed to humanity and the burden they left. It is a responsibility that we must bear. Nuclear weapons brought the Second World War to an early close. There were lives lost; there were lives saved. The same thing is true regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. No matter what your opinion regarding these matters, we have a legacy of nuclear waste. We have to address it. The responsible way to address it is to meet head on the obligations we have made. Under a contractual commitment, we have collected $12 billion from ratepayers and are committed to take that waste by 1998. The Government is not prepared to take the waste. This case is going to be litigated, and it will become a full employment act for the lawyers beginning in 1998. We have proposed in S. 104 to address it now by providing for the siting of an interim storage site, in the Nevada desert, or somewhere else the President and Congress may choose, until we have a permanent repository. Mr. President, we have to have a temporary central storage facility in this country. There is absolutely no question about it. But this administration chooses to ignore it. They want this problem to go away. They do not want to address it on their watch. I suggest, Mr. President, that this is irresponsible. I thank the President and wish him a good day and yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a very serious situation exists in our Nation that I would like to discuss with my colleagues today. It concerns the storage of nuclear waste that has been generated in conjunction with the operation of nuclear reactors that provide this Nation with about 22 percent of the power generation that we currently enjoy. Without this contribution from the nuclear industry, we would have to depend on some other form of generation to contribute that 22 percent. We would probably use more coal, perhaps more natural gas. The potential for developing more hydro is somewhat limited, based on the costs and the fact that most of the potential hydro sites have already been developed. I happen to be chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has the obligation to oversee our country's electricity industry. It is an industry that most Americans take for granted. We are used to plugging in the iron, plugging in the coffee pot, and having them work. We do not recognize and we do not really reflect on what is behind it--the people, the men and women working in the power generating business, the business of transmitting the electric energy, distributing it and making sure it works. In any event, in connection with the tremendous dependence we have on nuclear energy in this country--I might add, we are the largest consumers of nuclear generated energy of any nation in the world--I was staggered to read that the Senate-White House meeting which was held yesterday resulted in agreement on some issues, but no agreement to address the question of what to do with the nuclear waste generated by our power reactors. I think a headline should have read, ``The Clinton Administration Simply Wants to Keep the Status Quo.'' Keeping nuclear waste in the neighborhoods of our country, and the consequences of that, deserve some examination. This examination could start in your town, in your State, in your neighborhood. That is where it is being stored. High- level radioactive materials are piling up in 80 locations in 41 of our States. Onsite storage is filling up, and the States which control the ability of utilities to store nuclear waste on the reactor sites will have to address whether they want to increase onsite storage at the nuclear reactors, or whether they will give in to pressure to simply not allow any further storage beyond the limited amount of existing storage. Some see this as a way to shut down the nuclear industry in this country. By objecting to any increase in authority to store onsite, the reactors can be forced to shut down because there is no place to put the spent fuel. I have a chart which I am going to spend a few minutes on, because it shows the crucial nature of the problem. When the administration says, ``We will just leave it where it is,'' I suggest to you, Mr. President, that this is an unrealistic and unworkable alternative. By 1998, 23 reactors in 14 States will run out of storage space. What we have here are plants with adequate storage, and they are indicated in the light blue. You can see most of them are on the eastern seaboard. But in purple are plants requiring additional storage by the year 2010. These States all have plants in purple: California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and all up and down the east coast. These plants do not have adequate storage to hold waste within the areas immediately adjacent to the reactors, and are going to have to petition the States to increase the authorization for nuclear energy waste allowed to be stored at those sites. In the green are plants requiring additional storage by the year 2015. They are primarily on the eastern seaboard and the Midwestern States, such as Illinois. So the point of this chart is to highlight that additional nuclear waste storage is needed in this country now. The bill we have introduced in our committee, S. 104, would provide a real solution to this crisis that is coming down the track. It is a train wreck that is coming. We have this material at 80 locations in 41 States. The Federal Government entered into a contractual commitment with America's ratepayers who depend on nuclear energy and the nuclear generation industry. In return for over $12 billion ratepayer dollars, the Government committed to take this waste by the year 1998. This is less than 1 year away; it is about 10 months away. The Federal Government has no place to put this waste and will default on its contractual commitment in 1998, when it is obligated to take the waste. There has been an effort to provide this Nation with a permanent repository. The government has a study program under way at Yucca Mountain, NV. We have spent $6 billion on this effort, but that facility will not be ready for 15 years, at the earliest. Secretary O'Leary said it may be 20 years. It may be longer. But the point is, we are looking at somewhere in the area of 2015 or thereabouts, and where in the world are we going to be able to accommodate this waste? Because we are not going to have a permanent repository then. We may never have a permanent repository, and I will talk about that a little later. S. 104 is a bill that got 63 votes in this body last year. The bill would provide for construction of a temporary storage facility, either at the Nevada test site or another site chosen by the President and Congress, until such time as we have a permanent repository constructed. Why the Nevada test site? The geologists tell us it is the best site that has been identified for a permanent repository. Furthermore, it is a site where for over 50 years we have tested our nuclear weapons. It is a site that is monitored and secured. It is a site that is well known. And it is the most appropriate site that has been identified. Now, the bottom line with this whole issue, Mr. President, is nobody wants nuclear waste. But you cannot throw it up in the air. It will come down somewhere. So the question is, what do you do with it? Again, last year, 63 Members of this body indicated that they approved of the construction of a temporary repository at the Nevada test site because it would allow us to proceed with the permanent repository, and when the permanent repository was done and certified and licensed, the waste could go in there. The point is, next year the Government has to take the waste or face liability and the damages associated with the failure to meet its obligation. Mr. President, this is the most important environmental bill before this Congress. This administration has said, ``Leave it where it is.'' When this issue was brought up at Tuesday's meeting, it is my understanding the Vice President said, ``Look, we're going to talk about the things we can agree on. We can't agree on the issue of nuclear waste.'' Whether that is a fair characterization, I can only depend on the news reports. But the administration's position seems to be to leave the nuclear waste where it is until we have a permanent place to put it. Let me tell you a little bit about the possibility of a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. We do not know whether Yucca Mountain may ever be ready. We have spent $6 billion already. It is estimated that it will cost a total of $30 billion by the time we are through with it. The Department of Energy says it has a 50-50 chance of actually being licensed. The theory here is that the scientists have to go through this process to determine whether Yucca can contain nuclear waste for thousands of years. Mr. President, if I may have another 6 or 7 minutes, I would appreciate it, and I ask unanimous consent.