Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues and I thank the Chair. Clean Lakes Program Funding in EPA Budget

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Missouri, and I understand that his appropriations legislation cannot be turned into the Senate's version of the Corrections Day Calendar such as we have in the House. It is my intention to refrain from offering my amendment at this time, but I will need the able assistance of the chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, and my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air of the Environment and Public Works Committee in addressing this problem. I believe the people of Fairbanks want to take the appropriate steps to address their carbon monoxide problem. I also think that the administration of region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is willing to work with them in a cooperative, flexible manner. But the science is clear that oxygenated fuel may not be the answer in very cold weather. I would ask the assistance of the subcommittee chairmen in two areas. First, will they aid us in working with the EPA to craft emission reduction programs for Alaskans that are flexible and workable? And second, will they work with the Alaska delegation to fix the provisions in the statute that may be driving Alaska toward remedies for air pollution that don't work?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, September 18, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1920, a bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes, and S. 1998, a bill to provide for expedited negotiations between the Secretary of the Interior and the villages of Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association, Inc., Ninilchik Native Association, Inc., Seldovia Native Association, Inc., Tyonek Native Corporation, and Knikatnu, Inc. regarding the Conveyances of certain lands in Alaska under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on S. 1852, the Department of Energy Class Action Lawsuit Act, has been canceled. The hearing was scheduled to take place Wednesday, September 5, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. There are no plans to reschedule this hearing. For further information, please contact Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224- 6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on the issue of U.S. climate change policy. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 17, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those who wish to testify or submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Garman at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise today to inform my colleagues of my degree of frustration with the gridlock that has occurred this entire Congress preventing passage of virtually every bill reported by my committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As chairman of that committee, I obviously have the obligation of moving the bills out. I have attempted to do that. I think it was the night before last, Mr. President, that the minority leader, Senator Daschle, expressed similar frustration over an objection from this side of the aisle to a judicial nominee. You can imagine my frustration when a few Senators from the Democratic side have prevented passage of all 72 bills from my committee currently pending on the calendar. Those objections, Mr. President, were not based on the merits of the bills being held; they were based on a problem with some other bill. So we have this chain of ``you are not going to support my bill unless your bill passes.'' I think it is fair to note that during part of the last year and a half, all of my committee bills were being held not because of any inaction by the Senate or my committee, but the excuse was the House was not acting quickly enough on some matter of interest. There are many, many items that are very important to Senators. I want to get them cleared and get them out. For example, Sterling Forest, my good friend Senator D'Amato has been urging me, clear Sterling Forest. The New York Times has taken up the charge. I certainly want to see Sterling Forest cleared. I want to support the position of my friend, Senator D'Amato from New York, who responded to the editorial of the New York Times as it affects New Jersey, as it affects New York. We attempted to clear that, along with the Utah ski bill, and a couple of small native items for Alaska. I cannot recall how many holds--it was like a rabbit trail. You could not keep up with it fast enough. Once we attempted to clear them, one hold would go on, someone would attempt to remove the hold, and, bingo, it is back on. My good friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, spent endless hours trying to clear that. This is a blatant abuse of the whole process. It has to stop. I know the leadership feels that way. The Members are going to have to recognize a few realities. Over the past several months, I have been working with my House counterparts to put together a package in conference on the Presidio bill. It has virtually everything in it. Everybody is not going to like everything in it, but there is virtually something in it for every Member. If you want to get behind this bill and get these land issues passed, you are simply going to have to recognize that we will have to keep the bill together. Due to the holds and the situation of the Senate, the process has become cumbersome, to say the least. Virtually everyone who has a parks or public lands bill introduced in the House or Senate wants to be included in any package that is moving. On the other hand, if I try to move an individual bill separately, Members think the Presidio package is dying and want to be included in the measure, as well. So what we have, Mr. President, is gridlock. I am not going to point fingers. It is just the reality. Mr. President, frankly, I have had it. Unless those Members who have blanket holds on Energy Committee bills, unless they lift those holds and allow me, as chairman, to work the system, to start moving individual bills and packages where appropriate, no bills are going to move. That would be a shame, Mr. President, because these bills affect our Nation's parks, public lands, our forests. They are good public policy, and they are good for the environment. I want to also add one more thing, because there is some confusion about the interests of the Senator from the State of Alaska. The Tongass is not part of this package. There is a proposal to allow an extension, for 15 years, of a competitive timber contract with the Forest Service for Louisiana Pulp Co., Louisiana Pacific Co. The rationale behind that, or the necessity, is that they are prepared and required, under the new laws governing effluent and air quality, to invest roughly $200 million in converting this plant--which, I might add, is our only year-round manufacturing plant--in southeastern Alaska, upon which 2,000 jobs are dependent. They simply must have a contractual commitment from the Forest Service for supply of raw material. Now, why is that different in Alaska? It is different in Alaska, Mr. President, because we have no other source of timber. There is no private timber. There is no State timber. It is all owned by the Federal Government, and their current contract is about to expire. I ask unanimous consent to have 1\1/2\ more minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the 15-year contract is not extended, this plant-- the only manufacturing plant, with 2,000 jobs--will be lost, and the pulp timber will be exported out of the State, which is really a travesty. Now, that is the interest of the Senator from Alaska in this package. So, Mr. President, I hope that clears up any doubts in the minds of anybody relative to the environmental aspects of the merits of this contract. This is to provide a chlorine-free new mill to replace the old one. But it can only happen if there is a contractual commitment for timber, because nobody is going to spend $200 million without an assured supply and a contract with the Federal Government. So I am committed to moving these bills. My committee has held hearings on these bills and held the markups. I have supported and voted for each of these bills. I am not the problem, Mr. President. But unless these holds are lifted, I don't see how I can be part of the solution. So I urge my colleagues--particularly the leadership--to do what they can to end this gridlock. It just has to be stopped. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony on S. 1852, the Department of Energy Class Action Lawsuit Act. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 5 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an item that is not in the news right now. But that could have significance for United States construction companies and for United States-Japan trade relations. It has come to my attention that the Japanese Government is building a new airport near Nagoya, Japan called the Chubu International Airport. This multibillion-dollar project will be that country's largest public works effort for the next decade. The first flights are planned for the year 2005. As many of my colleagues are already aware, American construction companies must be included in any list of our most competitive international industries. These companies have particular expertise in building large airports, having constructed the international airports in Hong Kong and Seoul, Korea, among others. Curiously, only in Japan have they been unsuccessful. This is not for lack of trying. American construction, architecture, and design engineering firms have been trying to participate in the Japanese market for over a decade, with limited success. I have taken to the Senate floor many times to complain about how United States companies were blocked from participating in any meaningful way in the construction of the Kansai International Airport, despite numerous promises from the Japanese Government to allow their participation. But Mr. President, my purpose here is not to recount the sorry tale of closed construction markets in Japan. I will just note that we have gone through years of negotiations to try to open Japan's construction market and break their corrupt dango system. In 1994, in the face of United States sanctions under title VII, Japan agreed to adopt an action plan to eliminate the numerous barriers to foreign participation in their public works market. And I must say, Mr. President, that the first two reviews of the action plan have been very disappointing. In fiscal year 1995, foreign firms won only one construction project, out of a total of 613 let out for bid, and one design project, out of 20. The dedicated commerce officials monitoring Japan's performance indicate that United States companies still face unsatisfactory restrictions on the size and scope of joint-venture consortia that can bid on major procurement projects and still face discriminatory prequalification criteria. But you don't get anywhere crying over lost opportunities, so today I instead want to use my remarks to point out to the Japanese Government that the Chubu project presents an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its openness to foreign participation. And, it gives Japan the opportunity to enjoy a world class international airport. In order to make this happen, the procurement agency for Chubu should immediately move to adopt open and competitive bidding procedures as called for under the United States-Japan bilateral understandings. Mr. President, I will be watching very closely and I fully expect United States firms to be given equal opportunity to participate, commensurate with their ability. I understand that our Commerce Department officials will travel to Japan again in September for further consultations, and I hope that they will receive positive news on the Chubu project. Bosnia Policy

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to urge my Senate colleagues to support H.R. 1975, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act, also known as the ``royalty fairness'' bill, which passed the House of Representatives on July 16, 1996. H.R. 1975 is identical in every respect to S. 1014, reported to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 1 by a unanimous voice vote, with one exception: It makes a technical amendment in the effective date section that was not made in S. 1014. The technical amendment was included at the urging of the administration and, as a result, the Clinton administration strongly supports H.R. 1975. The bill also is supported by the governors of fourteen States. This is historic legislation, Mr. President. It is the only legislative initiative taken in the last 14 years to cost effectively increase the Nation's third largest source of revenue--mineral royalties from Federal lands, more specifically, oil and gas royalties. This legislation would establish a comprehensive statutory plan to increase the collection of royalty receipts due the United States. Those receipts will help reduce our budget deficit. Without this legislation, an ineffective and costly royalty collection system will continue, perpetuating long delays and uncollected royalties. Let me make clear, Mr. President: This legislation does not apply to Indian lands. It applies only to royalties from oil and gas production on Federal lands. Let me also make absolutely clear that this bill does not--repeat, does not--provide royalty relief or lower royalty rates for oil and gas producers who operate on Federal onshore lands or the Outer Continental Shelf. H.R. 1975 is about royalty collection, not royalty rates. This bill is about improving government efficiency, not about increasing government bureaucracy. And this bill is about increasing revenues to the Federal Treasury, not about giving money away. This legislation is historic for another reason, Mr. President: It would empower States to perform oil and gas royalty management functions, such as auditing and collecting, that are essential to bringing additional receipts to the Treasury and the States within a 7- year limitation period established by this legislation. By expanding the States' role in performing Federal oil and gas royalty management and collection functions consistent with Federal law and regulation, States will be given a great economic incentive that will benefit the Federal Treasury. The more aggressive States are in performing delegated functions, the greater their share of net receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act. That act requires 50 percent of all royalties from Federal onshore oil and gas production to be shared with the States from which that production comes. H.R. 1975 establishes a framework for the federal oil and gas royalty collection program that will accelerate the collection of offsetting receipts to the Treasury by $80 million in the 1997-2002 period, half of which moneys would be shared with the States. These receipts result primarily from: (1) requiring the Secretary of the Interior and delegated States to timely collect all claims within 7 years rather than allow the claims to become stale and uncollectible; (2) requiring early resolution and collection of disputed claims before their value diminishes; (3) requiring federal and State resources to be used in a manner that maximizes receipts through more aggressive collection activities; and (4) increasing production on federal lands by creating economic and regulatory incentives. Without the statutory framework of this legislation, the Nation's third largest revenue source (the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is the third largest source of revenue behind the IRS and Customs Service) will continue to be subject to greatly delayed collections and the risk of reduced receipts due to non-collection over time. To achieve the goal of maximizing collections through more timely and aggressive collection efforts, this legislation would do the following specific things. It would require the Secretary, delegated States, and lessees to take action respecting a royalty obligation within seven years from the date that obligation became due. The provisions require that judicial proceedings or demands (e.g., orders to pay) be commenced or issued within seven years of the date when the obligation became due or be barred. Lessees would be required to maintain their records during the 7-year period in order to verify production volumes. H.R. 1975 would expedite the administrative appeals process at the Interior Department by establishing a 33-month limitation on appeals. Presently, over $450 million in disputed claims languish in a bureaucratic appeals process and continue to lose value. By speeding up the appeals process, the Secretary would increase the value of those obligations and collections to the Treasury. The legislation also would level the playing field for royalty payors by authorizing the payment of interest on overpayments. Present law requires lessees to pay interest on late payments and underpayments as a disincentive for being tardy or underpaying royalties, but does not compensate lessees who overpay royalties and who lose the time value of that money through some legitimate error. And finally, Mr. President, the legislation would authorize the Secretary to allow prepayment of royalties and to provide other regulatory relief for ``marginal properties,'' and require that adjustments or requests for refunds for underpayments or overpayments be pursued within a 6-year window coinciding with the 7-year limitation period. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Nickles, for introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 1975, S. 1014, last June. Senator Domenici and I joined Senator Nickles as sponsors of this historic bill, and Senator Thomas has been deeply involved as well. I want to thank Senators Nickles, Domenici, and Thomas for their efforts in regard to the royalty fairness legislation. Mr. President, the fact that S. 1014 was reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 1 by a unanimous voice vote and subsequently drew the support of the Clinton administration, and the fact that the House swiftly passed H.R. 1975, speaks to the merits of this legislation, the lengths to which we have gone to resolve differences with the administration over the language of the bill, and the fact that this legislation is not partisan legislation. This is good-government legislation, and no mater what criticism we may hear of it, it will be good for the taxpayers, good for the States, and good for the energy producing sector of our economy. Importantly, Mr. President, H.R. 1975 will empower States to join in partnership with the Federal Government in assuming certain royalty management functions pursuant to a delegation of authority. By providing States with a role in performing oil and gas royalty management functions, we will be giving States the economic incentive to perform those functions in a more cost effective manner. Aggressive pursuit of royalty obligations by States will be rewarded by higher net receipts shares for the States, because 50 percent of oil and gas receipts are shared with the States, and it will result in higher receipts to the federal treasury. This is a fiscal ``win-win'' no matter how you view it. This is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated June 6, 1996, from the Department of the Interior; a statement of administration policy, dated July 16, 1996, from OMB; a letter dated May 30, 1996, from Leon Panetta; and a DOE news release dated July 16, 1996, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. The hearing will focus on regional issues associated with competitive change. The hearing will take place on Monday, September 9, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Champlain College Alumni Auditorium, on Maple Street in Burlington, Vermont 05401. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Shawn Taylor or Howard Useem.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object. I ask that the time run equally.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe we have a half hour on our side, Mr. President?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intention to yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana 15 minutes and the Senator from Minnesota 5, the Senator from Idaho 5, and I will use the other 5 at the conclusion. And that takes care of our side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Grams from Minnesota.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time do we have?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the Senator from Minnesota wish to----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is on the time of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana and 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield to the Senator from Idaho. How much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important to recognize we had a very clear understanding. A deal was made, the ratepayers would pay a fee and the Government would take title of the waste, period. That was the arrangement. We cannot and we should not at this time revisit this decision in an attempt to retroactively change the deal. That is basically the basis for the amendment from my friend from Minnesota. Mr. President, the decision that the Government would undertake the obligation to take title was made in a previous Nuclear Waste Policy Act and is part of the contract. The utility ratepayers have paid the fees under the contract, and again the Government simply has to live up to its end of the bargain. The Government already has title to large amounts, large amounts of spent fuel and waste that will be stored in these facilities. As a practical matter, the Government will be the deep pocket for liability for these facilities, even if did not take title to civilian fuel. We have competition and the realization that competition brings increased uncertainty to the electrical industry. That is just a fact of business. The utilities are the corporate entities and they cease to exist. That is the reason why the Government agreed, wanted and felt compelled to take title to spent fuel in the first place. The Government will own and operate these facilities. It is unfair now for the utility ratepayers to be on the hook for a liability for facilities that they have simply no control over. So I, again, suggest to the Senator from Minnesota that the Minnesota ratepayers have already paid twice. The Wellstone amendment, if the Court upheld it, would force Minnesotans who get, I might add, 31 percent of their electric energy from nuclear power, to pay again and again and again. If Minnesota were to lose its dependence on nuclear energy, what would be the alternative? I think the Senator from Idaho indicated that, last year, nuclear power in Minnesota displaced 118,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 53,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, and there is simply no other alternative, if Minnesota were to lose its dependence on nuclear energy, other than to generate power from fossil fuel. It is fair to say that, again, Minnesota nuclear power plants have reduced Minnesota's carbon dioxide emissions by 3 million metric tons by 1995 and, I think, 55 million metric tons since 1973. What is the alternative to this if we don't have the nuclear capability that so many--roughly a third--Minnesota residents depend on? Mr. President, has all time expired on the amendment?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment contains the language previously filed by Senator Chafee as amendment No. 4834. This amendment originally suggested by Senator Chafee would soften the existing preemption language in the bill to clarify that only when another Federal, State, or local law is inconsistent, that is, when another Federal, State, or local law is inconsistent or duplicative with this act, then this act will govern. Otherwise, all previous applications of both State and Federal environmental or safety statutes continue to apply. What we have attempted to do here is craft an amendment to ensure that there will be adequate oversight of all Federal and State and local laws, unless they are an obstacle to carrying out the act, because the act itself stipulates that there shall be an interim storage site at Yucca Mountain under specific conditions. Some have expressed concern that this language could be interpreted to provide preemption of other laws in cases where complying with those laws were simply inconvenient or impractical. That is not the case, and it does, I think, strain the interpretation of the bill. However, in order to address these questions, we are offering this amendment that was suggested by Senator Chafee. This language provides the Department of Energy must comply--they must comply--again, with all Federal, State, and local laws unless those laws are inconsistent with or duplicative of the requirements of S. 1936. There is an effort to, if you will, disguise by generalities the intent of this bill. But it mandates compliance, again, with all Federal, State, and local laws unless they are inconsistent or duplicative, duplicate the requirements. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 contains a carefully crafted regulatory scheme that applies to this one unique nuclear waste storage facility. Think about that: This is consistent because there is no other such facility in the country. So the policy act contains words crafted relative to the regulatory proposal that applies to only this one, unique, nuclear waste storage facility. Since we have no other, this is designed specifically for this facility. So there is no applicability to any other facility. Our general Federal, State and local laws are intended to apply to every situation generically. So it is only appropriate that we clarify that where those general laws conflict with this very specific law that we are designing for this interim storage site, that we have carefully drafted, with the input of many concerned people, the provisions of this law, of this act, will control the process. The vast majority of other laws will certainly not be subject to being superseded and will be complied with. A suggestion that the Department of Energy should be forced to attempt to comply with laws that conflict with this act will simply open it up to spending years of litigation on which provisions apply and is simply a recipe, Mr. President, for unnecessary delays at the ratepayers' and taxpayers' expense and I think would provide full employment for a significant number of lawyers in this country. So I think as we attempt to address the merits of this amendment, we recognize that this is designed to address concerns that somehow this legislation, as crafted, will not cover adequately all Federal, State and local laws of an environmental nature that are, obviously, designed for the protection of the public. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and ask if my good friends from Nevada would like to have some time running. If there is any other Senator here who would like to be heard on this amendment, I would appreciate it if they will advise the staff, and we will attempt to accommodate them on time. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.