Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation in support of higher education in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, the University of Alaska is a land-grant college without the land. In 1915, Congress reserved for Alaska's land-grant institution potentially more than 250,000 acres in the Tanana Valley, proceeds from the sale and development of which--like other land grant institutions--would help finance the operation of the school. Under the terms of the measure, written by Delegate James Wickersham, the college was to receive surveyed and unclaimed Section 33 in an area of about 14,000 square miles between Fairbanks, AK in the north and the foothills of the Alaska Range in the south, this was in addition to the main campus of about 2,250 acres 4 miles from Fairbanks. However, this large Tanana Valley land grant never materialized. For decades, almost all of the land in the Tanana Valley (like the rest of Alaska) remained unsurveyed and therefore unavailable. As late as the 1950s, only 0.6 percent of Alaska had been properly surveyed under the standard rectangular system, and a territorial report concluded that at the speed Alaska was being surveyed, it could take as long as 43,510 years to complete the job. Due primarily to this incredibly slow pace of Federal land surveys, Alaska's land grant institution received only a fraction of the land Congress reserved for it in 1915; in addition to its 2,250 acre campus, the University of Alaska received less than 9,000 acres out of a reservation created for it totaling approximately 268,000 acres. To partially remedy the situation, Congress granted an additional 100,000 acres to Alaska's land grant college in 1929, but even with this additional grant, the total was less than half of the original acreage authorized in 1915. Further efforts to increase the size of Alaska's higher education Federal land grant were made from the 1930s through the 1950s. Several bills were submitted to Congress that would have reserved up to 10 million acres for Alaska's land grant college, but strong opposition, primarily from the Department of the Interior, doomed the effort. Traditionally, the size of land grants were most often determined by a State's population, not by its area. Nevertheless, some of the last western States were given generous grants despite their sparse populations. For instance, Oklahoma and New Mexico each received about 1 million acres to support higher education. Alaska received less land specifically dedicated for the support of higher education than all but one of the contiguous States. Among the 48 States which had received Federal land or land scrip to establish land grant colleges, mining schools, teachers' colleges, and state universities, only Delaware received fewer acres than Alaska. Thus, after statehood, Alaska in 1959 was in an anomalous position. While the State had received more land and a greater percentage of land from the Federal Government than any other western State, it ranked next to the bottom of the list in the amount of Federal land it had received for higher education. Over the next 15 years, controversies regarding Alaska land matters continued to boil, as the public domain in Alaska was carved up for the first time. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, reserving 44 million acres for Alaska Natives and opening the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The pipeline marked the start of a national conservation battle in the 1970s over the future of Alaska's lands, which culminated in 1980 with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, a measure which added 104 million acres to the State's conservation systems. Now, with many of the major Alaska land issues of the 1970s and 1980s settled, supporters of the University of Alaska have encouraged State and Federal officials to reexamine the question of the university's land grant and consider granting the school additional lands in order for it to ``achieve parity'' with higher educational systems in other States. The legislation I am introducing today would achieve this. It would grant the University up to 350,000 acres of Federal land. It would do this on a matching basis with the State of Alaska for up to a total of 700,000 acres split equally between the state and Federal Government. In other words if Alaska were to grant the University 200,000 acres of State land, the Federal Government would grant them to 200,000 acres. I believe this is a fair settlement to this issue. It addresses some of the needs of higher education in my State of Alaska and allows the State and the Federal government to participate in the fix equally.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation in support of higher education in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, the University of Alaska is a land-grant college without the land. In 1915, Congress reserved for Alaska's land-grant institution potentially more than 250,000 acres in the Tanana Valley, proceeds from the sale and development of which--like other land grant institutions--would help finance the operation of the school. Under the terms of the measure, written by Delegate James Wickersham, the college was to receive surveyed and unclaimed Section 33 in an area of about 14,000 square miles between Fairbanks, AK in the north and the foothills of the Alaska Range in the south, this was in addition to the main campus of about 2,250 acres 4 miles from Fairbanks. However, this large Tanana Valley land grant never materialized. For decades, almost all of the land in the Tanana Valley (like the rest of Alaska) remained unsurveyed and therefore unavailable. As late as the 1950s, only 0.6 percent of Alaska had been properly surveyed under the standard rectangular system, and a territorial report concluded that at the speed Alaska was being surveyed, it could take as long as 43,510 years to complete the job. Due primarily to this incredibly slow pace of Federal land surveys, Alaska's land grant institution received only a fraction of the land Congress reserved for it in 1915; in addition to its 2,250 acre campus, the University of Alaska received less than 9,000 acres out of a reservation created for it totaling approximately 268,000 acres. To partially remedy the situation, Congress granted an additional 100,000 acres to Alaska's land grant college in 1929, but even with this additional grant, the total was less than half of the original acreage authorized in 1915. Further efforts to increase the size of Alaska's higher education Federal land grant were made from the 1930s through the 1950s. Several bills were submitted to Congress that would have reserved up to 10 million acres for Alaska's land grant college, but strong opposition, primarily from the Department of the Interior, doomed the effort. Traditionally, the size of land grants were most often determined by a State's population, not by its area. Nevertheless, some of the last western States were given generous grants despite their sparse populations. For instance, Oklahoma and New Mexico each received about 1 million acres to support higher education. Alaska received less land specifically dedicated for the support of higher education than all but one of the contiguous States. Among the 48 States which had received Federal land or land scrip to establish land grant colleges, mining schools, teachers' colleges, and state universities, only Delaware received fewer acres than Alaska. Thus, after statehood, Alaska in 1959 was in an anomalous position. While the State had received more land and a greater percentage of land from the Federal Government than any other western State, it ranked next to the bottom of the list in the amount of Federal land it had received for higher education. Over the next 15 years, controversies regarding Alaska land matters continued to boil, as the public domain in Alaska was carved up for the first time. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, reserving 44 million acres for Alaska Natives and opening the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The pipeline marked the start of a national conservation battle in the 1970s over the future of Alaska's lands, which culminated in 1980 with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, a measure which added 104 million acres to the State's conservation systems. Now, with many of the major Alaska land issues of the 1970s and 1980s settled, supporters of the University of Alaska have encouraged State and Federal officials to reexamine the question of the university's land grant and consider granting the school additional lands in order for it to ``achieve parity'' with higher educational systems in other States. The legislation I am introducing today would achieve this. It would grant the University up to 350,000 acres of Federal land. It would do this on a matching basis with the State of Alaska for up to a total of 700,000 acres split equally between the state and Federal Government. In other words if Alaska were to grant the University 200,000 acres of State land, the Federal Government would grant them to 200,000 acres. I believe this is a fair settlement to this issue. It addresses some of the needs of higher education in my State of Alaska and allows the State and the Federal government to participate in the fix equally.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1844, a bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to direct a study of the opportunities for enhanced water based recreation and for other purposes. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 13, 1996, it will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, senior counsel or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1804, a bill to make technical and other changes to the laws dealing with the territories and freely associated States of the United States, amendment No. 4039 and oversight into the law enforcement initiative in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, have been postponed from Tuesday, June 25, 1996, to Wednesday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. and will take place in room SD-336 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, senior counsel or Betty Nevitt.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, yesterday the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds released their long-awaited annual report, and that report confirms our worst fears that the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund--which pays for the hospital bills of our Nation's elderly--will be bankrupt in nearly 4 years, in the year 2001. This is a year earlier than the trustees predicted in their last report. The report, which by law, Mr. President, was due April 1 but only received yesterday, 10 weeks late, indicates that the Medicare trust fund ran a deficit of $2.6 billion in 1995 and that the deficit will nearly quadruple to $9.2 billion this year. By the year 2001, the fund will have a deficit of $56 billion, and, having exhausted all accrued interest, it will be bankrupt. That is what we are looking at. The Trustees report provides a striking reminder that this crisis which the Medicare system faces did not disappear with the President's veto of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995--the one honest attempt to make structural reforms to the Medicare Program. To the contrary, this report shows us that Medicare is going broke at even a faster rate than previously predicted. What are we doing about it? Last year, Congress passed a 7-year balanced budget plan--the first in a generation--that included Medicare reforms that would have extended the life of the hospital insurance trust fund for a decade and also addressed long-term structural reforms to help preserve the program for the critical time when the baby boomers begin to retire. This proposal was vetoed by the President. The plan passed by Congress allowed Medicare to grow at a rate of over 6 percent a year--not cut, Mr. President, but grow at a rate of over 6 percent a year--with the spending per beneficiary growing from $5,300 to $7,000 by the year 2002. It has been characterized by some on the other side that these are draconian cuts. Is a 6-percent increase a draconian cut? Is an increase in payments for beneficiaries from $5,300 to $7,000 by the year 2002 a cut? It certainly is not, Mr. President. The Medicare reforms passed by Congress last year made changes to the system that reflect the way health is practiced in the 1990's, offering for the first time real health care choice to seniors. What is wrong with choice? We proposed insurance options that would allow doctors and hospitals to integrate and provide affordable coordinated care to seniors. We proposed medical savings accounts as an option--an option, not a mandate--for Medicare beneficiaries giving individuals the ability to manage their own health care dollars, choose any doctor they want, and shop around for the best quality care at the best price. Congress acted. The President chose to abdicate. We responded to the urgency to save the program. The President chose to veto our proposals, thus ensuring that the crisis in Medicare is simply going to continue. Understanding the political risks involved in engaging in a debate over Medicare, I think we acted responsibly. I think we negotiated in good faith. I would hate to think that this was all just an exercise in futility. Yet, we have seen more of the same from this administration this year. The President's budget includes Medicare gimmicks, not Medicare reforms. As we all know, the Medicare problem is not just a crisis of the much talked about pending insolvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance--HI--trust fund, it is a fiscal crisis affecting all areas of the Medicare program, with Federal spending increasing by 12 percent in 1995 and projected to grow 8.6 and 10 percent from now until the year 2005. The administration attempts to be deceptive by proposing to move spending obligations for home health care from part A, where outlays are limited by incoming receipts from the Medicaid HI tax, to part B, where 72 percent of the funds come from general revenues and where, theoretically, there are no limits on growth in spending or solvency problems. I think it is deceiving to make this accounting move and mask it as reforms that ``save'' the Medicare Program. This gimmick does add life to the part A trust fund ensuring solvency to the year 2005 as opposed to 2001, but it is simply that, Mr. President. It is a gimmick. It does nothing to address the true problem of the Medicare system which is basically the absence of market influences and a lack of alternatives to the current one-size-fits-all program. Seniors need and deserve the same choices in health care plans available to the rest of us. Why should they not have it? Mr. President, we are going to attempt again to put forth real Medicare reforms this year. It is my hope the President will stop proposing gimmicks, stop scaring the seniors, and start dealing honestly with true Medicare reforms that everybody can understand. At the end of the day, we are not all that far apart. I believe we share the same goals of saving the Medicare Program for future generations. So let us get on with it in real, honest reforms. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Idaho. I thought his comments were certainly appropriate. Let us reflect a little bit about the vote we are going to cast tomorrow. That vote will really determine the economic stability and the vitality of this Nation as we enter the 21st century. Mr. President, I am going to vote for this balanced budget amendment because I believe nothing short of amending the Constitution is going to change our addiction to spending and living beyond our means. I was a commercial banker during my previous life outside this body. I recall back in 1962 the Federal Government's budget reached $100 billion. By 1971, it had doubled to $200 billion. By 1977, it had doubled again. In 1983, the Federal budget topped $800 billion. The budget for next year, fiscal year 1997, will be more than $1.6 trillion. We have heard concerns expressed on the other side relative to the Social Security issue. It has been commented that somehow a balanced budget will have a detrimental effect on our obligation to meet our Social Security commitments. Just think for a moment. How can we meet our obligation to our seniors, how can we meet the obligation of coming generations if our fiscal house is not in order? It has already been suggested as to what the increased tax burden will have to be on future generations. We have been spending far in excess of revenues. That is like carrying an overdraft or carrying your accounts on your credit card knowing you cannot pay them off. So what have we been doing? We have been increasing the amount that we are spending for interest. I think it is somewhere in the area of $240 billion today. That is nearly $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. What does it do? It pays interest on the Federal debt. Now, not too many people talk about the Federal debt, but we have increased the Federal debt authorization now to $5 trillion. It seems as if we go through a budget process, we add up what we need, we take a look at the revenue that we have, and instead of either increasing the revenue or cutting the expenditures we simply take what we need and add it to the accumulated national Federal debt, which is over $5 trillion. This interest cost must be paid. I have said it on this floor time and time again. Interest is like owning a horse that eats while you sleep. It goes on and on and on. What is the exposure with the increased amount that we have to pay? As everyone knows, interest rates fluctuate. I am often reminded of what the prime rate was in December of 1980. The prime rate was 20.5. You can imagine the interest cost on $5 trillion if, indeed, we were in that range again, and this could happen. It happened before. After years of trying, last year this Congress came within one vote of sending a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States. The amendment passed the House of Representatives on January 26 when House Joint Resolution 1 was approved by a vote of 300 to 132, easily exceeding the necessary two-thirds majority. The Senate added an amendment restricting the power of the courts to enforce the amendment and defeated many weakening amendments, but then on March 2 the Senate failed by one vote to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment. We have the opportunity to address this again tomorrow. If we look at history, we will realize that for more than one-third of a century--35 of the last 36 years, the Government has been running a continuous and unending string of deficits. Even if we adopt this amendment, it is an absolute certainty the deficits will continue into the year 2000. I have reflected on the debt being more than $5 trillion. In 10 years, Mr. President, that debt is going to rise by 80 percent up to what? Nine trillion dollars. Put another way, in the year 2006, every man, woman, and child in America will owe Uncle Sam $32,700. For a family of four, that is $131,000. What are we thinking of here? There should be absolutely no question that we do not have the self-discipline in this body to address a balanced budget process. With a constitutional amendment, it will mandate that process. We have not been blind to these deficits. For the last 11 years, Congress and the President have sought to find solutions, remedies. We passed statutes and reconciliation bills, all in the name of reaching a deficit of zero. On three occasions over the past 10 years, legislators on both sides of the aisle sat down with the President and tried to hammer out some workable solutions to solve the deficit. On every occasion the promise of a zero deficit has evaporated. Congress did not have the discipline or the political courage to do the one thing that would bring down the deficit, reduce spending. Yes, we voted to raise taxes on more than one occasion, but have we ever cut or frozen spending? No. It was only last year that we finally had the courage to face up to the challenge of runaway entitlements. Today, those entitlements account for 55 percent of Federal spending and will grow to 59 percent by the end of this century. There is not going to be any discretionary spending left. The American public witnessed, I think, an unprecedented spectacle when the President vetoed the only creditable balanced budget proposal ever to be written by Congress. Then--we got blamed for it--but he shut down the Government because of his refusal to give up the taxing and spending policies that have brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy and placed blame on Congress because we attempted to responsibly address the deficit. Had this amendment been incorporated in the Constitution, the President would have been in violation of his own oath of office to preserve, to protect and defend the Constitution--which he refused to abide by vetoing a real balanced budget. We are basically broke. Any CPA or banker can look at the Federal statement and find $5 trillion in debt; interest of 14 percent of the budget would tell you that. We can no longer labor under the assumption that business as usual in Washington assumes that every year we can run those deficits of $150 billion, $250 billion, $350 billion--$350 billion. This accumulation of debt has brought us, today, to the point where, for the first time in our history, we are forced to borrow from the credit markets for the sole purpose of paying interest on the debt. Think of that. We are borrowing to pay interest on the debt. We are not borrowing just out there to fund our programs. We are having to borrow to pay the interest. That is why we are broke. It may surprise some people to know that over the next 10 years we would be running a surplus, we would be running a surplus in this country in the Federal budget if every year we did not have to pay that $200 billion to $400 billion annual interest bill that has resulted in our chronic inability to bring revenue and spending into balance. I said we are broke. We are borrowing just to cover those interest costs. That is fiscal irresponsibility. We all know it. We are subject to the shifting winds of international investment flows, where a minor change of economic policy, not in this country, but in Bonn or London, or an earthquake in Japan--those are the people who are financing, if you will, a portion of our debt--could have a direct effect on what this United States Government has to pay for money to finance its debt. Can anyone imagine what would happen if the owners of our debt--18 percent of which, I might add, is owned by foreigners--if they felt there was a sudden loss of confidence in the U.S. economy, and they called in the debt, they called in just $300 billion or $500 billion of our debt? How would we pay the owners off? We could not unless we inflated our dollar to the point that what a dollar buys today would actually be worth 50 cents or less. That is how it is done. The only way to get out of this sea of red ink is to adopt a simple mandate because we do not have the discipline to do it--we have proven it time and time again--and adopt the balanced budget amendment. The public knows that no family or business can survive very long when, year in and year out, the principal of its debt grows and all its borrowing is dedicated to paying off the debt holders. When future generations look back on the decisions that we made in the last decade of the 20th century, I know they will appreciate the wisdom of the people in the Congress in adding the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. For this amendment stands for the proposition that future generations are entitled to economic freedom, unburdened by the financial debt of past generations. It is our responsibility to end the practice of sending unpaid bills to our children and to our grandchildren. That is a principle that belongs in the Constitution in the same sense as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press belong to the Constitution. Let me just repeat that because I firmly believe that. It is our responsibility to end the practice of sending unpaid bills to our children and grandchildren. That principle belongs in the Constitution in the same sense as the freedom of speech and press belong in that document. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, send it to the States where it can be debated by the people. Give them a chance to render their judgment. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 1844 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.

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 Tuesday, June 11, 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. 1010, a bill to amend the unit of general local government definition for Federal payments in lieu of taxes to include unorganized boroughs in Alaska, and for other purposes, S. 1807, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Kake Tribal Corp. public interest land exchange, and S. 1187, a bill to convey certain real property located in the Tongass National Forest to Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and Douglas K. Gross, 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. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Defend America Act. I won't comment on every aspect of this important legislation, but there are certain issues which bear highlighting. Although we in Alaska may sometimes wish we were further away from Washington, DC, I think the citizens in my State would be shocked to learn that this administration apparently dismisses the strategic importance of Alaska, the other noncontiguous State, Hawaii, and U.S. territories. Have President Clinton and his advisers forgotten which State Japan chose to strike first, and what event drove us into World War II? President Clinton has said, ``The possibility of a long-range missile attack on American soil by a rogue state is more than a decade away.'' This statement ignores testimony in 1994 by John Deutch, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, ``If North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.'' Does the President really mean that Alaska is not American soil? As President Clinton's first Director of the CIA, James Woolsey, stated, [T]he contiguous 48' frame of reference for this NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), if the document is used as a basis for drawing general policy conclusions, can lead to badly distorted and minimized perception of the serious threats we face from ballistic missiles now and in the very near future--threats to our friends, our allies, our overseas bases and military forces, our overseas territories, and some of the 50 states. Very few of those in opposition to this bill give much thought to the actual nature of the threat that currently exists. As I've mentioned, the intelligence community has documented that the North Koreans are developing the capability to strike my State of Alaska with intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is not to mention those nations with adequate current capability such as Russia and China or those nations racing to gain such technology such as Iraq, Iran, and Libya. I have heard several of my colleagues dismiss the threat from North Korea because that country is on the verge of collapse. I would remind my colleagues of some historical facts. First, North Korea has a history of reckless, irrational acts. This is the country which launched the invasion of South Korea in 1950 resulting in the deaths of 3 million of her countrymen and more than 33,000 American troops; a country whose agents detonated a bomb in Rangoon killing 16 South Korean officials; a country whose agents blew up a Korean Airlines flight killing 115 passengers and crew; and a country whose military hacked American personnel to death in the DMZ. Using missile blackmail may be just the type of desperate act North Korea might try to get the United States to start talking about a separate defense treaty, something that country has sought for years. Third, if anything, the United States is extending the life of the North Korean regime by providing vast sums of free oil and expensive nuclear reactor technology under the terms of the agreed framework. So I would not be so quick to dismiss North Korea as a threat. An extremely important aspect of this bill is that it would allow the United States to act in its best interests abroad without the fear of having U.S. cities held hostage by hostile nations possessing intercontinental missiles. For instance, during the recent series of Chinese missile tests off the coast of Taiwan, President Clinton rightly sent in United States warships to stabilize the situation. During the crisis, a high level Chinese diplomat stated in a thinly veiled threat of nuclear missile blackmail that the United States would not come to the aid of Taiwan because it was more worried about Los Angeles than Taipei. And although we are not debating this particular aspect of missile defense right now, I believe Majority Leader Bob Dole was exactly right in his recent speech on Asia when he called on President Clinton to begin to work with Japan, South Korea, and our other Asian allies in developing, testing, and deploying ballistic missile defenses--a Pacific democracy defense program. I believe this concept should be extended to Taiwan, which we know from the recent Chinese tests of missiles just off Taiwan's shores, is vulnerable to missile blackmail. The United States is committed by law to providing for Taiwan's defense, but thus far, we leave her defenseless to this significant threat. Mr. President, the United States is a global power with vested interests both politically and commercially all over the world. We simply cannot allow U.S. policy to be determined by those who would practice missile blackmail. It is a fact that today in 1996, with the Soviet Union and the specter of communism no longer casting a shadow over global peace, the world is in many ways even more dangerous than when the cold war raged. In place of a global struggle between the West and expansionist communism, we now have the proliferation of weapons and missile technology that has the potential to make every nation hostile to the United States and our allies a serious threat by virtue of simply buying what they need on the open market. Despite very detailed arms control treaties that are in place, we have seen time and again, that nations determined to get weapons technology usually do. Let's take a look at Iraq, the world's most heavily inspected country, where United Nation's teams have been on the ground for years, and where we are constantly surprised by new revelations of Iraqi efforts to rebuild their offensive capabilities. During the days of the cold war, the policy of both the United States, and the Soviet Union was called MAD, or mutually assured destruction. This policy was based on mutual fear. Should the Soviets launch an attack on the United States, our response would have been reciprocal in nature. Essentially, if you attack us, we will attack you. The Defend America Act seeks to move us away from such a hair trigger defensive posture. Indeed, according to the Washington Post ``both countries have more to fear from rogue nations than each other.'' Many of those wanting to acquire ballistic missiles today, not only lack the stability of our old nemesis, but have actually used weapons of mass destruction on their neighbors and their very own citizens. These same countries have also stated very publicly their desire to purchase weapons technology that would allow them to reach the United States. Libya's Mu'ammar Qadhafi has often spoken of his desire to ``have missiles that can reach New York'' to serve as a deterrent to United States diplomatic action. Most Americans will remember watching Iraqi Scud missiles rain down on Israel and Saudi Arabia during the gulf war. In fact, the greatest single loss of American life in the gulf war occurred during a Scud missile attack. The situation is so dire that the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, recently issued a report declaring that the proliferation of missile technology ``presents a grave and urgent risk to the United States and our citizens, allies, and troops abroad.'' The need for a missile defense system is obvious. It would provide a limited defensive capability to defend the United States against a limited attack by a rogue nation, accidental or unauthorized launch against the United States. Lastly, I would like to address the issue of cost. This is very important because the opponents of this bill are making claims that have little to do with reality. The Congressional Budget Office did indeed issue a report saying that a particular configuration of a missile defense system could cost upward of $30 to 60 billion. However, if one were to actually read the bill, it does not mandate any particular type of system configuration. In the letter accompanying the report, CBO Director June O'Neill stated that the costs for such a system ``would be $10 billion over the next five years, or about $7 billion more than is currently programmed for national missile defense.'' The Washington Times in an article last month wrote that the difference of $3 billion is a hedge amount used by the CBO against technical or schedule risks that are typically associated with such an undertaking. The $31 to 60 billion numbers are for something far more grandiose than the bill envisions. I would also like to pose one question to my friends in opposition to this bill: What price would they place on Anchorage? Or Los Angeles or New York or any American city? What is the price we are ready to pay to protect ourselves from some maniac who finds himself in charge of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and the means to deliver them? I guarantee that, God forbid, should an American city ever be hit like the Israeli cities were during the gulf war, there would be a hue and cry across this land asking why we do not put up even a limited defense capability when we clearly had the know-how. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the opponents of this bill seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This bill will give the United States a limited capability to defend itself at a modest cost in an increasingly unstable world and should be passed. Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate began voting on amendments to the budget resolution at 9 a.m. and for the next 8\1/2\ hours, we cast 27 votes and voice-voted 7 other amendments. Out of the 34 amendments considered, 28 amendments--83 percent--were sense-of-the- Senate amendments. And 7 of the 27 rollcall votes--more than one out of four votes were unanimous 100-0. Mr. President, these amendments are not binding; they do not shift a single dollar from one program to another. They merely allow both Republicans and Democrats to engage in strategies of gamesmanship which deceive the American people about our legislative business. Enough is enough. My amendment simply states that it shall not be in order for the Senate to consider sense-of-the-Senate resolutions during debate on the budget resolution. I think we have reached the point where all of us would agree we have to abandon these unending, and meaningless, sense-of-the-Senate resolutions or at least require Senators to state on the floor and tell the American public that these amendments have no binding effect. End this charade on the American public and vote to eliminate these amendments on budget resolutions.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will address several concerns that were brought to my attention by the leadership in some of the United States territories and in the nations in free association with the United States. I am pleased that this legislation is cosponsored by the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Johnston, as well as by Senator Akaka, who has also had a long and abiding interest in the welfare of the territories and freely associated States. During the February recess, I had the opportunity to meet with the chief executives of the United States territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the Presidents of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. I want to express my appreciation to all of them for their courtesies and their willingness to meet with Senator Akaka and myself and for their assistance in arranging full and frank discussions. I was impressed by the diversity within the Pacific and the magnitude of the problems facing these island governments. I have some appreciation for their problems in dealing with Washington because I can recall the days of territorial administration for Alaska. I was also able to point out that Statehood is not a complete remedy for those who still think Alaska is their private reserve. Alaska, like the islands, is noncontiguous and must deal with standards developed for the lower 48 States. We have the problem of servicing small remote populations, much like the Republic of the Marshalls and the Federated States of Micronesia have. The legislation that I am introducing today would address the following issues: Section 1 extends the supplemental food assistance program for Enewetak and Bikini for an additional 5 years. Enewetak and Bikini were the sites for the United States atmospheric nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands and the food assistance program is necessary to supplement local food supplies while the populations resettle their atolls. The difficulty that Enewetak has experienced in establishing a local food supply should be ample warning to the population of Bikini of the environmental consequences of a scrape, and I sincerely hope that we can avoid that environmental degradation. While Enewetak is making significant strides in reestablishing a local food supply, it is clear that a continuation of the agriculture assistance is needed. The language would also require the United States to ensure that the program is designed to meet the actual needs of the populations. I understand that the program is running at the same level as it did 10 years ago without taking into account the change in population. A concern was also raised over the medical care and monitoring program that the Department of Energy runs in the Northern Marshalls. At the same time that I am introducing this legislation, I am also introducing an amendment that would extend the program to Bikini and Enewetak. While I do not want to jeopardize the effectiveness of the program for the affected populations of Rongelap and Utirik, I also want to ensure that the objectives of the four atoll program are being met. This language will also provide the Committee with an opportunity to review the administration of the program since it was shifted out of defense programs and into environmental health within DOE. I appreciate that the four atoll health program was to be administered by the Tribunal established under the Compact of Free Association, but I am also mindful of the special responsibility that the United States has for the populations of the four affected atolls. Under the terms of the Compact, we authorized further ex gratia assistance if justified, and I think it is time for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to examine how the programs--those being provided by the Republic of the Marshall Islands and those provided by the United States--are being implemented. I was very impressed by my visit to Bikini and am grateful for the courtesies and hospitality extended by the Mayor, the Council, and Senator Balos. During the hearings on this legislation, I also want to examine what role the Public Health Service can play in improving health care not only to the four atolls, but throughout the Republic of the Marshall Islands and also to the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau. I again want to emphasize that in no way do I want to jeopardize the overriding objective of the health care being provided by Brookhaven to the 133 exposed Marshallese, but I do not want to pass over the opportunity to see if the populations of Bikini and Enewetak could bootstrap onto the program using their trust funds. Section 2 of the legislation would repeal a provision of law that authorizes the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to take over the American Memorial Park in Saipan. Senator Akaka and I participated in a wreath laying at the park, and I was impressed with the development of the area, especially in light of staff descriptions of the site only a few short years ago. Ambassador Haydn Williams deserves a great deal of credit for his persistence and commitment to seeing the park established. While I am not opposed to proposals for other arrangements, it seems to me that the area is now a part of the National Park System and should remain so until the lease expires unless some concrete proposal is brought forward that will maintain the objectives and purposes for the memorial. I fully expect that we will need to modify this provision to permit the commonwealth the ability to develop the marina area, but at least for the time being, I think the National Park Service should continue to operate and maintain the memorial. Section 3 is a technical amendment to the legislation dealing with the land grant status of the College of Micronesia and was brought to my attention by Susan Moses, the president of the college. The amendment would provide separate land grant status to the three successor institutions to the former College of Micronesia--the College of Micronesia--FSM, the College of the Marshall Islands, and the Palau Community College. This amendment will hopefully eliminate some administrative headaches for the college. Section 4 amends the Guam Organic Act to guarantee that any lands acquired by the United States for Federal purposes will be made available to the Government of Guam when those purposes have expired. The Federal Government, principally the Department of Defense, controls about one-third of the available land area in Guam. Those lands were acquired for defense needs, and when those needs no longer exist, the lands should be returned to Guam. I was particularly troubled by the situation at Ritidian Point where the Fish and Wildlife Service, seemingly in the dead of night, effectively stole land that the Department of Defense and the Government of Guam had negotiated for transfer. Whatever the justification for Fish and Wildlife's interest, there is no excuse for the insensitivity shown by the Department of the Interior in that acquisition. Rather than spending their time enlarging their empire, the Fish and Wildlife Service could make better use of their resources by going after the brown tree snake. At the rate they are going, they will have the only wildlife refuge dedicated to extinct species. I especially want to thank Congressman Underwood for his assistance in developing this approach to guarantee a role for the Government of Guam in any further Federal land disposal in Guam. The Governor of Guam made an excellent presentation of the problems created by the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and I think this is a situation that needs to be addressed and I am grateful for the comprehensive briefing he provided us during our brief visit to Guam. Section 5 would repeal a provision of law that limits the use of lands transferred to Guam. Again, I want to thank Congressman Underwood for suggesting this amendment. I cannot think of any restriction more onerous than transferring property for which the Federal Government has no further need and then denying the Government of Guam the ability to derive the economic benefits of its use and development. Section 6 was suggested by the Resident Representative of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and would provide State- like treatment for the commonwealth, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa for certain drug enforcement programs. Guam and Puerto Rico presently have State-like treatment, and this amendment simply provides uniform treatment for all the territories. Section 7 of the legislation would amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands at the request of the Governor of the Virgin Islands. The first amendment would provide that the Governor would retain his powers as Governor when he is temporarily absent from the territory on official business. This amendment recognizes that with modern communications and transportation, the current limitations are archaic and impede continuity in the operations of the executive branch in the Virgin Islands. The second amendment would reform the authority granted to the Virgin Islands in 1976 to issue bonds secured by the matching fund. The debt is now priority debt, not parity debt. Priority debt places a premium value on the earliest debt, while parity debt places all bond holders on a level playing field. Although most communities now issue parity debt, the current limitation handicaps the Virgin Islands by requiring a higher fee and interest rate on subsequent issues as well as over collateralization. The amendment would permit the Virgin Islands to issue parity debt and allows for a transition to permit the Virgin Islands to refinance their current priority debt. This would reduce the debt service and free up needed revenues for school improvements and emergency repairs made necessary by Hurricane Marilyn. I want to emphasize that current bond holders will be fully protected. Section 8 was suggested by Senator Johnston to begin to look at what the economic future of the Virgin Islands will be in light of the changes that are happening both politically and economically in the Caribbean and what the Federal Government can do to provide a stable and self-sustaining local economic base. I fully agree with Senator Johnston that the time to do that analysis is now. Mr. President, upon my return from my visit to the Pacific, I wrote the President on what I thought was a fairly significant concern raised by the Presidents of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. While the political relationship under the Compacts of Free Association is of indefinite duration, certain provisions are subject to renegotiation and expire at the end of 15 years. The compacts require renegotiation in the 13th year and the Presidents quite correctly pointed out that was not sufficient time to conclude negotiations and obtain the necessary ratifications by the United States and their governments. Like the Governor of the Virgin Islands and Senator Johnston, they are looking to the future and trying to plan for it. They asked if I would request the administration to begin the process of formulating the U.S. position and begin discussion while there was a degree of time. Given the number of years it took for the original ratification, that seemed like a reasonable request. I will not comment on the President's response, other than to ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter and his response be included in the Record. Mr. President, I appreciate that we are late in this session of the Congress, but these are important matters that require the attention of the Congress. I want to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on this legislation on June 25, 1996 and at the same time we will review the report on the law enforcement initiative in the commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I will not go into great detail on the situation in the Commonwealth other than to say that reforms need to be implemented. We had extensive and detailed briefings and discussions with the Governor's staff, the Federal officials on the island, the Chamber of Commerce, the legislature, the U.S. attorney and Federal judiciary. It is my intention to move expeditiously on this legislation immediately after the hearing is concluded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce a bill entitled the ``Aleutian World War II National Historic Areas Act of 1996.'' Mr. President, the Ounalashka Corporation is the Alaska Native village corporation for the Unalaska region of the Western Aleutian Islands. The Corporation is the major land owner of Amaknak Island, where the City of Unalaska is located. The Corporation has been working closely with municipal officials of the City of Unalaska to identify Corporation land which would be Federally recognized and designated as a unique ``historic area''. Many have forgotten that during World War II, Unalaska came under attack. Unalaska was raided and bombed by Japanese aircraft in one of the few sieges on U.S. territory. This area of Amaknak Island was heavily fortified, and much of the original bunkers, tunnels, and buildings remain. The Corporation owns the majority of land and facilities occupied by U.S. military forces on Amaknak Island during the war. The area is rich in history and memories. In recent years World War II veterans who were stationed in Unalaska, and in some cases family members, have made pilgrimages back to honor fallen friends and relive the past. In addition to the historic significance of Unalaska during the War, there is also a compelling story of the Aleutian Islands indigenous people which is not well known. Alaska Native people from 23 villages were evacuated from the region during the War, and many were interned in relocation camps. As a result of the devastating bombing by the Japanese, the city of Unalaska was the only village that was re- inhabited following the World War II effort. The Aleut people made substantial contributions to the war effort and yet suffered hardships similar to those of the Japanese-Americans throughout the war. The Corporation, the City of Unalaska, and many historians believe that the history of the Aleut people and the war effort in the region are intertwined. In response to the increased interest of the World War II veterans and their survivors who have visited Unalaska, the Corporation is considering constructing a World War II Historic Center on the Island of Amaknak to tell this unique, but little known history of the war in the Aleutians and the Aleut people to the rest of the world. Mr. President, this legislation, when enacted, will establish the ``Aleutian World War II National Historic Area''. I am very cognizant of the adverse effects that new units of the National Park System can create on existing units of the System. This legislation provides us with a unique opportunity to work with and for the private sector in the development and operation of this important historic resources. There will be no land acquisition or day-to-day operational expenses normally associated with other units of the National Park System. The Ounakashka Corporation has exclusive ownership and control of the lands, buildings and historic structures which would comprise the historic area. The Corporation is not seeking land exchanges with the Department of the Interior and does not desire to convey or encumber title to, or control of, its lands to the Federal Government. The Corporation only wants to work with the Federal Government to save this significant piece of the history of the United States. The expense to the National Park Service would be minimal, and would consist of technical assistance and training. The contribution to the public will be a historic site that is preserved for the enjoyment and education of all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnston and myself, I introduce a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, that, when enacted, will continue the appropriations authorization for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Established in 1966, the Council is an independent Federal agency responsible for advising the President and the Congress on historic preservation matters and commenting to Federal agencies on the effects of their activities upon historic properties. Mr. President, over the past three decades, the Congress has made a substantial commitment to the preservation and encouragement of our national heritage. Established by the National Historic Preservation Act, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has served to improve the effectiveness and coordination of public and private efforts in historic preservation. Historic preservation safeguards physical links to the past. It is through these links that our important cultural resources are preserved and passed on to succeeding generations. Destruction of our significant cultural and historic resources serves no purpose. Our memory of important history only becomes more difficult without the various fabrics to view, touch and or experience. Congress recognized this principle in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966: ``The historical and cultural foundations of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people.'' Mr. President, in addition to many educational programs, one of the most important functions of the Advisory Council is mediating between any Federal agency issuing a permit and the individual who is planning to develop his property. Under the terms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Council seeks to negotiate a memorandum of agreement in such cases, setting forth what will be done to reduce or avoid and adverse effects the undertaking will have. While the section 106 process has often been described as contentious by private property rights advocates and others, I believe the Advisory Council can and should serve as a solution to resolving conflicts between a sometimes over-reaching bureaucracy and the individual property owner. It is my hope that the committee hearing process will shed light on the problems, address the issues, as well as the successes of the Council; and that we can move forward on this important program in a positive and constructive manner. The Council's appropriations authorization expires with the current fiscal year. This legislation will authorize the continuing work of the Council by providing appropriations authority from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kake Tribal Land Exchange Act on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens. This legislation would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which authorized the transfer of 23,040 acres of land from the U.S. Government to Kake Tribal Corporation. The land was transferred to Kake to recognize ``an immediate need for a fair and just settlement'' Unfortunately, Kake has not received the full beneficial use of its 23,040 acres because the city's watershed--over 2,400 acres--rest within Kake Tribal's lands. In order to protect the city's watershed and still receive beneficial use of their 23,040 acres we are proposing an acre-for-acre land exchange. This will assist the people of Kake, AK, as they move toward a safer, cleaner, and healthier future. Under this proposal, Kake Tribal would exchange the watershed for 2,427 acres in southeast Alaska, thereby allowing Kake to receive its full entitlement under ANCSA. This legislation is of great importance to the residents of the community of Kake, AK. This legislation will ensure protection of the Gunnuk Creek watershed which is the main water supply for the city of Kake as well as protect critical habitat for the Gunnuk Creek hatchery. The legislation has received wide support in Alaska from diverse groups such as: The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the city of Kake, AK, the Organized Village of Kake, the Kake non-profit fishery, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Sealaska Corporation. Additionally, the Governor of Alaska has written to me in support of this exchange. Attached are copies of some of the letters of support I have received for the record at this time. Because this is an acre-for-acre exchange there will be no cost to the Federal Government. I introduced this legislation with the confidence that it is in the best interest of not only the citizens of Kake but with the knowledge that it is in the best interest of all Americans to protect drinking water for our communities. Lastly, this legislation will help fulfill our commitment to the Natives of Alaska that they will be treated fairly and justly under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. President, along with Senators Warner, Chafee and McCain, who are cosponsors, I believe what we have here is an assertion without precedent. The President of the United States claims in a brief filed in the Supreme Court that a pending sexual harassment lawsuit against him should be delayed indefinitely. He claims he is entitled to the protection afforded members of the military under the Soldiers and Sailors Act of 1940. For the President to make the claim that he is a member of the Armed Forces is simply beyond comprehension.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It flies in the face of the 207-year-old tradition established by George Washington that the U.S. military should be under civilian control.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the commander of the American Legion said: ``We've had plenty of great Americans take off a military uniform to assume the Presidency. None has ever put on a uniform after Inauguration Day.'' As a former member of the U.S. Coast Guard, I respectfully request that the President should immediately direct his attorney to drop this absurd claim.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the interest of moving the budget process along, I am withdrawing my amendment, but I want to assure my colleagues, until our President orders his legal counsel to drop this argument in court, I will be raising this issue on every bill. As we go out for this Memorial Day recess, I urge all of us to reflect on the significance of this particular issue. I yield the remaining time split between Senator McCain and Senator Warner. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1804, a bill to make technical and other changes to the laws dealing with the Territories and Freely Associated States of the United States, that I have introduced today. The hearing will also consider an amendment that I have also introduced that deals with medical care for Bikini and Enewetak Atolls in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In addition to the legislative matters, the committee will also conduct an oversight into the law enforcement initiative in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. While the report from the Secretary of the Interior is overdue, I expect that it will be submitted in sufficient time for review and comment by the Northern Marianas prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 25, 1996, it will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, senior counsel to the committee at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. An interesting fundraising letter came to my attention. It was written by actress Priscilla Presley, Elvis Presley's former wife. Accompanying the letter was another from actor, Robert Redford. These letters are promoting a special evening of ``Arts, Letters and Politics'' in Beverly Hills benefiting a group called ``Americans for a Safe Future.'' During this special star-studded evening, there will be a lavish reception, followed by a ``program of celebrity prose and poetry readings'' by movie stars Ed Harris and Amy Madigan. The Master of Ceremonies will be Ed Begley, Jr. Other names on the letterhead include such Hollywood luminaries as rock star Don Henley and TV producers Gayle Hurd and Gary Goldberg. For as little as $250 or as much as $5000, one can attend this glittering fund raising event at the beautiful Chateau Marmont in Beverly Hills. The letter goes on to note that proceeds from this fund raising event will benefit Americans for a Safe Future and ``its continuing efforts to protect our environment, our children, and our future from radioactive contamination.'' Well, Mr. President, I want to protect our environment, our children, and our future from radioactive contamination. We all do. But I will not be making a contribution to this group. I will not be sending a check. I will not be going to Beverly Hills to listen as movie stars read poetry. Because this group is on the wrong side of the environment, Mr. President. They are actually opposing what they claim to uphold. While these movie stars claim to be protecting our children from radioactive contamination, their efforts are inadvertently exposing our children to radioactive contamination. I am not suggesting that these movie stars want to do this because of a lack of intention. I am sure they are well meaning. I am certain they think they are doing the right thing. But they are misinformed, and they are harming those they really want to protect. ``Americans for a Safe Future'' claim they are protecting the Colorado River from the low-level radioactive waste facility planned for Ward Valley in the Mojave Desert. If the Ward Valley site is built, they say radioactivity from Ward Valley will leak into the Colorado River. Robert Redford says so. Ed Begley, Jr. says so. Priscilla Presley says so. Don Henley says so. That is all some people need to hear to reach for their checkbooks and take up the cause. Sadly, some are content to get information about radioactive waste and desert hydrology from rock singers and movie stars, even if prominent and distinguished scientists say otherwise. I want to refer to this chart, because it speaks for itself. There are the Hollywood movie stars, and here are the scientists who risk their reputation in saying that Ward Valley is unlikely to leak radioactivity into the Colorado River. Where are you going to put this waste? Nobody wants it. California has met the Federal laws that we set up to allow them to do it. This is the site the National Academy of Sciences has recommended, and here we are listening to movie stars raising money that it will not be there, but they do not propose to put it anywhere. Mr. President, I believe we ought to listen to geologists and hydrologists when the subject is radioactive waste and desert hydrology, and we ought to listen to movie stars when the subject is, well, movies. Sadly, the activism of movie stars has temporarily eclipsed the findings of scientists. Secretary Babbitt is ignoring the National Academy of Sciences report that he himself commissioned and the taxpayers paid for--and we are at an impasse today. And because of that impasse, low-level radioactive waste is piling up at 800 sites around California, including most major colleges and hospitals. Some of the sites are in densely populated areas, vulnerable to accidental radioactive releases from fire, flood or earthquake. ``Americans for a Safe Future'' are headquartered in Santa Monica, according to their letterhead. I asked my staff to review the 2,106 radioactive materials licenses in California, and they quickly found 13 in Santa Monica. There are 432 in Los Angeles County. And yes, some are even in Beverly Hills. Do these activists and movie stars know that radioactive waste is piling up in California neighborhoods, hospitals and college campuses, because they are standing in the way of a facility in the remote and unpopulated desert? Do they know that fire, earthquake or flood could result in a release of radioactive materials from these sites? Are they suggesting we halt cancer treatment or AIDS research that uses radioactive materials? Mr. President, these activists and movie stars may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. They do not realize the effect of their activism. They are endangering the environment and their communities while they intend to do the opposite. Mr. President, like most Americans I like to go to the movies and see talented actors and actresses practice their craft. And as talented as these actors and actresses are, the are not experts in the field of hydrology or radioactivity. Nor am I. That is why I rely on experts. And the experts of the National Academy of Sciences have spoken. Ward Valley is safe. Let us get the waste out of populated neighborhoods, and out to a monitored site in the remote desert where it belongs. I urge these movie stars who lend their names and talents to these causes to examine the facts and the scientific evidence about Ward Valley, and to reconsider their actions. I know that they want a safe future. We all do. But I do not believe we need to trade a safe present to achieve that goal. A single, licensed, monitored disposal site at Ward Valley will not only result in a safe future--but it gets the waste being stockpiled in hospitals and college campuses out of our neighborhoods and away from our children today. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor a bipartisan bill Senator Johnston and I have introduced to end the impasse: S. 1596, the Ward Valley Land Transfer Act. Let us listen to science, and end this stalemate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I see other colleagues seeking recognition. I wish you a pleasant recess, Mr. President. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Twelve to fifteen.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The ones left. So if there is more justification for less steam and less gas, I do not know what it is. The Senator from Alaska yields the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I really think there is a better use of our time on other matters. As a consequence of the propensity of the numbers, I think it is justified. And 17 out of 28----

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the press in Washington likes to highlight conflict and acrimony. In their quest to report the latest conflict between Congress and the President, Democrats and Republicans, or the House and the Senate, the media generally misses the story of Republicans and Democrats quietly sitting down together to work out very complex and difficult problems. This is a shame, because it leads people outside Washington to think that all we do around here is posture and fight--and that's just not true. Quite often, Congress and the Administration, the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, labor and management, producers and consumers all sit down and work out difficult problems to everyone's mutual benefit. It often goes unnoticed. The press never writes a story. The public outside the beltway never hears about it. Such was the case with recent legislation to assist with the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. Mr. President, this nation has a uranium enrichment enterprise dating back to the end of World War II. Most of the uranium that has powered reactors in North America, Europe, and Japan was enriched at plants in the United States, by U.S. workers. This enterprise has suffered under the yoke of government control, and it has steadily lost market share to competitors around the world. As a result, the maintenance of a secure, economical domestic enrichment capability was at stake. Certain members of the Senate recognized this problem early on. Senators Domenici, Ford and Johnston, in particular, worked to put the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, or USEC, on the path toward privatization years ago. I must confess, Mr. President, when I first became familiar with this issue as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I was very concerned that a consensus might not be achievable. We had conflicts between the desire to implement a Russian enriched uranium purchase agreement and the legitimate interests of enrichment plant workers and uranium producers. We had conflicts between plant workers and plant management. We had conflicts between USEC and other entities that desired to get into the enrichment business. We had tough issues to resolve that impacted every player in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium producers, converters, enrichers, fuel fabricators, and utilities. To complicate the picture, we had to address all these thorny issues in a manner that would maximize USEC's value without inhibiting competition in the enrichment market. After hearings, a markup, and many months of work and negotiation between Senators, Senate staff, Members of the House, House staff, representatives of the Administration, uranium producers, labor unions, industry and many others, a bipartisan, bicameral bill slowly began to emerge. This was not always an easy negotiation, but those involved stuck with it to reach the best consensus achievable. Like any successful negotiation, all sides had to give a little. Nobody was completely happy. But we got it done and achieved a broad consensus. The USEC privatization bill was included in the reconciliation package which was vetoed for reasons having nothing to do with the USEC language. The USEC privatization bill was then presented as a stand- alone bill that was placed on the Senate calendar, and the language emerging from our consensus was finally included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill that was recently signed by the President and enacted into law. I am pleased that the adoption of this measure will result in the long term viability of a secure, economical, domestic source of uranium production and enrichment while providing revenues exceeding a billion dollars for the U.S. Treasury. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank some of my colleagues who were so instrumental in making this bill a reality. Senators Domenici, Ford, Johnston, Thomas, and Campbell played key roles in the Committee's deliberations. Although they weren't on our Committee, Senators McConnell and DeWine worked behind the scenes, each bringing issues to my attention during difficult periods of the negotiation. In particular, I want to mention and praise the efforts of Senator Domenici and Alex Flint of his staff. Senator Domenici and Alex were working this measure on a daily basis throughout its formulation, introduction, hearings, markup, the budget reconciliation process, and the omnibus appropriations process. Senators Ford and Johnston, ably served by Sam Fowler, the Minority Chief Counsel of the Energy Committee, were instrumental and absolutely indispensable in the eventual success of the measure. At the Department of Energy, the personal and intense interest of Deputy Secretary Charles Curtis was a key to success. With Charlie's help we were able to break through some of the customary obstacles that arise in a protracted negotiation such as this. The consideration of this bill also brought to light a former Energy Committee staff member, Mr. Russ Brown, who now works for USEC in a Governmental Affairs capacity. Russ worked for me on the old Water and Power Subcommittee when I was first a subcommittee chairman. Russ got to walk the halls of the Senate once again during the consideration of this bill. If there is a bad outcome arising from this bill's passage, it's the fact that Russ can't hand around his beloved Senate anymore and must return to work at USEC's offices in Bethesda. Let me simply say that there are others I haven't specifically mentioned who deserve our thanks and recognition as well. They know who they are, and we are all indebted to their professionalism and perseverance.