Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. While it may seem somewhat out of the blue, I think the point that 17 out of 28 are sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, that is what we have been confronted with. So the reality is, this is not something that occasionally comes up. And 17 out of 28 are sense of the Senates. Whether we are letting off steam or gas, I think is irrelevant. The fact is, so much of our time is spent on something that is nonbinding that basically puts us in a posture where we are not doing anything constructive other than perhaps somehow evaporating in some manner.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond briefly to my friend from Nebraska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as he so eloquently pointed out, this is somewhat of a charade. The American people assume that what we are doing here, debating at length, has a binding commitment of some sort. But sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, as the Senator from New Mexico stated, do not carry the force of law. They do not shift a single dollar from one program to another. I guess it is the contention of the Senator from Alaska that they politicize, if you will, this process. It is heavy enough now. As I stated, it is creaking under its own weight of unending amendments, one after the other. So I encourage Members to take advantage of an opportunity. As the chairman of the Budget Committee pointed out, this works both ways. This simply says, in the future it shall not be in order for the Senate to consider a sense-of-the-Senate resolution during debate on the budget resolution. I ask my friend from New Mexico how long might this process go on? It might go on for 50 hours, but we would have substantive debates on amendments that would change, if you will--a shift of dollars from one program to another; meaningful debate instead of assumptions that we are debating things that will never become law, that will be little more than a pretext, a window-dressing effort. And all without an explanation or an addendum of some kind to stipulate that this is nonbinding. If we started every debate with an explanation of what a sense-of- the-Senate resolution was and at the end concluded with what it was, why, the American public would say, ``What are you doing? You mean you took 15 or 20 minutes on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and it is nonbinding and does not shift a dollar, and then you reminded us again at the end that that is what it did? Why,'' they would say, ``what are you doing? You are simply wasting the Senate's time.'' So I encourage my colleague to reflect on the merits of that. I see we have another Member on the floor. I ask that the yeas and nays be ordered on my amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may thank the chairman of the Budget Committee?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend from Arkansas, I think his interpretation has a little Alice in Wonderland quality to it. What he says, it appears, is if you have a piece of property, as an example, that you own, and you rent it out for $500 a month, and then, if you sell that property for $75,000 or $80,000 to pay off your debts, you cannot use the $75,000 or $80,000 to pay off your debts, but in fact you have to count the loss of the $500 per month rent as an additional debt. That just does not make sense. This is a result, if you will, if you adopt the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. You will never be able to sell Government assets because it will not be counted as proceeds from the sale. So I hope my colleagues will reflect on that. I yield the floor at this time and ask my colleagues to consider the merits of abolishing the sense-of-the-Senate resolutions as they apply to the budget resolution debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the attention of my colleagues. I have thought a lot about this amendment. First I thought perhaps making this the last of the sense-of-the-Senate resolutions on the budget resolution debate might be in order. But I decided that I would just go ahead with the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward. I am sure it would be welcomed by the managers of the bill. It is designed to expedite our proceedings under the Budget Act and ensure that the Senate debate on the annual budget is focused on substance rather than rhetoric. 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 see a little grin from my friend who is managing the budget debate. I have been around here in this body for 16 years. I have engaged in numerous budget debates, and I believe as the years have gone by and as our debt has climbed--now it is above $5 trillion--there has been a little lessening in the quality of these debates. Perhaps it has been declining. Now, the budget resolution, is supposed to lay out the framework for the authorizing and appropriating committees to meet their obligations under a reconciliation process. We establish ceilings for discretionary appropriations, and we direct the authorizers to change programs within their jurisdiction in an effort to establish what the fiscal priorities are and reduce, obviously, the deficit. In recent years we have noticed a trend in the budget resolution debate that is a little disturbing. We seem to be getting more and more bogged down in so-called extended debate of the sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, and as we both know, Mr. President, these are resolutions that do not carry the force of law. They are resolutions that do not shift a single dollar from one program to the other. These resolutions merely politicize a budget process that is really creaking under the weight of unending, unlimited amendments. A brief look at today's Senate Calendar indicates that there are as many as 80 amendments that we will be voting on beginning Tuesday or Wednesday. Of those amendments, at least 1 in 4, or some 20, are sense- of-the-Senate amendments. We have already voted on several such sense- of-the-Senate amendments and more are likely to come. The sense-of-the-Senate amendments that are offered on these budget resolutions are structured with only one and only one purpose in mind. Let us be realistic. That is an opportunity for Senators on either side of the aisle, whether it be Democrats or Republicans, to develop ammunition to be used in some 30-second spot ad in the next political campaign. These votes are not about substance. They are strictly about politics, positioning, window dressing, and so forth. This Senator from Alaska thinks that enough is enough. We ought to strictly limit debate on budget resolutions to the substance of spending. These amendments are what a budget resolution should be about, and we all know it. Unfortunately, when we begin voting tomorrow or the next day, we will be voting on a sense-of-the-Senate series of amendments that again will not shift one single dollar of spending and will not change a single word in a statute. Instead, these votes, which are merely political gestures, will be portrayed by the political ad merchants as votes cast for or against the poor, the elderly, the environment, the cause, whatever. And when all the dust settles late Wednesday night after we have allowed 30 seconds to 1 minute of debate on each of these amendments, nothing, absolutely nothing will have changed in a substantive sense except the records of all Members of this body will have simply been distorted. Finally, Mr. President, I would note the irony in the fact that my amendment which would provide a real change to our budget process may very well be ruled out of order. Consider, if you will, that Senate amendments that are not binding, sense-of-the-Senate amendments, are in order under our budget process, but real, substantive amendments can be ruled out of order. Is it any wonder that public cynicism of the Congress is at an all-time high? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make one further statement relative to the debate that I participated in with the Senator from Arkansas on asset sales. It would be simply to add to my remarks a point that I think we all have to consider as we vote on asset sales.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendments, I think amendments by Senator Bumpers.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my good friend from Arkansas. I find it rather curious he is speaking in opposition to asset sales today when he voted for them. We had the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, supported by the Clinton administration. It is my understanding it would be about $1.2 billion, or net over 7 years between $1.6 and $1.8 billion. The second asset sale was a sale of the helium reserve, supported by the Clinton administration, a $47 million revenue stream supported by the Senator from Arkansas. Lease of excess capacity in SPRO is supported by the administration, supported by my friend from Arkansas, and I think it would generate some $359 million. That is proposed leases to foreign countries. Then there was the sale of surplus assets by the Department of Energy, supported by the Clinton administration, to generate $110 million. I believe my friend from Arkansas supported that as well. Prepayment of outstanding loans: One was, as I recall, the central Utah project, supported by the Clinton administration, $219 million, and I believe supported previously by my friend from Arkansas. My good friend seems to cite his problem with the formula for asset sales, where we are selling assets to raise revenues under the Budget Act. Without the change in scoring, the Federal Government receives money, but it does not count. In some instances, such as prepayment of loans, the Federal Government does not receive future payments which do count as cash. The result is that you have a Budget Act point of order for cash because you did not count the revenues. The theory there, Mr. President, is you sell something, you have lost revenues, therefore, it is a loss. Well, how do you get rid of anything around here? A few quick points for those who are not familiar with the process around here. We have heard discussions on this issue before. This amendment, offered by the Senator from Arkansas, would prevent the sale of assets from scoring in the budget process. This change was made in the budget process last year at the request of the President, who, I might add, is from Arkansas. It was not something we dreamed up at the last minute. It came from the President. We happen to agree. The change made last year allows us to score the sale of assets that are already, basically, a part of the process, and, in this case, the group that I just read off, Mr. President, is about $4 billion in assets that would be recognized as part of the President's budget. It makes no fiscal sense to say after Congress authorizes the sale of an asset that they cannot count it in the budget process. It is absolutely absurd to this Senator that if we sell something that produces $1 billion, we have to borrow money to balance the budget because we cannot count that money that comes into the Treasury. There is no reason why these asset sales should not count and should not help us reduce the deficit. How could we ever sell surplus Government property? If we can lease some land, get rid of some Government surplus, then why should we not be allowed to have it go toward deficit reduction? Why should it not be appropriate for the Government to be able to sell some of its assets and use the money to help reduce the size of the deficit? Additionally, Mr. President, these asset sales are auctions on behalf of the Government. They create jobs and opportunities for Americans. Whether it be a mineral lease sale, a spectrum auction, or a privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, as we did last year, these actions create private sector jobs. Here we have a situation where we can sell Government assets, use the money to reduce the deficit, and create real private sector jobs. I get somewhat of a chuckle when the Senator from Arkansas shows a picture of the Statue of Liberty with a for sale sign on it. That kind of hype, obviously, may be appealing to some, but it is not factual, and the Senator from Arkansas knows it. Does anybody in this body truly believe we would sell the Grand Canyon or the Statue of Liberty to generate a cash flow? Of course not. What does make sense is to sell something that the Government has, such as the use of a closed Army base for low-income housing or a spectrum auction. Then it makes sense that we use this money to attack the deficit and not to throw it away on some other project the Senator from Arkansas dreams up. The money comes into the Treasury, and it makes sense that we record it as such. I find it rather ironic that in this extended discussion, ANWR seems to have come in. My understanding today is that the United Nations authorized Iraq to put about $1 billion worth of oil each quarter on the world market so that we can look to that source to ease the shortage associated with the supply and demand of oil. My memory suggests it was only a few years ago that we had a half million men and women in the Persian Gulf for one specific reason: to keep Saddam Hussein of Iraq from controlling the supply of oil from the Mideast. At that time, we were trying to put Saddam Hussein in a cage. Unfortunately, we did not achieve that, but it is rather ironic that today we are looking to him for relief when we have areas at home that we can open safely using the science technology and experience that we have. My friend from Arkansas cited an extensive list of national organizations, some in my State of Alaska, that object to the asset sale concept. I find that rather amusing because spokespersons in those organizations have come to me and said, ``Murkowski, there's absolutely no question in our minds that you can open up the Arctic safely to oil and gas exploration and to production, if the oil is there. But you know and we know that this issue is a national cause. It gives us dollars, it gives us membership.'' It is too far away for the Senator from Arkansas or others to go up and look at it and see for themselves the technological advancements that have been made, or to go down in the Gulf of Mexico in the delta off the Mississippi River and see how the technology has developed to where they are now drilling in 2,300 feet of water. To suggest that we cannot drill on land in a very, very tiny sliver, roughly 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres, and do it safely is an effort to hoodwink the American people. So I am a little surprised that my good friend from Arkansas would attempt to roll in the national environmental groups' major issue relative to membership and dollars. I am disappointed too that he would allow himself to be used by those groups, so to speak, who admit without question that we have the capability to develop oil and gas resources safely. But they know they need an issue. It creates dollars. It creates membership. As a consequence, we have it brought up in this debate today. So I encourage my colleagues to look behind the motives associated with the objections by the Senator from Arkansas who reflects on an objection to the process under which the Federal Government sells its surplus property, leases, if you will, its resources to generate funding so this funding can come back in the Treasury and be utilized for deficit reduction or the budget process. I think it is an extraordinary set of circumstances that we find ourselves in a situation where some would have this particular asset sale issue be seen as a vote on a resource development issue that would make our Nation less dependent on imported sources of energy. I serve on the Energy Committee with my friend from Arkansas. And I appreciate his sensitivity to the fact that we are increasing our dependence on imported oil. We are about 51.5 percent dependent on imported oil. But, you know, the other day we also saw an effort by the administration, an announcement of the sale of some of the oil that went into the strategic petroleum reserve, that it would be sold, about 12 million barrels. This was hyped up by the media as way of bringing down the price of gas. None of them were sensitive enough to really pick up on the issue of how insignificant it was, because when you discuss 12 million barrels, and we consume 18 million barrels a day, you can readily see that this is simply a drop in the bucket. But nevertheless, it was significant to the media. And we note that the President has proposed further sales of SPRO. And we are going to be debating that in the Energy Committee. But the single most important thing, Mr. President, is we created SPRO as a consequence of the oil embargo in 1973. We saw a disruption in our supply of oil. Congress acted in the national security interests of the country by creating a strategic petroleum reserve with approximately a 90-day supply in mind. We did not achieve 90 days supply, Mr. President. We got up to about 37 days. But I find it extraordinary that at that time we were 36 percent dependent on imported oil. Today, we are over 50 percent and there is a suggestion that we sell some of SPRO. Mr. President, it is only a matter of time. We are losing our leverage on the Mideast because we are becoming too indebted to them as a single energy source. We will rue the day in this body when we have not met our obligation to reducing this country's dependence on imported energy by encouraging domestic development where we are most likely to find it and where, indeed, we have the proven technology to do it safely. I also find it rather ironic on some of the issues in Alaska some people would rather see a check written for the impact of people rather than benefit from the creation of jobs, such as was the case proposed in the Tongass for $110 million, to take care of their needs. The environmental community does not suggest that is applicable to taking care of the concerns of the Gwich'ins or the porcupine caribou herd in this case. No. It is an issue that emotionally is charged with unfounded rhetoric, based again on those unscrupulous, extreme environmentalists that want to use this as the single most important issue to generate funding, generate membership, because Americans cannot go up to see it for themselves, and time after time we simply sell American technology and ingenuity short. I can tell you as a businessman, Mr. President, if the position of the Senator from Arkansas prevails, this Government is not going to be able to generate, from the sales of surplus, leases, or whatever, funding to reduce the deficit or fund the Government, as the case may be. So as a consequence, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to focus in on the real issue at hand here. That is the issue specifically of scoring. And that is what the Senator from Arkansas is opposed to. That is what this Senator from Alaska supports, because without it we simply cannot get there from here. We cannot properly address the sale of Government property and generate the funding into a worthwhile cause whether it be deficit reduction or other budgetary needs. So I encourage my colleagues, Mr. President, to vote against this amendment as they did last year and the year before, and I believe the year before that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when Congress passed the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] it imposed a $6.50 fee for the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or aircraft coming in from outside the customs territory of the United States. NAFTA also imposed a $6.50 fee on passengers arriving in the United States from The Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada. The language of the NAFTA implementing language relating to this fee was drafted inappropriately with the result that the Customs Service claims authority to collect the fee each time a cruise ship enters a port during the course of a single journey. I believe this interpretation was never intended by the drafters of NAFTA and the legislation I am introducing today would correct this error. The Customs Service interpretation is particularly harmful to one of Alaska's most important industries--tourism. Many visitors to my State often book cruises that visit some of the most scenic places in the world. For example, during the course of an Alaska voyage, a vessel may call in Ketchikan, Juneau, Valdez, Seward, and Sitka, and may sail outside the customs territory of the United States between each of these Alaska ports. Even though this a single continuous journey, under the Customs Service interpretation, the fee would have to be collected three, four, or even five times. This was not Congress' intent. My legislation makes clear that the passenger fee can only be imposed a single time when a cruise ship is traveling in and out of U.S. waters on its way along a journey as I described earlier. So long as the ship does not make a stop at a foreign port, there is no reason to burden passengers with this fee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when Congress passed the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] it imposed a $6.50 fee for the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or aircraft coming in from outside the customs territory of the United States. NAFTA also imposed a $6.50 fee on passengers arriving in the United States from The Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada. The language of the NAFTA implementing language relating to this fee was drafted inappropriately with the result that the Customs Service claims authority to collect the fee each time a cruise ship enters a port during the course of a single journey. I believe this interpretation was never intended by the drafters of NAFTA and the legislation I am introducing today would correct this error. The Customs Service interpretation is particularly harmful to one of Alaska's most important industries--tourism. Many visitors to my State often book cruises that visit some of the most scenic places in the world. For example, during the course of an Alaska voyage, a vessel may call in Ketchikan, Juneau, Valdez, Seward, and Sitka, and may sail outside the customs territory of the United States between each of these Alaska ports. Even though this a single continuous journey, under the Customs Service interpretation, the fee would have to be collected three, four, or even five times. This was not Congress' intent. My legislation makes clear that the passenger fee can only be imposed a single time when a cruise ship is traveling in and out of U.S. waters on its way along a journey as I described earlier. So long as the ship does not make a stop at a foreign port, there is no reason to burden passengers with this fee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We cannot hear you.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I know it is getting late and my colleagues would like to go home and have dinner, but I am sure that we all share in this extraordinary opportunity to say a few words about our leader, Senator Bob Dole, and his announcement today of his resignation. I was there, along with Mrs. Dole and Bob Dole's daughter. I think all Senators--all 53--there was not a dry eye in the house when Bob Dole announced his transition from majority leader, relinquishing the office that he loves so dearly. Basically, he laid out for us an all- or-nothing campaign. I think it took a great deal of courage. It was a bold action, and one that indicated, clearly, to those of us who were privileged to be there, an expression of love for this body that he holds so dearly. I think, too, he cleared the air on the issue of some of the partisanship that we have in this body. I think it is fair to say no longer can some on the other side of the aisle use the excuse of his candidacy and majority leader as a reason for some of the issues that have not moved before this body. It is my opinion that we have lost a great leader in the Senate, but the country has gained a great opportunity to know Bob Dole as we know him. Mr. President, over the next weeks and months Bob Dole is going to be out in America taking his campaign to the American people. I think he is going to be laying out very clearly the differences between himself and President Clinton. He is going to provide, I think, mainstream conservatives and conservatism moral leadership and will be able to point out the differences between the big Government philosophy, which is currently emanating from the White House, and that of the best Government is the closest Government to the people and most responsive. I have had an opportunity to know Bob Dole over the 16 years I have been in this body. I first recognized him as a true American hero. He is one who has always put America first. When he was called to battle in World War II--and now, I think, as he leaves the leadership of the U.S. Senate--he certainly has shown sacrifice and what it takes basically to be President. Bob Dole has always been there when America has called him, and America is calling him today. He is a man of courage, strength of character, and patriotism. He is gracious. He came to Alaska to campaign for me. He has been accommodating to me during my 16 years in this body. One of the things that I have always marveled at about Bob Dole is his patience in trying to accommodate some 99 other egos that are relatively high from time to time. Some of us have encouraged that he discipline--like, perhaps, that which occurs in the 6th grade--those of us who occasionally fall off the turnip truck. But Bob has always maintained an evenhanded approach towards leadership, giving each one of us an opportunity to express ourselves regardless of how our feelings may be in conflict with his own. Instead of, in effect, chastising on occasions when leadership did not receive the support it was entitled to, Bob has always been above that and set, I think, an extraordinary example of what true leadership is all about. That is being subjected to the equivocation and the contradictions that we all have on various issues, but being able to hold fast and stand above it as tall as Bob Dole has been and will be as he campaigns for the highest office in our country. So where are we today? This Nation will now have the privilege of seeing and knowing the Bob Dole that we have come to know and love and, in my own case, have been privileged to work with for the last 16 years. There is no question in my mind, Mr. President, that the electorate will soon be able to define the character of our two Presidential candidates and make the choice that is right for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight field hearing regarding the Tongass Land Management Plan and the Administration of Timber Sale Contracts scheduled for Tuesday, May 28 in Ketchikan, AK, will begin at 1 p.m. instead of 10:30 a.m., as previously announced. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 14, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the management and costs of class action lawsuits at Department of Energy facilities. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 621, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Great Western Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System; H.R. 531, a bill to designate the Great Western Scenic Trail as a study trail under the National Trails System Act, S. 1049, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route from Selma to Montgomery as a National Historic Trail, S. 1706, a bill to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for highway relocation with respect to the Chicamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Georgia; S. 1725, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to create a third category of long-distance trails to be known as national discovery trails and to authorize the American Discovery Trail as the first national discovery trail. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that two oversight field hearings have been scheduled to receive testimony on the Tongass land management plan and the administration of timber sale contracts. The first hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 10:30 a.m., in Ketchikan, AK. Ted Ferry Civic Center, 888 Venetia Avenue, Ketchikan, AL, 99901. The second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 29, 1996, at 9 a.m., in Juneau, AL. Centennial Hall Convention Center, Ballroom 3, 101 Egan Drive, Juneau, AL, 99801. Because of the limited time available and the interest in the subject matter, and in order to have a balanced hearing, witnesses will be by invitation. Written testimony will be accepted for the Record. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes. Witnesses testifying at the hearing are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them on the day of the hearing. In addition, please send or fax a copy in advance to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Fax 202-228-0539. For further information, please contact Mark Rey, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, at 202-224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Youth Violence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``Youth Violence: Oversight of Federal Programs.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Wednesday, May 8, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SH-215, to conduct a markup on international trade bills.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, very soon, we must make an important decision which will lead us to a safer future for all Americans. Mr. President, today we have highly radioactive nuclear waste and used nuclear fuel that is accumulating at over 80 sites in 41 States, including waste stored at DOE weapon facilities. Here is a chart showing the locations of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste destined for geologic disposal. Each Member can see where used nuclear fuel is stored in his or her own State. Out at Pearl Harbor, we have naval reactor fuel. In Illinois and New Jersey, for example, we have commercial reactors. In many States, particularly on the east and west coasts, we have shut down reactors with spent fuel on site. We have non-Department of Energy research reactors, as indicated by the green, in various States. We have DOE-owned spent fuel and high- level radioactive waste scattered in across the country. The purpose of this chart is to show each Member that used fuel is stored in populated areas. It is near neighborhoods, it is near schools, it is on the shores of our lakes and rivers, and in the backyards of our constituents young and old all across our land. Now, as you can see, this nuclear fuel is being stored in highly populated areas, near where most Americans live. It may be in your town, my town, your neighborhood, my neighborhood. Unfortunately, used fuel is being stored in pools that were not designed for long-term storage. Mr. President, some of this fuel is already over 30 years old. With each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. It is unsafe to let this dangerous radioactive material continue to accumulate at more than 80 sites all across America. It is unwise to block the safe storage of this used fuel in a remote area, away from high populations. This is a national problem that requires a coordinated national solution. Senate bill 1271 solves this problem by safely moving this used fuel away from these areas to a safe, monitored facility in the remote Nevada desert. This is a facility designed to safely store the fuel. It is the very best that nuclear experts can build--certified safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Senate bill 1271 will end the practice of storing used fuel on a long-term basis in pools such as Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York, New Jersey, and 35 other States across the country. And Senate bill 1271, Mr. President--make no mistake about it--will solve an environmental problem. That is why I was so dismayed to receive the statement of administration policy, dated April 23, 1996, which threatened to veto Senate bill 1271 ``because it designates an interim storage facility at a specific site.'' Mr. President, although the statement claims, ``The administration is committed to resolving the complex and important issue of nuclear waste storage in a timely and sensible manner,'' such words ring hollow in the context of a threat to veto any legislation that does anything but perpetuate the status quo. That is just what a veto of Senate bill 1271 would do. I hope that it is not true, but I have to ask if the President is playing politics with this issue. If so, its a political calculation that I do not understand. Perhaps the President is simply getting poor advice. Are President Clinton and Vice President Gore really telling the voters in Illinois, New Jersey, and all of the other States on this map, that nuclear waste is better stored in their States than out there in the Nevada desert? I challenge Vice President Gore, who feels strongly about the environment--much to his credit--to go to the State of Minnesota, to go to New Jersey, to go to Wisconsin, and tell those voters that they must continue to store nuclear waste in their State. The administration's approach on this matter is simply business as usual. The administration's strategy is to avoid making a decision. Mr. President, that is no strategy at all. But the approach of Senate bill 1271 is to get the job done, to do what is right for the entire country. For those who are not familiar with the program, let me describe the status quo. We have struggled in this country with the nuclear waste issue for almost 15 years already, and we have collected $11 billion from the ratepayers. But the Washington establishment has not delivered on its promise to take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998, only 2 years from now. Hard-working Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly electric bill, and they are entitled to have the Government meet its obligation to take the used nuclear fuel away. Those people that have paid their electric bills have not gotten results. The program is broken; it has no future unless it is fixed. We can end this stalemate. We can make the right decisions. The job of fixing this program is ours. The time for fixing the problem is now. During the debate that will unfold in future days, we will have my good friends, the Senators from Nevada, opposing the bill with all the arguments they can muster, and that is understandable. They are merely doing what Nevadans have asked them to do. Nobody wants nuclear waste in their State. But it simply has to go somewhere. The Senators from Nevada, both friends of mine, have talked to me about this issue, and I understand that they are doing what they feel they must do to satisfy Nevadans. But as U.S. Senators, Mr. President, we must sometimes take a national perspective. We must do what is best for the country as a whole. To keep this waste out of Nevada, the Senators from Nevada will use terms like ``mobile Chernobyl'' to frighten Americans about the safety of moving this used fuel to the Nevada desert where it belongs. They will not tell you that we have already move commercial and naval nuclear fuel today. The commercial industry has shipped over 2,500 shipments of used nuclear fuel over the last 30 years, Mr. President. They will not tell you that an even larger amount of used fuel is transported worldwide. Since 1968, the French alone have safely moved about the same amount of spent fuel as we have accumulated at our nuclear power plants today. They will not tell you that our Nation's best scientists and our best engineers have designed special casks that are safety-certified by the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Commission to transport the used fuel. They will not tell you about the rigorous testing that has been done by the Sandia National Laboratory and others to ensure that the casks will safely contain used fuel in the most severe accidents imaginable. There is proof that these safety measures work. Out of the over 2,500 shipments of used fuel that have taken place in the United States over the last 30 years, there have been seven traffic accidents involving spent nuclear fuel shipments. But when the accidents have happened, the casks have never failed to safely contain the used fuel. Mr. President, there has never been an injury caused by a cask, there has never been a fatality, and there has never been damage to the environment. Can the same be said of gasoline trucks? Of course not. Still we can expect that our friends from Nevada will try to convince people that transportation will not be safe. But the safety record of nuclear fuel transport, both here and in Europe, speaks for itself. This issue provides a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one remote, safe and secure nuclear waste storage facility at the Nevada test site, the area in the Nevada desert used for nuclear weapons testing for some 50 years. Or, through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across the Nation. Mr. President, it is not morally right to perpetuate the status quo on this matter. To do so would be to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future of our children and our grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear waste problem now. The time is now. Nevada is the place. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of Senate bill 1271. Again, I thank my friend, Senator Harkin, for allowing me the opportunity to move ahead of him on the Senate schedule. Mr. President, I see my colleague has stepped out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.