Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of amendment No. 3524 to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join with the senior Senator from Alaska to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1266. This bill ratifies a land exchange agreement in Alaska between the Forest Service and the Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. The agreement will help provide 300 jobs in Alaska, promote sound economic and environmentally responsible resource development, and further the interest of land consolidation on conservation systems in the Tongass National Forest. Mr. President, this bill has bipartisan support. Chairman Don Young was the author of the bill in the House and as a result of his efforts, the bill passed the House of Representatives with support from the ranking member of the Resource Committee. Chairman Don Young deserves credit for his hard work on this bill. In the Senate, the Greens Creek Land Exchange was reported out the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent. The bill is supported by the Forest Service and local environmental organizations. Mr. President, let me explain the history of the Greens Creek Mine and this agreement. The Greens Creek Mine was located under the mining laws while the area was still part of the general National Forest area. As you may know, in 1980 the area became part of the Admiralty Island National Monument through the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. Because this mine had world-class potential, Congress made special provisions in the act to ensure that the mine could go forward. I was pleased to participate in the opening ceremonies of the Greens Creek Mine. The mine provided high-paying jobs to Juneau residents and supported the local economy. Unfortunately, low metal prices caused the temporary closure of the mine in April 1993. Kennecott worked diligently to reorient its mining development plan to permit the mine to reopen. In fact, they recently announced plans to reopen the mine during the next several months. Mr. President, this land exchange is the combination is a 10-year effort by Kennecott to deal with one of the problems created by the special management regime in ANILCA. Although that regime permitted the perfection and patenting of certain claims, it did not provide an adequate time for exploration of all the area of mineral potential surrounding the Greems Creek Mine. Since Kennecott determined that it would be unable to fully explore all the areas of interest during the 5-year time period it was allowed to provide exploration under ANILCA, it has been searching for a way to explore these areas. They have engaged in a multiyear negotiation with the Forest Service to develop a land exchange which would permit access to the area in a manner which is compatible with the monument designation provided by Congress in 1980. In other words, the land exchange allows exploration under strict environmental regulations. The terms of the exchange require Kennecott to utilize its existing facilities to the maximum extend possible to ensure minimal changes to the existing footprint. Additionally, the development of any areas once explored would be under the same management regime by which Kennecott developed the existing Greens Creek Mine. This land exchange also provides other major benefits to the Government, the community, and the environment. At the end of mining, Kennecott will revert its existing patented claims and any other claims which it holds on Admiralty Island to the Federal Government. Kennecott will also fund the acquisition of over 1 million dollars' worth of inholdings in the Admiralty Island National Monument and other conservation system units in the Tongass. Finally, the exchange improves the likelihood that 300 jobs will return to the Juneau area for many years to come. Mr. President, the Greens Creek Land Exchange is good policy. I congratulate Kennecott and the Forest Service for negotiating a fair agreement and urge the President to sign the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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. 1605, a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996, on Thursday, March 21, 1996, has been canceled. A new date and time for the hearing will be announced. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to Public Law 104-4, I am submitting for the information of the Senate a CBO analysis of unfunded mandates of bills reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee currently on the Senate Calendar. As further information is available, it will also be provided to the Senate. The analysis follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 15, 1996. Hon. Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In previous correspondence dated February 8, 1996, regarding The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public law 104-4), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) included two lists of the legislation on the calendar as of January 23, 1996. The lists assessed intergovernmental mandates and private-sector mandates for legislation under your committee's jurisdiction. The bills were grouped into three categories: those that do not contain mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4; those that contain mandates but the direct costs are below the relevant thresholds; and legislation that needed further review to make a determination concerning mandates. CBO has completed its analysis of those bills on the lists requiring further review. CBO finds that the following bills would impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4: S. 92, Bonneville Power Administration Appropriations Refinancing Act. S. 363, Rio Puerco Watershed Act of 1995. S. 444, An act to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to authorize purchase of common stock of Cook Inlet region. S. 587, An act to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Old Spanish Trail for inclusion in the National Trails System. S. 852, Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995. S. 884, Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995. S. 907, A bill to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. S. 1459, A bill to provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on federal land. H.R. 536, An act to prohibit the use of Highway 209 within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area by certain commercial vehicles. CBO also finds that the following bill would impose no new intergovernmental mandates, as defined in Public law 104-4: S. 92, Bonneville Power Administration Appropriations Refinancing Act. If you wish further details on this analysis, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO contacts are Patrice Gordon (226-2940) for private-sector mandates and Marjorie Miller (225-3220) for intergovernmental mandates. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 28 at 9:30 a.m. in the Russell Caucus Room (SR-325) in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. It will focus on what State public utility commissions are doing to make electric utilities more competitive. Although an oversight hearing, witnesses are asked to provide comment on S. 1526 as it relates to this issue. 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 Shawn Taylor or Howard Useem at (202) 224-6567.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to Public Law 104-4, I am submitting for the information of the Senate a CBO analysis of unfunded mandates of bills reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee currently on the Senate Calendar. As further information is available, it will also be provided to the Senate. The analysis follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be set aside for future consideration.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment would simply end featherbedding in the Department of Agriculture relative to the process of seafood inspection as we know it today. I am especially concerned about the current regime for the canned salmon industry in the United States. As the Chair is well aware, a significant portion of that industry is based in my State of Alaska, and a good portion of that industry is controlled, through the State of Washington. As a consequence of the development of the industry over the years, there is an inspection program operated by the State of Alaska which meets all the criteria of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. This assures the consistent quality and wholesomeness of the salmon canned in Alaska. However, the USDA and only the USDA requires yet another, completely redundant layer of inspection, the cost of which is charged back to the canner. That means we have a situation where salmon going into the marketplace, going into the Safeway, going into Giant, going on the shelves of the grocers throughout the United States--is subject to an inspection that has been traditional in the industry involving both State and Federal oversight. However, for reasons unknown to the Senator from Alaska, the Department of Agriculture believes that what is good enough for the American salmon consumer is not good enough for the Federal programs that purchase this salmon with taxpayer dollars. So, the USDA demand that the salmon it purchases, available for our programs for the homeless and others, be inspected by an additional USDA inspector who must actually stand in the cannery at all times. This procedure is only required for salmon that goes into the USDA program. This is an additional cost to the Federal Government, and additional cost to the canner; additional cost, ultimately, to the consumer. It is really featherbedding. The USDA wants to keep Federal inspectors employed, even though they are not responsible for the safety of the salmon, and even though the commercial product sold in every grocery in the Nation is not subject to this continuous inspection. This particular amendment simply would alleviate this burden and no longer make necessary this inspection by the USDA. I might add, the inspection process as required by USDA often requires far more than just putting one inspector in each cannery. The canneries work well beyond an 8 to 5 day. They work when the fish are in, which requires in many cases a continuous 24-hour a day operation to ensure the quality of the pack. USDA's insistence is outdated. It has roots that are unfathomable. But the main issue is not its cause but its effect. The programs that protect the average consumer are necessary. They are appropriate. I support them. But it is not necessary nor is it appropriate for the Department of Agriculture to add an additional bureaucratic layer beyond the ones in place for you and me. As a consequence, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, at the appropriate time, to consider adopting this amendment. I have discussed it with some of the floor managers. I do not know whether the Senator from Virginia has any interest in the subject or not. Mr. President, I will further offer an additional amendment which I will send to the desk. I ask the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I might ask my colleague one more question, since I joined with him and cosponsored the resolution to reaffirm the Taiwan Relations Act by the U.S. Senate, and that is if it is his intention to pursue this matter and bring it up on the next vehicle that, obviously, is moving? Is that the intent of the Senator from Wyoming?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague. I appreciate the reassurance. I think as we look at the tensions in the world today and recognize the obligation the United States has under the Taiwan Relations Act that, indeed, a voice of support is indicated by the amendment to reaffirm the terms and conditions of the Taiwan Relations Act. The fact that the administration further supports that action, we find ourselves in a rather perplexing situation where no one who is objecting seems to care to come to the floor and explain the basis for the objection. I commend my friend from Wyoming for his diligence and commitment to persevere on something that I think is, indeed, appropriate and timely. I thank my good friend for joining me in a colloquy. If there are no further Senators wishing recognition at this time, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business until such time as another Senator seeks recognition.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is not an issue in this regard. They can make a determination of what quality they want. They do that as a buyer. This involves a specific inspection. No other industry has to pay extra for a dual inspection to sell into the USDA program, to my knowledge, except the fish products industry. I do not believe it is required in the chicken producing areas. I know my friend from Arkansas well enough to know that he is concerned about ensuring that there is nothing more in the amendment from the Senator from Alaska than trying to get rid of something that no one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation for. That is, why the USDA should demand an inspection for only the purchases they make as opposed to the inspections that are good enough for the consumer and buyers that represent the consumer. If Safeway or Giant come in and buy a carload of salmon, they pick it out by quality. They pick it out by looking through the lots to determine the various quality, doing samples and so forth. It has to meet a Federal and State inspection process to ensure that it is suitable to go to the commercial ventures. That is fine, but the USDA says, ``We will not buy it and put it out in our programs unless it has been through yet another process--and a very expensive one for the producers. And it seems that the bureaucracy of the USDA want to keep government inspectors on the job and active. But if other systems are good enough for every one else, why should this particular program have to have special exception? That is the justification for the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no idea where the Senator from Arkansas came up with that interpretation. The answer is, absolutely no. What the Senator from Alaska has proposed is an amendment that would eliminate a mandatory inspection by the Department of Agriculture on salmon sold into the Department of Agriculture's food give-away program, as opposed to the inspections that exist for all other salmon that is canned in salmon canneries throughout the United States. All other salmon is canned, is inspected under State and Federal regulations, and ends up on the shelves of Giant or Safeway where it is available to all consumers. There is absolutely no reference to a mandate to buy any Alaska salmon in this amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It requires the Federal Government to stop insisting on a dual inspection process mandated only by USDA for salmon that is purchased under their program. It does not require purchase of one can of salmon.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No, it says if salmon is purchased by the USDA for its Federal programs, that it does not require a special inspection, which is the current requirement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Happy to respond.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think, as a matter of fact, that the process recognized by the FDA--but is actually performed by the State, does assure wholesomeness. However, in doing so it also assures the level of quality that you and I might find in our favorite store. It is my understanding that the safety standard is uniform under the State as well as Federal requirements for the inspection before the salmon can ends up on a Safeway shelf or a Giant Food shelf, or available to any retail or wholesale purchase. The USDA cannot explain when we get into a discussion why it should use a completely different standard than the one considered good enough for everyone else. I hope my friend from Arkansas can perhaps enlighten me as to why a dual inspection would be necessary above and beyond the existing inspection that is required for domestic retail and wholesale sales and to put product on store shelves in the United States for the homemaker.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Traditionally, as the Senator may know, we have five types of Pacific salmon. Obviously, there is a quality differential. The buyers would inspect the salmon by lot inspections. In other words, each can of salmon carries on the lid a special code. That code says where it was packed. It identifies a date, a type, and a quality. A buyer will go into the warehouse--they do not buy from the canneries in Alaska or Washington or Oregon. They go to a warehouse in Seattle and make a determination of what quality they want. Do they want pink salmon? Do they want skin or bone? Do they want red or sockeye or silver or chum? So the buyer makes that choice. The inconsistency here is if the USDA will buy your salmon, they demand you have an inspector in your cannery even before they say they are willing to buy. It is just the USDA. The question is, why?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In effect, that is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue relative to the matter that the Senator from Wyoming and I discussed, because I think we have seen an extraordinary series of events take place. I am referring specifically to the fact that on the 23d of March, free elections will take place in Taiwan. It is significant that we have seen an extraordinary activity as evidenced by Beijing who has seen fit to harass the process, threaten the Taiwanese with a military presence, missile threats, as well as naval activity of significant merit. The consequences of that effort seem to have been misdirected, however, because President Li, who is running for reelection, in the sense that these would be free elections, is in a situation where he has been attacked by the Government of Beijing, time and time again, as fostering independence for Taiwan. Yet, the Taiwanese know, and most of us who have followed the election process are aware, he is not the candidate of independence. Dr. Peng is the candidate of independence. The people in Taiwan are aware of the distinction. As a consequence, Mr. President, as they have continued their attacks on President Li, it has rallied the support of the Taiwanese people around President Li. I can only assume that the attack against President Li was directed in hopes that somehow he would receive less than perhaps 50 percent of the vote. Well, we will have to see what percentage of the vote he will ultimately receive. But clearly the attacks seem to have helped President Li's popularity in Taiwan. I was recently over there, about 3 weeks ago, and had an opportunity to meet with various officials, including President Li. One of the other interesting things, as a consequence of the presence of the PRC in the election process in Taiwan, is an extraordinary realization and identification of Taiwan as a significant voice in international affairs. Now it seems that there is more concern being leveled by Beijing against Taiwan's prominence. Taiwan is called upon to participate in humanitarian contributions and various activities by international organizations. They clearly are one of the most prosperous countries in the world, having the highest per capita capital reserves of virtually any other nation. So what we see today is the perplexing situation where, on one hand, we have the focus of a democracy initiating its first free elections, a real concern internally by the Chinese leadership as to what role they should play with their renegade province, recognizing that next year Hong Kong is basically within the total control of China, when 1997 comes, and in 1997 the people's Congress will meet to basically set the parameters for the next 5 years and the hierarchy of the leadership in China. We do not know what the mindset of that leadership is. We can only guess. But it is fair to say that their extreme views of what should be done--and as we look at the capability of the M-9 missile and the accuracy of that missile to be launched from within China to targets on either end of Taiwan, southern and northern target areas, and we note the capability of the naval activities, clearly, there has been a strong signal sent. The difficulty in trying to determine just how this is ultimately going to play out, I think, deserves the action that was proposed tonight by my friend from Wyoming, and that is a reaffirmation of the Taiwan Relations Act. As I said earlier and we discussed in our colloquy, the President of the United States has an obligation to come before the Congress if, indeed, in his opinion, the national security interests of Taiwan are in jeopardy. I think the President and the administration's actions so far are to be commended. We have, by our display of naval power, intelligence and other assets, basically reinforced our commitments to the Taiwan Relations Act. There are a couple of other significant events that probably should be noted, Mr. President, and that is the reality that initially the Chinese indicated they would cease their missile tests on the 15th. Further, they would cease their naval activities on the 20th. And, of course, we have the date of the 23d for the free democratic elections in Taiwan. So I think we will have to watch those dates very closely, Mr. President, to see if, indeed, the Chinese are serious in terminating the missile activities, terminating the naval activities on the dates that they have stated. If they do not, why, clearly they intend to escalate the tensions that are now in existence. And, as a consequence, Mr. President, I fear for the ultimate disposition because the Taiwan Relations Act mandates that the resolve of China and the issues of China with regard to its two provinces, particularly Taiwan, will be by peaceful means. So I guess we will just have to wait and see what the ultimate outcome of this is as each day goes by, but I think it is most appropriate this body reaffirm the terms and conditions of the Taiwan Relations Act. We have already seen, under the terms of that act, the ability of the Taiwanese to seek military assistance in the form of purchases for their defensive needs--I want to stress defensive needs-- as a prerequisite of the Taiwan Relations Act. That activity has been carried out by the United States on a decreasing dollar amount. We have the request for some of the higher technological capabilities associated with the Patriot missile system as an antiballistic missile defense. There are some of us in the Congress that feel perhaps this is the time to escalate those sales and offer the people of Taiwan the psychological assurance, as well as the real assurance, of what that type of technology should be. This Senator from Alaska is reserving his firm opinions on that depending on what the situation is as we approach these dates of significance relative to a determination of whether or not Beijing simply wants to show its strength with regard to Taiwan or whether we can expect an extended period of tensions. In my meetings with President Li, I had the assurance that after the elections, assuming President Li were elected, that he would initiate communications with Beijing in an attempt to reduce tensions. I think that that will occur. My concern is what price Beijing may demand of Taiwan with regard to easing those tensions. So I will encourage my friend again from Wyoming to pursue the resolution that is before this body that unfortunately we were unable to bring up tonight because of objection on the other side. I would again hope that some of my colleagues on the other side who have raised these objections would come before this body so that we might enter into a discussion, because obviously, if there are issues that the Senator from Alaska is not aware of that are appropriate, why, they should be considered. If it is objection for the sake of objection, why, indeed, that is an unfortunate set of circumstances. I hope my friend from Wyoming will renew the request on the next vehicle. I will certainly look forward to joining him. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see some of my colleagues seeking recognition. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Korea visa waiver pilot project legislation. I have worked closely with Senators Inouye, Akaka, and Stevens on this legislation. This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States tourist visas to Korean citizens, and their, too often, subsequent decision not to vacation in the United States. Koreans typically wait 2 to 3 weeks to obtain visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a result, these spontaneous travelers decide to go to one of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand. This bill provides the legal basis for a carefully controlled pilot program for visa free travel by Koreans to the United States. The program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the cumbersome visa system. For example, in 1994, 296,706 nonimmigrant United States visas were granted to Koreans of which 7,000 came to Alaska. It is predicted that there would be a 500- to 700-percent increase in Korean tourism to Alaska with the visa waiver pilot project. In New Zealand, for example, a 700-percent increase in tourism from Korea occurred after they dropped the visa requirement. This pilot program allows visitors in a tour group from South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa. however, it does not compromise the security standards of the United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The travel permits could only be used for supervised group tours. Many restrictions are included in the legislation for the pilot proposal. The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate the program if the overstay rates in the program are over 2 percent. The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days. The visitors have to have a round-trip ticket, in addition, the visitors have to arrive by a carrier that agrees to take them back if they are deemed inadmissible. We recommend to the Secretary of State to institute a bonding and licensing requirement that each participating travel agency post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule. The one-time return of each tourist in the group would be certified after each tour. Security checks are done to ensure that the visitor is not a safety threat to the United States. This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be a successful program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.