Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The government-to-government agreement for the 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium contemplates the participation of the United States private sector and Russian enterprises in implementation of the agreement. Section 5012(b) facilitates this implementation by providing mechanisms for private sector entities to purchase the natural uranium component of LEU derived from Russian HEU, either directly from Russia or in an auction process, in an open and competitive manner. The United States and Russia also have the ability to increase the quantities delivered in any given year and accelerate the delivery schedule of this material to the United States, provided that this material is introduced into the U.S. commercial fuel market in full accordance with this legislation. Furthermore, neither this legislation nor the government-to- government agreement limits the ability of Russia to sell additional quantities of enriched uranium, in excess of 500 metric tons called for by the government-to-government agreement, to third parties for delivery to the United States, subject to the market restrictions as stated in the bill before us and other applicable law. Overall, this legislation and its provisions will: First, advance the world's nonproliferation goals; second, provide the Russian Federation immediate hard currency and; third, assist the Russians in meeting future continuing obligations.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the same item we have already dealt with in budget reconciliation. In fact, we already voted on this. It will be a repeat of the same amendment my friend from Arkansas proposed previously. Given Senator Bumpers' rhetoric and the ``we only print one-side of the issue'' perspective of the national media, it is difficult to get a clear understanding of what's going on with mining law reform in the 104th Congress. Senator Bumpers, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, and the national media are long on mining law rhetoric but short on substance. Senator Bumpers often argues the goal of mining law reform should be significantly revise patenting, to impose a royalty on the production of hardrock minerals, and to establish a mechanism to clean up abandoned mines throughout the country. I happen to agree, but would quickly add one more essential point. Any reform bill passed by Congress should also aim to preserve the economic foundation of hardrock mining in this country--a critical industry that provides high-paying jobs for tens of thousands of American men and women. It is on this point that legislation sponsored by mining critics like Mr. Bumpers falls flat on its face. The punitive royalties and onerous environmental provisions he favors would make future mining on Federal lands nearly impossible. Economic analyses of Senator Bumpers' comprehensive mining law reform legislation, including in-house studies done by the Department of the Interior, conclude that the punitive royalty supported by Senator Bumpers will cost thousands of U.S. jobs. His legislation would shift exploration and development capital over seas, export U.S. jobs, decrease our tax base, and increase our balance of trade deficit. I take strong exception to criticisms that members representing western mining States oppose mining law reform legislation. What we oppose is punitive legislation that would cause unnecessary economic harm to rural mining communities across working America. In our effort to impose a royalty on the hardrock mining industry we should not presume that more is better. One would hope that Congress would learn from history. In 1990, when Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, we imposed a significant tax on luxury items, including high-end luxury yachts. Unfortunately, instead of taxing the rich, this recklessness destroyed the yacht building industry and eliminated thousands of jobs in this country. In addition, we should learn from our foreign competitors. In 1974, British Columbia enacted the Mineral Royalties Act, which imposed royalties on mines located on Crown Lands and the Mineral Land tax Act which subjected owners of private mineral rights to royalties equivalent to those applied to Crown Lands. The result was a disaster. During the period the royalty was in effect, no new mines went into production and several mines closed. Two years later, after thousands of mine related jobs were lost, the royalty was repealed. Should the hardrock mining industry pay a royalty to the Federal Government? The answer is yes. But let's not make it so punitive that we destroy the industry or run it off-shore. We need to remember, just like Arkansas rice farmers, the domestic mining industry must compete in a worldwide market. At the outset of the 104th Congress, I cosponsored the Mining Law Reform [[Page S 16028]] Act of 1995 (S. 506), a bipartisan bill that recognizes the world of change in which we now live. The bill balances economic reality with the environmental concerns facing today's hardrock mining industry. I've actively pursued enactment of this legislation during the past several months. It's worth noting that Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt continues to issue press releases decrying the shortcomings of the existing mining law. Yet he offers no reform proposal of his own. Why? Very simply, it is much easier to be critical than to be constructive. It's no secret this is a divisive issue. In an effort to strike an acceptable compromise, the Senate Energy Committee included mining law reform provisions in its budget reconciliation package. Those provisions represent significant compromise by both sides in this debate. For the first time in history, the legislation would require miners to pay fair market value for the surface estate of patented land. For the first time in history, the legislation requires patented land used for nonmining purposes to revert back to the Federal Government. This would end the so-called Federal land give-away. For the first time in history, miners would be required to pay a royalty to the Federal Government for the production of minerals on Federal land. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the royalty will generate over $36 million dollars during the first 7 years. As new projects come into production, revenues received from the royalty are expected to increase to $25-$50 million per year. Finally, for the first time in history, we would create an abandoned mine land fund [AML fund], establishing a mechanism to clean up old mines, many of which were abandoned in the 1800's. The program will be financed by one half of the royalty receipts. As royalty revenues increase, funds for the AML fund will also grow. The legislation contained in the committee's reconciliation package answers the urgent call for increased Federal revenue without adding layers of crippling new Federal regulations or usurping the rights and responsibilities of individual States to oversee mining operations within their own jurisdictions. Simply put, it would significantly revise the existing patenting system; impose a royalty on the production of minerals; and create a mechanism to fund the cleanup of abandoned mines; all while allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of a strong domestic mining industry. It's time for mining critics to stop the rhetoric and begin working to enact reform. Senator Bumpers' amendment is not a good faith effort at enacting responsible reform. His claims of a Federal land give-away cannot hold water in the face of the dual requirements in budget reconciliation of fair market value for the surface of patented lands and a royalty on produced minerals from the subsurface. The time is right for reform. The language in the budget reconciliation package represents comprehensive reform that ends the so-called Federal give-away, and according to CBO, raises $148 million dollars. I urge critics of the mining industry to support the mining law provisions in the budget reconciliation package and oppose the amendment being offered by Senator Bumpers.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Our language recognizes and does not change the right of the U.S. Government under the government-to-government agreement to exercise its option of changing the U.S. executive agent or allowing for more than one after consultation with and upon 30 days notice to the Russian Federation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Committee carefully defined the scope of the transfer so that this legislation will have no affect on the proposed Plateau Creek pipeline replacement project, which will be subject to all requirements of Federal and State law which would exist if the transfer did not occur.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. The legislation provides that, as a condition of the mandatory transfer, $600,000 of the total payment of $12.9 million be provided to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for use in the Recovery Implementation Program for the endangered fish apecies in the Upper Colorado River Basin, which is intended to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative for water depletions from all existing and future water projects in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado. In the event that any such determination is made in the future, and if the Recovery Implementation Program no longer serves its intended purpose, the Collbran project will be treated the same as any other existing, similarly situated nonfederal project in western Colorado, and the districts will be able to claim credit for this contribution to the same extent as any other entities which have made cash contributions to the Recovery Implementation Program.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The legislation does not affect the ability of the districts to obtain additional cost savings by contracting with third parties in order to achieve more efficient operation of the power features of the project or for other purposes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. The pending litigation initiated by the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining water rights in the name of the United States for the Collbran project should be dismissed in light of the mandatory requirement for the transfer of the Collbran project to the districts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No, the Collbran project facilities, and the lands upon which they are located, are to be transferred to the districts. However, the lands to be conveyed to the districts do not include the undeveloped lands surrounding Vega Reservoir, as these lands are to be conveyed to the State of Colorado.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the amendment submitted by the Senators from Idaho, and it reads as follows: On page 395, line 24, after ``shall'' insert ``, unless it would be more cost-effective for the Department to use government-owned and operated aircraft,''. On page 396, lines 8 and 9, after ``suppression'' insert ``and those that it would be more cost effective to retain under subsection (a).''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct. Let me assure the Senators from Idaho that we are committed to achieving the best and fairest deal for American taxpayers. We will work in conference to further clarify the changes in S. 1357 to address the concerns of my colleagues from Idaho.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with the Senator's statement. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent by our Committee to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee requesting the adoption of S. 638 be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me also reassure my colleague of my strong desire to see that our agreement, as set forth in the Appropriations conference report, not be undermined by the House reconciliation proposal which contradicts that agreement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor Senator D'Amato's legislation to reform the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. The Public Utility Holding Company Act was enacted 60 years ago to curb serious abuses by public utilities that harmed consumers. PUHCA was needed in the 1930's, but now we live in a different world. By limiting activities and restricting corporate structure, PUHCA denies the companies that generate and sell electricity the flexibility necessary to respond to changing consumer needs and market circumstances. This legislation will eliminate unnecessary and costly regulation, retaining only that which is still needed to protect consumers. Over the past 60 years a comprehensive State-Federal regulatory system has been developed to protect consumers. In a nutshell, State public utility commissions regulate transactions that are intrastate in nature, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates those that are interstate in nature. State public utility commissions perform their regulatory activities pursuant to State law, and the FERC performs its pursuant to the Federal Power Act. With the maturity of both State and Federal utility regulation--along with mature securities regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission--PUHCA is now redundant at best. In this connection, it should be noted that in some instances PUHCA is counterproductive, actually interfering with effective utility rate regulation by the FERC. For example, in Ohio Power a Federal court held that the SEC's utility decisions under PUHCA preempt the FERC's authority over utility rates under the Federal Power Act. This legislation addresses that issue by giving the FERC clear and exclusive authority to address matters within its statutory jurisdiction. In short, the streamlining of the regulatory system proposed by this legislation will not diminish needed consumer protection. It will enhance it instead. If the regulatory system created by PUHCA benefitted consumers, then the regulatory burdens it imposes might be justified. But as everyone now acknowledges, PUHCA is no longer needed to protect consumers. There is adequate and comprehensive regulatory authority in other laws. As a result, regulatory costs caused by PUHCA are simply passed on to consumers as higher rates without any offsetting consumer benefits. Congress and the executive branch have long recognized that PUHCA creates serious regulatory problems, but up to now these problems have been addressed piecemeal. In 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act provided an exemption from PUHCA for [[Page S 15129]] certain types of electric power generators. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act gave additional exemptions to certain other types of electric power generators. The SEC is loosening its restrictions on non-utility activities as much as it can within the bounds of PUHCA. And the Congress is currently considering PUHCA exemptions to allow registered electric utilities to enter the telecommunications business, just the same as non-registered utilities. These are all Band-Aid fixes to PUHCA; they help, but they do not address the fundamental problem. The need to legislatively reform PUHCA was recognized by the SEC's July 1995 report ``The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.'' This legislation is based on its recommendations to Congress. Complete reform of PUHCA is needed, and it is justified. It is time to streamline and modernize the act. It is for these reasons that I am cosponsoring Senator D'Amato's legislation. Mr. President, there may be some who will try to use this legislation as a vehicle to restructure the electric utility industry, possibly to impose retail wheeling or to federally preempt State public utility commissions. I will strenuously resist any such effort. I have received assurances that Senator D'Amato is of like mind. This is not the time nor the place to make these kinds of changes. Retail wheeling and other competitive issues are not directly related to PUHCA reform. Moreover, retail wheeling and other Federal Power Act matters are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, not the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to which this legislation will be referred. Electric utility issues are very complex, and they are very significant not only to consumers but also to this Nation's competitiveness and economic well being. These kinds of changes cannot, and will not be made without careful and complete consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of all aspects of the issues and questions they raise.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor Senator D'Amato's legislation to reform the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. The Public Utility Holding Company Act was enacted 60 years ago to curb serious abuses by public utilities that harmed consumers. PUHCA was needed in the 1930's, but now we live in a different world. By limiting activities and restricting corporate structure, PUHCA denies the companies that generate and sell electricity the flexibility necessary to respond to changing consumer needs and market circumstances. This legislation will eliminate unnecessary and costly regulation, retaining only that which is still needed to protect consumers. Over the past 60 years a comprehensive State-Federal regulatory system has been developed to protect consumers. In a nutshell, State public utility commissions regulate transactions that are intrastate in nature, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates those that are interstate in nature. State public utility commissions perform their regulatory activities pursuant to State law, and the FERC performs its pursuant to the Federal Power Act. With the maturity of both State and Federal utility regulation--along with mature securities regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission--PUHCA is now redundant at best. In this connection, it should be noted that in some instances PUHCA is counterproductive, actually interfering with effective utility rate regulation by the FERC. For example, in Ohio Power a Federal court held that the SEC's utility decisions under PUHCA preempt the FERC's authority over utility rates under the Federal Power Act. This legislation addresses that issue by giving the FERC clear and exclusive authority to address matters within its statutory jurisdiction. In short, the streamlining of the regulatory system proposed by this legislation will not diminish needed consumer protection. It will enhance it instead. If the regulatory system created by PUHCA benefitted consumers, then the regulatory burdens it imposes might be justified. But as everyone now acknowledges, PUHCA is no longer needed to protect consumers. There is adequate and comprehensive regulatory authority in other laws. As a result, regulatory costs caused by PUHCA are simply passed on to consumers as higher rates without any offsetting consumer benefits. Congress and the executive branch have long recognized that PUHCA creates serious regulatory problems, but up to now these problems have been addressed piecemeal. In 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act provided an exemption from PUHCA for [[Page S 15129]] certain types of electric power generators. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act gave additional exemptions to certain other types of electric power generators. The SEC is loosening its restrictions on non-utility activities as much as it can within the bounds of PUHCA. And the Congress is currently considering PUHCA exemptions to allow registered electric utilities to enter the telecommunications business, just the same as non-registered utilities. These are all Band-Aid fixes to PUHCA; they help, but they do not address the fundamental problem. The need to legislatively reform PUHCA was recognized by the SEC's July 1995 report ``The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.'' This legislation is based on its recommendations to Congress. Complete reform of PUHCA is needed, and it is justified. It is time to streamline and modernize the act. It is for these reasons that I am cosponsoring Senator D'Amato's legislation. Mr. President, there may be some who will try to use this legislation as a vehicle to restructure the electric utility industry, possibly to impose retail wheeling or to federally preempt State public utility commissions. I will strenuously resist any such effort. I have received assurances that Senator D'Amato is of like mind. This is not the time nor the place to make these kinds of changes. Retail wheeling and other competitive issues are not directly related to PUHCA reform. Moreover, retail wheeling and other Federal Power Act matters are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, not the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to which this legislation will be referred. Electric utility issues are very complex, and they are very significant not only to consumers but also to this Nation's competitiveness and economic well being. These kinds of changes cannot, and will not be made without careful and complete consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of all aspects of the issues and questions they raise.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Helms, McCain, and Nickles, which would provide a means for the Congress to monitor the implementation of the ``Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea'' on nuclear issues. This will ensure that when and if we vote funds for that purpose, we know that that money is achieving the agreed objectives. The legislation conditions the availability of U.S. funds for fulfilling the accord on North Korea's abiding by the terms of the Agreed Framework and Confidential Minute in accordance with the schedule set forth in the agreement. Thus it adds necessary specificity to the timing and sequencing of all aspects of the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework is written in traditional diplomatic language, with insufficient detail on the timing and nature of actions which both North Korea and the United States must take to implement it. While I appreciate the Administration's desire to have flexibility in implementing the accord, it will be important that the North Koreans and the Administration understand that the Congress desires greater specificity if it is going to authorize and appropriate funds for this accord. I would add, Mr. President, that the legislation I am proposing is fully consistent with the Agreed Framework and with current U.S. policy. However, if this legislation causes difficulties for the Administration at some point, the President can waive the provisions of the legislation if he certifies to the Congress that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to do so. In sum, the legislation provides the following: Full political and economic normalization of relations--specifically the exchange of Ambassadors and the total lifting of the economic embargo--with North Korea can occur only after: IAEA safeguards requirements are met, including inspections of 2 suspected nuclear waste sites. Progress has been made in talks between North and South Korea. A more effective, regularized process has been created to return U.S. MIAs from the Korean War, including through joint field activities, as in Vietnam. North Korea no longer meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of countries the governments of which support international terrorism. North Korea takes positive steps to demonstrate greater respect for human rights. North Korea agrees to abide by Missile Technology Control Regime. All spent fuel has been removed from North Korea to a third country. North Korea's graphite reactors have been dismantled in a manner that bars reactivation of such reactors and related facilities. In short, until North Korea proves it is no longer a renegade state and wishes to behave as a normal, respected member of the international community, including through negotiating peacefully with the Republic of Korea concerning the future of the Korean peninsula, we should not establish full economic and political relations. Interim steps toward full economic and political relations, such as setting up diplomatic liaison offices and lifting certain economic regulatory sanctions, are not restricted under the legislation. In fact, I believe they can help provide incentives for the North Koreans to move ahead in these areas of concern while also giving the Administration useful leverage. The legislation also provides that the United States will suspend relevant activities described in the Agreed Framework if North Korea reloads its existing 5 megawatt reactor or resumes construction of nuclear facilities other than those permitted to be built under the Agreed Framework. The legislation also restricts United States direct or indirect support for exports of heavy fuel oil to North Korea if that state does not maintain the freeze on its nuclear program or takes steps regarding that oil which are not permitted under the Agreed Framework. Finally, the legislation has a reporting requirement to ensure that congressional monitoring of the implementation of the Agreed Framework and that the taxpayers' money is being spent effectively. I look forward to extensive debate on this legislation and its early passage.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Helms, McCain, and Nickles, which would provide a means for the Congress to monitor the implementation of the ``Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea'' on nuclear issues. This will ensure that when and if we vote funds for that purpose, we know that that money is achieving the agreed objectives. The legislation conditions the availability of U.S. funds for fulfilling the accord on North Korea's abiding by the terms of the Agreed Framework and Confidential Minute in accordance with the schedule set forth in the agreement. Thus it adds necessary specificity to the timing and sequencing of all aspects of the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework is written in traditional diplomatic language, with insufficient detail on the timing and nature of actions which both North Korea and the United States must take to implement it. While I appreciate the Administration's desire to have flexibility in implementing the accord, it will be important that the North Koreans and the Administration understand that the Congress desires greater specificity if it is going to authorize and appropriate funds for this accord. I would add, Mr. President, that the legislation I am proposing is fully consistent with the Agreed Framework and with current U.S. policy. However, if this legislation causes difficulties for the Administration at some point, the President can waive the provisions of the legislation if he certifies to the Congress that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to do so. In sum, the legislation provides the following: Full political and economic normalization of relations--specifically the exchange of Ambassadors and the total lifting of the economic embargo--with North Korea can occur only after: IAEA safeguards requirements are met, including inspections of 2 suspected nuclear waste sites. Progress has been made in talks between North and South Korea. A more effective, regularized process has been created to return U.S. MIAs from the Korean War, including through joint field activities, as in Vietnam. North Korea no longer meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of countries the governments of which support international terrorism. North Korea takes positive steps to demonstrate greater respect for human rights. North Korea agrees to abide by Missile Technology Control Regime. All spent fuel has been removed from North Korea to a third country. North Korea's graphite reactors have been dismantled in a manner that bars reactivation of such reactors and related facilities. In short, until North Korea proves it is no longer a renegade state and wishes to behave as a normal, respected member of the international community, including through negotiating peacefully with the Republic of Korea concerning the future of the Korean peninsula, we should not establish full economic and political relations. Interim steps toward full economic and political relations, such as setting up diplomatic liaison offices and lifting certain economic regulatory sanctions, are not restricted under the legislation. In fact, I believe they can help provide incentives for the North Koreans to move ahead in these areas of concern while also giving the Administration useful leverage. The legislation also provides that the United States will suspend relevant activities described in the Agreed Framework if North Korea reloads its existing 5 megawatt reactor or resumes construction of nuclear facilities other than those permitted to be built under the Agreed Framework. The legislation also restricts United States direct or indirect support for exports of heavy fuel oil to North Korea if that state does not maintain the freeze on its nuclear program or takes steps regarding that oil which are not permitted under the Agreed Framework. Finally, the legislation has a reporting requirement to ensure that congressional monitoring of the implementation of the Agreed Framework and that the taxpayers' money is being spent effectively. I look forward to extensive debate on this legislation and its early passage.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Stevens-Murkowski amendment relieves Fairbanks of oxygenated fuels requirement and transportation control measures under the Clean Air Act for upcoming winter because Fairbanks' carbon monoxide [CO] exceedances are a result of temperature inversions--not simply CO emissions, and Fairbanks' residents experienced negative health effects when they initially tried methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE] as an oxygenated fuel. The oxygenated fuels program was instituted in Anchorage and Fairbanks on November 1, 1992, according to the law, using MTBE as the oxygenate additive. Fairbanks' and Anchorage residents began to experience unusual health problems--nausea, vomiting, dizziness, disorientation, headaches, and other symptoms. Our Governor canceled the program in Fairbanks on December 11, 1992, due to these health problems. The EPA had not done any studies on MTBE in the Arctic conditions that exist in Alaska. So, many Alaskans justifiably fear the use of oxygenated fuels in their gasoline. Let me also note that Alaska does not have a serious non-attainment problem. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the city of Fairbanks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have some of the cleanest air in the country. Fairbanks has made significant, dramatic reductions in CO violations. You will notice that most of these reductions occurred before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; so, the Clean Air Act was effective in Fairbanks without the oxygenated fuels requirement. These reductions are clearly attributable to Fairbanks' inspection and maintenance program. Fairbanks has reduced their violations 43 percent--from 37 in 1985 to only 2 in 1992, and most recently we seem to be down to 5 or fewer violations a year. Those exceedances that do occur are during thermal inversions. Typical automobile fleet turnover and the U.S. car fleet operating more efficiently at cold temperatures could also bring Fairbanks into compliance eventually. I want to thank Senator Chafee and Senator Bond for accepting our amendment. Fairbanks air quality has improved significantly over the years. We want to continue to work with the EPA to improve our air quality by means that make sense in our Arctic climate and not be subject to a one-size-fits-all mandate that does not make sense in Alaska. We welcome the current political climate that recognizes the need for flexibility and common sense in our environmental regulatory policy.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the revision of section 575 of the committee amendment of H.R. 1868 concerning North Korea, to which I understand the managers of the bill have agreed. I do not believe that this revised section is as strong or specific as it should be, nor is it even as strong as the original version. Further, I still believe that my amendment would provide a more concrete and fundamental structure for monitoring compliance with the agreed framework on nuclear issues between the United States and North Korea. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the revised section 575 takes at least a few first steps toward the objectives of my amendment, No. 2712. Just as importantly, it puts the administration and the North Koreans on notice that we will be monitoring closely the implementation of the agreed framework on nuclear issues, including North Korea's commitment to participate in dialog with the Republic of Korea. As a result, and to save time for the Senate as it moves to complete this bill, and because the revised amendment comes at least some way toward my amendment, I would like to withdraw my amendment at this time. However, in doing so, I want to advise my colleagues that since this issue deserves extensive further debate and consideration within the Senate, I am going to propose my amendment in the form of a freestanding bill in the near future. I also advise my colleagues that my friend Senator Helms has promised to consider this matter in his committee expeditiously.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska does request that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to advise the floor manager the Murkowski amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues from Kentucky and Vermont. My amendment adds specificity to the timing as well as the sequencing of aspects that are key to the agreed framework on nuclear issues, which the administration signed with North Korea last October. This would ensure that everyone, including the North Koreans, knows exactly how and when--and if--the funding will be provided by the Congress or additional diplomatic or economic steps will be taken toward North Korea. The amendment parallels much of House Joint Resolution 83 passed September 18 by the House of Representatives. The Senate, I think, should go on record in similar detail. I am pleased that the amendment is cosponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, as well as Senator McCain, one of the Senate's most respected voices on North Korean matters, and the Senate Republican Policy chairman, Senator Nickles. Amendment No. 2712 (Purpose: To provide authorization for implementation of the Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea)

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to provide the Senator from Vermont with a copy of the amendment. It would be a freestanding amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to offer a freestanding amendment.