Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Surely.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to my friend from Michigan, obviously I was not in the conference but one has to conclude that as a consequence of the prevailing vote which this body initiated by adopting my amendment banning all lobbyist and PAC contributions to Senators, one would think that the conferees would have a responsibility to support it. Clearly, they chose not to. And one can come to his or her own conclusion as to why. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think my friend will recall, last year I offered an amendment and the amendment was adopted banning all lobbyist and PAC contributions to Senators. It was rather interesting because that clearly cut to the core of the question of PAC contributions. However, when the lobby disclosure gift ban emerged--emerged, Mr. President, from a Democratic-controlled conference--my PAC and lobbyist contribution ban reform surprisingly had been deleted. I say to my good friend, clearly we had an opportunity last year to delete all PAC contributions. It passed the Senate, but it was not supported in a Democratic-controlled conference. The Senator from Alaska has to conclude one thing: A gift is a gift. If it is a gift associated with a charitable event, it is a gift associated with a charitable event and the merits are the charity. If it is for political purposes, it is still a gift. It is a gift if it is travel. It is a gift if it is lodging. And the justification is the political event and who benefits from the political event. Sure, we are professionals. We are professional politicians, so we obviously benefit, as opposed to a worthwhile charity out there. If we did not subtract the transportation and did not subtract the lodging, there would be more money coming back associated with the political event. That is the logic that is used to say what is wrong with the charitable event. They take too much out for travel and lodging. I think we have made the point, Mr. President, and it is one that this proposal lacks consistency and it lacks the reform that is recognized. I know my friend from Michigan and I agree that we need substantial review of the various political contributions, and that will come. But I rise in the sense of pointing out that, indeed, we have an inconsistency. We had a chance to clear it last year by accepting my amendment which was done in this body, but I think many people knew it would die in a Democratic-controlled conference, which it did.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. President, I respect the response from my colleague, but when we consider just what constitutes a gift, I think we have to recognize that if we travel to a charitable event to raise money for a worthwhile cause, there is some merit to that. On the other hand, if we go to a political event in Los Angeles and get our transportation paid for and get our lodging paid for, that is meritorious, too, from a political point of view. But we are talking about a great inconsistency here in this legislation that is proposed by my colleagues on the other side. We are talking about cleansing the process, the process of accepting gifts. But they do not want to touch the area that is sacrosanct, and that is specifically political contributions and the way that money is raised. Money is raised by travel to legitimate political events. And reimbursement occurs not only for the Member but, very often, for the spouse as well. And so I hope that those watching this among the American public, as they reflect on the merits of this debate on gifts, recognize the inconsistency that is proposed here. If my friends on the other side were suggesting that we do away with gifts, period, do away with gifts associated with charitable events, we do away with gifts that are associated with political events from a standpoint of travel and a standpoint of lodging, then there would be consistency. But clearly, that is not the intention because there is a lot of money raised in this process. That process gets Members elected. So, I think as we address the merits of reform here in this body on the issue of gifts, we should specifically reflect on this other overlooked issue--political travel. As most of us recognize, the reason my amendment did not pass last year is there was some motivation, the motivation by those that suggested that that was too great a sacrifice, too great a sacrifice to give up political travel. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. I have little doubt that Congress, some time this year, will vote to ban most gifts to Senators and Congressmen. Why will we make that change? Because there is a perception in the country that accepting a meal or a small gift from a lobbyist somehow corrupts the moral fiber of Congress. So we will pass the gift and meal ban to fix the perception problem. end pac contributions I have no problem with banning gifts. But I believe it is hypocritical to say that you cannot buy a Senator lunch, but its OK for a political action committee [PAC] to give a Senator $10,000 for his political campaign or for a lobbyist to sponsor a $500-per-person political fundraiser. Last year, the Senate adopted my amendment banning all lobbyist and PAC contributions to Senators. However, when the lobby disclosure/gift ban bill emerged from the Democratically controlled conference, my PAC and lobbyist contribution ban reform had, not surprisingly, been deleted. Mr. President, if we are really sincere in getting special interest money out of politics, then we ought to stop wasting our time arguing over small gratuities, gifts and meals, and instead focus our efforts on ending the insidious activities of political action committees. Since passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, the number of PAC's increased from 608 to 4,729 in 1992. Total PAC contributions to Federal election candidates increased more than 2,000 percent--from $8.5 million in 1972 to $189 million in 1992. In 1992, PAC contributions comprised 24 percent of Senate campaign receipts and 38 percent of House campaign receipts. PAC's are touted by their defenders as a means to allow individuals to get together and advance their collective interests in politics. Presumably, that would include supporting challengers. Yet, in 1992, in races where Members were up for reelection, incumbents received 86 percent of the PAC contributions--$126 million for incumbents versus $21 million for challengers. Overall, PAC's distributed more than $160 million to congressional candidates in 1992; $24 million--15 percent--went to candidates running for open seats. Since the 1970's, PAC's increasingly have funneled contributions to incumbents with little or no regard for ideology or voting records. Corporate and trade association PAC's are among the worst in this regard, giving upward of 90 percent of their PAC contributions to incumbents. reimbursement for charitable travel and lodging Moreover, Mr. President, I oppose the portion of this amendment that disallows Senators from being reimbursed for travel and lodging in connection with a charitable event. This is another example of the hypocrisy of the bill. Nothing prevents a lobbyist from paying a Senator's travel and lodging if it is in connection with a political fundraiser. If a lobbyist wants to pay for a Senator to go to Hollywood to raise money for the Democrats or Republicans, that's permitted. But if I want to host another charitable function like I had this summer where I raised more than $120,000 for a portable mammography machine that helps detect breast cancer, transportation and lodging cannot be reimbursed. This rule is not only hypocritical but also discriminates against charitable events in Alaska because the cost to travel there is so high. You can be sure that charitable functions will continue to be well- attended by Senators, Congressmen, and lobbyists if they occur inside the beltway. But if we want to do a charitable function that benefits the needy in Alaska, it's going to be nearly impossible. Mr. President, my colleague Senator McConnell has been working on a realistic gift ban and PAC ban bill that will address the so-called problems associated with special interest influence in Washington. We will surely have an opportunity to consider these issues later in the year. But now, the issue before us is whether we are willing to apply the laws we impose on the rest of the country on our own institution. This amendment is merely a diversion from that issue. Let us pass the congressional coverage bill now, and address the gift ban/PAC ban legislation at a more appropriate time. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. So, Mr. President, I am not going to talk any longer. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency here. This whole matter began rather curiously when the association of former Senator Jake Garn from Utah ran a charitable event that was for a children's hospital--a very worthwhile cause. But a so-called television expose featured several Members of this body, some of whom have already spoken on the issue of gift bans, and which implied that Members were being bought off by accepting transportation and accepting lodging. There is very little consideration as to the contribution given to the Children's Hospital. I participate in that event each year, and I intend to participate in the event again this year because it is a worthwhile cause. Because Senators come, there is an attraction, whether it be curious or otherwise, to raise money for the effort, and it is a worthwhile effort. Obviously, I can hold a charity event here in Washington, DC. If I hold that charity event here, there is no transportation; there is no lodging. I can legitimately do it. But if I want to hold it in my State, it is a significant cost to Members if they want to come up to Alaska for a fishing event of some kind for a worthwhile charity. We had an event last year to buy a new mammogram, a mammography machine for the Best Cancer Clinic of Alaska. We raised $149,000. There were no other Senators who could come because we were in session, but we were not precluded because the legislation proposed last year did not pass the conference. But it was a worthwhile cause. The inconsistency, I think, is obvious, as a consequence of what we have before us. We seem willing to do away with reimbursement for transportation and lodging, but we would still provide it for political events. That is the inconsistency which this Senator sees is so glaring. That is why I urge my colleagues, when the appropriate hour is here, to reject the amendment because it is simply inconsistent; it does not do the job; it is less than a halfway effort. Let me also comment relative to remarks that were made by others who spoke with regard to gifts to chairmen and CEO's of corporations. I was a CEO. There are policies within corporations that you designate procedures, and that is entirely different from the function within this body. Those people, through boards of directors and oversight and checks and balances, have to maintain the scrutiny and the appropriate responsibility to the shareholders. We have a responsibility to the citizens of this country, but part of that responsibility is consistency. When we talk about a gift ban, if we are going to be consistent, we are going to do away with a gift ban and political contributions associated with transportation and travel. That is what is lacking in this legislation. I hope we will have an opportunity to get into this at some length and hold the necessary hearings so we do not just end up window dressing a situation that many of the American public assume is being taken care of under the gift ban, but still provides us with transportation and lodging for our political events. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Michigan for responding to my questions. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could follow up with one other question. Why would we preclude reimbursement for transportation and lodging for charitable events, yet allow transportation and lodging for political events? It is my understanding that there is nothing in this amendment that would preclude a Member from going out to Los Angeles for a political event, getting his lodging taken care of, getting his transportation taken care of. Mr. President, I think there is an inconsistency here as relates to the merits of considering gift ban legislation. And I wonder why the floor managers have not seen fit to include a prohibition which I understand was not in last year's bill either. I think that the American people should understand as we consider the merits of banning gifts, that there is certainly reasonable expectation that if we ban it for charitable events, that we ought to also ban it for political events. I wonder if my colleague would enlighten me as to whether I am accurate in my interpretation that, indeed, for political events, one could get full reimbursement for travel and full reimbursement for lodging.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to a bit of an inconsistency in this amendment. If I may direct a question to one of the managers with regard to the amendment that is pending. Is it correct that the Senator from Alaska, as he reads the prohibition on gifts, that it precludes a Senator from being reimbursed for travel or transportation to a charitable event such as the event which for a number of years was sponsored by former Senator Jake Garn of Utah? As my colleagues know, that was for a charitable purpose of the Children's Hospital. I think several hundred thousand dollars were raised for that purpose. As a consequence, transportation was provided to Members as well as lodging. Under the proposed amendment, would transporation and lodging reimbursement for such a charitable event be precluded? I would be happy to have a response to my question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am very pleased to join with my friends and colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry in the introduction of S. 39, a bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson Act. This bill is similar in almost all respects with the bill we introduced in the final days of the last Congress. As promised, that bill and this one both mark our intention that Magnuson Act discussions in this new Congress should focus on outstanding differences, rather than starting from scratch and covering old ground. A tremendous amount of work already has been done on this matter by fishing industry groups, the environmental community and others in Congress, so that this year's hearings will start with a solid, carefully laid platform. I have a great interest in seeing this bill move expeditiously through the legislative process to the President's desk. The Magnuson Act is the basis for all marine fisheries regulation in this country, and as such it is vital that it be reauthorized. As the regional fishery management councils created by this act struggle with new and evolving problems, we must take steps to allow the law to evolve. My own primary efforts are focused on an issue and I believe is about to explode into prominence throughout the world--the need to identify and reduce the levels of fishery bycatch and discard in America's fisheries. That's why I introduced the first bill to address bycatch back in November of last year. Today's bill follows the lead I established in October 1993, by requiring regional fishery management councils to adopt specific measures for bycatch reduction and assessment. This would become a mandatory part of every fishery management plan in the country, and would put us on the road to stopping the shameful waste that is currently occurring in many fisheries. Following up on this principle, Senator Stevens has authored a separate section of the bill for Alaska only, in which more specific targets are set for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Because the North Pacific Council is farther advanced in addressing this issue than many, I think it only appropriate that this reauthorization reflect that reality. Another amendment adopted from my 1993 bill is a change of only one word of one of the national standards established by Magnuson. However, that change, from `promote' to `consider,' is very important to ensuring a fair deal for Alaska's fishermen and shore-based processors. The national standards currently say that conservation and management plans should `promote' efficiency. This became a clear problem for Alaskan interests during the consideration of regulations to protect onshore interests from being preempted by offshore factory-trawlers, because it was seen as requiring the most economically efficient methods--rather than those that contributed to the overall welfare of fishing communities. The change will eliminate that threat, and allow all relevant issues to be fully considered. Among other provisions, this bill will improve fisheries conservation and utilization, on which so many individuals in our coastal communities depend. It will for the first time address the problem of overfishing by requiring corrective action to be taken when a fishery is or is in danger of becoming overfished. It will also strengthen the fisheries management process by improving the way that regional fishery councils function, improve the way fisheries research is conducted and make many other changes of great importance and urgent need. There are still many issues that need to be addressed and answers that need to be clarified. However, we will have an ample opportunity to address these areas and to hear from all those concerned during the deliberative process. I am assured that Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry wish to renew this effort as soon as possible this year, and I look forward to working with them both and with the interested members of the fisheries community.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join Senator Stevens today in introducing legislation, aptly numbered S. 49 for Alaska, the 49th State, to free our State to properly and sensitively develop land that is currently off-limits because a muscle-bound bureaucracy has refined the dispensing of redtape to an art form. Anyone who looks at the facts, and who is not already biased against any and all development in Alaska, cannot help but be persuaded that the very the lower 48 where 53 percent of the original wetlands have already been filed, drained or otherwise removed from wetland status do not make sense for Alaska where less than one tenth of 1 percent of original wetlands have been developed. Good public policy rewards behavior and penalizes bad behavior. Alaska has diligently protected its wetlands. One hundred fifty four million acres of wetlands, over 60 million acres are already out of reach of any sort of development, having been placed in Federal conservation units. By contrast in the lower 48 only 31 million acres are publicly owned. Alaska has developed at most only about 200,000 acres of wetlands less than one tenth of 1 percent, compared to 117,000,000 acres developed in the lower 48--53 percent. In other words, Alaska's wetlands are already better protected than any other State. We will never, never become another New Jersey. It is simply good public policy to tailor regulatory oversight of wetlands development in Alaska to Alaska, not to some other State that has badly managed its wetlands. That is what our bill attempts to do. Alaska is a young, strong State. The Federal Government has gone to great effort to provide for the orderly economic development of Alaska, first through the Statehood Act, in which 104 million acres were set aside for the State for purposes of economic development. Similarly, when the Congress passed the Alaska Natives Claim Settlement Act, approximately 43 million acres were granted to Native Alaskans through regional and village corporations for the purposes of economic development. The irony is that, because so much of Alaska is wetland, 98 percent of all Alaskan communities and 200 out of 209 remote villages are located in or next to wetlands. So, while the Federal Government on one hand provided the resources for planned, sensitive development by means of the Statehood Act and ANCSA, on the other hand the Federal bureaucrats have tied those same lands in a sticky ball of redtape that may make sense on the east coast, but makes no sense in Alaska. Can you imagine requiring compensatory mitigation, that is, creating new wetlands to replace any wetland used in a state in which 3 out of 4 acres of non-mountainous land is already a wetland? Can you imagine requiring a wetlands permit to pile plowed snow on undeveloped land for the winter? Our bill is designed to address such absurdities. This legislation does not do away with regulatory oversight of wetlands in Alaska. But, in Alaska, wetlands regulation should no longer completely ignore the economic and social effect of the permitting process. Compensatory mitigation would be done away with in many circumstances such as when critical infrastructure for minimal rural water and sewer delivery are installed. In addition, Alaska would get credit for the wetlands we already protect. Other protections, such as avoidance and minimization, would remain. This will not satisfy those who are pleased with the status quo. They will not be comfortable with protecting Alaska for Alaskans. To them, preventing an Alaskan from building a garage, or a business on land designated wetland, even after avoidance and minimization requirements are met, is a small price to pay to preserve Alaska in its pristine primitiveness. In fact, in most cases it there is no price for them to pay because many of them live in New York, or Washington, DC or Los Angeles. For Alaskans, these regulations stop us dead in our tracks from pursuing the full promise of statehood. This legislation just deals with Alaska. It is our hope to work with other Senators and Members of Congress from other States in which the regulators are running amuck. It's a starting point and a signal that we are serious about bringing sense back to a process that seems to have been lobotomized. I look forward to beginning that process.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation (S. 70) on behalf of myself and Senators Stevens and Breaux and Heflin that is critical to the economy of Alaska and the energy security of the United States. This legislation would lift the 22-year old prohibition on the export of Alaskan North Slope (ANS) crude oil, thereby allowing the state's most important and vital industry to sell its products in the global marketplace. Mr. President, the export ban is contrary to the free trade, non- discrimination, and open market principles that have guided this Administration in the successful NAFTA and GATT negotiations. It represents the worst type of protectionism that costs workers jobs in Alaska and California, damages our nation's energy security, and contributes to our international trade deficit. The export ban is an unjustifiable and unprecedented discrimination against the State of Alaska and the citizens of my State. It costs the state hundreds of millions dollars a year in lost royalties and hinders the ability of the State to provide social services and infrastructure that would enable the State to diversify its economy. This artificial constraint on the development of Alaska's economy is fundamentally unfair, and in this Senator's view, impinges on the sovereignty of the State in a way that no other state has to endure. In 1973, when the ban was imposed, many people believed that our nation's energy security would be enhanced if ANS crude was committed solely for domestic consumption. Twenty-two years later, it is clear to nearly every economist who has studied this issue, that the export ban, rather than enhancing energy security, will ultimately make America more dependent on foreign oil. Today, most of the 1.8 million barrels of oil that is shipped from Alaska is delivered by tanker to the closest domestic markets on the West Coast, primarily California. The remainder is generally shipped to Panama, off-loaded into a pipeline and then re-loaded onto a tanker and transported to the Gulf Coast. The 1.3 million barrels of oil shipped into California each day glut the California market and drive the price of oil there far below the world price. These glut-induced prices have devastated the California oil and gas industry and exacerbated the prolonged California recession. Wells have been permanently shut in. Exploration and development activities have crawled to a near halt, and employment has been devastated. Mr. President, the single most effective way of reversing this trend and encouraging the renewed exploration and development of oil production in California is to lift the ban on the export of Alaska crude oil. The Department of Energy (DOE) reached this precise conclusion last year when it issued a report which concluded that California oil producers could be producing an additional 100 to 110 thousand barrels a day if the ban is lifted. Moreover, the higher returns resulting from exports would stimulate exploration and development activities in major North Slope fields such as Point McIntyre or Endicott. As a result of this activity, DOE estimates that Alaskan oil reserves could increase by 200 million to 400 million barrels. Moreover, the DOE study found that ``exporting ANS crude oil would result in a substantial net increase in U.S. employment.'' According to DOE, if the ban is lifted this year, an additional 11,000, and possibly as many as 16,000 new jobs would be created over the next 12 months. And by the end of the decade, as many as 25,000 new jobs would be generated from ANS exports. Nearly all of those jobs would be created in two states that have yet to recover from the recession--California and Alaska. is that royalty revenue for the Federal government would increase, and tax and royalty revenues for Alaska and California would rise. DOE estimates that Federal receipts would increase from $99 million to $180 million, while Alaska royalties and severance income would increase from $700 million to $1.6 billion. For California's state government, returns from royalties and state and local taxes would add $180 million to $230 to the state's coffers. And three-fourths of these financial benefits could accrue in the next two years. Mr. President, I am fully aware of concerns in the domestic maritime community that if the ban is lifted, the American-flag merchant marine will suffer severe employment declines because all of the oil currently shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 is shipped on American flag tankers. We are sympathetic to this concern and recognize the importance of maintaining a strong American-flag merchant marine. It is for that reason that our legislation requires exported Alaskan oil to be transported on American flag tankers. It is my expectation that these U.S. flag tankers will also be constructed in the United States, but I have not included a U.S.-build requirement in the legislation because of concerns expressed by the President. Mr. President, the Department of Energy has long supported lifting the export ban. The President has expressed his support for the concept of allowing ANS exports. It is my hope that this year, the President will work with members on both sides of the aisle to finally end this economically irrational export ban. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.