Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the winter of 1973, when I was a commercial banker in Fairbanks, AK, pioneer Joe Redington, Sr., came into our offices with an interesting proposition. He was seeking a bank loan to start a sled dog race to commemorate the infamous diphtheria serum run that left Nenana in 1925 to deliver 20 pounds to serum to Nome to stop a deadly outbreak of the disease. Joe worked as a commercial fishermen and miner and had no collateral to speak of--and no real chance of getting the $50,000 loan. He couldn't accurately predict the costs of the race of forecast the sponsor interest, and he couldn't even guarantee that any mushers would reach the finish line in Nome. But Joe Redington had a dream. More importantly, Redington was a many you knew would accomplish anything he set his mind to. His infectious enthusiasm and ``can-do'' attitude prompted me to take a chance and make a loan to help fund the world's longest sled dog race--the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. Joe Redington got the loan and paid ti back. I do regret however, having to come to the Senate floor today to note the passing of Joe Redington, Sr., a true giant of Alaska, who died June 24, at age 82 at his home in Knik. Alaska. Redington's life is really a microcosm of Alaska's modern history. Born February 1, 1917, in rural Oklahoma, his family wandered the country looking for farm work until they settled in Bucks County, Pennsylvania in the late 1920s. In 1948 after a stint in World War II, Redington and wife, Vi, drove two Jeeps to Alaska and never looked back. During territorial days and the early years of statehood, Joe Redington helped turn dog mushing--then a transportation necessity in central and rural Alaska--into the state's official sport. Redington and his wife, Vi, were dedicated breeders for nearly four decades. Offspring of their dogs have filled many kennels in Alaska and the Lower 48 with racing pups. In 1967 he and the late Dorothy Page teamed to promote a Centennial Iditarod Sled Dog Race in honor of the 100th Anniversary of Alaska's purchase from Russia. The 56-mile race around the Big Lake--Wasilla area was a great success. The Centennial's success spurred the idea for the Iditarod. But Redington's Iditarod dream was realized when 34 mushers left Anchorage on March 3, 1973 for the inaugural Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. The 1,100-mile race took the adventurous mushers across some of the roughest terrain in Alaska. Twenty-two mushers crossed the finish line in Nome on April 3 with the top finishers sharing the $50,000 purse. In 1976, Redington's determination and dedication to the Iditarod race, led Congress to designate the Iditarod Trail as a National Historic Trail. The race has been run every March since 1973. Joe Redington Sr., at age 57, ran his first Iditarod in 1974 and ran in every race until 1992. At age 80, Redington ran in his 19th and final Iditarod in 1997 where he finished a very respectable 36th. His finish time was 13 days, 4 hours and 18 minutes--nearly 17 days faster than the winners time of the first Iditarod in 1973. While Redington never won the Iditarod, he did finished in fifth palace, four times--in 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1988. And he was among the top 10 finishers, seven times. Joe was remarkable off the race course, as well. At age 62 he scaled Alaska's Mount McKinley, keeping up with then 20-year-old musher, and four-time Iditarod champion, Susan Butcher. Redington made it to the peak of the 20,230 foot peak, a monumental task for a person of any age. After hearing of Redington passing, fellow musher DeeDee Jonrowe was quoted in the Fairbanks News Miner as saying, ``Joe never thought (anything) wasn't possible. If you had a dream, he was about making it happen for you. He wasn't about telling you the pitfalls.'' Joe Redington, Sr. was a good, kind and gentle soul. He was soft of voice, but had a big heart--he was a fitting recipient of the Alaskan of the Year Award in 1995. Joe came down with esophagus cancer in 1997, but until a month ago he was still planning to complete in the year 2000 Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. While Joe Redington, Sr, won't be racing in the 2000 Iditarod, his spirit surely will light the way to Nome for mushers each March. More importantly, his legacy of hard work and never giving up will be with all Alsakans as we continue our efforts to improve the land that we love. . . . The land of The Last Fontier.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. At the risk of understating the importance of this bill, what we have attempted to do is find a balance, develop a compromise; but each time we accommodate one group's special interest associated with this, there is a reaction from another group that perhaps gave us support and is concerned that we have gone too far in any one area. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my goal and objective in working with Senator Landrieu is to report a bill to the Senate floor. We must have a bipartisan bill. The bill is going to have to remedy the existing inequity in the distribution of OCS revenues. It is going to have to provide funds for State conservation programs. It is going to have to provide guarantees for a role of Congress in Federal land acquisition. In other words, Congress is going to have to have something to say about Federal land acquisition and purchases. Finally, it is going to have to assure westerners that there will be no gain of Federal land in their States--no gain of Federal land in the Western States. This isn't going to be easy, but I think, working with Senator Landrieu and others, it is going to be worth the effort. Therefore, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this exciting opportunity, this exciting legislation. Previously, all of the OCS revenue has gone into the general fund. Now we have an opportunity to address this with some meaningful legislation that involves the OCS impact assistance, land and water conservation fund amendments, and the wildlife conservation fund under a formula that has been agreed upon. I encourage my colleagues, in consideration of this language, to allow the local people to make the decision, not a disinterested bureaucracy, a Federal Government that dictates one size fits all. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, for her graciousness in allowing me this time and for her efforts to bring this before the body. I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, as well. I yield the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of my friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu, let me briefly comment on the status of the OCS revenuesharing legislation that we introduced some time ago. This is a significant addition to a much-needed reform and, as a consequence, it has been termed as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. The bill itself reinvests OCS revenues. When I say ``reinvests,'' I am specifically noting the reality associated from where this revenue comes. It comes from OCS activities of some States. It could include other States if indeed they wanted to have OCS activity exploration and production off of their individual shores. Some of the States have chosen not to. I appreciate and recognize their reluctance. But let's be realistic and recognize that in order to have a successful Conservation and Reinvestment Act, we have to have a continuation of OCS revenues occurring off the shores of some of our States--Louisiana, Mississippi, and other States. My State of Alaska has a very small OCS activity; most of our activities are on land. But it is interesting to note the breadth of support for this legislation, which is related, to some extent, to those States that see an opportunity to generate a source of revenue. That is fine. That is the way Senator Landrieu and I constructed the legislation. Make no mistake about it, in order for it to be successful, we have to have, and encourage, OCS revenuesharing, as we have off the coast of Texas, and other States that I could mention. This is a coastal impact assistance and State coastal program funding mechanism for the land and water conservation fund, including fulfilling a long-delayed promise of support for State, local, and urban park and recreation facilities, as well as State wildlife programs. We have tried to cover a broad area of need, and I commend the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for her extraordinary ability to encompass, if you will, the various broad interest groups. S. 25 gives States and local governments--and this is important--not the Federal Government, the responsibility for determining the conservation needs of their citizens and provides funding to help meet those needs. Now, that is where we have a difference with the administration. The administration proposes that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make these decisions, and we say no. There are some other bills floating around that also propose to give the Federal Government the authority. We think responsible citizens know what their needs are, and these funds should be provided so they can make the decisions to help meet those needs, not a one-size-fits-all Federal Government. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the significance that the local people at the local level know what their needs are. A number of bills spending OCS revenues, and the administration's bill, which has been put forth, identifies the Lands Legacy Initiative. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair and Senator Landrieu is a member of, has had a series of hearings on all these proposals. We have learned about the need for coastal impact assistance. We are aware of the unavoidable social and environmental impacts on States that host OCS development. The State of Louisiana, for example, and the State of Texas, host, if you will, the impact because the activity is off their shores. It is an unavoidable social environmental impact, so they should receive additional consideration. Coastal impact assistance helps mitigate these burdens, even in States that prohibit oil and gas activity off their coast, such as the State of Florida, where there is a unique coastal and marine need associated with their set of priorities. We appreciate that and understand that. We have also learned about the widespread support in this country for State park, recreation and wildlife programs from the hearings. We have heard from the mayors, Governors, easterners, residents of the Great Plains, soccer coaches, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers. As evidenced by the witnesses we have heard in the hearings and the hundreds of letters the committee has received, we understand that Americans want meaningful conservation legislation. That is what we have attempted to do. But don't forget from where it comes. It comes from OCS oil and gas activity. We have to have a continuation of support for those States that foster and recognize the contribution of OCS activities. But those States have to be recognized for the impact, and they have to share in this as well. Now, their concerns have been expressed. We have had bills to provide money for Federal land acquisition. This may sound great to the Eastern States, where there is no public land. But for those of us out West, it is a little difficult to suggest that we are going to fund Federal land acquisition when many of us out West think the Federal Government owns enough of the land out there. If they want to fund the Eastern States, why, that is something different. This is a problem that has to be rectified. Residents of States with significant Federal land are worried that these bills will lead to a massive Federal land grab. The Federal Government owns about 70 percent of my State of Alaska. I can understand the fears. Fortunately, when Texas came into the Union, they made sure the Federal Government didn't own any. If we had it to do over again, I can assure you we would do it differently. Nevertheless, when we talk about the bill providing money for Federal land acquisition, the people in my State of Alaska, and in many of the Western States--to suggest that they would become unglued is an understatement. They fear this legislation will result in a Federal land acquisition grab, not where it is needed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 2 minutes to finish.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Domenici. Yesterday we had an opportunity to discuss the pending amendment at some length. I think I spoke for some 45 minutes, so I will not repeat what I said yesterday, but I am going to focus in on why we need this amendment. This whole issue associated with the lack of security in our labs has received a lot of attention over the last several months. My committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has held nine hearings. We had the pleasure of getting together with four other committees--the Government Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, joining with the Energy Committee--and it was the first time we had ever assembled four committees together. We had over 30 Senators present. So there has been a good deal of time, effort, and examination on this matter. I am very pleased to join Senator Domenici, Senator Kyl, and a number of other cosponsors, including Senators Kerrey, Lott, Feinstein, Smith, Gregg, Hutchinson, Shelby, Warner, Bunning, Helms, Fitzgerald, Specter, Thompson, and others in bringing this matter before the Senate. We need this amendment because time is passing. This report, the Rudman report, entitled ``Science At Its Best, Security At Its Worst,'' in effect says it all. This was the expert panel authorized by the President, a special investigative panel of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board headed by former Senator Rudman. Again, the emphasis is on the title, recognizing that science has contributed probably the best in the world at the labs, but security at its worst. Now, why do we need this amendment? Why do we need it now? I will be very brief. I am going to give you a few quotes from the Rudman report. Organizational disarray, managerial neglect and a culture of arrogance, both at the Department of Energy headquarters and the labs themselves, conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting to happen. Further from the report: The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. Further: Accountability at the Department of Energy labs has been spread so thinly and erratically that it is now almost impossible to find. That is the key word--``accountability.'' We had no accountability, as we look back on the espionage charges associated with the alleged Wen Ho Lee affair, no accountability. There it is. Further, I quote: Never have the members of the special investigative panel witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with cynicism and disregard for authority. Further, I quote: Never before has this panel found such a cavalier attitude toward one of the most serious responsibilities in the Federal Government: control of the design information relating to nuclear weapons. Further, I quote: Never before has the panel found an agency with the bureaucratic insolence to disrupt, delay and resist implementation of a presidential directive on security. These are but a few of the quotes from the Rudman report. These few quotes and the full report itself speak eloquently about the need for this amendment, the justification for this amendment. While considering whether to vote for or against this amendment and the motion to invoke cloture, there is really only one relevant question: Do you want to put an end to lax management practices at the Department of Energy that have contributed to the poor security? In other words, do you want to fix it? Or do you want to do everything you can to prevent espionage from occurring again, further damaging national security? I urge Members to vote for cloture. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from ``Science at its Best; Security at its Worst'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I also rise to urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge the Committee on Finance from further consideration of the resolution disapproving the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver authority for normal trade relations with China. Beyond the procedural problems my colleagues outlined regarding taking up this measure today, there are clear and crucial reasons to oppose this motion because the underlying disapproval resolution should also be opposed on its merits. Let me state that I agree with my colleague on the goals he seeks to achieve by pursuing this motion, but I disagree with his methods. I too am concerned about the recent espionage reports and the implications for our national security. I too am concerned about China's destabilizing weapons sales. I too want China to resolve peacefully her territorial disagreements in the South China Sea. I too want China to lower barriers to U.S. exports and to reduce her trade surplus with the United States. I too want China to end her military threats against Taiwan and to resolve peacefully her differences with Taipei. And I too want China to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. But I do not believe that withdrawing normal trade relations status will force China to satisfy any of our objectives. Indeed, sanctioning China by withdrawing NTR runs the risk of making that country more belligerent and less cooperative on these and other issues. Moreover, revoking NTR would be contrary to American interests and the interests of the American people. Experience shows that unilateral trade sanctions generally don't work. The chances of success only improve when sanctions are applied in cooperation with our major allies. However, not one of these allies is even debating whether to withdraw NTR status from China. Let's be clear on this point. If we revoke NTR status for China, Beijing would certainly be hurt, but so too would the United States. As a result of withdrawing NTR, U.S. duties on goods imported from China would immediately rise to the tariff rates established under the highly protectionist, depression-era Smoot-Hawley tariff law. Because NTR is provided on a reciprocal basis, China would respond to higher tariffs on her goods by slapping higher tariffs on U.S. goods. Such a move will slam the door shut on U.S. exports to the Chinese market--the fastest-growing market in the world for the highly competitive American aircraft, telecommunications, and automotive equipment industries. These export opportunities will go instead to the Europeans, the Japanese, the Canadians and firms from all the other countries in the world which continue normal commercial relations with China. In addition to severely damaging U.S. exporters, the small and large American firms that have invested billions of dollars to penetrate the Chinese market would see their efforts and investments jeopardized. The economic fallout from withdrawing China's NTR status is not only going to hit American companies, but also American consumers. Our lowest income citizens, in particular, would suffer from the dramatically higher prices they will have to pay for a variety of basic goods as a direct result of the imposition of substantially higher duties on Chinese imports. There are those who claim that pricing Chinese goods out of our market through higher duties would be beneficial because the products we now import from China would be produced in the United States. But any business person will tell you the truth is that in almost all cases imports from China will be replaced not by American products but rather imports from other developing countries. We must also recognize that cutting ourselves off from China by withdrawing NTR will severely limit our ability influence developments in China, including how China treat its citizens and whether it permits the development of a freer society. Mr. President, it is also important to recognize that the United States already has specific, measured and targeted tools at our disposal that allow us to address problems with China without resorting to the indiscriminate and destructive approach of revoking NTR. For example, we can adopt the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment to reorganize the Department of Energy to prevent further losses at our national weapons laboratories. We can involve targeted Section 301 sanctions for discrete discriminatory and unreasonable Chinese trade practices. We can continue to expose and condemn China's repressive human rights record in this Chamber and in organizations around the world. We can counter China's threats to Taiwan by considering sales of upgraded defensive weaponry to Taipei, as well as by reaffirming our unwavering commitment to a peaceful resolution of the dispute between Taiwan and China in the context of our one China policy. We can rely on international law and the shared interests of the countries of Southeast Asia to counter aggressive Chinese territorial claims. I want to note here, moreover, that neither the Taiwanese--who are never shy about voicing their opinions to Members of Congress--nor the countries of ASEAN which have territorial disputes with China, support the United States revoking NTR for China. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that revoking NTR would not advance the goals for China which I share with my colleague, and will likely worsen our problems with China. And it would put at risk hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars worth of American exports and investments. With so much to lose and nothing gained, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge the Committee on Finance from further consideration of the resolution disapproving the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. The chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Roth, has explained why this is a premature and unnecessary motion because the underlying resolution is privileged, and if the House passes either resolution, then the full Senate would be required to take up the resolution. It is expected that the full House will vote on the measure soon. So let's keep our attention on the very important and timely legislation currently being considered by the Senate. But I also want to stress that even if this were the right time to consider the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the Senate should not adopt a resolution of disapproval. Although it is often forgotten in the debate over normal trade relations, the Jackson-Vanik waiver's chief objective is promoting freedom of emigration. The President extended Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver because he determined that doing so would substantially promote greater freedom of emigration in the future in Vietnam. I support this determination because of Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and on Vietnam's continued and intensified cooperation on U.S. refugee programs. According to testimony by the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, Vietnam's emigration policy has opened considerably in the last decade and a half. As a consequence, over 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program, and only a small number of refugee applications remain. So on the merits, the waiver is justified. But I also believe that since it was first granted in March 1998, the Jackson-Vanik waiver has been an essential component of our policy of engagement and has directly furthered progress with Vietnam on furthering U.S. policy goals. Goals which include, first and foremost, accounting for the missing from the Vietnam war--our MIAs, promoting regional stability, improving respect for human rights, and opening markets for U.S. business. I support the President's decision because I continue to believe, and the evidence supports, that increased access to Vietnam leads to increase progress on the accounting issue. Resolvin the fate of our MIAs has been, and will remain, the highest priority for our government. This nation owes that to the men and the families of the men that made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and for freedom. In pursuit of that goal, I have traveled to Vietnam three times and I held over 40 hours of hearings on the issue in 1986 as chairman of the Veterans' Committee. The comparison between the situation in 1986 and today is dramatic. In 1986, I was appalled to learn that we had no first hand information about the fate of POW/MIAs because we had no access to the Vietnamese government or to its military archives or prisons. We could not travel to crash sites. We had no opportunity to interview Vietnamese individuals or officials. In 1993, opponents of ending our isolationist policy argued that lifting the trade embargo would mean an end to Vietnamese cooperation. This is distinctly not the case. American Joint Task Force--Full Accounting (JTF-FA) personnel located in Hanoi have access to Vietnam's government and to its military archives and prisons. They freely travel to crash sites and interview Vietnamese citizens and officials. During the post-embargo period, the Vietnam Government cooperated on other issues as well, including resolving millions of dollars in diplomatic property and private claims of Americans who lost property at the end of the war. The Jackson-Vanik waiver has helped the U.S. government influence Vietnam's progress toward an open, market-oriented economy. It has also benefited U.S. companies by making available a number of U.S. Government trade promotion and investment support programs that enhance their ability to compete in this potentially important market. And I hope that soon our trade negotiators will be able to complete a sound, commercially viable trade agreement with Vietnam that will further expand market opportunities for American companies. Before I close, let me urge my colleagues who may be unsure about their vote to consult with the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. Ambassador Peterson, a Vietnam veteran who himself was a prisoner of war, and who also served in the House of Representatives, has been a tireless advocate of U.S. interests in Vietnam. With his background and experience, his counsel should be trusted. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise in support of the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski- Kerrey amendment. I will first identify the need for the amendment. What we found in this issue concerning the Department of Energy is lack of accountability. What this amendment will do, in a nutshell, is to create a single agency in the Department of Energy, an Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, that will undertake all activities of our nuclear weapons laboratories programs, including the nuclear weapons laboratories themselves. It puts one person in charge, and that will be the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship. That is the person in charge of and responsible for all aspects of the new Agency for Nuclear Stewardship. It creates a clear chain of command, a new Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship solely and directly reporting to the Secretary of Energy. Why do we need this? I believe all my colleagues will agree that the Department of Energy, as far as its security arrangements are concerned, is badly broken. To suggest that we should take time to evaluate at greater length when we have in the report of the investigative panel, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board--a report which I have before me entitled ``Science At Its Best, Security At Its Worst.'' I am very proud of the role of the laboratories as far as science is concerned, but what we have is a severe breach of our national security. In summary, the amendment would create a new agency within the Department of Energy called the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship. The Agency for Nuclear Stewardship would be semiautonomous because it would be responsible for all of its activities. It provides that the Secretary of Energy shall be responsible for all policies of the agency; that the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, headed by the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship, would be just that, responsible, again, to the Secretary of Energy. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship shall report solely and directly to the Secretary; and that individual shall be subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary. Make no mistake about it, the chain of command is to the Secretary of Energy. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will have authority over all programs at the Department of Energy related to nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and fissile material disposition. The agency's semiautonomy, as recommended by the Rudman report, is created by making all employees of the agency accountable to the Secretary and Under Secretary of Energy but not to other officials of the Department of Energy outside the agency. Specifically, the language reads: All personnel of the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, in carrying out any function of the agency, shall be responsible to and subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary and the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship, or his designee within the agency, and shall not be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of any other officer, employee or agent of any other part of the Department of Energy. The Secretary, however, may direct other officials, other departments who are not within the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, to review the agency's programs and to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the administration of such programs, including consistency with other similar programs and activities in the Department. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will have three deputy directors who will manage programs in the following areas: First, Defense programs; that is, the lab directors and the heads of the production and test sites will report directly to this person; second, the nonproliferation and fissile materials disposition; and third, the naval reactors. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will appoint chiefs of-- and they are as follows--first, counterintelligence--this must be a senior FBI executive whose selection must be approved by the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation-- second, is security; and third is intelligence. These three chiefs shall report to the Under Secretary and shall have, statutorily provided, direct access to the Secretary and all other officials of the Department and its contractors concerning these matters. It requires the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to report annually to the Congress regarding the status and effectiveness of security and counterintelligence programs at the nuclear weapons facilities and laboratories, the adequacy of the Department of Energy procedures and policy for protecting national security information, and whether each DOE National Laboratory and nuclear weapons production test site is in full compliance with all departmental security requirements, and, if not, what measures are being taken to bring the lab into compliance--security violators at the nuclear weapons facilities and laboratories, foreign visitors at the nuclear weapons facilities and laboratories. In other words, what we have is a complete listing of requirements for the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to report annually to the Congress. So not only will he report to the Secretary but he will report to the Congress. It requires the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to keep the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed regarding losses of national security information and requires every employee of the Department of Energy, the National Laboratories, or associated contractors to alert the Under Secretary whenever they believe there is a threat to or a loss of national security information. In order to address concerns that Department of Energy officials were blocked from notifying Congress of security and counterintelligence breaches, the amendment contains a provision stating that the Under Secretary shall not be required to obtain the approval of any DOE official except the Secretary before delivering these reports to the Congress and, likewise, prohibits any other Department or agency from interfering. As we look over the history of the debacle associated with the breach of our national security regarding the laboratories, clearly, we have case after case, as we look to the former Secretaries, where there was a lack of an effective transfer of information, transfer of security matters, and just the transfer of everyday activities associated with responsibility and accountability. The system failed. The system failed because various people did not have access to the Secretary who were in charge of responsible security areas that mandated that they have such access in order to complete the communication within the chain of command. As a consequence, I support this amendment. We need this amendment to protect the national security. We need it to keep our nuclear weapons secrets from falling into the wrong hands. We have already suffered a major loss of our nuclear weapons secrets. According to the House Select Committee, the Cox report, the Chinese have stolen design information on all of the United States' most advanced nuclear weapons. This is simply unacceptable. The question we now face is: Will we lose more national security information if we do not take action? The answer is: Certainly that we stand greater exposure. The problem is the management of the Department of Energy. The problem is lack of accountability and lack of responsibility. Let me quote from the report of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Rudman report. Again, I refer to this report, ``Science at its Best, Security at its Worst.'' Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting to happen. This is in the report itself. Further: The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. Right out of this report. I quote further: Accountability at the Department of Energy has been spread so thinly and erratically that it is now almost impossible to find. Right out of the report. Further: Never have the members of the Special Investigative Panel witnessed a bureaucratic culture so thoroughly saturated with cynicism and disregard for authority. Further quote: Never before has this panel found such a cavalier attitude toward one of the most serious responsibilities in the federal government--control of the design information relating to nuclear weapons. Further: Never before has the panel found an agency with the bureaucratic insolence to dispute, delay, and resist implementation of a Presidential directive on security. If that isn't evidence enough that the security is at its worst, I do not know what other points to make. To date, the only DOE people who have been removed from their jobs as a consequence of the question of who is accountable are: Wen Ho Lee, who is alleged to have engaged in espionage at Los Alamos, is yet to be even charged with anything--not everyone a security violation; a gentleman by the name of Notra Trulock, the person who uncovered the alleged espionage and pushed perhaps too hard to stop it--which I might add, the Department of Energy felt a little uncomfortable with. He was shuffled off to a sideline position in the Department of Energy because he was too aggressive in bringing this matter to light. A gentleman by the name of Vic Reis, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Defense Programs, has, I understand, resigned because he disagrees with the officials down there and happens to support the pending amendment, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment. Not a single high-level bureaucrat at the Department of Energy, the FBI, or the Justice Department has been removed, demoted, or disciplined over this massive failure. One has to wonder with all the talent associated with these agencies who bears the responsibility for failure in this case? The questions we must answer are certainly clear: How long are we willing to put up with this? Do we want to continue with the status quo? Our proposal is pending the cloture vote tomorrow. Those that are in opposition--who feel perhaps a bit uncomfortable with this--do they have a proposal to fix it? Clearly, they don't. We want to fix the problem. For reasons that I fail to understand, the administration is very reluctant to address this problem with a strong proposal for identifying accountability in the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, Secretary Richardson is opposed to our amendment as it stands. When it came up the last time on the defense bill, Secretary Richardson sent two letters threatening a veto by the President. Why doesn't the administration want to do anything significant to correct this problem? They seem to be willing only to rearrange the deck chairs, so to speak. They seem to be willing to make changes, but only those that ultimately result in the status quo. We want to steer the ship in a different direction so that it won't hit another iceberg. This Nation should not have to suffer from another massive loss of our most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. The President's own intelligence advisory board agrees with our legislative solution. That is what the Rudman report said. Our amendment is patterned after the Rudman report. Let me again quote from this report: The panel is convinced that real and lasting security and counterintelligence reform at the weapons labs is simply unworkable within the Department of Energy's current structure and culture. Further, to achieve the kind of protection that these sensitive labs must have, they and their functions must have their own autonomous operational structure, free of all of the other obligations imposed by the Department of Energy management. Well, today we have a situation where everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else. No one wants to take the responsibility. No one wants to be held accountable. Fundamentally, the issue is how to create accountability and responsibility at the Department of Energy. I encourage my colleagues to examine our amendment because that is just what it does. It creates accountability. It creates responsibility. No longer can we have a situation such as we have seen within the Department, where it is impossible to determine who bears the responsibility for the Wen Ho Lee breach of security. It creates accountability and responsibility by establishing a new Agency for Nuclear Stewardship inside of the Department of Energy to be headed up by a new Under Secretary of Energy. This new agency is now made responsible for all aspects of our nuclear weapons programs, including the previously loosely-managed laboratories. If there is a problem in the future, we will know who to point the finger at, who to hold responsible, a single agency with a single person heading it and in charge of all aspects of nuclear weapons programs. Our amendment also requires the new Under Secretary to report to the FBI and Congress all threats to our national security. No longer will we be kept in the dark, having to pretty much depend on the New York Times to find out what is going on. The Secretary of Energy is uncomfortable with this reorganization. Evidently, his idea is to rely on the same old management team, everyone in charge but no one responsible, no clear identifiable accountability. In conclusion, let me quote the testimony of Mr. Vic Reis. This came up late last week. Mr. Reis is the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs. He testified before the Energy Committee last week. I might add, Mr. Reis' responsibility in the line of command is that the lab directors report directly to Mr. Reis. Mr. Reis said: You may recall at previous hearings, Mr. Chairman, you noticed me in the audience and you asked for my opinion as to who or what was to blame for the security issues at the national laboratories. I responded that I didn't think you would find any one individual but that there were organizational structures of the Department of Energy that were so flawed that security lapses are almost inevitable. Now, this is the gentleman to whom heads of the labs report. He says that you can't find any individual to blame. The organizational structure was so flawed that security lapses were inevitable. Then Mr. Reis went on to say: The root cause of the difficulties at the Department of Energy is simply that the Department of Energy has too many disparate missions to be managed effectively as a cohesive organization. The price of gasoline, refrigerant standards, Quarks, nuclear cleanup and nuclear weapons just don't come together naturally. Because of all this multi-layered crosscutting, there is no one accountable for the operation of any part of the organization except the Secretary, and no Secretary has the time to lead the whole thing effectively. By setting up a semi-autonomous agency, many of these problems will go away. Madam President, in short, if you want espionage to continue at the laboratories and maintain the environment where it can occur, then stick with the present system. But if you, like me, want to stop this atmosphere where espionage can flourish, I think you should vote for the motion and invoke cloture for the amendment. What we have here is a situation where I think it is appropriate that we identify where the differences are between the Secretary, Senator Kyl, Senator Domenici, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Murkowski and in our amendment. What we do is we create a single semiautonomous agency, as I have indicated, that reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. The new Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship will be responsible for both setting policy and implementation of policy, subject to the overall supervision and direct control of the Secretary of Energy. I want to make that clear: Subject to the overall supervision and direct control of the Secretary of Energy. Evidently, that is not what the Secretary wants. The Secretary is willing to allow the new Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship to implement policy but not set policy. There is a big difference, implementing and setting. More significantly, the Secretary wants to allow any part of the Department of Energy to set the policies that the new Under Secretary would have to follow. So somebody else is setting it. The Secretary's proposal would violate our fundamental concept; that is, clear and identifiable lines of authority and responsibility--in other words, a direct chain of command. We have been discussing our differences, but so far we seem to be unable to resolve them. There is one other thing I will mention that was said the other day that relates to this matter under discussion. Two current nuclear weapons lab directors and one former lab director said at a hearing that while they could report their problems and issues to Mr. Reis, who is their supervisor, that Mr. Reis has no clear line of authority to pass those up through the chain of command to the Secretary. So here we have it. This substantiates the justification for our amendment. Here is the gentleman who is responsible to have the input from the lab directors report to him, the three labs, Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos. But the gentleman in charge, Mr. Reis, under the current structure and chain of command within the Department of Energy, has no clear line of authority to pass those recommendations, those matters, up through the chain of command to the Secretary. So here you have the person that is responsible to get the information from the lab directors, but there is no provision, no requirement, no line of command up to the Secretary so that policy matters can be addressed. That one observation with these three lab directors illustrates the problem we are trying to fix with this legislation. As it stands today, there is no chain or lines of authority and responsibility. Right now, everybody is in charge, but nobody is responsible. I guess it is fair to say there are several missing links, if you will, in the DOE chain of command and authority. The purpose of the amendment is to fix that problem. I often think back to military concept and a ship at sea. Someone is in charge of the CON--in other words, the ship is under the direction of the officer in charge, and he has the CON. There is no question of where the responsibility sets. If he is relieved, the command of the ship is taken over and that person accepts the responsibility. In the DOE, we don't have those clear lines of authority, and that is the justification for the amendment pending before this body today. Is this thing broke to the point where it mandates that the Senate take action? I think it is fair to say that the answer is clearly yes. The ineptness, the bungling, the pure mismanagement at all levels are things that have occurred within this agency. The Department of Energy never took the most basic precautions to guard against the theft of the nuclear secrets. The FBI conducted feeble investigations. The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Reno, virtually ignored requests for warrants to search Wen Ho Lee's computers. What we have here are the results of one of the worst cases in the history of this Nation of our national security being jeopardized. I have held about 9 hearings as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on these matters, and three important discoveries were made by my committee. First, the Department of Energy and the FBI bungled the computer waiver issue. I have a chart here. The lab directors, the attorneys, and directors of counterintelligence all agree that the DOE had the authority to search Lee's computer because he signed a waiver. Well, this is the waiver. This is a copy of the waiver that actually Wen Ho Lee signed, dated April 19, 1995: Warning: To protect the LAN system from unauthorized use and to ensure that the systems are functioning properly, activities on these systems are monitored and recorded and subject to audit. Use of these systems is expressed consent to such monitoring and recording. Any unauthorized access or use of this LAN is prohibited and could be subject to criminal and civil penalties. Here is the part Wen Ho Lee signed: I understand and agree to follow these rules in my use of the ENCHANTED LAN. I assume full responsibility for the security of my workstation. I understand that violations may be reported to my supervisor or FSS-14, that I may be denied access to the LAN, and that I may receive a security infraction for a violation of these rules. Now, the issue here is that the FBI claimed that the Department of Energy told him there was no waiver; no such waiver existed. The FBI wrongly assumed, then, that they needed a warrant to search. What is the result of this inept communication? Well, Lee's computer could have been searched, but instead was not searched for some three years. When the computer was finally searched, they discovered evidence that Wen Ho Lee had downloaded legacy codes to an unclassified computer. The fundamental problem is that nobody was looking at the big picture. Surely, protecting nuclear secrets and national security outweighs the feeble attempts that were made to get a possible conviction. What we have here is, one, the Department of Energy did not know that Wen Ho Lee had signed a waiver. They could not find it in his personnel file because the file had been mislaid. Had they known that, as I indicated earlier, they could have monitored his computer. Instead, the FBI said, no, they were doing an investigation, and since they didn't have a waiver, his computer was not monitored by the Department of Energy. Yet, they found later that the waiver existed, as evidenced by the poster I just showed in evidence. The FBI and the Department of Justice next bungled the counterintelligence warrant or the FISA, as evidenced by chart 2. The FBI, not once or twice, but three times requested warrants from the DOE. This is chart 2. This is the FISA report. Department of Energy, FBI, Department of Justice, and the FISA warrant, approved or rejected. Notra Trulock briefs the FBI. An FBI request was made by John Lewis, then assistant director of the FBI National Security Division. An FBI request was made to Gerald Schroeder, Acting Director, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. It was rejected. Here is the rejection. Here is the sequence of events. The first time we had the sequence of the DOE, FBI, and Department of Justice proceeding to authorize the FISA warrant to investigate the alleged counterintelligence and espionage charges alleged against Wen Ho Lee. The second time, Notra Trulock and others continued to prod FBI's investigation of Wen Ho Lee. FBI request made to John Lewis, then Assistant Director of the FBI National Security Division. FBI request made to Gerald Schroeder. Again, it was rejected. The second time it was rejected by the Department of Justice. Now, then the last time, Mr. Lewis, who is up there in the hierarchy, Assistant Director of the FBI, National Security Division, feels so frustrated that he makes a personal plea to Attorney General Janet Reno. Again, Notra Trulock and others continue to prod the FBI. John Lewis makes a personal request to the Attorney General because he feels so strongly that there is justification to authorize this investigation. But the personal appeal falls on deaf ears. Why was it rejected? What happened? We don't know. Nothing happened. But we do know that the Attorney General ignored two pleas for help. Notra Trulock, then DOE Director of Intelligence, personally briefed Janet Reno in ``great detail'' about the Lee case in August of 1997. John Lewis, FBI Director of Intelligence, also indicated he personally pled to Janet Reno to approve the FBI's request for a warrant to search Lee in August of 1997. Why did Attorney General Janet Reno ignore pleas from two top national security advisers? We don't know. We don't know because there is a great reluctance to provide the committees of jurisdiction with that information. I am personally disappointed in the FBI and the Department of Justice's refusal to testify publicly. Probably 90 percent of what has been found in closed sessions is not really classified, in my opinion. What we are looking for here is accountability. We in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee intend to continue to identify those persons whose inaction has led to one of the most potentially catastrophic losses in our national security history. Now we have a situation where they seem to want to hide behind the smokescreen of ``national security'' or to finger-point and say it is not our responsibility. That is simply an unconscionable set of circumstances. Finally, as we address a couple of other points that may come up in the debate which I think deserve consideration, why create one semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy? We are creating a hybrid that has no other identifiable comparison. Let me put that myth to rest. There are other semiautonomous agencies that function extremely well. That is what we are proposing with the amendment which has been laid down. Let's look at three of those semiautonomous agencies. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, is a separate agency within the Department of Defense under a director appointed by the Secretary of Defense. It works. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the largest bureau within the Department of Commerce. It is a semiautonomous agency. It works. NSA, the National Security Agency, was established by Presidential directive as a separate department organized as an agency within the Department of Defense. It was structured in that manner and form because it was necessary that there be accountability and responsibility within the National Security Agency. It is a semiautonomous agency. I encourage my colleagues as we proceed to vote tomorrow--my understanding is that we are going to have one hour of debate equally divided on the cloture motion on the amendment--to recognize that the time to address this is now, that the responsibility clearly is within this body, and that the amendment we offered identifies the one thing that was lacking as we look at how this set of security breaches could have occurred, and that is, it addresses accountability and responsibility. For those who feel uncomfortable, I encourage them to recognize that they have a responsibility of coming up with something that will work. We think that the amendment pending, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski-Kerrey amendment--I understand that Senators Thompson, Specter, Gregg, Hutchinson, Shelby, Warner, Bunning, Helms, Fitzgerald, Lott, Kerry, Feinstein, and Bob Smith are a few of the other Members of the Senate who are cosponsoring this amendment. It is a responsible amendment. Let's get on with the job. Let's put this issue in the restructured form that provides for accountability and responsibility, and move on. The American people and the taxpayers certainly deserve prompt action by this body. We have that obligation. The time is on the vote tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I see no other Senator wishing time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provision of S. Res. 157, following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the recess there be 40 minutes of morning business equally divided between Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. Pursuant to rule XXII, that cloture vote will occur at 10:30 tomorrow morning. Following the vote, Senator Smith of New Hampshire will be recognized to make a motion to discharge from the Finance Committee S.J. Res. 28 regarding the trade status with Vietnam. Therefore, Senators can expect an additional vote prior to the weekly party conference meetings. By previous consent, Senator Smith will again be recognized at 2:15 to offer a second motion to discharge from the Finance Committee S.J. Res. 27 regarding trade status with China. There will be 1 hour of debate on the motion with a vote occurring at approximately 3:15 p.m. Senators may also expect further action on the intelligence authorization bill or any appropriations bills on the calendar during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the cloture vote at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, notwithstanding rule XXII, Senator Smith of New Hampshire be recognized to make a debatable motion to discharge the Finance Committee of the Senate Joint Resolution 28 regarding trade status with Vietnam. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided, as provided by the statute, on the motion, and following that time the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the motion to discharge, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, therefore, for the information of all Senators, there will be two rollcall votes prior to the weekly party caucuses on Tuesday, July 20. The first vote will occur at 10:30 a.m. and the next at approximately 12 noon. A third scheduled vote will occur at approximately 3:15 regarding the trade status with China.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the reconvening of the Senate at 2:15, Senator Bob Smith be immediately recognized to offer a second motion to discharge the Finance Committee of S.J. Res. 27 regarding trade status with China and that there then begin 1 hour of debate equally divided as provided by the statute, and the vote occur on or in relation to the motion at the conclusion or yielding back of time, notwithstanding rule XXII or the outcome of the first motion to discharge.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 157, submitted earlier today by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1052, To implement further the Act (Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes'', has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 9:30 A.M., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., and is now scheduled to take place on Tuesday, August 3, 1999, at 9:30 A.M., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Jim Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the informaiton of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 22, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Curt Hebert to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Earl E. DeVaney to be Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. For further information, please contact David Dye of the Committee staff. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleagues in the important debate on ensuring the health care rights of patients across America. Our nation has the best health care in the world, yet there is a growing concern over changes in how most Americans receive health care. Individuals once accustomed to choosing a doctor and paying for medical treatment are now thrown into managed care systems or HMOs. Too often for the patient, HMO rules, restrictions and concern for profit seem of more consequence than providing quality health care. The Republican plan, called Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, is a direct response to patient concerns. In a nutshell, the Republican bill guarantees affordable, quality health care and provides access to the best doctors and specialists available. The Republican bill will protect the unprotected by establishing a Bill of Rights for patients whose plans are not already regulated by existing consumer protection laws. Under our bill, patients will have the right to talk openly and freely with their doctor about all treatment options; the right to coverage for emergency care; and the right to see the doctor of their choice. It will make health insurance more affordable and accessible by accelerating full tax deductibility of health premiums for the self employed; and expanding the Medical Savings Account pilot program to all of America. It will empower patients by providing a timely and inexpensive appeals procedure for all patients who are denied coverage by an HMO. Why is the Republican plan a better alternative? The Democrat bill, called ``The Patients Bill of Rights Act,'' may have a similar title to the Republican bill, but the two bills represent entirely different approaches to the role of government in health care: The Democrat bill encourages litigation. Our plan insures patients will get the care they need, not a trial lawyer knocking at their door. It creates a fair and efficient process to resolve disputes with HMOs. The Democrat plan, will enhance lawsuits, not the delivery of health care. Mr. President, health care cannot be improved through the court system. The Democrat plan creates massive Federal bureaucracy. The Democrat plan regulates all health insurance at the federal level--thereby pre- empting state laws. The Democrat plan is a litany of federal mandates on private health insurance. It's one step closer to a federal take- over of America's health care system. The Democrat plan is a ``one-size-fits-all plan.'' The Democrat bill squeezes patients into a one-size-fits-all health plan. The Democrat plan puts one of the most ineffective agencies, the Health Care Financing Administration, in charge of it all! Maybe that works in Massachusetts, but it won't work in my State of Alaska. Let me explain. The Federal Intrusion in Alaska doesn't work. Mr. President, a one- size-fits-all'' approach doesn't fit Alaska's health care needs. Let me tell you the facts: Alaska contains the most rural, remote areas in the nation; Alaska is 74 percent medically underserved; and most importantly; Alaska is a state in which the Federal Government, and in particular, the Health Care Financing Administration, just doesn't understand. Let me tell you about three health care problems in Alaska that were exacerbated by Federal intrusion: Federal intervention threatens to destroy Alaska's Rural Physician Residency Program. Alaska's rural health care problems are tough. Physician turn-over rate is high. At Bethel Hospital, 4 of the 16 primary care physicians on staff leave every year. Many villages populated by 25-1,000 individuals never even have access to physicians. The result is that bush Alaska has the highest rates of preventable diseases in America. Doctor Harold Johnson, head physician of the Alaska Family Residency Program described the physician needs of Alaska as follows: The history of physician turnover, isolation and general burn-out had been continuing in bush Alaska settings without any sign of improvement for the last 45 years. The Alaska Family Practice residency is a vital program designed to train a workforce to handle bush Alaska's harsh conditions, isolation and unique culture. I worked to protect that residency program with specific language in the Balanced Budget Act, but still this important program is threatened. Why? Because the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) improperly interpreted my language, thereby preventing our doctors from training in rural Alaska and other rural areas across the nation. Senator Collins and I had to introduce legislation to stop HCFA from harming these rural programs. It's this agency, HCFA, that Democrats now ask to run health care for most of America. HCFA ignores Alaska's Medicare access problems. Access to health care is the over-riding problem for Alaska's elderly. Fourteen of nineteen primary care physicians in a major hospital in Anchorage will no longer accept Medicare patients. Why? Because doctors in rural areas lose money on Medicare patients in rural areas. I have stated my concern over and over to the Health Care Financing Administration, but was ignored. As a matter of fact, the Administrator of the agency testified before the Finance Committee on February 26, 1998 that her agency has found ``no overall problem with access to care'' anywhere in the nation. Why is HCFA ignoring rural America? I have been working with her agency for the past year to educate them--and have even brought representatives up to Alaska. But the problem persists. Once again I stress that HCFA is not the agency to run all of America's health care. HCFA's approach of a one-size-fits all'' solution never seems to consider rural America. And, lastly, Health care access is denied to King Cove, Alaska. This debate is about ``patients rights''--about the rights of American citizens to have certain guarantees when they need medical attention. But when I think of King Cove, Alaska, I can't help but note a certain level of hypocracy by the party on the other side of the aisle. It was one of the last votes Congress cast last year, ``The King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1998''--here's the background. King Cove is located in the westermost part of Alaska and is accessible only by sea or air. Air traffic is often completely stopped due to a combination of prevailing northernly winds, heavy snows, strong crosswinds and turbulence. Since 1981, there have been 11 air crash fatalities and countless other air crashes and injuries from the King Cove airport. One fatal accident involved a medivac flight headed for Anchorage. The people of King Cove came to Congress to ask for access to health care--to ask for permission to build a small gravel road to a nearby, 24-hour, ``all-weather capability'' airport in the town of Cold Bay. Permission from Congress was needed because the Department of Interior prevented the gravel road from crossing a mere seven miles of federal property. I am not talking about the ability for a King Cove resident to get an M.R.I., or the ability to choose their own specialist. I am talking about the most basic of all health care rights--access--the ability to simply get to a hospital. My bill to allow that access was vigorously opposed by the Democrats. And President Clinton threatened a veto. Why? Because a big ``one-size- fits-all'' federal law prevented a 7-mile road. Once again those big ``one size fits all'' laws don't seem to fit Alaska. Sadly, the majority of Democrats last year voted to deny the most basic right--access to health care--to Alaska residents. So the Democrats can ``talk the talk'' all they want about HMOs, and access to emergency rooms, but when it came time to ``walk-the-walk'' for the people of Alaska, they could not and would not do it. I ask my colleagues, how can we be on the floor of the Senate debating what happens to a person after he gets to a doctor or hospital when many here were unwilling to provide Alaskans with access to that doctor or hospital? Mr. President, that is what Federal intrusion has done to health care in Alaska. Again I stress that a ``one-size-fits-all'' package doesn't work in rural America. Public health is too important to be sacrificed to such a big- government vision. I favor patients rights that will strike against government control of the health-care system; I favor a plan that makes coverage more affordable and puts patients in control of their medical care; I favor the Republican bill. I yield the floor. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, over the past four days, we have cast many difficult votes. Often, as you know, several issues are addressed in a single amendment or series of votes. Therefore, in order to ensure that my positions on these matters are fully understood by my constituents, I ask unanimous consent that an explanation of my votes on health care amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to modify the boundaries of Saint- Gaudens National Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.