Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it appears that we are on the verge of sending American warplanes to bomb Serbian installations in and around Kosovo in an effort to force Yugoslav President Milosevic to accept the terms of a peace agreement that he has, so far, rejected. I stand on the floor of the Senate to express my strong opposition to this policy and warn the Administration that the United States may be blindly heading into a war whose outcome is far from pre-determined. Mr. President, I believe the President has failed to articulate a rationale to the American people that can justify an act of war by NATO against Serbia. Nor do I believe that the Administration has demonstrated what vital interest justifies armed intervention. When the President originally announced his plan to send 4,000 American soldiers to Kosovo as part of a larger NATO force, it was premised on the idea that the troops would be deployed, as in Bosnia, as a peacekeeping force. I had serious concerns about this commitment because it was not clear to me whether American troops would be stationed in Kosovo for a month, for a year, or for a decade. Nor did I believe that it was in our national interest to participate in this operation because I do not believe there is any vital interest of the United States that is at stake in this civil war. And I emphasize ``civil war.'' Mr. President, the peacekeeping commitment was made several weeks ago. In the intervening period, one thing has happened. There is no peace to keep. Although the rebels in Kosovo have agreed to the terms of a peace agreement, the Yugoslavian government has rejected the terms of the agreement in part because it rejects the idea of having NATO troops police its sovereign territory in Kosovo. Having failed to negotiate a peace agreement, the Administration has now changed its strategy. We are fueling up our warplanes, targeting our cruise missiles, and planning to launch air strikes against the Serbs in an effort to force Milosevic to accept the peace agreement. Never mind that the peace agreement he is being asked, or forced, to accept--could allow for the independent future of a province within his country. Yes, Mr. President, this is an intervention by the United States in a civil war where rebels in one province seek independence. And by choosing to bomb the Serbians, we have directly taken the side of the Kosovo rebels. Make no mistake, our air strikes against Serbian forces are strongly supported by the Kosovo rebels who have been fighting for independence. And by backing the rebels, the bombing will encourage the independence movement with the prospect that the borders of Kosovo and Albania ultimately will be redrawn along ethnic lines. Is that what our goal is? To break up a country? Mr. President, American airstrikes are not going to be a cakewalk by any means. We have already been advised of this by our military. The terrain in this area is heavily fortified with anti-aircraft emplacements. What will happen if American airmen are shot down by surface to air missiles? What happens if our bombing campaign does not force Milosevic to change his posture, just as our near-daily air strikes have done nothing to Saddam Hussein. Are we willing to send in ground combat troops to convince Milosevic to accept the terms of the peace agreement? How many? 50,000? 100,000? 200,000? If we are unwilling to commit ground troops to force the terms of this so-called peace agreement, then I believe we should not commit a single American pilot. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the people in Kosovo who have been brutalized by Milosovic, just as my sympathy has run deep for the people throughout Yugoslavia who have known nothing but war for over a generation. But is our opposition to Milosevic reason enough to sacrifice American lives to an undefined cause? Milosovic is a terrorist; he is a killer. We should bring him to justice for crimes against humanity; but we should not engage in a war which will cost American lives and continue indefinitely. Finally, Mr. President, I would simply remind my colleagues that from the outset I have been concerned that American involvement in Kosovo would become another Bosnia. I take it back. Knowing what I know now about the region, about the opposition, I am concerned that it will not be like Bosnia--and that many American lives will be lost in the process of enforcing an undefined objective. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I am pleased to yield to my friend from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure the Senator from Montana would agree that neither he nor I has any idea. The point is, these people have had access to the park for thousands of years. And what difference does 6 months or a year make?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So if my colleagues want to talk about the amendment, I shall be pleased to respond to questions or comment a little later. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It eliminates the crab fishery. That was the arrangement made last year. Those fishermen are to be given remuneration for not fishing by the Federal Government. They would much rather fish.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. President, perhaps I can enlighten my colleagues a little bit. I would be prepared to respond to questions. He refers to waiting for a management plan from the Park Service. We have that management plan, Mr. President. That management plan is quite explicit. It is to close the commercial activities associated with fishing. I encourage my colleague to recognize it for what it is. If you look at this picture, this is commercial fishing activity. They don't want commercialization of the park. I don't see my friends from Montana or Rhode Island commenting about this commercial activity, where 2,000 people are aboard this ship. That is a commercial activity. They are paying to come into Glacier Bay. The management plan is a management dictate by the Department of the Interior to kick out the fishermen and to eliminate the Native people from Hoonah, Elfin Cove, and so on. There is not an awful lot of affection for the Park Service, which I think my friend from Montana, who knows something about rural America, understands when the Federal Government just comes in through a process of osmosis and dictates more and more attention. Now, we have not changed this deal. Last year's deal eliminates the Dungeness crab for compensation. It is in the amendment. The other fisheries inside the bay were proposed to be closed--and this is what I think he is referring to--after one generation without compensation. They don't have any compensation. So basically, when you suggest that the State and Federal Government can work together on some kind of a management resolve, the Federal Government has spoken. It is kicking them out. The Federal Government maintains that it has jurisdiction over the inland waters. The State has seen fit to indicate that it is going to file suit to determine who has jurisdiction. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the Federal Government and Department of the Interior has a philosophy of creeping bureaucracy where they extend their jurisdiction; and they can do it if the State is not successful in resolving its suit. They have jurisdiction 3 miles out from Federal land. Believe me, it is just a matter of time before they come around for Bartlett Cove and go out to Cape Spencer and north from Cape Spencer up toward Yakutat. So we are accepting the Dungeness crab deal. But there is no justification for more--and I implore my colleagues to recognize this. Let the courts decide it, but for goodness sake, in the meantime, allow the Native people to continue what they have been doing for thousands of years; allow the limited commercial fishery to continue until such time as the court gets it resolved. I would love to compromise on this, but there is no compromise with the Park Service. They want to eliminate the fisheries. The State has brought suit. That is what is new and different about this. My colleagues fail to recognize that the State is saying, OK, it is time to settle the jurisdiction issue. We have tried to negotiate and work out with the Park Service a management plan that would allow the State to continue to manage it. What does the Park Service know about managing fisheries? They have no biologists. The State of Alaska spends more than any other State on fishery biology; we are good at it. That is why we have fish. To suggest that the Park Service should enter into an process to generate expertise in this area is unreasonable, impractical and, finally, unnecessary. We have nothing but creeping advancement by the Department of the Interior within our State because we are a public land State. But it is time that the people of Alaska express their views, and they have expressed their views through the Governor's announcement of the suit. Again, it is not the same as 6 months ago. The lawsuit changes that. The omnibus bill, in spite of what my colleagues from Montana and Rhode Island have said, was not ever considered satisfactory; it was only considered to delay more sweeping closures. To suggest that this matter has been debated on this floor is totally inaccurate. It has not been debated before. This is to allow the judicial process to be completed, and that is what the suit is all about. Again, in the interest of fairness, Mr. President, why does the Park Service say it is OK to commercially fish in Maryland, in Assateague; in Florida, Biscayne; in the Virgin Islands, Buck Island; in Canaveral, Florida; in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; in Channel Islands, California; in Fire Island, New York; in Gulf Island, Alabama and Florida, on and on and on. But it is not OK anymore here. Here you have an added dimension. You have the people--the few hundred people who are dependent on Glacier Bay for a subsistence lifestyle and a small amount of commercial fishing. We are not reneging on any deal, we are merely keeping people working--keeping people working, keeping people employed, keeping people productive while the jurisdictional issue is decided. What in the world is wrong with that? The courts are going to make this decision. But, for goodness' sake, let the people who are dependent on it for their lifestyle and their traditions continue. Mr. President, I have gone on long enough. If there are some questions of my friend from Montana, I would be happy to answer.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. As I indicated, the State indicated its intent to file a lawsuit and will be filing it late this summer or early this fall.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I don't know. We have had access since we became a State in 1959 and the Federal Government always recognized the state's management. They have technically allowed this to go on since 1959. Suddenly, under this administration, they are kicking us out. So I don't know what a year, or 2, or 3, necessarily has to do with it. The point is, it is going to be resolved. If the State loses, it is all over. Mr. President, let me conclude by explaining why it is important for the Senate to address this issue. Again, we should not put people on public assistance without a cause. That is what we are doing here with these subsistence dependents. We shouldn't second-guess the court. Let the court decide, and recognize that there are real people out there-- real constituents of mine and yours--whose lives and livelihoods are really at risk, and they are looking to you and me for relief. This is all they have. So I implore my colleagues to recognize the legitimacy of this. It will be my intention, Mr. President, at the appropriate time, to ask for the yeas and nays, subject to whatever the joint leadership decides to do about future votes. But I will ask for a vote on the amendment. I thank the Chair. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I hope it will not. I hope it will be very short.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my friend from Rhode Island, I think he is confusing or misinterpreting the intent of our amendment. If one examines the amendment closely, there is a recognition of the deal that was made last year. That recognition is in line 5 where it says, . . . except the closure of Dungeness crab fisheries under Section 123(b) of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. We are abiding by that arrangement that was made and we are not changing that. The crab fishermen, I might add, would much rather fish than be paid by the Federal Government not to fish. They are, in fact, being eliminated from their fishery in that particular part of Glacier Bay. To suggest that we are changing the deal is, in fact, totally inaccurate and, again, is a misinterpretation. I hope that my distinguished colleague will recognize that, indeed, there is a difference. First of all, the crab fishermen have not been paid one red cent by the Federal Government. They will, hopefully, be paid, but that has not occurred yet. We are talking about the balance of the fishery, which amounts to some bottom fish and some halibut. We are also talking about something that is more important, which really, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island, is overlooked: What is the value of the subsistence to the dependent Native people who are being kicked out and eliminated? They are not receiving any remuneration or being taken care of in any deal. Would that be just, I ask my friend from Rhode Island, if it were his State? Would it be right if the indigenous people could no longer gather sea gull eggs when they don't have chickens? I mean that in a literal sense because, as the Senator is well aware, we don't have any chickens up there; it is too wet, too cold. They rely on a few sea gull eggs, and they have always been allowed to do that, for generation after generation. Is that justice?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to read my amendment and recognize the consideration that has been made to live by the agreement by recognizing that the closure of a Dungeness fishery under this section will occur as agreed to, and the balance of the fisheries have never been addressed on this floor or debated. I conclude by referring to one remark, which my friend made concerning this beautiful wilderness and the opposition of commercial activity. Just look at this cruise ship with nearly 3,000 people on it, if you want to see the commercial activity and compare that to the sensitivity of my subsistence-dependent Native people whose lives are at risk as a consequence of not having an opportunity to pursue their traditional resources and their appeal to you and me for relief. I have no further statements. I yield the floor. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. They are excluded, yes. That is the only agreement that has been made and binding for remuneration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I intend to speak on this later though.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could pretty much count on that. I would like to leave for about 20 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the floor manager yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. What I am attempting to do is accommodate the floor manager by advising him that we are certainly ready for a vote on a tabling motion, so that you can advise Members of the scheduled for the balance of the evening. Maybe we can get a time certain.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I wish the Presiding Officer a good morning.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a good deal has been said in the last several days concerning our potential involvement as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. Having had an opportunity to be briefed on several occasions by the Administration, I am concerned that we have not given enough consideration to what we will do if the initial plan fails, or is somehow miscalculated. Further, I am astonished that we do not have an end game for this exposure of our young men and women whom we would send into battle. As we consider the consequences of involvement in the Kosovo matter, and my sympathy runs deep for those who are in harms way as a consequence of this continued conflict, I am terribly concerned for the American lives which would be in harms way if we send troops to Kosovo. I just don't think we can continue to be all things to all people. There are certain times when we have to evaluate what is our appropriate role and when it is time to rally our allies in an efficient, effective coalition of support, of access, of supplies, some way short of a conflict. When one looks at the armaments over there, we find Russian, we find Chinese, we find U.S., and we find European. As a consequence, had we taken steps some time ago to ensure that this sophisticated weaponry would not fall into irresponsible hands, we might have been able to avoid it. But we are down to a time when the administration obviously is reluctant to admit that, indeed, we are at the brink of entering into a war. Some have suggested it could be the beginning of World War III. I am not going to dramatize, but do want to emphasize that I do not believe that we have given sufficient attention and strategic analysis to the alternatives to intervention, or to a withdrawal plan should we proceed to send troops to Kosovo. As a consequence, this Senator is not prepared to support an action at this time. I think the President of the United States owes it to the country, as well as to Congress, to come before the body with a clear-cut, committed plan that addresses the questions I have asked this morning. I, as one Senator, want to put the White House on notice that support from this Senator from Alaska, at this time, is not there. I also want to emphasize another point, Mr. President, concerning our potential intervention in Kosovo. We are about to enter into a recess at the end of next week and will not reconvene as a body until sometime in mid-April. Any action by the administration to send our troops, as a part of a NATO operation, into action during our absence, obviously puts the Congress in the position of having to support our troops-- while we may not necessarily support the underlying action. Of course, we will want to support our troops, and we will support our troops. But, because of the timing, we as a Congress must decide now--before our troops go in--whether or not we support this intervention. I encourage Members to express their opinions now, in fact plead that Members go on record with this issue, before we are asked to support our troops in Kosovo. Mr. President, I see no other Member wishing to be recognized. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Policy, including S. 608, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, at 9:30 A.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker at (202) 224- 3543 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that hearings have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearings will take place on Tuesday, April 20; Tuesday, April 27, and Tuesday, May 4, 1999. Each hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999; S. 446, the Resources 2000 Act; S. 532, the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999; and the Administration's Lands Legacy proposal. Because of the limited time available for each hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kelly Johnson at (202) 224- 4971.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. My preference is to continue the quorum call. I understand it has been agreed to by my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.