Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for another 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. So, Mr. President, where we are today is we are fighting a battle to maintain an industry on a substantially reduced basis. As I have indicated, that industry has declined dramatically over the last 10 years. And the Forest Service clearly has not been acting in good faith to get out the timber that they promised. And the fact that the Forest Service has seen fit to initiate over a 10-year period this extraordinary evaluation of what the TLUMP would provide and the assurance of whatever figure they set they would be committed to is what this issue is all about. So, again, in conclusion, on the Tongass issue, it is not a question by any means, Mr. President, of doubling the cut. And that is what some of our friends on the other side would like to make this issue seem like. If we were going to double the cut, we would go back to 450 million board feet. That is not what we are talking about today. Finally, a couple of other issues that I think need some clarification very briefly, and that is the requirement of decommissioning our unauthorized roads. It is not an issue that is unique to my State by any means, but under this provision the Forest Service is prohibited from using funds for decommissioning National Forest System roads until the regional forester certifies that unauthorized or so-called ghost roads have either been decommissioned or reconstructed to standard. Funding is appropriated for decommissioned roads including roads which are not part of the transportation Forest Service, and it is not prevented from addressing or pursuing stabilization of these roads. So what we have here is a recognition that the administration says that they have a backlog over the last 5 to 10 years of over $10 million. They have said in reported stories they have discovered 60,000 miles of ghost road that they did not even know they had. What we propose is that they go ahead and address the ghost roads and get rid of them before they start proceeding on decommissioning their so-called map roads. If you have a situation where you have so-called unauthorized roads, then you should take care of those first before you start decommissioning map roads. The other issue revolving around the Forest Service, and not necessarily addressing the needs of my State, is the prohibition of forest plans until the administration publishes new regulations. Late in 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture promised a revised forest plan. He promised cost-effective changes. Well, these plans are not completed today. And as a consequence, we see no justification for proceeding in publishing new regulations until you get your current Forest Service revision plan done. The last issue I want to talk about, and again it is not unique to my State, but it is to some of the areas involved, and that is the reintroduction of the grizzly bear into Idaho and Montana. I think that is a matter that should be addressed by the individuals from these States. But I know the ranchers and others have certain views about reintroduction of the grizzlies. And one thing about the bears, the moose, and the elk, and so forth, there are no boundaries or State lines that prohibit their crossing. They move in ranges depending on a lot of factors, including regulations on hunting. So to suggest that somehow reintroduction of the grizzly bears in the Sellway-Bitterroot areas of Idaho and Montana should be proceeded by the Department of Interior over the objection of the residents is something that is best left up to those in Idaho and Montana. What we are proposing to do is to refrain from reintroducing those bears at this time pending an evaluation and input from the local people. In the Columbia/Snake River Dams--remove language that requires congressional approval for changes in the dam system to the Columbia and Snake River and tributaries. We are saying the disposition of dams should come before the Congress. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior should not have the authority to arbitrarily proceed. After all, these dams were built with public funds. The merits and contributions of these dams have provided an extraordinary level of standard of living for many in these areas, and have created agricultural areas of prosperity. As a consequence of the water and power, we have the aluminum industry. To suggest that somehow Congress should not be a part of any decision to eliminate these dams is unrealistic. What we would propose here is that there would be a requirement that any change in the dam system must be approved by the Congress of the United States. I appreciate the additional time allotted to me. I see several colleagues on the floor are looking for recognition. I do want to advise my colleagues, I think late tomorrow morning, that we will be proceeding with the disposition of the King Cove Road. We have 6 hours proposed for debate on the issue. It is my understanding that we anticipate about 3 hours, 1\1/2\ hours equally divided. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that was brought up on this floor yesterday by my friend, the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, who proceeded to give us certain views on a number of amendments to the Interior appropriations bill that he proposed be stripped from that particular package. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that this body have an opportunity to view the arguments on the other side of the issues, and I think it is fair to perhaps provide a little history on what these amendments are and the rationale associated with the arguments for or against their merits. There were originally nine proposed amendments in the Baucus package. Two of them have been removed. So we are addressing amendments to strip the Glacier Bay language, King Cove language, and the Tongass language, road decommissioning, section 321 of the forest planning, the issue of the reintroduction of grizzlies in Idaho and Montana, and the Columbia and Snake River Dams, and the likely removal. I am going to enunciate a little further on these as I go along, but I wanted to give you a view of the issues in their entirety so that we can, first of all, recognize that these have certain environmental overtones. I think it is appropriate that we recognize the extent to which the environmental community has gone to encourage these be stricken. Approximately 2 weeks ago, there was a press conference downtown in one of the restaurants where the media was invited. There was a presentation condemning these issues, and obviously an effort to try to generate a one-sided view from the media. As chairman of the Energy Committee, and representing the State of Alaska, to which three of these particular amendments to strike are associated, and not having an opportunity to have an invitation extended to me, we felt it necessary to balance the process at that point. So we proceeded with a small press conference in the Energy Library. We invited basically the same media. We had a good attendance. I also invited my friend from Montana to attend in the hopes that we could respond to some questions from the media on these individual points. Unfortunately, he was unable to be there. As a consequence, we have each had an opportunity to express our views to the media. I think it is also appropriate to recognize that there used to be, more or less, a gentleman's agreement in this body relative to resource issues and issues that affected a particular State. When Senators from the State made specific recommendations with regard to what was in the best interests of their State, it usually stood. But that has changed over the years. I recognize that. Now we have the input of the special interest groups relative to issues. That is kind of where we are today. What I have done here is attempted to set the stage a little bit. I think it is fair to recognize that there are other influences. I noted today a statement of our Vice President in the White House Briefing Room from yesterday. It is relatively brief, but it does criticize the Republican Congress, the Republican leadership, and I think the third paragraph bears some attention. It suggests that there is a sneak attack being perpetrated by the Republicans and by their special interests riders in the budget bills where they hope no one will find them. He further indicates that the proposals are to carve roads through the wilderness, force overcutting in the national forests, sell the taxpayers short, and keep us from addressing global warming, and that these issues cannot stand the light of day. I think it is appropriate to recognize that there are other influences. I was checking with my staff before I was recognized this morning. Mr. President, I am advised that the Congressional Budget Office has scored all of these particular riders as revenue neutral. Since we are in the interest of full disclosure, I think it also is important to recognize another fact; that is, the accusation of putting anti-environmental riders on the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. It seems to be a pretty one-sided argument, because I am sure the Senator from Montana would not object to the process of riders, recognizing that there are 150--150--riders on the Interior bill. From the standpoint of the special interest groups, maybe the Vice President, and others, we could remove all such riders, including the moratorium of offshore oil drilling off the coast of California, and items on mining. I think it is fair to point out that the National Forest System--at least the first 21 million acres of the Forest System--was created by riders and amendments to the 1897 appropriations bill. So, indeed, we have a history of riders. I think if you look at the issues from the standpoint of the environmental groups, they would say, well, the riders that I have mentioned are good riders. So I think it is fair that we recognize we have a time-honored tradition of riders. And if riders are under attack, so be it. But it is clearly not a reality because many of these riders could be perceived as antienvironment suggests that somehow there is a sleight of hand here. I think it is appropriate to note that my friend from Montana did not care to go into that, to recognize that all the riders in question here have had hearings. Hearings have been held, which suggests that this was not done in the dark of night, somehow by subterfuge. So again I would like to examine this a little bit more so that we can get, I think, a better understanding of just what is going on here, and the question of merit: Do these particular seven issues have merit? I am not going to go into detail on all of them because a few of them are not necessarily related to my State, but I think it fair to highlight certainly a few. I am going to start with the issue of Glacier Bay. The issue of Glacier Bay started a long, long time ago. Back in 1885, long before Glacier Bay was declared a national monument, commercial fishing was recognized as a way of life by the residents around the area. I should point out, Glacier Bay is in southeastern Alaska. It is west of Juneau. Juneau is over here. I was a little chagrined yesterday in the debate when my friend from Montana could not find Juneau, which is our State capital. I made a point to make sure I knew where Helena is before this morning, before I started the debate. But in any event, it is in the area across icy straits. It is an extraordinary area of great beauty. As you move out of Glacier Bay and go out west, you run into the Gulf of Alaska or the Pacific Ocean. On a map of Alaska, it would be the northernmost point of southeastern Alaska. But the significance of it is that it is a national monument. As such, it is under special consideration relative to the regulations of the Park Service, which manages Glacier Bay. Over the years, local residents in the area--and I am suggesting to you there are very few local residents. There is no population in Glacier Bay. There is a lodge there but no year-round population, with the exception of those who are associated with the lodge and a few people in Gustavus, which is out on the edge of Glacier Bay. The general feeling in Alaska was that there would be a compatibility between the Park Service, the management of Glacier Bay, and the traditional uses, and there was no prohibition, no anticipated prohibition, on commercial fishing in the marine waters of Glacier Bay. I have a small picture here, Mr. President, that shows one of the fishing vessels in Glacier Bay. It gives you an idea that these are small one- and usually two-person operations. This is a small boat, with probably a skipper, a deckhand, maybe the skipper's wife, and this is the kind of fishing that is done there. It is relatively insignificant in the overall magnitude of fishing in southeastern Alaska. The fishery consists of a few vessels fishing salmon, halibut, crab, a few bottom fish; and these fisheries pose no threat--there is no danger to these resources. All are carefully managed for a sustainable harvest by the State of Alaska and most are under a limited entry, which means that you can't expand the fishery, or particularly a fishery associated with that type of vessel. Arguments that this fishing is somehow incompatible with the use of kayaking or some other activity by the concession operators who favor a prohibition is a little hard to justify in real terms. Commercial fishing is important to the smaller communities of Gustavus and Hoonah. Fishing provides a few jobs and local employment. All the communities urge continuation of commercial and sports fishing in Glacier Bay. We have had our local environmental groups working with us, and we have reached a consensus that management of commercial fishing under the State regulation is entirely appropriate and entirely adequate and the fisheries can be managed on a sustained basis. The interest of the Department of Interior's insistence on an administrative rulemaking instead of legislation has really been a roadblock, and it has had a detrimental effect, if you will, on working together within the local groups. There is a lot of criticism and fear in the communities that both commercial fishing and subsistence fishing will be terminated as a consequence of the pressure by the environmental community. When we look at the communities we are talking about--I mentioned Gustavus; it has about 346 residents, 55 of whom are engaged in fishing; Elfin Cove, 54 people--that is total residents--47 engaged in fishing; Hoonah, which is a Tlingit Indian village, has 900 people, about 228 in fishing; Pelican has 187 residents, 86 in fisheries. That might not sound like much, but in reality, if you are one of those people and you are dependent on fishing--that is the livelihood you know--it is recognizable that these communities cannot survive without fishing. And what this appropriation language does as to Glacier Bay is to allow discussions to proceed at the local level and reserve the right of the Congress to make a decision on fisheries in Glacier Bay. Now, what the Park Service is attempting to do is to phase it out over a 7-year period. Well, to phase it out is to ultimately do away with it, and the rationale behind that is that the Park Service wants to regulate the area. These are inland waters in the State of Alaska, and to suggest the Park Service should initiate another level of regulation I think is without any justification. We talk about how a fishing boat or a small amount of activity in Glacier Bay would somehow detract from a visitor's experience. Let's talk a little bit about the visitor's experience, because between Memorial Day and Labor Day cruise ships go into Glacier Bay--as I indicated, a very large body of water. The cruise ships pick up at Inlet Bay a Park Service lecturer and proceed up the bay and may go into Tarring or may go up Muir Inlet, depending on whatever the particular direction is that day. But it is important to note that these are commercial passenger ships. There is a commercial activity associated with this. These are paying passengers. These ships carry 2,500, 3,000, 3,200 passengers. It is a commercial activity that is going on in a national park. It is taking place, if you will, in this general area of the so-called wilderness. Now, the wilderness, of course, is on the land, and we have yet to have a determination of just what ``wilderness waters'' means. I am not going to go into that in this debate today. But the point I want to make is, the small amount of commercial fishing that takes place there and the residents in the surrounding area who depend on access into Glacier Bay is what we are talking about. Now, the Senator from Montana would suggest that somehow this commercial activity is foreign or inappropriate to take place in a national monument. We have nowhere in the United States any body of water as unique as Glacier Bay. It is open to the ocean. Commercial vessels can come in. It is State of Alaska waters. But within the area, of course, is the national park of Glacier Bay. The point I want to make is that the Park Service is attempting to eliminate the small amount of commercial fishing and, equally important, the small amount of subsistence fishing that takes place in the park by the Native residents of Hoonah and some of the other communities nearby. There is no justification for this in the sense of any detrimental effects on the fisheries resources which are basically overseen by the State of Alaska. I might point out that in this area there are no major anadromous streams, that being streams that will support salmon fry. The salmon don't go into these areas because this is all glacial types of water. As a consequence, they simply cannot survive in the runoff from the glaciers. As a consequence, this is not considered an area that supports significant salmon runs. There is some halibut in here, some salmon, some crab. Again, it is a relatively small area, but the point is, what we are seeing here is more big government, more takeover from the local people who have had access to commercial fishing, who have had access to sport fishing, as well as access to subsistence. In summary, the objection that I have is here is Big Brother encroaching more and more upon authority that has been vested within the State of Alaska to manage the fisheries in this area. It just simply makes no sense, and there is no justification for it. I want to turn now to another issue that is on the list of my friend from Montana, and that is the issue of King Cove, Cold Bay. Many people, of course, are not aware of just where this area is. Roughly, it is about halfway out in the Aleutian Islands, about 700 miles west of Anchorage. We have a small village of about 700 residents in King Cove. The area is on the Pacific Ocean, and it is surrounded by mountains. It lends itself to a situation where if you want to get out of King Cove, you have to fly over to Cold Bay or go by boat. It doesn't look like much on the map, but the problems we have are extraordinary weather conditions associated in the King Cove/Cold Bay area. There is a small gravel strip at King Cove. Sometimes we have a windsock blowing one way at one end of the runway and a windsock at the other end blowing the opposite way because of the various types of winds that come over the mountains. The people of the area have suggested it would be appropriate to have a road come over to Cold Bay. There is going to be an extended debate on this issue tomorrow, so I am not going to go into great detail other than to say that we have had 11 lives lost in the last 10 years in plane crashes half of which involved medivacs. This chart shows pictures of some of the individuals who have passed away in aircraft accidents trying to get over to Cold Bay to get a medivac to Anchorage, AK. What these people are asking for is simply access out by road. What would this consist of, Mr. President? It would consist of extending the road in an area that is currently a wilderness. The proposed legislation which we are going to be offering tomorrow suggests that we would take the area in the wilderness and do a land exchange. We would take the area out of the wilderness, approximately 85 acres, and put it into a refuge. That will add about 580 acres additional into the wilderness. It would be a net gain into the wilderness of some 580 acres. This road would be about 7 miles long and would allow the residents of King Cove to have access for medical evacuations and transportation when the weather is so severe that the airplanes cannot fly. Let me show you a picture of the current method by which the medivacs take place, and you can get some idea of the extremes we are up against. Here is what a small boat trying to get across water in that area in the wintertime looks like. You don't get very far doing that. We have other pictures that will make you seasick. This is one of the vessels going across. That is a schooner going across in the wintertime. You cannot appreciate the terror associated with making one of those trips. Not only do most people get deathly seasick, but there is a fear the storm is going to progress and damage the vessel or sink the vessel. I have been on some of those trips, and I could not begin to describe the terror of the situation where you are trying to get people out so that they can get medical care in an emergency and are subjected to this type of exposure when 7 miles of road circumventing a wilderness area would be adequate. This airport at Cold Bay was built during the Second World War. It has crosswind runways and is operational virtually year-round. What we have is a small village, less than 700 people, simply trying to have the same right of access for medical evacuation that you and I take for granted, and it is being denied them by objections from some in the environmental community that say that this is striking in the heart of the wilderness. It is not in the wilderness, Mr. President. We are taking this area out of the wilderness, putting it in the refuge and proposing a right of way that could be used for a road going through and actually adding 580 acres to the wilderness. That, to me, seems like a fair and justifiable proposal. I will also add that we do not require any funding for this. This is simply a land exchange. The road would be under the control and jurisdiction of the refuge manager and, basically, under the control of the Secretary of the Interior. The weather in the King Cove area is something that is pretty hard to imagine. It is the third windiest city in the United States. It is the cloudiest city in the United States. It has the third highest number of days of rain, and one can argue it has the worst weather in the Nation. To take a boat or small plane out of King Cove when winds are 60 to 70 miles an hour, with a 10-to-20 foot sea is a tough situation. We have had babies born in fishing boat galleys on a table, and we have had people who have had to be taken up off the boats in slings. This land exchange will allow a one-lane gravel road to be built. It will be at the option of the State. The State is evaluating the merits of this. We are simply proposing that the State has the ability to consider this option through the land exchange. We see no justification for those who object to what is really a win, win, win for the environment. I also think it fair to point out that we have seen and have a long history in this body of changes in boundaries. To suggest somehow this is a precedent is, again, unrealistic and is unfounded by fact. We have had boundary adjustments on many existing wilderness areas. In the State of Montana alone, we had 67 acres of land that was deleted from Absaroka Bear Tooth Wilderness; 28 acres have been deleted from the U.L. Bend Wilderness. The boundary changes were made to exclude private lands, portions of existing roads, parking areas and public facilities that were inadvertently included when the wilderness area was established in 1978. The U.L. Bend deletion was made to reinstate access through a wildlife refuge wilderness area. What for? For access to a popular fishing spot at nearby Fort Peck Reservoir. This history says to me that Montanans didn't object to a boundary change in the wilderness when it met their needs. So I fail to understand why my friend, the Senator from Montana, believes that moving a wilderness boundary to access a fishing hole is OK, but moving 85 acres to save the lives of my constituents is not. That is, basically, what we are looking at, Mr. President, an issue of equity. I think I have made the point that, indeed, we are not setting a precedent. We can look back also to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Management Act of 1983 where there was a land exchange. Hopefully, I have countered with factual information some of the points that were made and the allegations from my good friend who has not been to either Glacier Bay, nor has he been to King Cove and does not speak from personal knowledge. The last point I want to make is on the issue of Tongass National Forest. I have a couple charts to show the President and my colleagues at this time--let me have the small chart first, if I may--because it addresses the Tongass which is the largest of all our national forests. Very briefly, what we have here in the red are the areas that are withdrawn in wilderness areas in the Tongass National Forest. You know, that is probably 58 percent or thereabouts. The green areas are the areas for multiple-use lands which provide timber harvest. And the gold areas are Native withdrawals, basically private land. If you look at this, you can immediately tell that most of the Tongass is already reserved in perpetuity in wilderness areas. I think that makes the point that 84 percent of the Tongass is currently reserved for nontimber harvesting purposes. Ninety-three percent of all the old-growth forest remain standing in the Tongass today. And it is pretty hard to communicate to my friends who have never been there, but forests live and die. And a large percentage of the Tongass National Forest is either dead or dying. About one-third, 30 percent, of the standing trees are dead or dying. The reality of how you utilize those trees is a matter that has been under discussion for some time. Basically, the value of that particular timber is in wood fiber, and most of that either goes into chips or is used to go into pulp mills. But because of environmental pressures, we closed our own two year- round manufacturing plants in the State, and they are down permanently. And those were pulp mills. So now we face a difficult situation of trying to determine what we are going to do with that old growth. There is a possibility of that dead and dying timber to be put in veneer. But nevertheless, the point I want to make here today is to counter the argument that somehow we are proposing to increase the harvest 50 percent over last year. In order to respond to that criticism, I think you have to look at the harvest in the Tongass since--well, modern times began in about 1947, after the war. The allowable cut was somewhere about 1.375 billion board feet. That was the allowable cut in 1947. These are set by the Forest Service. Then under statehood we came in and the allowable cut was 1.3 billion. Then when we had the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act and we dropped down to 950 million. Now, this basically in this timeframe supported two pulp mills and a half dozen sawmills. Then when we came in with the ANILCA legislation and the volumes dropped, and the allowable cut went down to 450 million. We were able to maintain an industry at that level, but it was marginal. Then we came down to the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1991, and it dropped down to about 310 million. And then we came under what is known as the Tongass Land Management Plan or TLUMP, which was to settle at 267 million board feet. And the Forest Service has not been able to put that up. Currently, they have this year about 30 million that they have been able to put up and anticipate somewhere in the area of another 100 million. So to suggest that--in this proposal, what we have done is we have simply said that if the Forest Service does not put up what they said they were going to put up under the TLUMP, which took 10 years and $13 million to develop, why then that differential that previously went to the boroughs and school districts comes out of the Forest Service budget. But this is an effort to try to get the Forest Service to commit on what they said they would provide. And to suggest, as my friend from Montana has, that suddenly we are trying to double the harvest is not only misleading, it is an absolute falsehood, because clearly the Forest Service says under this study that took them 10 years to complete and $13 million, that they would provide an allowable cut of 267 million. We are saying, ``OK, do it. And if you don't do it, there ought to be some penalty,'' because we have lost the revenue to continue to offset from the standpoint of our boroughs and our schools associated with that harvest under the formula that provides some of the funds from the timber harvesting back to the communities. We are not doubling, Mr. President, by any means, the amount of timber----

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to announce that this morning there will be a period of morning business lasting approximately 3\1/2\ hours. Following morning business, it is hoped that the Senate may proceed to the Department of Defense authorization conference report, or the American Wetlands Conservation Act, under a 1-hour time agreement. Members are reminded that no votes will occur during today's session of the Senate in observance of the Jewish holiday. Any votes ordered today will be postponed to occur at approximately 10 a.m. on Thursday, and all Senators will be notified as soon as Thursday's voting schedule becomes available. The leader thanks colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Good morning, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I want to commend the managers of the bill, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for their thoughtful work. I particularly want to thank the managers for their inclusion of a requirement in the conference report for a Department of Defense report on the troublesome security situation in the Taiwan Strait. I know that both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye share my concern about stability in the Taiwan Strait. This report, requested on or before February 1, 1999, is very timely. The twentieth anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act is in April 1999. Does the senior Senator from Alaska agree that one of the principal purposes of this study should be to compare the security situation as it exists now in 1998 with that which existed in 1979, when Congress originally enacted the Taiwan Relations Act, P.L. 96-8?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I would like to thank my friend from Alaska. I also wanted to note that it is important that the report provide a comprehensive analysis of the security balance in the Taiwan Strait. In addition to the traditional force-on-force analysis, I understand that it is the conferees intent that the report evaluate the capability of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct command and control warfare against Taiwan, including the PLA's capability for information dominance, air superiority, naval blockage, and amphibious invasion. This is an area that has not received enough attention in terms of evaluating Taiwan's defensive capabilities. It is also my understanding that the conferees intend that this report evaluate the degree to which the PLA's modernization programs in the areas of submarine development, ballistic and cruise missile development, special operation forces, electronic warfare and computer virus attack capabilities have altered, or may in the future alter, the security and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to address two matters that are of importance to me. The first is the issue of national cancer awareness. Mr. President, for the next 3 days, hundreds of thousands of cancer survivors, families, care givers, and friends, whose lives have been affected by cancer will join together in this city for an event called ``The March: Coming Together to Conquer Cancer.'' Yesterday, other Members of this body and I had an opportunity to place a large star on our respective States to represent special persons in our lives who have been touched by cancer. I had the pleasure and honor on behalf of my wife, Nancy, to place a star on my State of Alaska for the late Judge Lester Gore, my wife's father. He was a remarkable pioneer in our State. In 1912, Judge Gore moved to Juneau after graduating from law school and established an impressive record as a young deputy district attorney. He was recognized in that effort in 1932 by President Hoover's appointment to serve as a Federal judge for the Territory of Alaska, serving the first judicial district in Nome. In serving as a Federal judge in the far reaches of western Alaska in the aftermath of the gold rush, Judge Gore traveled from village to village hearing various cases and judging on the merits. He used every mode of transportation from dog team to the former cutter Bear, bringing justice to rural Alaska. He was instrumental in both creating legal precedent and shaping the legal history of our State. Later in his career he worked as an attorney in Ketchikan, and died in 1965 of cancer. He had many accomplishments but none more important to me than fathering a daughter, Nancy, who later was good enough to accept my proposal of marriage. In addition, I was pleased in my own personal case to recognize my mother, who died of cancer, leukemia, in Alaska in 1956, having spent her entire career in the area of education. She was the longest standing sixth grade teacher in Ketchikan, Alaska. To move on, for more than 20 years now, my wife, Nancy, has worked with Alaskan women to encourage the establishment of a breast cancer center starting in Fairbanks, Alaska. She and a group of women initiated the Breast Cancer Detection Center for the purpose of offering free mammograms to women in the remote areas of Alaska, regardless of their ability to pay. I am proud to say that the center now serves about 2,500 women a year and provided screenings to more than 25,000 Alaska women in 81 villages throughout the State. To help fund these efforts of the Fairbanks center, each year my wife has sponsored a fishing tournament to raise money for the operation of the facility and to purchase units. Interestingly enough, over the last 5 years they have raised over $1 million in this effort. They now operate a permanent facility in Fairbanks, as well as a mobile mammogram unit that travels the highways of Alaska providing free breast cancer examinations for the women along the highway system. It looks like a big armored car. More recently, they have purchased a smaller unit called Molly. Molly is designed to go in aircraft to fly out to the villages that are not connected by any road, and by river barge down the rivers of the interior. So I commend those who are responsible for this effort in my State, a group of women who have taken it upon themselves to do something about this disease, this killer disease which affects all of us. It is anticipated that 40 percent of us will get some form of cancer during our lifetimes. We have had a figure of about 1.5 million Americans being diagnosed this year. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in taking part in the activities here in Washington, D.C., with The march, thereby demonstrating our commitment to end cancer forever.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the name of Senator Burns be added to the cloture motion in place of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, whose name was inadvertently added to the motion in error.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 12:30 with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to address one more issue, with the agreement of my colleagues. I see a number of them on the floor-- Senator Byrd--so I will try to be very brief. But I want to talk a little bit about our national security interests and what is occurring in North Korea. It does not just affect my State of Alaska, although this recent three-stage rocket did generate a little interest in my State because on August 31, 1998, the North Koreans fired a rocket which we now believe is a three-stage rocket carrying a satellite over the sovereign territory of Japan and it evidently came down very close to my home State of Alaska. Although initial reports indicated that this was a two-stage rocket with a range of approximately 1,200 miles, now there is acknowledgment in the U.S. intelligence community that it was likely a three-stage rocket carrying a satellite. The third stage malfunctioned, consequently the satellite was not launched. But the point is that it has been identified that, indeed, the North Koreans have the rocket capability to carry some type of armament to the shores of the United States. The Asian press reported that the rocket traveled 3,700 miles, or 6,000 kilometers, and landed in the ocean near Alaska. On September 17, the U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Kenneth Bacon responded to this report by saying: The only way to track this is by radar tapes and there's considerable disagreement among experts on how to interpret this. Let's think about what this really means. The only way we have to track this is by radar tapes; in other words, after the fact. But intelligence sources have been quoted as acknowledging that a three- stage rocket could have a range three times that of the two-stage Taepo Dong I rocket. Particularly concerned about this latest missile test, a number of us have recognized that there seems to be a breakdown on whether the administration was either caught off guard by the sophistication of the North Korean technology, or was reluctant to share this information with lawmakers. I am reminded of President Clinton's comments last year, when he said ``[t]he possibility of a long-range missile attack on U.S. soil by a rogue state is more than a decade away.'' That does not appear to be the case--as a consequence of the occurrence in August, the last day of August, relative to the North Korean missile which did land within shouting distance of my State of Alaska. This would ignore the testimony in 1994 by John Deutch, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense: If North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk. It appears the North Koreans have gone beyond even what Mr. Deutch envisioned by launching a three-stage rocket carrying a satellite. There is truly an immediate need for missile defense, Mr. President. MIT professor Daniel Fine has an interesting take on why we need immediate action on a National Missile Defense System which protects all of the United States, including Hawaii, Alaska and our territories. He conclusion is that: If the $32 billion infrastructure [associated with oil production in my State] in Prudhoe Bay--which produces 1.6 million barrels of oil . . . is subjected to a credible missile threat . . . then the cost to the American economy of a missile threat as economic blackmail would reach $4 billion--$6 billion in the first ten days. Well Mr. President, I for one do not think it is far fetched to think of Prudhoe Bay as a potential target. After all, it accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total domestic production of crude oil in the United States. While I have not reviewed how the professor reaches the $4 to 6 billion figure, I think it should serve as a wake- up call to those who continue to oppose a National Missile Defense System. It is not just Alaskans, Hawaiians and those in Guam who should be concerned about the launch. Monday's test was the first of a multistage missile. According to experts, the ability to build rockets in stages opens the doors to intercontinental missiles that would have virtually unlimited range and which would carry payloads capable of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Such missiles, and the threat of them, certainly puts U.S. citizens at risk as a consequence of any attack coming from North Korea or any other area with a missile that carries weapons of mass destruction. I think we have to reflect a little bit on the North Koreans. Some would dismiss the threat from North Korea because that country is on the verge of an economic collapse. But I remind my colleagues that North Korea has a history. Mr. President, we have seen in the past, irrational actions by the North Koreans. You recall this is a country that in 1950 launched an invasion on South Korea, resulting in the deaths of 3 million of her countrymen and 54,000 American troops. Recall the detonation of a bomb in Rangoon killing 16 South Korean officials; a country whose agents blew up a Korean Airlines flight killing 115 passengers and crew; and a country whose military hacked U.S. personnel to death in the DMZ. I think we have to recognize there is still a great deal of uncertainty relative to the objectives of North Korea. Furthermore, as we look at the crisis on the Korean peninsula, the United States has given over $250 million in combined food aid and support for KEDO. The North Koreans have received 1.3 million metric tons of heavy fuel oil. While the United States has provided humanitarian assistance from time to time, as well as technical assistance, we have also promised large contributions to the $5 billion light water reactor program and also have given food and aid and contributed over $50 million to KEDO. What have the North Koreans done in return for this assistance? They launched a missile in August. Intelligence photos show work on vast underground construction complexes. In July of 1998, GAO reported that North Korea has taken actions to hinder work of international inspectors sent to monitor North Korea's nuclear program. It goes on and on. As a consequence, I think it is fair to say the administration has treated each of these incidents as if North Korea is merely an innocent child throwing a harmless tantrum, not a terrorist nation home to the world's fourth largest army, just miles away from the 37,000 American troops. Incident after incident is dismissed by this administration as ``not intentional'' or not ``serious'' enough to derail U.S. assistance under the Agreed Framework. The administration called latest missile launch `` a matter of deep concern to the U.S. because of its destabilizing impact in Northeast Asia and beyond,'' but reiterated its commitment to provide funds under the Agreed Framework. The administration refuses to say that newly disclosed evidence of underground facility would violate the 1994 accord because ``concrete has not been poured.'' When a sub full of North Korean commandos landed in South Korea, the administration asked both sides to ``show restraint''--as if South Korea was in the wrong. The administration responded to violations of the Military Armistice Agreement by asking that the issue not be ``blown out of proportion.'' Issuing polite reprimands from the State Department, while the Administration continues to seek increased funds for activities that benefit North Korea, only encourages bad behavior. Mr. President, enough is enough. Congress should block further funding for KEDO until the President can certify that North Korea's nuclear program is, indeed, frozen and not simply an ongoing clandestine operation. The United States is a global power with vested interests both politically and commercially all over the world. We simply cannot allow policy to be determined by those who practice missile blackmail. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and wish the President a good day and a good weekend. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That's clear.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Section 1110(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provides an express and affirmative right to air access to federal lands in Alaska. Section 1110(a) provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, the Secretary shall permit, on conservation system units, national recreation areas, and national conservation areas, and those public lands designated as wilderness study, the use of snowmachines (during periods of adequate snow cover, or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and scenic rivers), motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities (where such activities are permitted by this Act or other law) and for travel to and from villages and homesites. Such use shall be subject to reasonable regulations by the Secretary to protect the natural and other values of the conservation system units, national recreation areas, and national conservation areas, and shall not be prohibited unless, after notice and hearing in the vicinity of the affected unit or area, the Secretary finds that such use would be detrimental to the resource values of the unit or area. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of other methods of transportation for such travel and activities on conservation system lands where such use is permitted by this Act or other law. Overflights, including those conducted for profit, are a ``traditional activity'' in Alaska, and as such currently may be subject to ``reasonable regulation'' by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1110(a). This policy works for Alaska. Although section 1110(a) applies notwithstanding any other law, section 702(b) clarifies that Congress is not changing its policy toward Alaska in any way.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information 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, October 1, 1998 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 Eljay B. Bowron to be Inspector General of the Department of the Interior; Rose Eilene Gottemoeller to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Non-Proliferation and National Security; and David Michaels to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health. For further information, please contact Gary Ellsworth of the Committee staff at (202) 224-7141.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may, I want to specifically cite the fact that I support this resolution. I fully support the objective of this resolution in reaffirming the right of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico to express their desires on political status through popular referenda and to communicate those desires to the federal government. I also agree that the federal government should carefully review and consider any such communication. This resolution is fully consistent with the objective of the draft chairman's mark that I circulated immediately prior to the recess. I want to thank my colleagues who reviewed the draft chairman's mark and who provided me with comments and suggestions. As I stated in my press release last week, I do not think that there will be time to fully consider the legislation this session, but I think we have made considerable progress. This resolution is fully consistent with the philosophy of my draft that the initiative for any political status change lies exclusively with Puerto Rico. During this Congress, the House of Representatives has passed legislation requiring a referendum in Puerto Rico. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate. I stated at the outset of this Congress, that I consider the matter of political status one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the Congress and of my committee. I cautioned when those measures were introduced that as much as some would like to see legislation enacted in this centennial year of Puerto Rico coming under United States sovereignty, this was an extraordinarily complex and important issue and deserved full and fair consideration because I recall what happened in my own State of Alaska. It took a long time. Although the committee conducted a series of meetings in Puerto Rico at the beginning of the Congress, I made the decision that we would wait for the House to pass legislation before we began the formal committee process. I made that decision so that our committee would have all the various proposals before us. By the time the House passed its legislation, it was already clear that it would be very difficult to resolve the many questions presented by the legislation this year. I want to emphasize the words ``this year,'' because I think there has been too much emphasis on timing and not enough on substance. I am committed to the enactment of responsible legislation and not simply to the enactment of legislation this year. Nonetheless, and despite the limitations of the Senate schedule and the importance of the other measures pending before the committee, we held a series of workshops, oversight hearing, and legislative hearings. I circulated a draft chairman's mark prior to the August recess to my colleagues on the committee. I asked for a review and comments. Several Members submitted very thoughtful amendments to the draft chairman's mark. While I have directed the staff to continue to work on these amendments, I do not see that attempting to force the legislative process would either be wise or helpful in view of the remaining time left in this session. The initial workshop heard from the Governor and the leadership of the three recognized political parties in Puerto Rico. The Governor expressed the desire of the government of Puerto Rico to obtain an expression from the federal government of status alternatives. The parties agreed that so long as each political party is able to craft its own definition, those definition, those definitions would be political statements and as a result, no referendum would provide the clarity that Congress would want. The first oversight hearing considered the fiscal and economic implications of any change in status. Those proceedings shed considerable light on some of the difficulties involved in any transition to prepare Puerto Rico for either consideration of an Admissions Act or for the withdrawal of United States sovereignty. The second oversight hearing focused on the individual issues involved in separate sovereignty, either as full independence or in some form of free association. In addition to a consideration of the issues, especially that of citizenship, the hearing also served to focus on sovereignty as the test for consideration of those issues. Those hearings and the legislative hearing that followed demonstrated how unique the present circumstances of Puerto Rico is and how difficult any change in status will be. The hearings also demonstrate that the federal government is responsible for the present situation and the creation of the obstacles that must be overcome prior to any change in status. A major defect, in my mind, in the measures pending before the committee and in the definitions used in past referenda in Puerto Rico, is the failure of the definitions for Statehood or Independence to acknowledge that Puerto Rico is not presently prepared for federal consideration of either option. There is a very complex and difficult process involved before either option could be implemented, as our hearings demonstrated. For Statehood, that process would entail, at a minimum, significant consideration of several entitlement programs as well as the extension of the Internal Revenue laws in concert with a complete overhaul of Puerto Rico's local tax code. This is not a simple matter and I do not expect that it can be done rapidly. Only after that transition is complete should Congress consider fully extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico. As my colleagues know, the Constitution does not fully apply to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has never been ``incorporated'' into the United States. Alaska and Hawaii were fully incorporated well before the first Admissions Act was even introduced. Only after the debate on incorporation has concluded and when the Constitution is fully applicable in Puerto Rico can the political debate on admissions begin. The point that I tried to achieve in my draft chairman's mark, is that Congress has created a series of obstacles to the achievement of any change in political status. I think we owe our fellow citizens an explanation of what the process is likely to be to overcome those obstacles so that they can express their desires with a clear understanding of the process that lies before them. A second major defect in the legislation was that it required Puerto Rico to vote on federally defined options. How and whether Puerto Rico seeks to petition the Congress should not be dictated by the federal government. If we are serious about local self-government, then we should be willing to allow the local government to determine how to respond to the desires of its constituents. Not all territories conducted referenda on future political status and none were ever required to hold one by the federal government. As part of the Enabling or Admissions Act, some territories were required to agree to the terms of a particular Statehood proposal, but that came after Congress had enacted the legislation to provide for their admission. We should not constrain Puerto Rico in how it seeks to approach a request to the federal government. Perhaps they will continue to use referenda, perhaps they will use resolutions of the legislature, perhaps they will use petitions. Each territory has approached the process from its own political perspective and we should not dictate to our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico what process they must use. As a result of our workshops and hearings, I circulated a draft chairman's mark prior to the August recess to my colleagues on the committee. I asked for their review and comments. Several Members have submitted very thoughtful amendments to my draft chairman's mark. While I have directed staff to work on those amendments, I do not see that attempting to force the legislative process would be either wise or helpful. I support the objectives of this resolution and they are fully consistent with the framework of my draft chairman's mark. There is no question that Puerto Rico, either through popular referenda or resolution of the legislature or simple petition, has the right to express its desire on political status. There should also be no question that the federal government should respond to any such expression seriously and with due consideration. The government of Puerto Rico has now enacted legislation calling for a referendum on December 13 of this year. In developing the definitions that will be placed before the voters, the draftsmen had before them the language contained in the House-passed measure, the Senate- introduced measure, and my draft chairman's mark. They also had the testimony of the administration. They chose to adopt definitions based on their own judgement. I want to make absolutely clear that even had the draft chairman's mark been enacted, Puerto Rico would not have been obliged to adopt the definitions contained in it. My draft mark was strictly advisory as will be the results of any referendum. That is as it should be. All we could hope to do would be to provide some guidance as to what this Congress thinks the process would likely be. Just as we can not bind a future Congress, neither can an advisory referendum bind us. I believe that we still owe our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico a fair statement of the alternatives and process involved in future political status so that they can express their desires in a meaningful way. Passage of this resolution does not in any sense diminish the importance of providing that information. This resolution does reaffirm that the initial step for any political status change rests with out fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. Only they can decide whether and when to petition the Congress for consideration of a change in status. Only Congress can consider the legislation necessary to remove the obstacles to such a status and, in the philosophy of the Northwest Ordinance, prepare Puerto Rico for consideration of that status. I think that ultimately we need to clarify that process in legislation. Time is running out for this session of Congress, but I intend to resume where we are now at the beginning of the 106th Congress. In the interim, I think we have made considerable progress in clarifying the issues through our hearings and in the reactions to the draft chairman's mark. This resolution is completely consistent with that progress. My best wishes go to the Governor and the people of Puerto Rico as they prepare to express their preference on the December 13 referendum vote. I yield the time I have remaining to the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In view of my colleagues who have waited longer than I have, I simply want to identify the time on either side, and if I may, if there is no objection, I would like to control the time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Hatch would like recognition for 3 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time does the Senator from New York desire?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this side has about 15 minutes remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Domenici from New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see no other Senator wishing to speak. I believe there is no more remaining time on our side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to--obviously, I will not speak for the minority--but I would yield whatever time to the minority or perhaps Senator Torricelli would like to control the time for the minority. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, once again, we are on the floor debating this very difficult issue. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his perseverance in the realities of protecting the rights of women to control their own bodies and our obligation to protect the rights of those unborn. That is something that we will be discussing an extended period of time--probably without any degree of finality. Nevertheless, Mr. President, we must vote yes or no on this. As a consequence, it is my fervent hope that enough votes will be cast to put an end to this tragic procedure. It is a tragic procedure in its very nature--partial-birth abortion. The President defended his veto by stating that a partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is medically necessary in certain ``compelling cases'' to protect the mother from ``serious injury to her health.'' Unfortunately, the President, in my opinion, was badly misinformed. According to reputable medical testimony and evidence given before this Congress by partial-birth abortion practitioners, partial-birth abortions are, one, more widespread than its defenders admit; two, used predominantly for elective purposes; and three, are never medically necessary to safeguard the mother's health. That is a pretty broad statement, but that is what we are told. The former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, whom we all admired when he functioned in that position, stated he ``believed that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions.'' Dr. Koop went on to say, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described as . . . partial birth . . . is a medical necessity for the mother.'' In a New York Times editorial, C. Everett Koop added, ``Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and a normal fetus.'' Other physicians agree: In a September 1996 Wall Street Journal editorial, three physicians who treat pregnant women declared that ``Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial- birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility.'' Mr. President, a partial-birth abortion is not only tragic, it is violent. The procedure is one in which four-fifths of the child is delivered before the process of killing the child begins. Sadly, throughout this procedure, the majority of babies are alive and able to move and may actually feel pain during this ordeal. Dr. Pamela Smith, in a House hearing on the issue, succinctly stated why Congress must act: The baby is literally inches from being declared a legal person by every State in the Union. The urgency and seriousness of these matters therefore require appropriate legislative action. Mr. President, it's not easy for any here to discuss this topic, but unfortunately, there are stark and brutal realities of a partial-birth abortion. I, and others who support this Act, sympathize with a woman who is in a difficult and extreme circumstance, but no circumstance can justify the killing of an infant who is four-fifths born. My good friend and colleague Senator Moynihan, has said the practice of partial-birth abortions is ``just too close to infanticide.'' Mr. President, this procedure cannot be defended medically and cannot be defended morally. That is why I hope that this is the one issue that can unite pro-life and pro-choice individuals. I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote in favor of overriding President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.