Frank Murkowski

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

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I would like to advise my colleagues that we had an oversight hearing in June on the MMS oil valuation issue. The results of that hearing indicated that we should initiate a dialogue with the principals. That dialogue was entered into. I felt gratified that we were making progress relative to this complex issue and was chagrined to find at a later date that the advances we thought we were making simply had been overturned by the policymakers of the Department of the Interior and the administration. As a consequence, this conversation about corporate welfare, big oil, and big business is incorrect because we are talking about small companies in many cases. The oil and gas industry has lost a quarter of a million jobs. This is an industry that now finds itself moving overseas where there is a favorable climate for exploration and production. As evidence of that, Mr. President, in 1973 and 1974, we were 37- percent dependent on imported oil; today, we are 52-percent dependent. The Department of Energy suggests we are going to be 66-percent dependent in the year 2004 or 2005. The amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator Hutchison during committee markup would delay the implementation of the final rules on Federal oil valuation until October 1999, or until a negotiated rule can be achieved. The oil and gas industry is struggling in a declining market. This is an industry where we have lost a quarter of a million jobs. We are talking about implementation of regulations that would drive this industry out of the United States and make us more dependent on imported oil. It is unconscionable. The taxes paid by this industry and mortgage payments made by industry employees in their communities are contributions being overlooked in this general climate of ``well, throw it out--because somehow big business is cheating,'' if you will. And that is simply unconscionable, Mr. President. As Senator Domenici and Senator Hutchison indicated, they personally met twice with Interior Department officials and industry executives to resolve what amounts to a handful of issues concerning the rulemaking. It is rather interesting, because if you look at the MMS proposal, it attempts to set the oil royalty away from the lease; that is, downstream, almost near the burner, not as required by law, and set it on the value added by the companies through their extraordinary efforts to market the product. And by denying the companies an allowance for reasonable marketing costs, MMS unnecessarily and artificially raises the price of oil on which the royalty is based. That is what they are doing here. So, Mr. President, do not be misled by these generalities that somehow this is corporate welfare. This is an effort to help an industry be competitive. The policy of the Department of the Interior to mandate royalty valuation, through rulemaking, would be detrimental and not resolve the issue, and would leave many unanswered questions relative to the industry's ability to be internationally competitive. It is beyond me, Mr. President. I thought when the Interior officials met, they were going to meet in good faith. It appears that Interior did little more than pay lipservice to that effort. The rule is just as unfair now as it was when discussions of it took place. Only now, Interior is trying to put its spin on the issue by saying, ``We gave the industry its meeting. We addressed their concerns. Why do we need to have any further delay?'' Mr. President, it appears the Interior Department is going to continue to base its oil royalty on market factors away from the lease. Any attempts to strip the Domenici amendment away should be opposed. And there are three specific reasons. Then I will conclude. First, contrary to what Interior claims, the amendment was scored by CBO as having zero effect on the current baseline. Interior's claim that it will save $65 million a year is simply puffery and nothing more. Second, with world oil prices depressed, we do not need to add what amounts to a new tax on this industry, particularly the independents, the small oil companies. Do not talk to me about big business. Third, delaying oil valuation rules is nothing new. Congress did it in 1987. Delay will allow better public policy to be formulated. So I urge my colleagues to join in opposing the removal of the oil valuation amendment from the Interior appropriations bill. I yield the floor to Senator Thomas. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield up to 15 minutes to my friend from the State of Nevada.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to indicate how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me wish you a good morning as we proceed with the Interior appropriations process. I would like my colleagues to note that I stand in strong opposition to Senator Bumpers' amendment to strike the National Academy of Science study. What we have here is an organization of scientists that are objective. They have a reputation of making decisions based on sound science and not rhetoric. We have a good deal of rhetoric here in this body. The language that Senator Bumpers would propose to strike is as simple and straightforward as any legislative language can be. In spite of all words to the contrary, it does nothing more than direct the National Academy of Sciences to review existing State and Federal environmental regulations dealing with the hard rock mining industry to determine the adequacy of these laws and those regulations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation, and how to better coordinate Federal and State regulatory programs to ensure environmental protection. It is short, it is sweet, and it is to the point. The Senator from Arkansas has a long history in opposition to mining. It is interesting to note that the State of Arkansas has a relatively small amount of mining activity, most of which is either on private or patented land, unlike the western part of the United States, Nevada, California, Idaho, my State of Alaska. I do not have a constituency in the poultry industry. I could, perhaps, claim ``fowl,'' relative to the constant objection from my good friend from Arkansas who clearly has no constituency in the mining industry. But the point is, the mining industry in the United States has been able to survive in an international marketplace, unlike the poultry industry which has a domestic market and domestic concerns. My point is that the economy of a good portion of the Western United States is dependent on the mining industry. It needs fixing, but it is not broke. It is rather interesting to note that the reason we are here today, to a large degree, is that we have yet to pass a mining law reform package in the U.S. Senate. It is fair to ask why. Let me tell you why, Madam President. The Senator from Arkansas specifically asked the Senator from Alaska, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, not to mark up the mining legislation because he was working diligently with me and others to try to put together a compromise that he could support. But the point is, he asked and I put off Senator Craig's and my mining bill while he negotiated with industry on a comprehensive reform package. I hope that effort is not over. But we would not be here today or have to go through this debate if our reform bill had come to this floor for a vote, which I hope within the timeframe remaining it still might. It was an effort to provide a balanced package that contained a host of surface management protections along with royalty, but it was because he asked us to put off the mining law package that we are here today debating only a portion of the reforms envisioned in my mining bill. Let me remind you, Madam President, the reform of mining law is complex. There are different minerals. It is not like the coal industry where you are dealing with one particular mine product. You are dealing with gold, you are dealing with silver, you are dealing with copper, all of which have different complexities in the mining and, more so, the refining process, different costs, and the realization that you may be mining rich gold in one mine and much lower grade gold in another, yet the costs are significant. When you try to have uniformity in application of mining law, it becomes very complex and often an impossible task. What we are proposing in our mining bill, as the Senator from Arkansas knows, is a pattern similar to what is working in the State of Nevada. My colleagues from Nevada will be addressing that. But that is basically the application of a net royalty. Madam President, hard as it is to believe that we agree on anything, I do agree with Senator Bumpers that it is an absolute shame that the Congress has been forced to intercede in what should be the Department of Interior's routine rulemaking process. This has been addressed by my friend from Arkansas, but if we look back historically, we have been able to count on administration agencies to do an evaluation of needs that is objective and straightforward before launching off and writing new regulations. Sadly, under the current Office of the Secretary of the Interior, this has not been the case. Let me tell you why. The entire rulemaking effort for mining is rooted in a Secretarial directive to the Bureau of Land Management in which he concludes that since the Congress has not acted on mining reform, it is his intention to do so through the regulatory process. So here is the Secretary of the Interior circumventing the will of Congress. Why don't we have a bill here? We accommodated the Senator from Arkansas in withholding on the markup so we could negotiate. Yet, he wants to move in and strike the involvement on a portion--a portion, Madam President--of the reform from having the independent study done by the National Academy of Sciences. I am sure my colleagues understand what we have going on here. As we look at giving the Secretary of the Interior the right to initiate rulemaking, circumventing the role of Congress, I think on most issues, my friend will agree with me, there is no justification for it. There is a mining bill before this Congress. We would like to have it passed, but we are waiting for a resolve by the Senator from Arkansas to negotiate something that is satisfactory to him, as well as us. We have a bill before this body, as I promised many of my colleagues after the last vote on this issue that we would. Let's go back to the proposed rulemaking, which the Senator from Arkansas has referred to, at the Department of Interior. It is interesting to note that no assessment of existing Federal laws and regulations, no assessment of existing State laws and regulations-- simply put, the result so far from the Department of Interior is, no determination of need whatsoever has come out of this process. Governor Miller of Nevada perhaps put it best when he said the current Department of Interior mining regulation effort is a solution looking for a problem, and my good friend from Arkansas is here with his continuation of his objection to this particular industry. During the last appropriations cycle, we attempted to temper the Secretary's driving impulse to regulate with an amendment which would have forced--forced--the Department of Interior to at least coordinate its efforts with the Governors of the affected States. My friend from Arkansas said they met that obligation. The only difference is, the Governors of the affected States didn't agree with the Department of Interior. It was our hope through this coordinated effort the new regulations would not drop a monkey wrench into the existing State-Federal regulatory network. Anyone, Madam President, with even a rudimentary understanding of how the mining industry is regulated understands that the State governments play by far the largest role in oversight and enforcement of environmental regulations on the industry. What is wrong with that? The Senator from Arkansas seems to put little credence in the oversight capability of the States. What is wrong with the States, the most concerned group with regard to their responsibility concerning environmental oversight on the mining industry? Is it better to have a faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC, dictating what goes on in Nevada, California, Idaho, dictating to the people of Idaho, the people of Alaska who live with the mining industry, who take pride in their State, who take pride in the reclamation process to meet their obligations? The reason for this is simple. Over time, the States have been delegated Federal responsibilities for water quality, air quality, solid waste management, and mine reclamation. These laws are the 800- pound gorillas when it comes to mining. Over time, these Federal programs have been fully integrated into State environmental protection laws. These interwoven laws form a complete and balanced net of environmental regulations that cover almost every aspect of mining activity. And if they don't cover some, they will, without so much as a thought given to the impact their rulemaking efforts would have upon existing Federal and State programs that the Department of Interior took upon itself to launch into a major rewrite effort. What is their agenda? Is it to run the domestic mining industry offshore? We have learned from what happened in Mexico and Canada when the industry basically ceased to exist at its previous level because of restrictions. And, remember, unlike the poultry industry, which is a domestic industry and with which my colleague from Arkansas is familiar, the mining industry has to operate internationally. It either competes on an international basis or it doesn't. It is much more complex. Last year, at the request of Governor Miller of Nevada, Senator Reid put on an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would have made it mandatory that the Interior Department at least coordinate efforts with the States--at least coordinate them. He did this only after the Governor made it clear that coordination was not taking place. So I take issue with the general statement of my friend from Arkansas. We were prepared last year to make Interior Department coordination with the States mandatory. Senator Bumpers, however, saw fit to intercede on behalf of the Department of Interior with an amendment which removed mandatory coordination with States and put in place a requirement that the Secretary certify to the Congress that the coordination had occurred, and the Secretary has done that. But the States didn't agree. They didn't agree, Madam President. While I have had doubts about this, I supported the approach. I was hopeful that the amendment would be received in good faith by the Interior Department and that they would make sure that the States interested were factored into their mining regulation effort. What followed was the most, I think, disrespectful, in-your-face response I have ever seen from the Department of Interior and any other agency of the Federal Government. In the Interior appropriations bill, when it was signed by the President November 11, 1997, a letter certifying that coordination with the Governors had taken place was signed on Monday, November 14. Well, they didn't agree. The cavalier attitude of the Interior Department is the sole reason we are back here again this year. At this time, I urge my colleagues not to be taken in by the rhetoric. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, why, shame on me. It is obvious to me that we have seen examples that the Department of Interior is simply unwilling and incapable of following good government practice when it comes to regulating the industry. They have so completely lost their objectivity and become so biased against this industry that they appear completely incapable of making objective and fair decisions. It is just not the mining industry. Grazing on public land falls into the same category; oil and gas exploration, same category; access to public land; the administration talks about global warming and that gas is the answer--where are you going to get the gas if they won't allow exploration on public lands; timbering, Forest Service lands, and, of course, mining on western public land. Our amendment does not make a finding one way or the other regarding the ultimate needs for new regulations. It does direct an ``unbaised'' assessment of the need for new regulations be completed before--and that is the whole purpose of the National Academy of Sciences--before the Interior Department can finalize mining regulations. With diminished budgets, increased need and the growing complexity of State, Federal and environmental protection laws, why on Earth would any responsible government manager propose a large-scale rulemaking effort without first establishing a solid and specific need? Since it has become obvious that the Interior Department is either unwilling or incapable of accomplishing this assessment, then it is imperative that the Congress now step in and assume the responsibility. They leave us with no other choice. Once the National Academy of Sciences completes its assessment, the Interior Department will be free to proceed with its regulatory efforts. At that point, they will have the information they need to rewrite the regulations in a way that fixes problems, if there are any, but not create problems. The citizens of this Nation are entitled to a Department of Interior that determines need before it acts, that doesn't waste money that it sorely needs in other places, a department that doesn't unnecessarily disrupt a system of State and Federal regulations laboriously constructed over decades to complement and enhance environmental protection at the lowest possible cost. The time has come to draw a line in the sand with this administration. It is simply not in their purview to regulate an industry out of existence without first establishing a need for that regulation. It cannot simply dismiss input from the affected States, which they have done. These States truly are our partners, not our enemies. I have communications from the Governors of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, asking Congress to protect their interests, asking us to support retention of the National Academy of Sciences' objective study. Like us, they simply want the Interior Department to demonstrate a need for regulation before they step up on the effort. By voting to table Senator Bumpers' amendment we will certainly set in motion this study. It is my understanding it will be Senator Bumpers' motion to strike. Now, I am sure all of you will hear a great deal of verbiage about this issue, but when the dust settles and the smoke has blown away, you only have to ask yourself one question: Do we want to start a massive, potentially disruptive rulemaking effort before the need for the effort has been established? There you have it--short, simple and to the point. I urge my colleagues to join me in a vote against Senator Bumpers' amendment. In so doing, we will be sending a clear message to the administration that good government is still important government, and the government that is best is the government that is close to the people. The State's voice should be heard. The States play a critical role in environmental protection. Their partnership and input is important. Let's have a fair, objective, qualified, scientific group, the National Academy of Sciences, make the call. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Might I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield such time as my friend and colleague from the State of Idaho might need, reserving at least 5 minutes for myself.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. From the standpoint of procedure, I would be pleased if I could be recognized after the distinguished Senators who are seeking recognition. Senator Kennedy is. Is the Senator from California seeking recognition? My point is, if I could be third after her?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup of bills pending before the committee. The markup will begin at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, in room 428A, Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce be authorized to meet in conference on H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998 during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, at 2 p.m.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, at 2:30 p.m., on S. 2390--Freedom to Transport Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, at 10 a.m., in open session, to consider the nominations of Bernard D. Rostker, to be Under Secretary of the Army; James M. Bodner, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Vice Adm. Dennis C. Blair, USN, for appointment to the grade of admiral, and to be Commander in Chief of U.S. Pacific Command.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., on the nominations of Robert Brown, John Paul Hammerschmidt, and Norman Mineta to be members of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on ``Consolidation in the Telecommunications Industry: Has it Gone Too Far?''

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intent to table the proposed Bumpers amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand in strong opposition to Senator Bumpers' amendment to strike the National Academy of Sciences study. Before they cast their vote, I want my colleagues to consider these points: We put the National Academy of Sciences study language into the appropriations bill because the Interior Department has decided that they can no longer wait for Congress to act on mining law. Apparently these unelected officials know what's better for this country than the United States Congress. We are doing it because the Department of the Interior has decided that they are not interested in the opinions or concerns of the public land Governors and the constituents they represent. Let me quote the Western Governors Association letter from February of this year: States already have effective environmental and reclamation programs in place and operating. These programs ensure that national criteria, where they exist in current law, are met and allow state and site-specific flexibility for the remaining issues. We put the Academy study into the appropriations bill at the specific request of the Governors of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. They all echo Nevada Governor Miller's concerns when he said: Interior is moving the responsibility for environmental oversight of mining operations in my State and other States to here in Washington, DC. This attempt at seizure and control by Interior is particularly perplexing in view of the fact that many States, expecially Nevada [and my state-- Alaska] have moved aggressively to address the environmental concerns of mining operations. To date, there has been no real justification offered by the department regarding the need to make changes. * * * He goes on to say that in his opinion the Department of the Interior has a solution looking for a problem. A solution looking for a problem. It is simply unacceptable for an agency to launch off on a major rulemaking effort that affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the entire environmental foundation of mining in the United States. Let me close by quoting one of the modern environmental leaders, former Secretary of the Interior Andrus: In 20 years, I admit, the 3809 regulations have stood the test of time * * * those regulations revolutionized mining on the public lands. Bruce Babbitt--who should know better--is trying to fix things that are not broken, and I suspect accomplish some mining law reform through the back door. Secretary Babbitt is trying to fix things that are not broken. I couldn't have said it better if I tried. The amendment that Senator Bumpers proposes to strike is as simple-- it does ``nothing'' more than direct the National Academy of Sciences to review existing State and Federal environmental regulations dealing with hardrock mining to determine the adequacy of these laws and regulations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation and how to better coordinate Federal and State regulatory programs to ensure environmental protection. The Department of the Interior has so completely lost its objectivity and has become so biased against this industry that they appear completely incapable of making sound decisions in this arena. The citizens of this country are entitled to a Department of the Interior that determines need before it acts, that doesn't waste money that is sorely needed in other places; a Department that doesn't ``unnecessarily'' disrupt a system of State and Federal regulations laboriously constructed over decades to complement and enhance environmental protection at the lowest cost possible. I urge my colleagues to join with me in a vote to table Senator Bumpers' amendment, and in doing so, we will be sending a clear message to the administration that ``good'' Government is still important, that States play a critical role in environmental protection and that their partnerships and input are still important. Mr. President, as you know, we have before us a vote, and I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be requested--Mr. President, I am told that I should make that request after time has expired.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of (S. Res. 276) are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. As I understand it, we are in morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That letter that has just been made part of the Record is highlighted here relative to the detailed expense associated with the Monica Lewinsky incident, expenses from January 15 to August 31, 1998, including categories of expenses relative to personal compensation, travel costs, contractual services, supplies, capital equipment, administrative services. The total is $4.3 million, roughly $4.4 million. That is the cost to the American taxpayer. The question that I brought up earlier was one of equity. Equity demands the costs of the delays should be borne by the President and not the taxpayers of this country. I ask that my colleagues support me in the resolution that I have submitted which would require the President to reimburse the American taxpayers for the expenses that resulted from the delays of the investigation, the delays that were initiated and caused directly by the President. My colleagues should note that this resolution is not unprecedented. We, in Congress, have required Members under investigation by the Ethics Committee to reimburse the committee for the costs of the investigation. The same standard should apply in the case of the President of the United States.