Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, following the current debate, let me point out a couple of things that I think the Senator from Arkansas may have overlooked with regard to his general statement that we have 557,000 sites in the abandoned mine category. I think it is important to recognize what we have done. We have a system. The system is working. Fewer than 3 percent of those 557,000 are considered to be of a significant environmental concern. Surface water contamination, ground water contamination, and Superfund make up less than 3 percent of these sites. The others--it is interesting to note--34 percent, or 194,000, have been reclaimed and are considered benign; 231,000, or 41 percent, have a surface disturbance. Obviously, if you are going to mine an area in an open pit, you are going to have a surface disturbance. But that can be taken care of in the reclamation process. The trees can grow back. I ask anybody who has visited the interior of Alaska to recognize the techniques used with the gold dredges where they basically built this dredge in a pond and it dug ahead of itself and deposited the tailings, the pond was not any bigger than the dredge, it simply moved, and yes, the tailings were evident at the time, but now the trees have grown back into the tailings piles. That is what is happening in these areas where appropriate reclamation takes place, and the technology today is much more advanced than previously. So there is significant advancement in the process. The system of reclamation is working, and the States take pride in their obligation to address reclamation associated with mining activity. You can't create wealth, you can't create jobs, and you can't create prosperity without some kind of a footprint. Mining is no exception. But with the technology we have, we are addressing it and doing a better job. The problem with the proposal of my friend from Arkansas is that he simply wants to have the Department of the Interior come in and dictate terms and conditions--a nameless, faceless bureaucracy, accountable not to the people within the States, not to the people who work in the mining industry, not to the people who have jobs, families, mortgages, but to an indifferent Department of the Interior coming down with regulations that would basically strangle the mining industry as we know it today and force it overseas. We have had a discussion about the poultry industry. I am sorry that my friend from Arkansas stepped out briefly, but I have done a little investigation in the last few minutes relative to the poultry industry in Arkansas, which I know very little about. Clearly, the Senator from Arkansas is on record opposing any State regulation of mining that is evident today. But he doesn't oppose State regulation of his State's biggest industry, and that is poultry. Small poultry farmers are not subject to Federal law, clean water regulation, even when large corporations actually own the chickens. It is left up to State law, even though it is a major water quality issue in those States with high populations of poultry. In Virginia alone, over 1,300 poultry operations produce 4.4 billion pounds of manure a year. A so-called small poultry operation can produce 540 tons of litter per year. I haven't heard the Senator from Arkansas arguing in favor of Federal regulation, but perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves and we don't need to spread the issue around any more than we have, relatively speaking. Let me just highlight a few more points that I think are appropriate. Let's look at the gold industry in the United States today. The layoffs total approximately 3,500 workers--not because the gold isn't there, but the world price of gold has declined. As a consequence, these mines, such as the HomeStake Mine in Lead, SD, a small community of fewer than 1,000 people, where there are over 466 people that are out of work--that issue is not as a consequence of the issue before us today, but it is a consequence of the mining industry's ability to operate internationally based on cost, based on the value of the gold in the ground, and a number of other considerations. The point is, when you go into the mining industry, you go in for the long haul. You are going to have good years and bad years. But I think it is appropriate that we take a look at the industry as it exists in the Western States. There are 5,000 people employed in my State of Alaska. In California, there are 115,000 people with jobs directly or indirectly affected by the mining industry; Colorado has 19,000; Idaho has 7,000; Montana, 9,000; Nevada has 11,000; South Dakota, 8,000; the State of Washington has 26,000. So I remind the Senators from those States that are directly affected, with a significant payroll, a number of jobs are dependent directly or indirectly on the mining industry, and it is very important that we have a mining industry that has regulations that are responsive to the legitimate environmental demands, but at the same time recognize that this industry fluctuates with market price, world prices, unlike many other items that we might not have a fair comparison with. Finally, let me in the remaining moments again refer to the effort that has been made that is pending before the U.S. Senate. It is ready for markup. That is the mining bill that Senator Craig and I have offered. It was a solid foundation upon which to build mining reform. We made an accommodation to the Senator from Arkansas not to mark it up in order for him to initiate an effort to reach a compromise with the mining industry to resolve long standing issues. Evidently, this has not yet happened, although I still have hopes. Let me remind my colleagues that the mining bill before us would have pleased, I think, reasonable voices on both sides of the issue. It seeks reform, which brings a fair return to the Treasury. It protects the environment and preserves our ability to produce strategic minerals in an international marketplace. I think the bill, when it eventually reaches the floor of this body, will receive support and pass. The legislation protects the small miners, it maintains traditional location and discovery practices, and it is reform. It is an effort to do the job right. Bad decisions are going to harm a $5 billion U.S. industry whose products are the muscle and sinew of our Nation's industrial output. The future of some 120,000 American miners and their families and their communities is at stake here. So is the well-being of thousands of other Americans whose income is linked to manufacturing goods and services which support this critical industry. In summary, Mr. President, I am going to be offering a motion to table Senator Bumpers amendment to strike at 2:15 when the Senate reconvenes I want my colleagues to know ahead of time what my intentions are relative to the disposition of the Bumpers amendment. Finally, let me, for the record, indicate the position of the Western Governors' Association, which wrote in a letter: 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 the States site-specific flexibility for the remaining issue. We have letters from the Governors of Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah--written letters in support of having the National Academy of Sciences conduct a review of the existing State and Federal regulations governing mining to determine their deficiencies. One other point, Mr. President. I think it is noteworthy, to my colleagues who have perhaps been following some of our Nation's environmental leaders, the comment that was made in December 1997 by former Secretary of the Interior, Governor Cecil Andrus. When the 3809 regulations were promulgated back in 1980, Governor Andrus was Secretary of the Interior. So this gentleman knows of what he speaks. In December, Governor Andrus stated: For over 20 years, I submit, the 3809 regulations have stood the test of time. These are the regulations that we are talking about today, the ones the Secretary of the Interior proposes to change. Further, I quote: Those regulations revolutionized mining on the public lands. Bruce Babbitt, who should know better, is trying to fix things that are not broken and accomplish some mining reform laws through the back door. Mr. President, that is just what this issue is about. I don't know what is good for the goose or the chicken, but I do know what is good for the mining industry in the United States today; that is, to defeat and prevail on the motion to table the Bumpers amendment to strike. Mr. President, I ask that the remainder of my time be indicated.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I retain the remainder of my time and yield to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. And remaining on the other side is?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I will accommodate the Senator from Arkansas if he desires to speak at this time. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

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. President, might I ask what time remains on either side? Senator Bumpers is controlling the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Senator from Arkansas if he would care to go next since we spoke last on the issue. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that during the previously scheduled full committee hearing to consider Department of Energy and Department of Interior nominations, the Energy and Natural Resources will consider the nomination of T.J. Glauthier to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky, who has labored in the area of campaign finance for an extended period of time, whose expertise many of us depend upon because once again this Senate is being called upon to reform our campaign finance laws. As with many issues, the issue of so-called reforming the laws is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. As a consequence, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation in perhaps a different context. The issue before this body, in my opinion, is simply: To what extent, if any, should the Federal Government regulate political free speech in America? The campaign finance debate is not just about politicians and their campaigns. At the core of this debate are the values and freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. As a consequence, I suggest when Government attempts to place limitations on speech, it has an overwhelming burden to demonstrate why such restrictions to our fundamental freedoms are necessary. Surely the Government can no more dictate how many words a newspaper can print than it can limit a political candidate's ability to communicate with his or her constituents, yet that is precisely what the sponsors of this legislation are proposing for candidates for office. The McCain-Feingold legislation bristles with over a dozen different restrictions on speech, provisions that I believe flagrantly violate the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I cannot overemphasize the point that was made by George F. Will in a Washington Post editorial. He stated, commenting on the McCain-Feingold bill: Nothing in American history--not the left's recent ``campus speech codes,'' nor the right's depredations during the 1950s McCarthyism or the 1920 ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective coloration of political hygiene. One of the most serious problems with this bill is that it contains restrictions on ``express advocacy'' within 60 days of an election by independent groups. And what is ``express advocacy''? Mr. President, if this proposal ever becomes law, we can change the name of the Federal Election Commission to the Federal Campaign Speech Police. Every single issue advertisement would be taped, reviewed, analyzed, and perhaps litigated. The speech police will set up their offices in all of the 50 States to ensure the integrity of political advertising. Is that what we in this Chamber really want? I don't think so. But that is what will eventually happen if we adopt McCain- Feingold. I assure my colleagues, and hope they understand, that this wholesale encroachment on the first amendment would be immediately struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Moreover, if a group of citizens decide to pool their money and advocate their political position in newspaper advertisements and television ads, what right does the Federal Government have to restrict their right of speech? Indeed, do we want to turn over the debate on political issues to the owners of the broadcast stations, the owners of the newspapers, and the editorialists during the 60-day period leading up to an election? Would my colleagues who are supporting this bill be ready to stand up and vote to ban election editorials in newspapers and on television in the last 60 days of a campaign? Many members of the public think we need fundamental changes to our election financial laws because in the 1996 Presidential election they witnessed the most abusive campaign finance strategy ever conceived in this country. There is an answer to those who abuse power. And the answer does not mean you have to shred the first amendment. The answer is a very simple one. It is that our current election finance laws must be strictly enforced, something that this administration has been extremely reluctant to do for obvious reasons. Mr. President, as grand jury indictments amass with regard to Democratic fundraising violations in the 1996 Presidential election, we learn more and more about President Clinton's use of the prerequisite of the Presidency as a fundraising tool. It is important to recall some of those abuses as we consider this debate. You recall, Mr. President, the Lincoln bedroom. During the 5 years that President Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938 guests have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom and generated at least $6 million for the Democratic National Committee. Presidential historian Richard Norton Smith stated there has ``never been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of the White House for fundraising purposes * * * it's the selling of the White House.'' The Presidential coffees: President Clinton hosted 103 ``Presidential coffees.'' Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms trading company, donated $27 million to the Democratic National Committee. President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, gave the President weekly memorandums which included projected moneys he expected at each of the ``Clinton coffees'' and what they would raise. He projected each would raise no less than $400,000. In the area of foreign contributions, investigations by both the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Department of Justice into campaign abuses into the 1996 Presidential campaign have revealed that the Democrats recklessly accepted illegal foreign donations in exchange for Presidential access and other favors. A few examples: We recall John Huang. John Huang raised millions of dollars in illegal foreign contributions for the Democratic National Committee which the DNC has already returned. John Huang, despite being wholly unqualified according to his immediate boss, received an appointment to the Department of Commerce where he improperly accessed numerous classified documents pertaining to China. John Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often meeting with senior officials on U.S. trade policy. The committee had deemed that this was unusual because Huang's position in Commerce was at a very low level. Senator Specter stated that the activities of Mr. Huang at the Commerce Department had ``all the earmarks of * * * espionage.'' Charlie Trie, a long-time friend of President Clinton, raised and contributed at least $640,000 in contributions to the Clinton, Gore Campaign and for the Democratic National Committee. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed an Executive Order that increased the size of the U.S. Commission on Pacific Trade and then appointed Mr. Trie to the Commission. On January 29th of this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trie on charges that he funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to buy access to top Democratic Party and Clinton administration officials. Vice President Gore was present at an event in a Buddhist temple where $80,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee were laundered through penniless nuns and monks. Vice President Gore offered differing characterizations of the Buddhist temple event. First, the Vice President described the event as a ``community outreach.'' He later characterized it as a ``donor- maintenance'' event where ``no money was offered or collected or raised at the event.'' However, the Department of Justice determined otherwise. So on February 18, veteran Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia was charged in a six-count indictment by the Department of Justice for her part in raising the illegal contributions for the Democratic National Committee at the Buddhist temple event. Mr. President, just the day before yesterday, our Attorney General ordered a 90-day inquiry into whether President Clinton circumvented Federal election laws in 1996. This investigation could lead to yet another independent counsel investigation. This 90-day inquiry is in addition to an inquiry focusing on Vice President Gore's statements about his 1996 telephone fundraising calls in the White House. Mr. President, our current campaign finance system has many flaws, but the point I want to make to my colleagues is that these flaws do not justify shredding the first amendment, especially because the current occupant of the White House pushed the envelope of legality in his search to finance his reelection campaign. Mr. President, as Floyd Abrams, a noted first amendment lawyer, has stated: First amendment principles should guide whatever legislative solution we choose. The first principle is that it is not for Congress to decide that political speech is some sort of disease that we must quarantine. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional infringement on free speech. I yield the floor.

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, September 17, 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 Gregory H. Friedman to be Inspector General of the Department of Energy; Charles G. Groat to be Director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior; and to consider any other pending nominations which are ready for consideration before the Committee. For further information, please contact Gary Ellsworth of the committee staff at (202) 224-7141. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the recent midwest electricity price spikes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 24, 1998, at 10:00 A.M. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish to testify or submit a written statement should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Julie McCaul or Howard Useem at (202) 224-7875.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act. This bill is simple, but extremely important. It makes it clear that it is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, a national missile defense system which is capable of defending the entire territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack. We voted on cloture earlier this year--the motion fell one vote shy. Well, as is common in this business, we are dealing with changed circumstances. North Korea continues to defy rational behavior. As we all know, it recently fired a multi-stage missile over Japan! Starvation in North Korea is rampant, and many North Korea watchers have long predicted that government's imminent collapse. Well, Mr. President, the North Korean Government continues to defy the odds--but, what concerns me is the old adage that ``desperate times often call for desperate measures.'' If North Korea is truly desperate, to what extent will it go to try to hold on to its grasp of power? We have almost 80,000 American troops in the Asia/Pacific Theater. Most of these troops are already in the range of current North Korean missile technology. As their missile development program advances, we can expect more American lives and territory to be at risk. We cannot stand idly by and wait! We need to be prepared so that we can protect our citizens and our territory from such a reckless or accidental strike by North Korea or some other nation. Alaskans have been justifiably concerned with this issue for some time. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a resolution passed by the Alaska State Legislature which calls on the Administration to include Alaska and Hawaii in all future assessments of the threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United States. More than 20 percent of our domestic oil comes from Alaska, all of it through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Alaskans are concerned, as should the rest of the country be concerned, that a strike at the pipeline could have dire consequences to our domestic energy production.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Last year North Korean defectors indicated that the North Korean missile development program already poses a verifiable threat to American forces in Okinawa and seems on track to threaten parts of Alaska by the turn of the Century. The Taepodong missile, which is under development, would have a range of about 3,100 miles. From certain parts of North Korea, this weapon could easily target many of the Aleutian islands in western Alaska, including the former Adak Naval Air Base. The Washington Times reported earlier this year that the Chinese have 13 of 18 long-range strategic missiles armed with nuclear warheads aimed at American cities. This is incredible, Mr. President. Opponents to the motion to invoke cloture somehow fail to understand that this threat is real and that we have a responsibility to protect the United States from attack, be it deliberate or accidental. Without question, the threat of an attack on the United States is increasingly real, and we must act now to make certain that it is the policy of the United States to construct a national missile defense system with the capability of intercepting and deterring an aggressive strike against American soil from all parts of the United States--as soon as possible. Finally, Mr. President, I would mention for a moment that S. 1873 is not, and I repeat not, in any way a strike at Russia. The ABM treaty was crafted and agreed to when the United States and the Soviet Union were the only nuclear powers. The mutually assured destruction system was agreed to under the understanding that we were dealing with the Soviet Union, and not third parties. Times have changed; there are countless more players that have complicated the issues. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves, and we must act now to do so. Mr. President, I support the motion to proceed to the bill and hope that my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly in favor of this legislation this morning and pass it in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I rise today in support of Senator McCain's amendment restricting the transfer of funds to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (``KEDO'') until the President certifies that North Korea is not actively pursuing the acquisition or development of a nuclear capability and is fully meeting its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that such language is necessary. For almost four years, the United States has provided funding to KEDO under an ``Agreed Framework'' negotiated by this administration with the leadership of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Although this framework agreement was never submitted to the Congress for ratification, the Administration has come to Congress each year to ask for more and more money to carry out the Framework provisions to supply the North Koreans with heavy fuel oil and to run KEDO. Each year, the Administration has said that this is money well spent because the Agreed Framework has frozen and stopped the North Korean nuclear program. I have been skeptical of the Agreed Framework since its inception. I have never understood how United States negotiators agreed to a deal that did not allow international inspectors immediate and complete access to North Korea's nuclear program, including the two suspected but undeclared nuclear waste sites. Not only did this failure to demand complete access mean that we might never know how much plutonium the North Koreans diverted prior to the 1994 crisis, but it has also led to this situation where the much heralded ``freeze'' may have provided convenient cover for North Korea's more sinister plans. In the year following the signing of the Agreed Framework, former Majority Leader Bob Dole and I successfully added amendments to prohibit North Korea from receiving foreign assistance until the President certified to Congress that North Korea's nuclear threat had been eliminated. Both times the amendments were dropped in conference at the insistence of the Clinton Administration. Senator McCain and I have come to the floor countless times since then to try and correct loopholes in the Agreed Framework. I felt then, as I feel today, that the Agreed Framework did nothing to eliminate the nuclear threat from North Korea. In the last several weeks, disturbing intelligence information has surfaced that North Korea is constructing a vast underground complex that may be the site of another nuclear facility. This development alarms, but does not surprise, the Senator from Alaska. Mr. President, the United States must demand immediate access to this site before another penny of taxpayer dollars goes to subsidize this terrorist regime. If the North Korean regime is ready to put aside its drive for nuclear arms and to move toward the family of nations, then I believe the United States should rightfully welcome such a move and offer ``rewards.'' However, I strongly believe that North Korea must offer the concessions, and not the other way around. For too long, I believe we have let the North Korean government dictate the terms of negotiations, while they gained valuable time to push the suspected nuclear program ahead. From the track record, it is hard to tell which country is a tiny, isolated, terrorist regime violating international agreements and which country is a superpower pulling the weight for the international community. This must change. Mr. President, Senator McCain's amendment is a step in the right direction, and I urge its immediate adoption. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be allowed to speak after the vote. I also ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment, the recorded rollcall vote on this amendment, be set aside pending the determination of the managers.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to advise my colleagues that today, as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I submitted to both the Democratic and Republican members of that committee, a chairman's mark specifically on the issue of self- determination for Puerto Rico. It is certainly a responsibility of my committee to provide and address the eventual disposition of the status of the American citizens in Puerto Rico, and the purpose of the draft is to provide them with an opportunity to express their dispositions on future political aspirations of the choice among commonwealth, independence, or statehood. Also, I advise my colleagues, this is the centennial anniversary of Puerto Rico under U.S. sovereignty--100 years that Puerto Rico has been under the U.S. flag. The people of Puerto Rico, as U.S. citizens, have been in a process of transcending to something that would focus in on certainty. There is a growing effort to try to bring some finality to the disposition of the status of Puerto Rican Americans because they do not participate as other U.S. citizens in the election of representation in the House and Senate. As a consequence, many of them are looking towards a definitive alternative. We have had hearings. We have listened to individuals from all sides of the debate. We have reviewed all testimony. We have had input from three political parties, certainly, as well as the Governor. I have directed the chairman's mark in the hopes that it will provide a brief, accurate and neutral definition of the status of the options. The mark is drafted to advance the process of self-determination for our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico. It is strictly advisory in its legislation. It does not mandate introduction of future legislation. It does not require any fast track. I grew up living in a territory--my State of Alaska. We had taxation without representation. Many people in the State of Alaska, filing their income tax returns, used to write in red, ``filed in protest.'' It made them feel a little better. It didn't do any good. But the point is these people living in Puerto Rico are entitled to certainty, and it is an obligation of the Congress to address a final resolution. I think our committee has a moral and constitutional responsibility to address the situation in Puerto Rico, but we don't want to get involved in the politics of Puerto Rico. That is not our business. I know the Governor intends to call a plebiscite this December. He may or may not choose to use the definitions that we provide him. Whether or not the Senate acts is another story. We have a short time left, but in my view this is an ongoing effort of the committee, a systematic progression. The definitions we have come up with and the structure in the previous bills, either the House bill or the Senate bill, have not been as neutral as we would have liked and would have involved, I think, more activity in local politics. We have attempted to be more objective. It is my hope the measure that eventually comes out of our committee will provide the Governor language that is accurate and neutral. The draft chairman's mark clarifies citizenship under each option. That was very important, in our conversations with all groups. The classification and clarification of citizenship was very important. Under commonwealth, citizenship provided by statute will continue to do so. Under separate sovereignty, citizenship would end. Under Statehood, citizenship is, of course, provided under the Constitution, so there is no question about that. Finally, I want to make it clear so long as Puerto Rico remains under U.S. sovereignty its residents, of course, will be U.S. citizens. If Puerto Rico wants separate sovereignty then, of course, U.S. citizenship would end. I provided members of the Energy Committee a copy of this mark for their review over the recess. After receiving members' comments, members of the committee, again, will discuss this matter in September. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is a picture of a gentleman, Walter Samuelson. Walter Samuelson was 60 years old when he died February 1, 1992, as a consequence of a heart attack from complications he suffered in February of that year. Because of the weather in King Cove, AK, Samuelson waited 3 days after his heart attack before he could be removed out of King Cove to a hospital in Anchorage. By that time, his heart had been so severely damaged he eventually had to have a heart transplant. The Samuelson family believes that had Walter been able to get out of the village of King Cove a little earlier, he would not have had the major complications that led to his heart transplant. Mr. Samuelson was born and raised in King Cove, AK. He served in the military in the Korean war. He was a fisherman all his life, fishing with his father and brothers while growing up. And after serving in the military, he moved to Sitka and married. He and his wife, Freda, had four boys. During the summer, he would fly his plane 1,000 miles back to King Cove where his boat was and where he could continue his livelihood, fishing for salmon. He later moved back to King Cove to live and later remarried. He and his second wife, Tanna, had two more children. Mr. Samuelson was a dedicated patron of the school in King Cove and devoted much of his time and effort there, so much so that he was honored in the dedication of the school's yearbook to him as ``a great friend of King Cove schools,'' an honor which he certainly cherished. He is survived by his wife Tanna and children: Carl, Walter, Jr., Charles, John, Axel, and Tanna. His surviving brothers and sisters are: Anna Poe, Marion Walker, Thelma Hutton, Christine Christiansen, and Alex, Eugene, John, Frank, and Eric Samuelson. Mr. Samuelson required a heart transplant and died because there is no road between King Cove and Cold Bay. We wonder how many more people have to die before we do something about it. Eleven residents have perished in aircraft accidents being medevaced out of King Cove a short distance to Cold Bay, where there is a year-round crosswind runway, as opposed to the gravel strip in the village of King Cove, where sometimes the windsock is blowing at opposite ends of the runway in opposite directions because of the severe turbulence in what is classified as one of the three worst weather areas identified in the world. The point is the people of King Cove have an alternative, and that is a short, 7-mile road connection which would necessitate a gravel road of 7 miles on the edge of a wilderness area. The people of King Cove are willing to give approximately 700 acres of their land to enlarge the wilderness for access through 7 miles of wilderness. This is being objected to by the Department of Interior and by many of the environmental community. I hope, as we return from our recess, we can reflect on the human merits, so we do not have to address additional obituaries of people who died because of their inability to get medical care and have simple access that every American enjoys with the exception of people in the village of King Cove, AK. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to wish you a very pleasant recess, and the other officials who are here in the Senate Chamber. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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