Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, February 13, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in SR-301 to mark up the recurring budgets contained in the Omnibus Committee Funding Resolution for 1997 and 1998.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 13, 1997, at 8 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Finance Committee be permitted to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 13, 1997, beginning at 1 p.m. in room 215-Dirksen.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Finance be permitted to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 13, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215-Dirksen.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, February 13, at 1:45 p.m. for a business meeting, for the purpose of considering issuance of subpoenas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 13, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for the fiscal year 1998 and the future years Defense Program.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 13, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to discuss reform to the Commodity Exchange Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe I have the unique distinction of being the only current Member of this body who has served in the U.S. Coast Guard, so as a consequence I rise today to pay tribute to three brave young men who perished early yesterday off the coast of Washington State. Petty Officer 2d Class David Bosley of Coronado, CA; Petty Officer 3d Class Matthew Schlimme of Whitewater, MO; and Seaman Clinton Miniken of Snohomish, WA, were serving aboard a 44-foot motor lifeboat stationed on the Pacific Ocean coast of Washington State's Olympic Peninsula. Early yesterday morning they took their vessel out to answer a distress call from two people aboard a sailboat in trouble in heavy seas. Tragically, the 44-footer capsized and three brave men died. Only one crewman, Seaman Apprentice Benjamin Wingo of Bremerton, WA, survived to reach the rocky shoreline and safety. Some of my colleagues have heard me address this body in the past to give tribute to successful rescues made by Coast Guard personnel in dangerous situations where they themselves were placed in serious jeopardy by their effort to save others. Most such rescues end happily. This one--tragically--did not. We pay formal tribute to those members of the military who fall in the line of duty while fighting our Nation's enemies. I hope the Members of this body will take just a moment to reflect on the sacrifice of these three young Coast Guardsmen. They, too, perished in the line of duty, fighting to protect human life. The Coast Guard motto, ``Semper Paratus,'' means ``Always Prepared.'' Sometimes, it means being prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the President's fiscal year 1998 budget. The committee will hear testimony from the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service on Tuesday, February 25, 1997. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Mike Poling, counsel (202) 224- 8276 or James Beirne, senior counsel at (202) 224-2564.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a series of three workshops have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to exchange ideas and information on the issue of ``Competitive Change in the Electric Power Industry.'' The first workshop will take place on Thursday, March 6, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The topic of discussion will be: What are the issues involved in competition? The second workshop will take place on Thursday, March 13, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SDG-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic of discussion will be: What is the role of public power in a competitive market? The third workshop will take place on Thursday, March 20, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The topic of discussion will be: Is federal legislation necessary? Participation is by invitation. For further information please write to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the President's fiscal year 1998 budget. The committee will hear testimony from the Department of Energy and FERC on Tuesday, March 11, 1997. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m., and take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I counted it up the other day. This is my 17th year of having the honor to represent my State of Alaska in this body. During that period I participated in seven separate debates on this floor on this very singular issue, and that is the amendment of our Constitution to require that the budget be balanced. A number of years ago, several of us unloaded a big van on the steps of the U.S. Senate. In that van were mailbags. And in those mailbags were letters from our constituents in overwhelming support of an amendment to the Constitution that would mandate a balanced budget. Mr. President, in 1982 the Senate adopted the amendment but it failed in the House. Since then, the amendment has failed in every year that we have engaged in this debate. In the intervening decade and a half annual Federal spending has increased nearly $1 trillion and our national debt has quadrupled. Mr. President, through this debate, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have amply demonstrated the billions and trillions that we have been spending, and the meteoric rise of our national debt. I do not intend to repeat those numbers. As the 10-foot stack of budgets standing before me on the floor clearly show, for the past 28 years the Federal Government has been living on debt. I find that rather ironic, Mr. President, in view of the fact that you and I and our constituents back home have to balance, if you will, our checkbooks. But the Government goes through a process of lengthy debate and budgetary process of seeing what its revenues are, seeing what its expenditures are, and then whatever else it seems to need it is simply added to the national debt. Mr. President, I want to talk about the awesome responsibility that we have as stewards of this Nation to face up to the enormity of the challenge that we are facing in changing the way we govern and have been governing. Mr. President, American Government was transformed by the Great Depression. In response to this crisis, our then President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 ushered in the age of social activist government, one of whose tenets was that in times of economic stress the Government would actively intervene to restart the economy. Thus was born the age of peacetime deficit spending. Unfortunately, what has ensued in the intervening 64 years is that the Federal Government has become incapable of weaning itself from this addiction to deficit spending. Whether in periods of strong growth or modest growth, the Federal Government runs deficits. In fact, in only 8 years since the Depression has the Federal Government operated with a surplus. But even that fact is somewhat misleading for I would note that the Federal surplus in those 8 years was a mere $33 billion. Compare that with 56 years of deficits cumulating in a national debt of more than $5.2 trillion. Let me refer to the chart here on my left. I hope that the President can view this. It covers the next 4 years of the current administration with outlays in 1997 of $1.6 trillion to the year 2000 at $1.84 trillion. The significance of what is occurring here is we are having to pay interest on this accumulated debt. The interest is running $247 billion in 1997, $250 billion in 1998, $252 billion in 1999, and $248 billion in the year 2000. I used to be in the banking business and I can tell you that interest is like owning a horse that eats while you are asleep. It goes on and on, night and day and holidays. No day is exempt from the accumulation of interest. Here is our deficit, Mr. President: $125 billion, $120 billion, $117 billion, $87 billion. One can say that is good news. The deficit is declining. Let us look a little further. But I would note that if we did not have to pay interest on this accumulated debt, if we hadn't accumulated all of these deficits, we would not have to pay nearly a trillion dollars in interest in the next 4 years and instead of running deficits for the next 4 years, we would have a surplus. We would have a surplus of $122 billion this year, $130 billion in 1998, $135 billion in 1999, and $161 billion in the year 2000. My point is that at the end of this timeframe of 1997, through the year 2000, our outlays will have been a little over $7 trillion, our interest will have been just under $1 trillion--$997 billion. Our deficit that we are adding would be $450 billion. So, if you look at where we are today, at the end of this year our national debt is at $5.4 trillion. By the end of the year 2000, the national debt will be $6.3 trillion. So the increase in the national debt in the Clinton administration for roughly 8 years is projected to be $2.2 trillion. The significance of these figures is a bit startling, but the reality is if we were not strangled by $1 trillion in interest on the national debt in the next 4 years, we could run a surplus and we could give every American family a $2,500-per-child tax credit, not the $500 that is in the Republican proposal but $2,500. Or we could give every American family a $1,500-per-child tax credit and every American citizen a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut. Or give every American a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. That is the significance of the necessity of this legislation which will take away deficit financing and allow us to develop a surplus, do away with the interest and get a hold of this continuing national debt which does not go away until we reduce the deficit. Some say, well, why do we need a constitutional amendment to do it? My answer is rather simplistic, Mr. President. We have not had the self-discipline to do it ourselves. We could do it ourselves, but it has not been done. I say to my colleagues who have any doubt about the wisdom of this amendment: The evidence is overwhelming that without the discipline of a constitutional amendment, elected officials are incapable of fiscal management of the people's business, and it has taken the last 64 years to demonstrate this fact. Some say we can balance the budget without this amendment. I say, OK, prove it. There is nothing within our post-Depression experience to suggest that this is even remotely possible. Eight years out of 64 years with surpluses totaling $33 billion is hardly evidence that convinces me. Quite the contrary. It proves to me that we must have this amendment if we are ever going to end deficit spending as business as usual in Washington, DC. Mr. President, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, are the seminal protections afforded citizens in a free society. They were adopted against the backdrop of the 17th and 18th century tyranny that the kings arbitrarily exercised over their subjects. The Founders knew that these rights--the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly--would not be guaranteed simply by congressional statute, for what one Congress grants, another can easily take away. That is why these fundamental rights are enshrined within our Constitution. That is why the concept of a balanced budget must also be added to the Constitution, for the evidence shows without any doubt that in this modern era of government, the President and Congress are simply incapable of balancing the budget except perhaps in rare and unique circumstances. When future historians review the history of 20th century American Government, I fear that the legacy we will leave behind will be an enormous debt that we have passed on to the citizens of the 21st century. When this new century opens in just 3 years, we will have accumulated a debt of more than $6 trillion, the carrying costs, as I have indicated, of which will be a quarter trillion dollars annually. Who is going to pay off that debt? Well, consider, Mr. President, that the largest surplus this Government has ever run was a mere $11 billion in 1948. In inflation adjusted dollars, that is equivalent to a surplus today of approximately $84 billion. If, starting in the year 2000, we could replicate our 1948 experience and have an annual surplus of $84 billion, the national debt of the United States would not be eliminated until the year 2073. That gives you some idea of the legacy we are passing on. In other words, under the most optimistic circumstances, the citizens who are alive for the first 75 years of the next century will be shackled with paying the debts their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents accumulated. And we all know it is unlikely we will sustain such large surpluses throughout the next century. More likely, it will take 100 years or more to pay off this debt, only if we start now. Can there be anyone in this Chamber who believes that the citizens in America who will be alive in the year 2097 ought to be saddled with paying the interest on the debt that we are accumulating today--money, I might add, that is not being used to finance long-term investments or jobs or inventory in this country but money that is being used to pay interest on the national debt. That is right; that is what we are doing. In my view, this amendment is an economic bill of rights for future generations of this country. It is equally as important as the Bill of Rights we now take for granted as the foundation for this great Nation. It finally will force Government to learn that it cannot borrow indefinitely. It rearranges the rules of Government as never before in our history, for it requires us to face up to the fact that we can only spend as much as we take in in revenues, as we dictate to our private citizens. And it stands for the proposition that building debt on top of debt is morally and fiscally irresponsible to Americans who have not even been born yet. That is what we are doing. The legacy of the 105th Congress must be that we, at the end of this century, have recognized the responsibility we have to future generations, that we will no longer buy now and put off paying indefinitely. The time is now to finally stand up and change the way we have been governing for the past 60 years. I thank the Chair for its attention. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Allard]. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Stevens, Inouye, Akaka and Thomas, am introducing the Korea Visa Waiver Pilot Project Bill of 1997.'' This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States tourist visas to Korean citizens. Koreans typically wait up to 3 weeks to obtain tourist visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a result, most of these spontaneous travelers decide to vacation in one of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand. This legislation provides a carefully controlled pilot program of visa-free travel by small groups of Koreans to the United States. The program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the cumbersome visa system. For example, New Zealand experienced a 2,400- percent increase in tourism from Korea after easing its visa requirements in 1993. The pilot program is designed to allow visitors in a tour group from South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa for up to 15 days. However, it does not compromise the security standards of the United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The travel permits could only be used by supervised tour groups. While the pilot project would allow small Korean tour groups to travel to the United States without visas, the project includes many restrictions. These are: The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate the program if the overstay rates in the program are over 2 percent. The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days. The visitors must have a round-trip ticket and arrive by a carrier that agrees to return them if they are deemed inadmissible. The Secretary of State should institute a bonding and licensing requirement that each participating travel agency post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule. The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be certified after each tour. Security checks will be done to ensure that the visitor is not a safety threat to the United States. This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be a successful program, and one that I hope will entice more Korean tourists to visit the United States.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Stevens, Inouye, Akaka and Thomas, am introducing the Korea Visa Waiver Pilot Project Bill of 1997.'' This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States tourist visas to Korean citizens. Koreans typically wait up to 3 weeks to obtain tourist visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a result, most of these spontaneous travelers decide to vacation in one of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand. This legislation provides a carefully controlled pilot program of visa-free travel by small groups of Koreans to the United States. The program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the cumbersome visa system. For example, New Zealand experienced a 2,400- percent increase in tourism from Korea after easing its visa requirements in 1993. The pilot program is designed to allow visitors in a tour group from South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa for up to 15 days. However, it does not compromise the security standards of the United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The travel permits could only be used by supervised tour groups. While the pilot project would allow small Korean tour groups to travel to the United States without visas, the project includes many restrictions. These are: The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate the program if the overstay rates in the program are over 2 percent. The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days. The visitors must have a round-trip ticket and arrive by a carrier that agrees to return them if they are deemed inadmissible. The Secretary of State should institute a bonding and licensing requirement that each participating travel agency post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule. The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be certified after each tour. Security checks will be done to ensure that the visitor is not a safety threat to the United States. This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be a successful program, and one that I hope will entice more Korean tourists to visit the United States.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this important resolution which expresses the sense of the Senate that further research is necessary to determine the benefits of mammography in women ages 40 to 49. Mr. President, I have been very involved with mammography issues in Alaska and have worked with my wife Nancy to promote access to this important diagnostic tool. I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the work my wife Nancy, and others, has promoted on behalf of the Breast Cancer Detection Center of Alaska. The Breast Cancer Detection Center of Alaska had its beginnings in 1974 when seven Fairbanks women decided that health care for women, especially in the area of breast cancer, should be made more accessible and less expensive for residents who live in remote areas of Alaska. In 1976, with very humble beginnings, the center opened its doors in Fairbanks, staffed and equipped by volunteers. The State granted the moneys for a GE mammography machine and a local bank loaned the basement of a drive-in branch for the clinic offices. Furniture, carpeting, and paint was donated by local merchants, and a nurse- administrator, radiologist, and two doctors volunteered their services. Breast examination was taught and recommended mammograms were provided free of charge. Today, the center, housed in a very spacious office, is staffed by an executive director, two office personnel, a certified mammographer, and a radiologist. The lo-rad mammography machine is one of the finest in the State. The center still maintains the policy of waiving a fee for women who cannot afford to pay or do not have insurance. With the unwavering support of the Fairbank community the center has been operating for 20 years with donations, insurance, and fundraisers by local service organizations. Three years ago, the executive director informed the board of directors that a new mammography machine was needed to keep up with advancing technology. Nancy and I offered to do a fundraising fishing event in southeastern Alaska to benefit the center. At that first event, Waterfall '94, over $140,000 was raised for the breast cancer center and completely offset the cost of the new state-of-the-art lo- rad mammography unit. Because of the overwhelming success of Waterfall '94, we decided to hold a similar event the following year to again benefit the center. Nancy, one of the original founders of the center, had long desired to have a mobile mammogram van to serve the Yukon River system villages, and the rural bush communities of Alaska. Waterfall '95 made that dream come true with a donation of $210,000 to the center. Waterfall '96 will benefit the center with an approximate $240,000 donation. Plans are already in place for the Waterfall '97 event with plans to incorporate prostate PSA tests, and to do cervical cancer checks as well. The Breast Cancer Detection Center of Alaska now visits remote bush villages along the river system and the highways with a 43-foot van equipped with a mammogram unit and darkroom with a film processor, two dressing rooms which double as bunks for the driver and mammography technician, a small reception area, and a bathroom which can accommodate wheelchairs. There is a hydraulic lift for wheelchair entry into the van as well. While most American women face a 1-in-9 risk of dying of breast cancer, Alaskan women face a 1-in-7 chance. Among Alaska Native women, cancer is the leading cause of death and breast cancer is the second most prevalent cancer. Now there is no reason for these women not to learn about early detection. Julia Roberts, from the small village of Tanana, said it all when she came to the van for her exam. ``I know it's important. I know if you catch it early you can probably save your life. I have three children and I want to see my grandchildren.'' Mr. President, we need more fundamental research on breast cancer. And I strongly support further study to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of mammography for women in the 40-to-49-age bracket.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 210, ``To Amend the Organic Act of Guam, the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, and the Compact of Free Association Act, and for other purposes.'' The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 6, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James Beirne, Senior counsel (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Congressional Record, the rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The rules follow: Rules of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Rule 1. The Standing Rules of the Senate as supplemented by these rules, are adopted as the rules of the Committee and its Subcommittees. meetings of the committee Rule 2. (a) The Committee shall meet on the third Wednesday of each month while the Congress is in session for the purpose of conducting business, unless, for the convenience of Members, the Chairman shall set some other day for a meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary. (b) Business meetings of any Subcommittee may be called by the Chairman of such Subcommittee, Provided, That no Subcommittee meeting or hearing other than a field hearing, shall be scheduled or held concurrently with a full Committee meeting or hearing, unless a majority of the Committee concurs in such concurrent meeting or hearing. open hearings and meetings Rule 3. (a) Hearings and business meetings of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or such Subcommittee by majority vote orders a closed hearing or meeting. (b) A transcript shall be kept of each hearing of the Committee or any Subcommittee. (c) A transcript shall be kept of each business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee unless a majority of the Committee or the Subcommittee involved agrees that some other form of permanent record is preferable. hearing procedure Rule 4. (a) Public notice shall be given of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be held by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least one week in advance of such hearing unless the Chairman of the full Committee or the Subcommittee involved determines that the hearing is non- controversial or that special circumstances require expedited procedures and a majority of the Committee or the Subcommittee involved concurs. In no case shall a hearing be conducted with less than twenty-four hours notice. (b) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee or Subcommittee, at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his or her testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. (c) Each member shall be limited to five minutes in the questioning of any witness until such time as all Members who so desire have had an opportunity to question the witness. (d) The Chairman and the ranking Minority Member or the ranking Majority and Minority Members present at the hearing may each appoint one Committee staff member to question each witness. Such staff member may question the witness only after all Members present have completed their questioning of the witness or at such other time as the Chairman and the ranking Majority and Minority Members present may agree. business meeting agenda Rule 5. (a) A legislative measure or subject shall be included on the agenda of the next following business meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee if a written request for such inclusion has been filed with the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee at least one week prior to such meeting. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee to include legislative measures or subjects on the Committee or Subcommittee agenda in the absence of such request. (b) The agenda for any business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be provided to each Member and made available to the public at least three days prior to such meeting, and no new items may be added after the agenda is so published except by the approval of a majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee. The Staff Director shall promptly notify absent Members of any action taken by the Committee or any Subcommittee on matters not included on the published agenda. quorums Rule 6. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d), seven Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of the Committee. (b) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the Committee unless eleven Members of the Committee are actually present at the time such action is taken. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), one-third of the Subcommittee Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of any Subcommittee. (d) One Member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting a hearing or taking testimony on any measure or matter before the Committee or any Subcommittee. voting Rule 7. (a) A rollcall of the Members shall be taken upon the request on any Member. Any Member who does not vote on any rollcall at the time the roll is called, may vote (in person or by proxy) on that rollcall at any later time during the same business meeting. (b) Proxy voting shall be permitted on all matters, except that proxies may not be counted for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. Unless further limited, a proxy shall be exercised only upon the date for which it is given and upon the items published in the agenda for that date. (c) Each Committee report shall set forth the vote on the motion to report the measure or matter involved. Unless the Committee directs otherwise, the report will not set out any votes on amendments offered during Committee consideration. Any Member who did not vote on any rollcall shall have the opportunity to have his position recorded in the appropriate Committee record or Committee report. (d) The Committee vote to report a measure to the Senate shall also authorize the staff of the Committee to make necessary technical and clerical corrections in the measure. Subcommittees Rule 8. (a) The number of Members assigned to each Subcommittee and the division between Majority and Minority Members shall be fixed by the Chairman in consultation with the ranking Minority Member. (b) Assignment of Members to Subcommittees shall, insofar as possible, reflect the preferences of the Members. No Member will receive assignment to a second Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members of the Committee have chosen assignments to one Subcommittee, and no Member shall receive assignment to a third Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members have chosen assignments to two Subcommittees. (c) Any Member of the Committee may sit with any Subcommittee during its hearings and business meetings but shall not have the authority to vote on any matters before the Subcommittee unless he is a Member of such Subcommittee. sworn testimony and financial statements Rule 9, Witnesses in Committee or Subcommittee hearings may be required to give testimony under oath whenever the Chairman or ranking Minority Member of the Committee or Subcommittee deems such to be necessary. At any hearing to confirm a Presidential nomination, the testimony of the nominee and at the request of any Member, any other witness shall be under oath. Every nominee shall submit a statement of his financial interests, including those of his spouse, his minor children, and other members of his immediate household, on a form approved by the Committee, which shall be sworn to by the nominee as to its completeness and accuracy. A statement of every nominee's financial interest shall be made public on a form approved by the Committee, unless the Committee in executive session determines that special circumstances require a full or partial exception to this rule. Members of the Committee are urged to make public a statement of their financial interests in the form required in the case of Presidential nominees under this rule. confidential testimony Rule 10. No confidential testimony taken by or confidential material presented to the Committee or any Subcommittee, or any report of the proceedings of a closed Committee or Subcommittee hearing on business meeting, shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee at a business meeting called for the purpose of making such a determination. defamatory statements Rule 11. Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified in, or who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at, an open Committee or Subcommittee hearing tends to defame him or otherwise adversely affect his reputation may file with the Committee for its consideration and action a sworn statement of facts relevant to such testimony or evidence. broadcasting of hearings or meetings Rule 12. Any meeting or hearing by the Committee or any Subcommittee which is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography. Photographers and reporters using mechanical recording, filming, or broadcasting devices shall position their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating, vision, and hearing of Members and staff on the dais or with the orderly process of the meeting or hearing. amending the rules Rule 13. These rules may be amended only by vote of a majority of all the Members of the Committee in a business meeting of the Committee: Provided, That no vote may be taken on any proposed amendment unless such amendment is reproduced in full in the Committee agenda for such meeting at least three days in advance of such meeting.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 210 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nomination of Federico F. Pena to be Secretary of Energy. The hearing will take place Thursday, January 30, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room SE-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Heninger Flint at (202) 224-5070. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 will take place on Wednesday, February 5, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765. committee on Small business

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk for appropriate referral legislation dealing with the several issues of the territories of the United States and the freely associated States. This is legislation that is similar to measures reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at the end of the last Congress and could not be considered prior to adjournment, although we had managed to work out the text with both the House and the administration. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the Resource Committee in the House as well. Section 1 of the legislation proposed will extend the agriculture and food programs that the United States provides for the populations on the atolls in the Marshall Islands affected by the nuclear testing program for an additional 5 years. The support program was initiated under the trusteeship and continued under the Compact of Free Association for a limited time period. Unfortunately, the atolls are not yet capable of fully supporting the populations, and an additional extension time is necessary. The amendment will also alter the program to reflect changes in population since the effective date of the compact. I visited many of these areas last year and certainly concur with the recommendations in section 1. Section 2 of the legislation would repeal a provision of law dealing with the American Memorial Park in Saipan that would permit the government of the Commonwealth to take over the park. While I think some transfer could be considered of the marina area if the Commonwealth were interested, I think that the actual war memorial and interpretive areas should remain under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service during the remainder of the lease. Section 3 of the legislation makes a series of technical amendments to permit each of the three educational institutions in the freely associated States to operate independently as land grant institutions rather than having to operate as a College of Micronesia. I visited that college and was very impressed with the dedication and the commitment of those who were responsible for education as well as the people of the area. They are very proud of that institution. I can tell you, Mr. President, there is a tremendous sacrifice being made to foster higher education in the College of Micronesia. These amendments, as we propose, reflect the new status of the representative Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and were requested by the President of the College of Micronesia-FSM when Senator Akaka and I visited the campus last year. Section 4, hopefully, will resolve a different issue and one that is difficult for Guam relating to the disposal of real property that the Department of Defense no longer needs for military purposes. These lands were acquired by the United States for defense purposes after World War II when Guam had been liberated from occupation by Japan and while Guam was a closed defense area. We have the residents of Guam and their attitude where they have indicated that they are prepared to support the Federal Government of the United States as they are a territory, but did so with the expectation--in other words, the people of Guam expected that those lands, if no longer needed for defensive purposes, would be returned to either public or private ownership in Guam. The Department of Defense presently owns about one-third of Guam, although we have been able to return several parcels over the past few years. As part of the discussion on the Commonwealth, the administration had agreed to similar general transfer language, but when we considered this legislation last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service testified in opposition. The Fish and Wildlife Service, in testifying in opposition, said that they had a desire to acquire some portions for a wildlife refuge. I am going to talk a little bit about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' interest in acquiring this refuge because I think there is a lack of continuity that deserves some examination. I am not going to go into the curious presentation from the Service at our hearing or the question that they are unwilling to expend any of their own money on the eradication of the brown snake, which has virtually overrun the island, but only note they were able to block any agreement on land transfer previously. What I am proposing this year is a general transfer authorization for all lands except those within the proposed overlay that would be a refuge overlay that are identified on a map that is subject to transfer only by statute. That, hopefully, will release the other lands to Guam. No specific disposition is recommended for the other lands, and Congress will consider them on a parcel-by-parcel basis as they become surplus to defensive needs. This will allow both Guam and the Fish and Wildlife Service to make their case, assuming both want the lands, or anyone else. I note that Congress, not the Executive, has the plenary authority under the Constitution to deal with territories and with the disposal of Federal properties. So it is appropriate that Congress--Congress-- decide on the disposition of these lands when the time is right. And I think the time is right. The people of Guam have waited long enough. I also note that this is the only method I can think of that will guarantee the Government of Guam an opportunity to participate in the process. I hope that the administration will support the public process. One of the inconsistencies here in this land that is in dispute, approximately 2,000 acres that is held by the Department of Defense-- clearly the defensive requirements are no longer pertinent that necessitate the Department of Defense to hold this land. So it is basically surplus land. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its interest in acquiring the land, the rationale is to protect the various species on the island and maintain a natural habitat. Some of the species may be facing endangerment. The inconsistency here is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's inability to address what is eradicating many of the species that are in decline and may be in danger. That is the brown snake. The island is virtually overrun with the brown snake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuses to initiate any action to eradicate the brown snake, which is really causing the decline in various other species that are unique to the island. So I think it is fair to say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been somewhat irresponsible in its obligation to address the perpetrator causing the decline of the various birdlife on Guam and other species because the ferociousness of the brown snake is such that it has really taken over the island. And they refuse to spend any of their own money. I had an opportunity to visit with the Governor of Guam. We had an evening at his residence. He brought several of the brown snakes in cages and gave us a little rundown of what the brown snakes were doing in overrunning Guam and the inability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet its obligation to address any type of control, of predator-type control, to reduce and eliminate this. So I think it is fair to say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had its opportunity. They cannot justify taking land and just holding it in a habitat without addressing their obligation to try to enhance the species native to Guam by eradicating the brown snake. So until they come up with some kind of realistic program, I do not have much sympathy for their claim for further land. I think this land should go to the Commonwealth of Guam and be disposed of under the legislative jurisdiction by the elected people of Guam and get on with it. I intend to pursue that with a great deal of energy to ensure that we see that land transferred over to Guam for their disposition and designation as they see fit. I think they are the most appropriate ones to address some procedure relative to the concern of the brown snake and its continued expansion over the land mass of Guam. Section 5 of the legislation--I might add further, the Fish and Wildlife Service testified last year that they had 18 listed species on Guam. I am told that three are extinct and five more no longer occur on Guam. At the rate that the Fish and Wildlife Service is dealing with the brown snake, this will be probably the only refuge dedicated to an extinct species. I think that says something about the stewardship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the unique species that were native to Guam, and now the brown snake has taken over and that seems to be taking care of whatever is left. But the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to, I think, neglect its responsibility. Moving on, section 5 of the legislation, Mr. President, makes a technical change in statutes dealing with drug enforcement to provide equal treatment for all the territories as we contemplated when the original act passed. Section 6 of the legislation would make two changes to the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands. The first would authorize the issuance of parity rather than priority bonds secured by the Rum fund-- an authority generally available in the States; and the second would provide that the Governor would retain his authority when absent from the territory on official business, which is often the case. Section 7 of the legislation provides for an economic study commission for the Virgin Islands. I think the idea of a study on what the future holds is important and timely. I want to emphasize that I want this commission to focus directly and quickly on realistic economic alternatives that are helpful to the Virgin Islands and the Congress and not produce a theoretical tome to gather dust on a shelf. Section 8 clarifies the availability of assistance from the Public Health Service in the radiation related medical surveillance and treatment programs provided under section 177(b) of the Compact of Free Association in the Republic of the Marshall Islands to persons directly exposed as a result of the nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. We observed those areas when we were over there last year, as well as meeting with the people. I think this is an appropriate action. Section 9 would clarify that residents of the freely associated States who are lawfully admitted to the United States under the Compact of Free Association are eligible for assistance under certain programs. This assistance had been provided before the effective date of the Compact under the Trusteeship and subsequently until a particularly strained and convoluted interpretation by attorneys who demonstrated a questionable familiarity with English created a problem. As usual, the answer was that the interpretation didn't make a lot of sense and was contrary to past practice, but if Congress disagreed, it could clarify the law. Well I disagree and this language should clarify the law. One problem that was raised is that under current law, aliens are given a preference over United States citizens and that creates inequities in small areas like Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The answer, of course, is to treat residents of the freely associated States like United States citizens, not to fabricate a legal opinion to deny them benefits altogether. Section 9 would provide equal but not preferential treatment, and I think that is fully in line with our intent under the Compact in encouraging residents of the freely associated States to come to the United States for work and study. Section 10 would provide the consent of the United States to two amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act as required by the Admissions Act for the State of Hawaii. This language was requested by the administration and is supported by the Hawaii delegation and I'm pleased to say by my colleagues, Senators Inouye and Akaka. Section 11 would provide for an economic study commission for American Samoa similar to that provided for the Virgin Islands. Like the Virgin Islands Commission, the Secretary of the Interior will be a voting member ex officio in recognition of his responsibilities. Given the unique cultural situation in American Samoa and the importance of land tenure and Matai rights, three of the seven members of the commission will come from nominations by the Governor. Unlike the Virgin Islands, American Samoa still relies on annual appropriations for both operations and infrastructure, and the commission is directed to focus on the needs in those areas over the next decade and look to ways to minimize that dependence. As part of its report, the commission is directed to provide an historical overview of the relationship between American Samoa and the United States and include copies of relevant documents in an appendix to the report. I want to emphasize that this is an overview and I do not want the commission to depart from its focus on what economic opportunities exist to replicate scholarly studies. There are certain constraints on economic development in American Samoa as a result of its status outside the customs territory of the United States, for example, and that needs to be noted. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources plans to hold a hearing on this legislation on February 6. I hope to be able to report the measure and have it considered by the Senate prior to the February recess. I hope that the administration will support this measure, although I know they dislike commissions and studies. I am not a great fan of them either, but from time to time a fresh look at a problem can be useful. I do not want these commissions to go beyond their limited life and I want them to produce something useful. I hope the administration will agree with the unique circumstances surrounding these provisions and the need for them. and recognize the obligation that we have to these areas under the Organic Act of Guam and the revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands and the Compact of Free Association Act that mandates an oversight and continued responsibility by the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.