Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 198 regarding the convening of the 105th Congress and the counting of electoral votes which was received from the House.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding from the clerk that the Senate will come back on the 7th and count the electoral votes on the 9th.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be deemed read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Senate bill 2183 introduced earlier today by Senator Domenici.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further action, or debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk by Senator Daschle. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to assure my colleagues that we are continuing to have discussions with the administration relative to the disposition of the parks omnibus bill, and I hope that those bear some meaningful resolve before the day is out. Those discussions are going on now, and, I might say, Mr. President, I am somewhat encouraged, but I have been at that stage before, as well. I know there is a lot of interest in it, and I want to at least advise my colleagues of the current status. It has been somewhat like how I would envision a Chinese torture chamber might be, had I ever been exposed to one--and perhaps I have been exposed to one and just do not know it. In any event, the ultimate outcome of this still depends on the administration recognizing that we need some assurance on timber supply to supply our three existing operating sawmills in our State, and hopefully provide enough for the fourth one that has been shut down for 2 years. That is where we are on the issue of resolving our differences. There are other differences. In fact, the State of Colorado, particularly, and the State of Virginia, we appear to be working some of those issues out, as well. Of course, it would require a process of amending the House bill which is pending but subject to an objection under a unanimous-consent request. But that would be the vehicle. Then we would send it back to the House, and the House would either accept or reject it. So that is where we are, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning for the purpose of speaking on legislation I introduced yesterday. This legislation is very important to my State of Alaska. The intention of the legislation is to try and address some of the issues regarding subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. I am under no false hope that at this late date this legislation will move through the Senate this year, but I want it to appear in the Record for the purposes of starting a dialog in our State and starting a dialog with the various Federal agencies involved. Mr. President, the issue of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska has caused a great deal of divisiveness in our State and has led to the State of Alaska becoming the only State in the Union which no longer retains the sole control of its fish and game resources on public lands. This is an extraordinary departure from the norm, but nevertheless it is a reality. The influence of the Federal Government over fish and wildlife resources in Alaska continues to grow and expand with each passing month. This legislation calls for the Presidential appointment of a special master to come up with nonbinding recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the State of Alaska, the State of Alaska legislature and to the Congress, as well. The recommendation will be on how to return management of fish and game resources to the State and how best to provide for the continuation of a subsistence lifestyle for Alaska's residence. I hope to have significant discussions with the people of Alaska on this issue in the coming months during the recess and be prepared to move forward with the 105th Congress when we return in January. It would be my intention to introduce more definitive legislation on the subsistence issue at that time. What we are attempting to do is set, if you will, a skeleton schedule in place so we can build on it by generating public input. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, S. 2172, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on (H.R. 3005) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be considered as adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and statements relating to the report appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of introducing legislation regarding subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. I am under no false hope that this legislation will move through the Senate this year but I want it to appear in the Record for purposes of discussion. The issue of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska has caused a great divisiveness in my State that has led to the State of Alaska becoming the only State in the union which no longer retains control of its fish and game resources on public lands. This legislation calls for the appointment of a special master to come up with non-binding recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Governor of the State of Alaska and to the Congress. The recommendations will be on how to return management of fish and game resources to the State, and how best to provide for the continuation of a subsistence lifestyle for Alaska's rural residents. I hope to have significant discussions with the people of Alaska on this issue between now and the start of the 105th Congress and intend to introduce legislation again upon our return in January. Mr. President, I intend to place a longer statement in the Record next week on this issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of introducing legislation regarding subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. I am under no false hope that this legislation will move through the Senate this year but I want it to appear in the Record for purposes of discussion. The issue of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska has caused a great divisiveness in my State that has led to the State of Alaska becoming the only State in the union which no longer retains control of its fish and game resources on public lands. This legislation calls for the appointment of a special master to come up with non-binding recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Governor of the State of Alaska and to the Congress. The recommendations will be on how to return management of fish and game resources to the State, and how best to provide for the continuation of a subsistence lifestyle for Alaska's rural residents. I hope to have significant discussions with the people of Alaska on this issue between now and the start of the 105th Congress and intend to introduce legislation again upon our return in January. Mr. President, I intend to place a longer statement in the Record next week on this issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I would like to call to this Chamber's attention the continuing failure of the Government of Japan to honor the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. My colleagues will recall that I offered a resolution on this issue on July 25 during our consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill. That resolution was adopted unanimously by the Senate. It way my hope at the time that the Government of Japan would soon begin to implement the obligations it undertook in the insurance agreement signed in 1994. Regrettably, not only has Japan not fulfilled its obligation to open its insurance market, as called for under the agreement, it is now poised to commit a grave violation of it. Such a violation would undermine Japanese credibility and could cost American companies millions of dollars of hard earned business. Rather than leading to a more open market, this agreement and Japan's new insurance business law, are being implemented by the Ministry of Finance in ways that could lead to substantially reduced American market share. Our well-respected Ambassador to Japan, Walter Mondale, told the National Press Club earlier this month that it appears possible that the Ministry of Finance [MOF] ``is going to permit these huge insurance companies to develop subsidiaries to go into the third sector and swamp the third sector with the army of insurance agents they have, without opening the primary sector. . . . And I think many of [the foreign insurance companies] would be driven out.'' For the benefit of those Members unfamiliar with the insurance market, the so-called ``third sector'' includes such niche products as personal accident and long- term disability insurance, and it is the only sector where foreign firms currently can compete. Since Ambassador Mondale made that statement, the possibility of a violation has grown. Just last week USTR met again with the MOF to take stock of our respective positions. What this meant in fact was the Japanese Government withdrew--in response to domestic industry pressure--all the concessions offered at earlier negotiations in Vancouver. Rather than making progress, the negotiations are back to where they had been in March and April. And I believe we are now at a brink. Ambassador Barshesfsky has said publicly that if the MOF allows entry into the so- called ``third sector,'' or in any other way prejudices the U.S. position, we will take appropriate actions. Mr. President, I call on my colleagues today to support Ambassador Barshesfsky in her negotiations. We should do so unanimously. Japan must understand that the Congress' seriousness of resolve on this matter is no less than that of USTR. Japan must honor its agreements. This may be a complicated issue, but it comes down to a simple matter--will Japan live up to its word. As Ambassador Mondale has said, ``We have an agreement and that must mean something.'' Mr. President, we have reached a day of reckoning. The Ministry of Finance must decide if it will permit violations of the agreement. If, on the other hand, the MOF does not permit violations, cooler heads may yet prevail. Last week, a U.S. official said, ``In its action on October 1, the Japanese government should not take action which prejudices the negotiations, which invalidates the U.S. position or unilaterally adopts the Japanese position.'' I agree. The proper and appropriate action by the MOF at this time would be a continuation of the freeze which has prevailed for a number of months. That is what we expect from the MOF, and nothing less. I hope our friends in Japan do not miscalculate, but if they do, we must leave no doubt that they have made a mistake.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask, are we under a 5-minute time limit for morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was hoping to respond to my good friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, with regard to his remarks on North Korea. Having had an opportunity to travel to North Korea with Senator Simon, I have often reflected on the value of that trip and the understanding that was gained with a country that is probably more remote than any other country on Earth, a country that both the Senator from Illinois and I agree is under tremendous strain during the transition that is occurring in North Korea and the fact that that country is very dangerous. But I just want to cite, in passing, to my friend from Illinois how much his presence will be missed in this body and what an extraordinary contribution the senior Senator from Illinois has made.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish both he and his lady well, as they go on to fulfill other ambitions and desires in life. You leave this Senate with a very proud record. And I am very pleased to have had your friendship and your association through the years. I wish you well, my friend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to address again the status of one of the major environmental pieces of legislation before this body, and that is the omnibus Presidio parks package which is currently before this body. There is still time to pass that package in this Congress while the House is still in session. But once the House sends the CR over, it will be simply too late. Where that matter is currently, Mr. President, is there is a hold on it here in the U.S. Senate, and that hold is by the Clinton administration. The justification for that hold is very difficult to reflect because this Senator, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has continued to try to work with the administration to address its objections. The first group of objections and veto threats covered Utah wilderness, which was stricken from the package; grazing, which was stricken from the package; the 15-year Tongass extension, which was stricken from the package; and, finally, the Minnesota wilderness boundaries, which was stricken from the package. We felt we had met the administration's objections responsibly. Then, the day before yesterday, they presented approximately 42 other sections that they wanted removed. We met with representatives from the White House and tried to get an explanation as to the justification for these. Last night, I sent a letter to Mr. John L. Hilley, Assistant to the President, giving them information, a justification, for the approximately 42 items they wanted stricken. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of September 27 and the accompanying explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concluded my letter by making the statement: I believe that in the short time remaining in the 104th Congress this is a responsible path to a successful conference report. By accepting the package that has been reduced as a consequence of the objections of the administration, it is my sincere hope that for the benefit of the many intensely interested Members, both Democrat and Republican, some retiring at the end of the Congress, it is important the parks and public land legislation will pass. In that letter, I agreed to continue to meet with the administration to address their ongoing concerns in order to expedite a response and a successful conclusion of this matter. Well, I have had no response to that letter, Mr. President. So it is difficult for me to comprehend the basis of their objections, and it is even more difficult for me to understand their reluctance to support this package, recognizing the significance of many of the items in it. This package contains five new parks, provides better protection for existing parks and historic sites, establishes new memorials, including memorials to Martin Luther King, black Revolutionary War patriots, and Japanese War patriots, protects rivers from coast to coast, from the Columbia River in Washington to the St. Vrain in Colorado and the Lamprey in New Hampshire. The package also contains provisions which protect the hallowed ground where the blood of American soldiers was shed in battles. The bill authorizes funding to begin restoration of the San Francisco Bay cleanup and programs to start up the national park system, which should serve to help us again attain the status of operating the world's most outstanding park system. Of course, it also contains the Presidio. Mr. President, I looked at the veto list. I was struck by the fact that while many of the measures were passed by the House with the administration's support, a couple, specifically, were actually the administration's language. Many of the items enjoy broad bipartisan support. I guess the only common denominator is that each was originally introduced by a Republican. This should not be about politics. The activities within my committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in reporting out the bill and holding the hearings and accepting the bill, and the discussions that took place were in total cooperation with the minority. Senator Johnston and his professional staff went about the business of taking Members' bills, holding hearings, reporting them out, and doing the job. We have done our job, make no mistake about it. We have a package here--126 individual sections. This should not be about politics. This package is about our natural resources and the culture and resources of our parks, monuments, and public lands. I do not really care who takes credit for passage of this legislation. It simply needs to be passed, and passed now. So if the hold by the administration as placed by the minority continues, this legislation is dead. The administration is going to have to bear this responsibility, and ultimately the President of the United States, because this legislation is ready to go. There is one hold on it, one hold by the Democratic leader on behalf of the administration. If he would release that hold with instructions from the administration, this package can go. This is an election year, Mr. President. I do not know about the politics down at the White House or how they evaluate this, but with the major emphasis on California, I cannot understand why the administration would not support the Presidio, why they would not support the package associated with the cleaning up of the San Francisco Bay area. Mr. President, to give you some idea, if you want to talk about politics, California is represented in the Senate by two Democratic Senators. Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer have been very supportive on this legislation. For California alone, it contains the Presidio, Elsmere Canyon, San Francisco Bay enhancement, the Butte County conveyance, Modoc Forest boundary adjustment, Cleveland National Forest conveyance, Lagomarsino Visitors Center, Tulare conveyance, Mineral King, the Merced irrigation district land exchange, the Manzanar historic site exchange, the AIDS memorial grove, the Santa Cruz Poland acquisition, the Stanislaus Forest managements, Del Norte school conveyance, and ski fees. More than any other single State--California. What have we done with the significant issue of the Olympics, which provides for a ski-land exchange in Utah? The administration has seen fit to object to that in the package. I can only assume that the administration has written off Utah. The justification for that is pretty hard to take when the National Ski Association supports this land exchange. The Snow Basin exchange, so that the Olympics can take place as planned up in the Ogden area, and the justification of the administration objecting to that, again, certainly requires an explanation. None is forthcoming. Mr. President, we still have had no answer to our letter. Mr. President, if you look at section 1044 of the bill, you will find a provision which would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on an existing radio antenna--a radio antenna which is 4 feet tall. The bill was introduced by Congressman Bono from California. By Alaska standards the Congressman is not very tall, I guess he could be considered ``vertically impaired''. He is however taller than the 4 foot radio antenna that is addressed in this bill. They list this as an objection for a veto, Mr. President. How ridiculous. I cannot believe a 4-foot tall radio antenna would bring down this needed, important legislation. That is in their veto message. The American people deserve better from this Congress and the administration. Mr. President, we have tried to meet with the White House and they have told me the list is nonnegotiable. Well, what we have attempted to do, Mr. President, in the structure of the process around here, is to have hearings, get public participation, basically have a process. What this administration proposes to do is a line-item veto of sections out of this 126-section bill, at the expense of every one of the 41 States that are affected. If we can get this bill back to conference, I am willing to discuss the issue. It is that important. Now, the nonnegotiable list submitted by the administration appears to be strictly a political campaign statement of some kind, but it is beyond me how they will put a spin on this and blame the Republicans. In many cases where the administration objects, apparently they are opposed because the bill was introduced by a Republican Member of Congress now running for reelection. Consider that they object to the Alpine School District transfer of 30 acres of land to the Alpine School District for a public school; the transfer of a few acres to the school districts in Del Norte, CA, for educational purposes; removing 40 acres of development property out of 1.2 million acres of coastal barrier resource system--I don't know, this is election-year politics--and Sterling Forest, which had been anticipated to be in the bill. We have it in our 126-section document. Sterling Forest isn't going to go anywhere; it is not in the CR. The Presidio is not going to go anywhere; it is not in the CR. San Francisco Bay cleanup is not going to go anywhere; it is not in the CR. The coastal barrier amendments for Florida are not going to go anywhere; they are not in the CR. We can go down to Mississippi, which is, coincidentally the State where our majority leader hails from. In Mississippi, we have the Corinth Visitor Center, which is not in the CR, and the Historic Black College Funding, which is not in the CR, and the Natchez Visitor Center. Mr. President, there are many, many good Democratic-supported sections to this bill which were offered by a Democrat: Senator Heflin from Alabama, the Selma to Montgomery Historic Trail; in Arkansas, the Arkansas-Oklahoma land exchange. You know how much that means to Senator Bumpers. The Carl Garner Federal Lands Exchange. I have mentioned the items in California. There are a couple in Georgia for Senator Nunn. There is one in Hawaii, some in Idaho, Illinois, Michigan. In Louisiana, for Senator Breaux and Senator Johnston, is the Civil War Center and the Laura Hudson Visitor Center. In Massachusetts, the Boston Harbor Islands Park establishment and the Blackstone Heritage Area, the Boston Public Library on Freedom Trail, and the New Bedford establishment. Senator Kennedy and I have worked on that to try to accommodate his interests. In Michigan, the Pictured Rocks boundary adjustment. In Montana, for Senator Baucus, is the Lost Creek exchange and the ski fees. In New Jersey, Senators Bradley and Lautenberg, Sterling Forest. In New York, the Women's Rights boundary adjustment. I could go on and on. In Virginia, the Cumberland Gap, Shenandoah National Park. In West Virginia, for Senator Byrd, the West Virginia rivers. There are items in here for every Member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. President. It is ready to go. All the minority has to do is take off the hold. Now, perhaps the administration has written off Alaska, and maybe they have written off Utah. But I don't believe they have written off California. This is a big issue for California. We are ready to go. Why won't this administration let us take action on this? Why won't they take off their hold? Why won't they let us vote on it? We can still do it today while the House is in session. They want to line-item veto it after a democratic process in the authorizing committee. They evidently want to take over the role of the authorizing committee. Well, it is a sad day, Mr. President, if indeed they prevail. They are going to have to be held responsible by the American people for killing the Presidio parks omnibus package and killing the work of my committee and its members for the last 2 years. It is going to have political implications for the administration when they have to explain why they killed our major effort in the Olympics, why they killed the Presidio, why they killed cleanup of the San Francisco Bay, why they killed Sterling Forest. Again, I implore the Democratic leadership one more time to contact the White House and find out why they mandated a refusal to allow this body to pass this out, get it to the House and get the job done. We are all going to have to, I guess, recognize that we will come back in the 105th and start the process over again. It is going to be different next year, Mr. President, because this package represents the inability to move these bills individually by Members having holds throughout the process. It is not going to be that way. We are going to move them out of our committee and move them to the floor. If we don't get action and there are holds, this Senator is going to stop the Senate process because I am going to refuse every unanimous consent that comes before this body. We are going to stop this process, because it is absolutely irresponsible. So let the administration recognize the responsibility that they are assuming for not allowing this package to go ahead. It is an injustice to 41 States and an injustice to America. It is an injustice to good Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for passage of the Alaska Native Commission study bill. This legislation is the product of years of study and candid self-appraisal by Alaska Natives about their standard of living conditions and the need to address these problems. While this self-appraisal has been exhaustive, it has not been pessimistic. On the contrary, the study is evidence of an exciting time for Alaska Natives, for they are taking the initiative to work to improve their standard and way of life. Their efforts will lead to a strengthening of their livelihoods and their pride in being both Alaska Natives and American citizens. I am proud that this bill will be part of that process. In 1989, Congressman Young and I introduced a bill that became Public Law 101-379. Public Law 101-379 established the Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives, better known as the Alaska Natives Commission. Among its many recommendations, the Commission called for Federal funding to examine how best to implement the recommendations of the Commission. The purpose of this bill is to establish the funding, in the amount of $350,000, for such a study. From the beginning, the efforts of the commission have involved cooperation from both the Federal and Alaska State governments, and I am pleased to announce that this process will continue. The Commission was jointly funded by the Alaska State and Federal governments. Half of the 14 Commission members were appointed by the President, and half by the Governor. The Alaska congressional delegation and the Alaska Federation of Natives have already worked with State government representatives throughout this past summer to discuss ways to implement some of the findings of the Commission. I call on the State to stay active in the implementation process, and to assist the effectiveness of the study by appropriating additional funds to operate the study. I am confident that through the active participation of all interested parties, the study will lead to realistic and effective recommendations for implementation of the Commission's recommendations. I thank my colleagues Congressman Young for getting this bill passed by the House of Representatives, Indian Affairs Committee Chairman, Senator McCain for moving the bill through the Senate expeditiously, and Senator Stevens for securing the appropriations to fund this bill.