Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share a few moments with my colleagues on actions taken by the Clinton administration this week. We have had discussions concerning the appropriateness of the President withdrawing about 1.8 million acres in Utah under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. I ask the Chair and my colleagues, is this really the creation of a national monument, or is it simply a reelection ploy? The administration justifies the action based on some historical withdrawals of Federal land, referring back to Teddy Roosevelt's time. I would ask for a quick reflection on the oversight of the various land management agencies and laws as they have been developed over the years--the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the management of our refuge systems--and suggest that there is, indeed, enough oversight in the process to ensure extremes are not taken on the utilization of public land. I think a number of people are asking, in the wake of President Clinton's surprise announcement Wednesday of the 1.8-million-acre national monument withdrawal in southern Utah, just what the President and the administration have in mind. One looked at some of the media and saw the expanse of the Grand Canyon with the President standing--I should say sitting--at a desk overlooking the brink of the Grand Canyon with the Vice President standing behind him. This withdrawal was a last-minute withdrawal, it was a secretive withdrawal, it was an unconventional withdrawal. The way they attempted to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, could cause one to quickly conclude the administration was primarily concerned about the photo opportunities and climbing the staircase to reelection. The details of this withdrawal were left undecided. The potential harms of this hasty decision, in my opinion, suggest the President is in an irresponsible rush to get on the evening news. I have a question for the White House and the President. It is specific. It is: Why was the public not involved in this decision? We have NEPA, FLPMA, and Federal land use planning laws, all of which stress public involvement in species protection. The administration insists on strict adherence to these laws. Adherence to these laws occurs, of course, before the action, not after it. These laws were followed in the California desert wilderness debate. It was extensive. We all participated in it. It did not turn out the way we all wanted it, but a democratic process occurred, hearings were held, there was give and take, the State of California was consulted, individuals in this body took a stand, they voted on it and they were held accountable for their vote. Why was that procedure not followed in the State of Utah? My constituency, of course, is the State of Alaska. We have already experienced a little activity in the 1970's, under President Carter, with the Antiquities Act, whereby some 56 million acres or thereabouts were withdrawn. Wilderness in Alaska is very sacred to us. The mistake that was made in our State, when we were establishing land patterns, is we did not do a resource inventory. We almost did. We could have met the wilderness demands and we could have identified those areas of high resource potential, but, unfortunately, the technology and the commitment were not quite there at that time. So we are in constant conflict with Federal refuge areas and the potential development and access through these areas. So we do have a long memory with regard to the application of the Antiquities Act and other laws. But, in this case, the President, in this day--not in 1970 or 1975 or 1978, but in 1996--did not run the idea by the State of Utah, its elected officials, its legislature, its Governor. He did it over the objection of the Utah delegation. They could have helped prevent some pitfalls that are going to occur. Instead, they read about it in the newspapers. You can also assume the administration simply has written off Utah, their electoral votes-- six, I think--written them off. They have probably written off Alaska. I know my colleague from Idaho is introducing legislation to ensure, as far as Idaho is concerned, the application of the Antiquities Act. Wyoming, after the experience with the Antiquities Act, had a provision in the final settlement that suggested that the Antiquities Act would be no longer applicable in that State. In our State of Alaska, we have a no more clause. The Federal Government simply cannot take land under a land grab and designate it without a congressional process occurring. The President included 200,000 acres of school trust lands in Utah which potentially could produce $1.5 billion to fund Utah's public schools. Why did the President not choose to work with Governor Leavitt about that and the other $6.6 billion the State potentially would lose? Does the President realize that locking up 62 billion tons of recoverable low-sulfur coal will lead to greater air pollution when utilities are forced to burn dirtier coal? Like it or not, coal provides about half the Nation's electricity. It is my understanding this particular coal deposit would be about 40 acres out of the 1.8 million acres--a pretty small footprint. Does the President know that 350,000 acres of what he is declaring a monument will be opened up to buses, tourists, and other development, and that it would have been protected as wilderness under the plan written by the State of Utah and Utahns? In fact, Utah had indicated a willingness for further review of its roadless areas for wilderness status. What about the huge liability the Federal Government assumes in wiping out private property claims in this area? Where are we going to find the money to reimburse Americans whose property is, obviously, taken at the cost of billions of dollars? What about the people who are going to lose their jobs? The President says the monument will add jobs. Let's look at Utah. The people of Kanab, UT, an area surrounded by five national parks, had their families' incomes drop from $23,000 in 1990 to $18,000 in 1995. That does not sound like a lot of new jobs to me. These questions bring a bigger question to mind: Why was our President in such a hurry? We went through this process. We were going to take it up again in the 105th Congress. He was pressed by the Utah delegation not to make the designation until such questions were answered. The administration and the President offered vague promises saying details would be worked out later. Even Utah's Democratic Congressmen begged him not to ignore the details. I have even heard that Dick Morris made the recommendation. Maybe he is still calling the shots for the President and the administration. So let me be blunt. Our President appears to be a young man in a hurry. It is becoming more and more clear he doesn't seem to be very concerned about where he is going, as long as it leads to his reelection. As a result, we have great TV news stories, a lot of action and some major policy blunders, in my opinion. We seem to be seeing the influence from the extreme national environmental groups who have the ear of the administration and the President, and these groups have put fear into the American people; fear that we cannot develop resources on public lands. This issue is true not just about coal mining. It is true about grazing, it is true about timbering, it is true about oil and gas exploration--virtually all development on public land. The environmental community is instilling this degree of fear in the American electorate. It bears no responsibility, no accountability. They simply sell American technology short and, by this fear tactic and the ability of the media to expound on it and add to it, they are generating membership, they are generating dollars, and we are becoming more and more dependent on imports, something I am going to talk a little bit about later. As we reduce our own self-sustaining resource base, we become more dependent on imports. Those imports are coming in from nations that do not have the same environmental sensitivity that we do. We have the ingenuity, we have the technology, we have the American know-how to preserve these jobs at home, develop our resources, and do it safely. The President's designation of the 1.7-million-acre monument was an arrogant act. It was in violation of the intent of the Federal environmental laws and procedures the President's own administration has so ardently enforce on everyone else. Mr. President, I intend, before this session is over, to introduce legislation to close this dangerous loophole in our environmental laws. It is going to be applicable, obviously, to those States with public lands, which are the Western States, to eliminate the necessity and the authority of the President to continue these land grabs without any congressional evaluation. The Antiquities Act of 1906 has a narrow, specific purpose. It was never intended to be used in this manner. As I indicated, Alaska and Wyoming have been exempt from the act, but other public land States should know it could only be a matter of time before they are attacked for withdrawals similar to what occurred in Utah. The question is not should we have a national monument in Utah. The Utah delegation said it would work with the administration on that. The question is, should a President ram through such a big Federal land change at the last minute without public participation and congressional involvement? Clearly, we know the answer. The democratic process is being circumvented. It is no wonder some people are referring to this action as President Clinton's Federal land grab and calling it reelection national monument. He says he is merely doing what Teddy Roosevelt did by using the Antiquities Act of 1906. But, again, there are many important differences. President Roosevelt thought first and acted later. Roosevelt acted nearly 100 years ago, before this Nation developed environmental laws and procedures for proper and detailed land use decisionmaking. I am sorry, President Clinton, you are no Teddy Roosevelt. (Mr. HATFIELD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in conjunction with that, I think it is noteworthy to recognize President Clinton's themes this week. He continues to push the themes that, one, he is the environmental President, and, two, he is the export President. Let's examine that for a minute. I just shared with you my views on why his decision to lock up Utah's vast energy resources was a mistake, but I also want to discuss why his rhetoric about exports covers up what is really going on with the trade deficit. The most recent statistics on the trade deficit were absolutely horrible. In July, imports increased to $78.9 billion from $77.9 billion in June. The largest increases were in industrial supplies and materials, primarily the cost of crude petroleum. Our exports decreased to $67.2 billion from $69.7 billion in June. The trade deficit in goods for the first 6 months of this year amounted to $89.6 billion, and this is expected to grow to $170 billion by year's end, second only to last year's record $175 billion. China and Japan continue as the countries with the largest trade imbalance, but focusing only on China and Japan ignores one of the major contributors to our trade deficit, and that is our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, America is importing 51 percent of its daily oil needs. That percentage is expected to rise to two-thirds by the year 2000. Here is a chart, Mr. President, of the current account balances of our top three creditors from 1994 to 1995. Petroleum payments in 1994, 27 percent, or $44.2 billion; petroleum payments in 1995, 33.2 percent, or $57.9 billion. Then there is China, Japan, and others. That is what we are looking at when we look at the trade deficit. As this chart illustrates, foreign oil dependency translates into one- third of the total trade deficit. The Department of Energy predicts that by the years 2000 and 2002, we will be two-thirds dependent on imported oil. Instead of 51 percent, it will be 66 percent. What is America doing about its continuing dependency? I think we are following counterproductive policies. We are not reducing our oil dependency. As I said earlier, the President just locked up huge reserves of coal in Utah. This is clean coal. Earlier, he vetoed legislation which would have opened up the Arctic oil reserve. That passed both the House and the Senate for the first time. That is the best chance to find significant stable American sources of oil domestically, in the United States. I remind my colleagues that Prudhoe Bay has been supplying this Nation with nearly 25 percent of its total crude oil utilization for the last 18 years. It is in decline. Yet this administration will not let us use American technology to go into the areas that are most likely to have a major discovery. And with that technology, the footprint would be very small, no larger than the Dulles International Airport complex, which is about 12,500 acres out of the 19 million acres in the area associated with the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. So the President's actions are certainly disturbing. But I guess they are hardly surprising, because if you really look at our energy area-- and as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that is my area of responsibility--he is equally unwilling to address and promote nuclear power, coal power, hydroelectric power. He strongly supports the consumption of natural gas, but is not equally supportive of domestic production. He does not want to see additional offshore and onshore Federal lands opened up. In short, he is doing virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil and, thereby, address our trade deficit. During President Clinton's 4 years in office, the United States will have accumulated the largest trade deficit in the history of our Nation. That is astonishing, when you consider the exchange rate records set during the same period. I think this is a part of the Clinton record that Americans should understand and consider and reflect on a little closer. There is another inconsistency relative to energy. As we recognize our dependence on nuclear power for about 30 percent of our power- generating capability, we have accumulated high-level nuclear waste. The President refuses to support the plan in Congress to establish in Nevada a temporary repository until a permanent repository can be determined at Yucca Mountain. As far as low-level waste, the President refuses to support a congressional proposal giving the ability to the State of California at Ward Valley to put in a facility to store the waste even though we have given the States the authority. The disturbing thing is, while the President, in this election mode, opposes these proposals--responsible proposals, proposals that have been supported by State Governors, State legislatures, and proposals that have been supported by a majority of the U.S. Senate--he and his administration refuse to come up with responsible alternatives. I have sent letters saying, if you do not like this, what will you support? He absolutely ignores the responsibility associated with addressing and correcting these exposures. Lastly, Mr. President, another part of the Clinton record that should not go without remark is the inept and naive approach the administration has taken in dealing with some of our foreign adversaries. Let me just touch on two recent examples. The Clinton administration, some time ago, embarked on a policy towards North Korea that can only be called, in my opinion, ``appeasement,'' and put the United States in a position of being a party, almost, to a bribe. Under the so-called negotiated framework deal, the Clinton administration was going to provide North Korea with $500 million worth of oil--500,000 tons a year--and, along with South Korea and Japan, two light-water nuclear reactors worth $4 to $5 billion. What have we received in return for this so-called deal? Have the North Koreans acted in good faith? No. The North Koreans held us hostage. They said they would stop their own graphite reactor construction if they could have this new technology, and only then could we go in and examine their storage sites, once the new light- water reactors were on line. Under the deal we negotiated, the Clinton administration was going to provide these light-water reactors worth $4 to $5 billion. We saw what North Korea did with regard to acting in good faith just yesterday and the day before in their relationships with South Korea and the rest of the world. A North Korean submarine, filled with 26 commandos--I met with the Korean Ambassador last evening--tried to infiltrate the south. Some of the commandos carried South Korean uniforms with them. They were armed. And they had a mission, Mr. President, a mission to infiltrate South Korea. But we will hear more about that later. Nineteen of the commandos have already been killed. A manhunt continues for the remaining infiltrators. But these commandos came from a North Korean submarine that beached in the south. The United Nations command attempted to deliver a formal protest to the North Korean military official in the face of clear evidence of the North Korean infiltration. The North Korean Government refused to even accept the protest of South Korea. So there we have, I think, an extraordinary example of our foreign policy, perhaps well-meaning, but indeed to a high degree naive in relation to shoring up a deteriorating regime of totalitarianism in North Korea, one that, if left to its own weight, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, would very soon flounder. There is no other area in the world as isolated as North Korea. Having visited there a few years ago, I can tell you that they cannot feed themselves as a nation. They have no energy. They have no capital reserves. They have an extraordinary government whose longevity is extremely short, in this Senator's opinion. So, Mr. President, what has the Clinton administration done? Well, have they decided to reconsider the energy bribery deal they have negotiated with the north? No. No. They are not reconsidering it. Are they so naive they believe the North Korean Government bargains in good faith? I wonder. The American people have to wonder when it comes down to this administration and President Clinton negotiating with foreign adversaries. What of the Clinton administration's spin-doctoring claim of ``success'' after last week's cruise missile attack in Iraq? The coalition that President George Bush put together in 1990 is crumbling. Saddam Hussein has no fear of crushing the Kurds because he knows that U.S. leadership is lacking under this President and this administration. Just this week we learned that nearly 200 people disappeared. They have been murdered, Mr. President. These are people who were providing our Government with intelligence. Why didn't we get those people out of the country before Saddam and his murderous troops crushed the Kurds? Yesterday, CIA chief John Deutch told Congress that Saddam is politically stronger today than he was before he sent his troops into northern Iraq. Somebody asked the question, well, is Saddam better off today than he was 2 weeks ago? The answer is clearly, yes. We have lost a good deal of credibility. So, Mr. President, it is a very dangerous world we live in. It is easy to criticize. But it is important to point out the gross inconsistencies associated with these items that I have touched on today. I think the administration is naive. I think they are gullible. I do not think they are equipped, based on their record, to deal with the dangers that confront us today and in the immediate future. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. MURKOWSKI. I agree with the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to ask my friend, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, if he would engage in a colloquy with me and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, on the bill H.R. 2464?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator. As he knows, H.R. 2464 amends the Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of 1993, an Act which, in the 103rd Congress, was considered exclusively by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I was therefore surprised to learn that on May 15th of this year the Parliamentarian referred H.R. 2464 to the Committee on Indian Affairs. I was further surprised to learn that on the very next day, May 16th, the Parliamentarian referred an identical Senate bill, S. 1766, introduced by our colleague, Senator Bennett, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which then referred it to Senator Craig's Subcommittee. So I ask my friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, whether he would agree with me and Senator Craig that it would have been appropriate for the Parliamentarian to refer H.R. 2464 to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with the Senator from Idaho, and I thank the Senator from Arizona for his Committee's expeditious work on this legislation. I am pleased to join with him in urging that it be passed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the measure, S. 39, which is a bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson Act. This is without a doubt one of the most important conservation bills that has come before this Congress, along with the nuclear waste bill. The text of the bill before us, which was discussed at some length last night, has changed a good deal since the bill that I had the honor to cosponsor along with Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry, in the final days of the 103d Congress. And almost 2 years since that day, Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry have led, I think, a remarkable, bipartisan effort to resolve other Members' problems with the bill as originally introduced. I would like to commend both of them. I would like to also recognize the cooperation of Senator Murray, Senator Gorton, of course our leader, Senator Lott, and many others who worked to bring this about. I cannot say I am completely satisfied with all the changes that have been necessary to accommodate the interests of various Members but that how the process of legislating works. However, I can say that I have watched and participated in the evolution of this legislation with very close attention. I am confident the managers have made every possible effort to make those accommodations without violating the intent of and the integrity of the bill. I also want to recognize the tremendous efforts that have been made by others, including Bill Woolf of my staff, and the staffs of Senator Stevens and others, to bring this to fulfillment. The fishing industry itself, the industry groups, the environmental community, and others who have participated in this bill to this point also deserve recognition. For without that cooperative effort, we would not be where we are today, ready to culminate this effort in a floor vote. My efforts in connection with this bill have largely focused on certain issues that have recently exploded in national prominence: fisheries bycatch and discard--in other words, the incidental catch that is picked up as the preferred species is pursued, and the disposed of by discarding it over the side of the fishing vessel. My first association with that came as a consequence of being appointed by Senator Dole to represent the U.S. Senate at the United Nations. I learned of a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that indicated that a world total fishery landing figures of about 83 million metric tons did not include the 27 million metric tons of incidental catch discarded overboard. The grand total of fish caught, I learned, could easily exceed the sustainable harvest level of the world's oceans by as much as 10 million metric tons. Such incidental catch, Mr. President, is simply thrown over the side, back into the ocean. And it is not thrown over alive, it is thrown over dead. While it makes food for other fish, it is still an excessive waste. So what we are looking at is a total catch of about 110 million metric tons of which we discard 27 million metric tons and retain and consume 83 million metric tons. The scientists tell us the ocean is capable of producing--on a renewable basis--about 100 million metric tons. Well, one can quickly see the possibility that we are overfishing the oceans of the world by about 10 million metric tons. If we could just address the discard, to reduce that tonnage, we could get this thing in balance. That was of particular interest and a role that I played. I introduced the first bill to address bycatch and discard back in 1993. Today, almost 3 years later, I am pleased to say that we are finally on the verge of taking action. The bill before us follows the lead of my earlier efforts by establishing a new national standard calling for bycatch to be avoided, where possible, and where it cannot be avoided for steps to minimize the resulting fisheries mortalities. We focused in on this issue. This will put us on the road to reducing and, hopefully, stopping the shameful waste that is currently occurring in many fisheries. Following this principle, my good friend, Senator Stevens, has also authored a separate section of the bill for Alaska only, which calls for annual bycatch reductions in the Gulf of Alaska and in the Bering Sea off Alaska. Among other provisions, this bill will improve fisheries conservation and utilization, on which so many individuals in our coastal communities depend. It will for the first time address the problem of overfishing by requiring corrective action to be taken when a fishery is or is in danger of becoming overfished. It will also strengthen the fisheries management process by improving the way that regional fishery councils function, improve the way fisheries research is conducted and make many other changes of great importance and urgent need. Mr. President, two issues which have been most contentious during this reauthorization process are the prospects for a new type of fishery limitation called an individual fishing quota program, and for a community development quota program intended to pass through some of the benefits from fisheries in the Bering Sea to disadvantaged, largely small native communities in that area. In Alaska, and elsewhere, there has been considerable debate on redesigning fishery management using an individual fishing quota system. I will not attempt to get into the level of detail necessary to explain how this would differ from the existing system of management. Suffice it to say that supporters believe this would solve most of today's problems of overcapitalized fisheries with the least Government interference, and opponents claim it would not only be costly to the Government but hugely unfair to those who are excluded and to communities dependent on fishing. The bill before us represents a compromise between these two positions. It contains a moratorium on new individual fishing quota systems, and a comprehensive study of their potential--that is both good and bad--and of their actual impacts in those cases where they have already been used. I believe this is a compromise worthy of our support as a Senate body. In the case of the community development program proposal, we also see the results of sensible, needed compromise. The bill before us today provides a mechanism to assign some of the volume of fish coming from Bering Sea fisheries to the task of helping provide a stable, permanent economic base for some of the poorest, most disadvantaged communities in the country. This is a very worthy goal, and it is also one that I believe deserves the support of my colleagues. Finally, there are far too many other specifics in this bill to recount them all, or to provide my views on each and every issue the bill addresses. -Instead, let me close with this: If there is anything on which we can agree, it is the need for productive, healthy oceans. That is the goal of this bill, and this bill is Congress' farthest ever reach toward reaching it. Let's not waste the opportunity. Finally, let me note that my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator, Senator Stevens, worked with the late Senator Magnuson on the original formulation of this bill. I personally feel that this legislation should be referred to as the Magnuson-Stevens legislation, but recognizing the lateness of the date for such a change, I will reserve that name for my own thoughts about it. I do want to congratulate my senior colleague for his tireless efforts, and that of his staff, as well as many other Senators, to bring this bill before the Senate today. Needless to say, I urge its successful passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I very strongly support the passage of S. 39, a bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson Act. This is without a doubt the single most important conservation bill that has come before this Congress. The text before us today has changed greatly since the bill I had the honor to cosponsor, along with Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry, in the final days of the 103d Congress. In the almost 2 years since that day, Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry have led a remarkable bipartisan effort to resolve other Members' problems with the bill as originally introduced. I cannot say, Mr. President, that I am completely happy with all of the changes that have been necessary to accommodate the interests of various Members. However, Mr. President, I can say that I have watched the evolution of this legislation with very close attention, and am confident that the managers have made every possible effort to make those accommodations without violating the integrity of the bill. I also want to recognize the tremendous effort that has been made by by fishing industry groups, the environmental community and others, all of whom participated in bringing this bill to this point, just steps from completion. My own efforts in connection with this bill have largely focused on certain issues that have recently exploded into international prominence--fishery bycatch and discard. Worldwide, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that with total fishery landings of 83 million metric tons, plus discards of up to 27 million metric tons, we may be taking as much as 10 million tons per year more than the oceans can sustain. I introduced the first bill to address bycatch and discard back in 1993. Today, almost 3 years later, I am very pleased to say we are finally on the verge of taking action. The bill before us follows the lead of my early bill by establishing a new national standard calling for bycatch to be avoided where possible, and where it cannot be avoided, for steps to minimize the resulting fishery mortalities. This will put us on the road to stopping the shameful waste that is currently occurring in many fisheries. Following this principle, Senator Stevens has authored a separate section of the bill for Alaska only, which calls for annual bycatch reductions for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea off Alaska. Among other provisions, this bill will improve fisheries conservation and utilization, on which so many individuals in our coastal communities depend. It will for the first time address the problem of overfishing by requiring corrective action to be taken when a fishery is or is in danger of becoming overfished. It will also strengthen the fisheries management process by improving the way that regional fishery councils function, improve the way fisheries research is conducted and make many other changes of great importance and urgent need. Mr. President, two issues which have been most contentious during this reauthorization process are the prospects for a new type of fishery limitation called an individual fishing quota program, and for a community development quota program intended to pass through some of the benefits from fisheries in the Bering Sea to disadvantaged, largely Native communities in that area. In Alaska, and elsewhere, there has been considerable debate on redesigning fishery management using an individual fishing quota system. I won't attempt to get into the level of detail necessary to explain how this would differ from the existing system of management. Suffice it to say that supporters believe this would solve most of today's problems of overcapitalized fisheries with the least government interference, and opponents claim it would not only be costly to the government but hugely unfair to those who are excluded and to communities dependent on fishing. The bill before us represents a compromise between these two positions. It contains a moratorium on new individual fishing quota systems, and a comprehensive study of their potential--both good and bad--and of their actual impacts in those cases where they have already been used. I believe this is a compromise worthy of the Senate's support. In the case of the community development program proposal, we also see the results of sensible, needed compromise. The bill before us today provides a mechanism to assign some of the volume of fish coming from Bering Sea fisheries to the task of helping provide a stable, permanent economic base for some of the poorest, most disadvantaged communities in the country. This is a very worthy goal, and it is also one that I believe deserves the support of my colleagues. There are far too many other specifics in this bill to recount them all, or to provide my views on each and every issue the bill addresses. Instead, let me close with this: if there is anything on which we can agree, it is the need for productive, healthy oceans. That is the goal of this bill, and this bill is Congress' farthest ever reach toward reaching it. Let's not waste it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to Howard Greene for the service that he has provided this body. My personal association with Howard goes back to my election to the Senate and coming to this body in 1980. I had little association with Washington, DC, and little association with Senate procedure, and I found Howard extraordinarily talented in addressing the egos of some 100 individual Members of this body. He always reminded me of a person who had the ability to keep all the balls up in the air, all at once if necessary, and in meeting the needs, the desires, not only of the Members during the normal course of business, but oftentimes it would be necessary to phone him after hours. I found him more than willing to go beyond just accommodating Members in the normal activities of our daily lives, but to make an effort to accommodate the needs of family and family members. I think it is fair to say that as I look back on my career in the Senate, approaching some 16 years, I look back on it with fond memories of my association with Howard. The occasional traveler. Howard was, in my opinion, a white-knuckle flier. He had some inhibitions about the ability of the particular craft to get him to where he was going and, more importantly, back. One night we were flying over the Atlantic, and I do not know whether we were in the Azores or where, but we had to refuel. And we were in an old Boeing 707 that the Air Force had, and occasionally the gear did not go down. One of the gears locked up on this particular night, would not go down. The normal procedure for eliminating that experience was to put the plane in a slide dive and pull up rather abruptly, and that theoretically would drop the gear. Of course, the Air Force aircraft are not known for their public address systems. Some of us had some idea of the procedure, and Howard was simply terrified through the entire process, which I think resulted in some libation of some nature, or at least a visit to a watering hole when we hit the ground, to which he was entitled and probably all of us as well. I cite a more recent visit that I had with Howard when I had an opportunity to participate as chairman of the United States-Canadian Interparliamentary where we flew out of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, with many of our Canadian counterparts, Members from Parliament from both the lower house and the upper house, and then took an Alaskan ferry on up through Ketchikan and Juneau, and then went on past the Yukon Railroad out to Whitehorse where we were again joined by members of the Yukon territorial parliamentary body. And I found his insight, his long memory of the Senate, particularly some of the humorous sides of our relationships with one another, to be very interesting and rewarding. So I just add, that Howard Greene's contribution to the Senate will be long remembered by those who served with him, who knew him, and who loved him. I join others in wishing him well as he proceeds with what is ahead of him in his life. And I thank him for his friendship and for his accommodation. I wish him well. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise for the purpose of submitting an amendment to legislation within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This amendment addresses some of the concerns raised by Alaskans on S. 1920 as introduced. I plan to discuss the bill and the amendment at a hearing to be held in the Senate and Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, September 18, 1996.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a very important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress has kept barred for over 100 years. Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues. Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest or on the environment, and it will cost the Government virtually nothing. There is no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. My bill merely allows United States ports to compete for the growing cruise ship trade to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all- Alaska cruise business, as well. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate to and from Alaska, and between Alaska ports. However, it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by using a definition of ``cruise ships'' designed to exclude any foreign- flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.- flag tour boats or ferries. Finally, it provides a mechamism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers. Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing problem, and it deserves the support of this body. Let us look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels sailing to Alaska to base their operations in an foreign port instead of a U.S. city. Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's Doing.'' How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable American interst, while actively discouraging economic growth. Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 200,000 per year. By last year, almost three times that many people-- most of them American citizens--were making that voyage. Almost 600,000 people joined an Alaska bound vessel in 1995, and almost all those sailings originated in Vancouver, BC--not because Vancouver is necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it. The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington State, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead, they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel general supplies, repair and maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors. According to some estimates the city of Vancouver receives benefits of well over $200 million per year. Others provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. If that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have been worth additional Federal, State, and local tax revenues of approximately $60 million. In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy, and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the opportunity simply evaporated. Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United State's most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting nothing whatsoever in return. Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. I submit, Mr. President, that is not the case. For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who oppose this bill. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. I have repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to create cracks in the Jones Act. This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S. workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades. Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might farm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply does not cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats operating in Alaska are all much smaller--under 1,000 tons compared to the 5,000 ton minimum for cruise ships in this bill. The larger vessels can offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes, the ability to get closer to Alaska's natural attractions, and other benefits. There is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely to be inclined to the other. Mr. President, I cannot claim that this legislation would immediately lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests. It is, as I said at the beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door. We have heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs during the last few years, and we are bound to keep hearing those phrases even more often over the next few months. But we all know, Mr. President, that such changes are easier to talk about than they are to accomplish. Well, Mr. President, here is a bill that opens the door to thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it without one red cent of taxpayer money. It has been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it's time for a change.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my purpose in rising is to simply draw some attention to what is certainly evident to this Senator from Alaska; and that is, our increasing dependence on Mideast oil sources. As we have seen within the last few weeks, there has been a crisis as a consequence of the efforts of Saddam Hussein to once again provide the world with a reflection on how we have become more and more dependent on imported oil from the Mideast. We had United States cruise missile attacks against Iraq again, highlighting the crucial dependence that the United States has become accustomed to in its dependence on imported oil. I think it is fair to say the administration's policy is one that is really absent. It is difficult to identify just what our policy is, as far as energy is concerned. Back in 1973 when the United States was approximately one-third dependent on imported oil, we entered into a national security analysis because we were concerned that that increasing dependence would lessen U.S. leverage in dealing with our neighbors in the Mideast. As a consequence, Mr. President, we established the strategic petroleum reserve. That was in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Again, I remind my colleagues that in 1973 we were approximately one- third dependent on imported oil, so we authorized the creation of SPRO, the strategic petroleum reserve, in Louisiana in salt caverns, where there was the commitment by this Nation to have an emergency supply of oil on hand, approximately a 90-day supply. We filled SPRO with some 600,000 barrels, which cost us about $17 billion, because we were paying a relatively high price for oil at that time, about $27 per barrel. Today, Mr. President, we are 50.4 percent dependent on foreign oil. The Department of Energy, Mr. President, predicts that by the year 2000 this country will be 66 percent dependent on foreign oil. I do not think there is any question about the stability in the Mideast. It remains one of the most unstable areas in the world. We had sent up to half a million troops over there in 1991 and 1992 during the gulf war to protect--protect what, Mr. President--protect the international oil supply stream because it was crucial to the Western World. We have seen earlier this year our troops bombed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. We have seen Iraqi missiles shoot our planes down. We have seen F-117 stealth fighter bombers en route to the area. They are there now. What is the administration doing about it? Well, they are after Saddam Hussein, but they are not doing one single solitary thing to lessen our dependence on imported oil. As we attempt to negotiate with the Mideast, we see a certain reluctance by our neighbors in the Mideast to rally with the United States to take appropriate action against Saddam Hussein, whether it be Saudi Arabia or whether it be Kuwait. It is rather noticeable that as we attempt to address this renegade, we are doing it pretty much alone. Oh, surely the thoughts of the other countries are with us, and their good wishes are with us, but they do not stand with us with personnel or an open commitment. I find that rather ironic. Earlier this year, Mr. President, we were looking at Saddam Hussein to relieve our dependence on imported oil. When we were in conflict with Saddam Hussein back in 1991 and 1992, I think we were looking at roughly $1 billion worth of oil coming from Iraq each quarter. So here we are at one time committed to try to put him in a cage, and a few years later we are looking at Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein to relieve our dependence on other Mideast countries. The point that I want to make, Mr. President, is that on one hand we seem to have the inconsistency of creating the strategic petroleum reserve at great expense when we were 33 percent dependent on foreign oil, and now we are talking about selling a portion of it. We are talking about selling a portion of it. Perhaps that will come up in some of the debate on the Interior appropriations bill relative to generating revenues, but we have already seen our President in his budget proposal, in the outyears, in the year 2002, propose to sell $1.5 billion worth of SPRO in order to meet his budget projections. So, Mr. President, one can say that SPRO is now being used, to some extent, as a piggy bank in order to meet budgetary requirements. While much of that oil was paid for when prices were prevailing at $27 a barrel, it is interesting to note we are selling it at somewhere in the area of $18 or $19. So on one hand, Mr. President, we have a situation where we continually fail to recognize our increasing dependence on Mideast oil; on the other, we sell down the oil that we have put aside to take care of whatever energy supply disruption may occur, and we fail to recognize the prediction by the Department of Energy that by the year 2000 we will be two-thirds dependent on foreign oil. We produce less crude oil now in the United States than we did in 1955. Imports of foreign oil significantly affect our economy. It has been estimated that we spend approximately $150 million per day on foreign oil. That is more than $50 billion per year. One looks at the trade deficit. Nearly half of it is the cost of imported oil. The other half is with our trading partners, to a large degree, Japan and others. But three times we have seen international oil supply interruptions affect U.S. economic and national security interests. We saw it in 1973 in the Arab oil embargo, in the 1979 Iraq-Iran war, and, of course, in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Is the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, any more stable today than it was in 1973? Of course it is not. And the response of the administration toward opening up domestic fields here in the United States, to spur employment, keep our dollars home and lessen our dependence, is sorely lacking. In conclusion, Mr. President, to suggest that the most promising area in ANWR cannot be opened safely, with the advanced technology we have, is clearly selling American ingenuity and technology short. I recognize my time is limited. Other Senators are here to proceed with debate. But I remind my colleagues to consider the merits of just where we are going relative to our increased dependence on imported oil. One of these days we are going to have a crisis in the Mideast, and the public is going to blame this body. They are going to blame this Government. They are going to blame this administration for not having the foresight to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by taking the necessary measures at home to stimulate resource development protection, which we can do safely with ANWR. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and thank the floor manager, my good friend, the senior Senator from the State of Washington.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for 4 or 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a very important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress has kept barred for over 100 years. Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues. Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest or on the environment, and it will cost the Government virtually nothing. There is no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. My bill merely allows United States ports to compete for the growing cruise ship trade to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all- Alaska cruise business, as well. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate to and from Alaska, and between Alaska ports. However, it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by using a definition of ``cruise ships'' designed to exclude any foreign- flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.- flag tour boats or ferries. Finally, it provides a mechamism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers. Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing problem, and it deserves the support of this body. Let us look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels sailing to Alaska to base their operations in an foreign port instead of a U.S. city. Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's Doing.'' How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable American interst, while actively discouraging economic growth. Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 200,000 per year. By last year, almost three times that many people-- most of them American citizens--were making that voyage. Almost 600,000 people joined an Alaska bound vessel in 1995, and almost all those sailings originated in Vancouver, BC--not because Vancouver is necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it. The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington State, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead, they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel general supplies, repair and maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors. According to some estimates the city of Vancouver receives benefits of well over $200 million per year. Others provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. If that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have been worth additional Federal, State, and local tax revenues of approximately $60 million. In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy, and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the opportunity simply evaporated. Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United State's most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting nothing whatsoever in return. Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. I submit, Mr. President, that is not the case. For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who oppose this bill. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. I have repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to create cracks in the Jones Act. This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S. workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades. Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might farm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply does not cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats operating in Alaska are all much smaller--under 1,000 tons compared to the 5,000 ton minimum for cruise ships in this bill. The larger vessels can offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes, the ability to get closer to Alaska's natural attractions, and other benefits. There is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely to be inclined to the other. Mr. President, I cannot claim that this legislation would immediately lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests. It is, as I said at the beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door. We have heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs during the last few years, and we are bound to keep hearing those phrases even more often over the next few months. But we all know, Mr. President, that such changes are easier to talk about than they are to accomplish. Well, Mr. President, here is a bill that opens the door to thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it without one red cent of taxpayer money. It has been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it's time for a change.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Alaska Native Commission Study bill. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Stevens of Alaska is joining me as a cosponsor. This legislation is the product of years of study and candid self-appraisal by Alaska Natives about their standard-of-living problems and the need to address these problems. It is also the product of a congressional act that called for the study of the problems. 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 for such a study. The need for this study is well documented. In 1989, I and Representative Don Young of Alaska introduced a bill creating the Alaska Natives Commission, a publish commission jointly funded by the State and Federal Governments. The creation of the commission followed the publication in 1989 of the ``Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action'' by the Alaska Federation of Natives and was also spurred by extensive congressional hearings which focussed on the need for the first comprehensive assessment of the social, cultural, and economic condition of Alaska's 90,000 Natives since the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92- 203. Here are but some of the findings of the Alaska Natives Commission regarding the condition of Alaska Natives: Alcohol problems are one of the key reasons why Alaska Natives comprise 36-40 percent of the statewide prison population, even though they total only 16 percent of the population of Alaska. Alaska Native families need help: In 1988, one out of every eleven Alaska Native children received child protection services from the State of Alaska. Alaska Natives need to have opportunities and training for jobs: In 1990, 20 percent of the Native work force was unemployed, and for Alaska Natives living in villages, the rate can be as high as 50-80 percent, depending on the season and location. Alaska Natives need more opportunities for an education: 12-15 percent of Alaska Native high school students drop out from village/ rural schools; 60 percent of Native students entering urban high schools do not graduate. This bill calls for the authorization of $350,000 in Federal funds to be spent by the Alaska Federation of Natives to study how to implement the recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission. This investment is needed to create realistic solutions to serious problems. I would note that Congressman Young has introduced a companion bill in the House.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Alaska Native Commission Study bill. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Stevens of Alaska is joining me as a cosponsor. This legislation is the product of years of study and candid self-appraisal by Alaska Natives about their standard-of-living problems and the need to address these problems. It is also the product of a congressional act that called for the study of the problems. 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 for such a study. The need for this study is well documented. In 1989, I and Representative Don Young of Alaska introduced a bill creating the Alaska Natives Commission, a publish commission jointly funded by the State and Federal Governments. The creation of the commission followed the publication in 1989 of the ``Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action'' by the Alaska Federation of Natives and was also spurred by extensive congressional hearings which focussed on the need for the first comprehensive assessment of the social, cultural, and economic condition of Alaska's 90,000 Natives since the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92- 203. Here are but some of the findings of the Alaska Natives Commission regarding the condition of Alaska Natives: Alcohol problems are one of the key reasons why Alaska Natives comprise 36-40 percent of the statewide prison population, even though they total only 16 percent of the population of Alaska. Alaska Native families need help: In 1988, one out of every eleven Alaska Native children received child protection services from the State of Alaska. Alaska Natives need to have opportunities and training for jobs: In 1990, 20 percent of the Native work force was unemployed, and for Alaska Natives living in villages, the rate can be as high as 50-80 percent, depending on the season and location. Alaska Natives need more opportunities for an education: 12-15 percent of Alaska Native high school students drop out from village/ rural schools; 60 percent of Native students entering urban high schools do not graduate. This bill calls for the authorization of $350,000 in Federal funds to be spent by the Alaska Federation of Natives to study how to implement the recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission. This investment is needed to create realistic solutions to serious problems. I would note that Congressman Young has introduced a companion bill in the House.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Throughout the history of our Nation, family law has always been the province of the States and not the Federal Government. For we are a nation founded upon the principals of States' rights and limited Federal intrusion. And that is why this legislation is appropriate. The Defense of Marriage Act will ensure that each State shall be free to do what it believes is fitting and proper in regard to domestic law, including the recognition of same-sex marriages. By defining the term marriage, Congress is protecting the individual sovereignty of each State. No State will now be required to recognize a same-sex marriage--and no State will be prevented from recognizing a same-sex marriage. Passing the Defense of Marriage Act is the surest method of preserving the will and prerogative of each and every State. Additionally, the ramifications of the absence of a definition of marriage in Federal law are becoming apparent. The court case in Hawaii has merely brought some of those ramifications to our attention. The Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent same-sex marriages at the State level; it merely defines marriages for Federal purposes, thereby establishing legal certainty and uniformity in federal benefits, rights and privileges for married persons. I also rise to comment on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. There are obvious and serious problems in employment discrimination and on its face, this bill may appear to resolve some of those problems. However, I believe that this bill will only heighten employment problems and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act will directly threaten an individual's right of privacy, a right specifically protected in the Alaska State Constitution. This bill will make sexuality an issue in the workplace because it will enable employers to ask employees questions regarding their sexual orientation. Indeed, the bill will require employers to keep records as to the sexual orientation of each and every employee in the same manner that employers are required to maintain records on other protected classes under title VII of the United States Code. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act represents Federal intrusion in an area that most believe warrants the highest level of privacy. I urge my colleagues to support the Defense of Marriage Act and to oppose the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.