Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, recognizing there is time on the other side, I anticipate a vote on the pending amendment at the conclusion of the Senators from Nevada speaking on this amendment, because I think our time has just about expired. How much time do we have?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is fine. We would like a rollcall vote. I have asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment was a consequence of discussions held in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee among the staff of the majority with regard to the dilemma surrounding Amtrak and the high cost of power that Amtrak is subjected to in the Northeast corridor where most of the rail line is electrified. As a consequence of the efforts to try and help Amtrak to reduce its costs, this amendment was suggested by Amtrak. Mr. President, it is an extraordinary set of circumstances here when we consider that the potential cost of power wheeled in for the availability of Amtrak could be as low as 3 cents, yet Amtrak is currently paying in many cases 6 cents and, in extreme cases, up to 12 cents from a power-producing facility in New York State that is in bankruptcy. These are the result of State public utility commissions and the overall regulatory complexity associated with the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as compared to State public utility commissions. These need to be examined. What this amendment does, Mr. President, is to allow the FERC to order retail wheeling for Amtrak only, something which is currently prohibited under Federal law. It would exempt, therefore, Amtrak from the prohibition which prevents them from taking advantage of cheaper sources of power that would be transmitted from potential out-of-State power suppliers. The purpose, again, of this amendment is simply to allow Amtrak to acquire electric power at a cheaper rate than it is currently paying. As we all know, Amtrak is not a private company but a quasi- governmental entity created by an act of Congress in 1970. Its stock is owned by the Federal Government. Congress mandated its mission and likewise imposes by Federal law a host of obligations and costs on Amtrak, costs that no regular private company is burdened with. Yet, each year Amtrak's losses are made up through a Federal subsidy. In fiscal year 1996, Amtrak's Federal subsidy was $285 million, thus, this amendment would result in a savings to Amtrak that translates into about $20 million a year. That is a savings to the U.S. taxpayer that subsidizes Amtrak. What we have done, Mr. President, in Congress is put Amtrak between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Congress has given Amtrak a mandate to decrease its reliance on Federal operating support. The House and Senate Amtrak authorization bills and the budget resolution proposed to end all operating support of Amtrak in the year 2001. What are we going to do with that? Are we going to adhere to that? Are we going to extend it and try and find ways to help Amtrak reduce its cost? The point is, we have not relieved Amtrak from its statutory obligation and, at the same time, we are taking away its Federal operating subsidy. Mr. President, I offer this amendment not in the expectation that it is going to be adopted. I offer this amendment to point out the need to move the electric power industry from its current highly regulated, highly inefficient situation into a fully competitive, deregulated marketplace so that Amtrak, along with industrial and residential consumers, can purchase electricity at the lowest possible price. That is what deregulation is all about. How we get there from here is a very difficult and complex problem. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I recognize it, and I have had some conversations, as late as this evening, with Senator Johnston, who is concerned about the issue as well. And to the question of how we address it, of course, is an issue within the jurisdiction of our committee. The Energy Committee has held three hearings this year on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. We intend to hold more. We want to assure everybody that we recognize that the electric industry in this country--a very, very important and significant industry--is not broke by any means. So it is not a question of fixing it in the sense of fixing what is not wrong with it. It is more an effort to try and recognize that by directing more attention to local and State control, with the assurance that we have the availability of wheeling coming in to address cost and efficient producers and somehow try and address that narrow area of what we are going to do to protect those that have stranded costs. That is the challenge before us. We have an inequity associated with Amtrak. While there is no consensus as to the means for how to make the electric power industry competitive, there is a consensus as to the need for making it competitive. So what we have to do is address the inconsistencies associated with the industry. We want to have competition, which will benefit consumers--residential consumers, commercial consumers, industrial consumers and, yes, Amtrak. This amendment is but a small piece of a much larger puzzle. The Amtrak issue, along with a host of other electric power issues, such as the privatization of the Federal Power Marketing Administration, will be the subject of our legislative interests in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, while it is my expectation that we will undertake comprehensive electric deregulation legislation next year, it should not be taken to mean that we should not proceed this year with Senator D'Amato's PUHCA reform legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. It has been ordered reported by the Banking Committee, and the Senate should take this legislation up at the earliest possible time. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw the amendment as a consequence of the recognition that, clearly, this is not the time or the place to resolve the wheeling issue for Amtrak. But I hope there is now attention to the inequity associated with Amtrak, and a realization that we are forcing this entity to purchase power far beyond the competitive marketplace that exists, which puts an unfair and unrealistic burden and a responsibility right back with us in the realization that it is the taxpayers that are subsidizing this quasi- government entity, or its shortfall, when indeed there are opportunities out there for Amtrak to buy power at a competitive rate and reduce the Federal subsidy by as much as $20 million a year. And current savings can easily be identified as a consequence of prevailing rates that are in existence at this time. Unless anybody cares to talk on the amendment, or ask me questions, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this time. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens. This legislation is intended to help facilitate a settlement regarding a complex land dispute between five Native Alaskan villages and the Department of the Interior. Mr. President, the villages of Chickaloon-Moose Creek, Ninilchik, Selovia, Tyonek, and Knikatnu selected lands over 20 years ago pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) along the shores of what would later become Lake Clark National Park and on the western coast of Cook Inlet. These five villages later relinquished many of their original selections so that the Department could consolidate their holdings and preserve valuable lake frontage to create the Lake Clark National Park in 1980. Without the relinquishment of the village's original land selections Lake Clark National Park may never have become a reality. In return for the relinquishment of their original selections, the villages were offered other lands on the western coast of Cook Inlet. Because there were five villages, the DOI worked with the villages to create different ``rounds'' of selections. This process would ensure that no one village would receive all the high or low priority selections being offered in the new lands. These rounds were similar to the way the NFL conducts its draft. After the villages made their selections, with the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the selections were then rejected by the BLM because they were not ``compact and contiguous'' as required by ANSCA. This resulted in a deficiency conveyance agreement which divided the village selections in Cook Inlet into two appendices--appendix A, and appendix C. When the villages signed their agreement they were continuously assured by the BLM that their selection rounds would remain intact thereby preserving their highest priority land selections. Indeed, correspondence over the years from the Department of the Interior indicates that this was the case. However, now the DOI claims that none of the appendix C lands could be transferred until all appendix A lands have been conveyed. If allowed to continue this would result in the Native villages not receiving their priority selections under ANCSA. It is ironic that it was village corporations who gave up their selections so that the Department could create Lake Clark National Park and now the DOI is blocking the villages right to select lands they originally assisted in selecting by saying it would threaten Lake Clark National Park. The legislation I am introducing today is a fair compromise to this problem. In short the legislation would: Require the Secretary to enter into expedited negotiations with the village corporations for the purpose of resolving their remaining land entitlement issues with either the lands in dispute or other lands in Alaska; For any village with much the Secretary reaches agreement he must implement the agreement within 90 days and the issue is then resolved; For any of the villages with which the Secretary fails to reach agreement within 180 days, the Secretary must convey to that village 50 percent of the lands they selected, in the order of their selection by priority rounds; For any of the five villages that still have remaining acreage in their land entitlements, the Secretary must continue to negotiate with them and report back to Congress on the status of these negotiations; Lastly, the legislation will preserve the village's right to pursue the issue through the judicial system. Mr. President, this legislation is fair and balanced. Each of the two parties involved have the opportunity to resolve the issue in an amicable way where both can walk away with positive results. Failing to accomplish this, each party then only gets half of what they want. I would like to point out that, regardless of the rhetoric coming from opponents of this legislation, these selected lands are not part of Lake Clark National Park. I understand the DOI may oppose this legislation. I would like to inform the Department of the Interior that I am opposed to them making Alaska Natives wait 20 years for their promised land conveyances.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens. This legislation is intended to help facilitate a settlement regarding a complex land dispute between five Native Alaskan villages and the Department of the Interior. Mr. President, the villages of Chickaloon-Moose Creek, Ninilchik, Selovia, Tyonek, and Knikatnu selected lands over 20 years ago pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) along the shores of what would later become Lake Clark National Park and on the western coast of Cook Inlet. These five villages later relinquished many of their original selections so that the Department could consolidate their holdings and preserve valuable lake frontage to create the Lake Clark National Park in 1980. Without the relinquishment of the village's original land selections Lake Clark National Park may never have become a reality. In return for the relinquishment of their original selections, the villages were offered other lands on the western coast of Cook Inlet. Because there were five villages, the DOI worked with the villages to create different ``rounds'' of selections. This process would ensure that no one village would receive all the high or low priority selections being offered in the new lands. These rounds were similar to the way the NFL conducts its draft. After the villages made their selections, with the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the selections were then rejected by the BLM because they were not ``compact and contiguous'' as required by ANSCA. This resulted in a deficiency conveyance agreement which divided the village selections in Cook Inlet into two appendices--appendix A, and appendix C. When the villages signed their agreement they were continuously assured by the BLM that their selection rounds would remain intact thereby preserving their highest priority land selections. Indeed, correspondence over the years from the Department of the Interior indicates that this was the case. However, now the DOI claims that none of the appendix C lands could be transferred until all appendix A lands have been conveyed. If allowed to continue this would result in the Native villages not receiving their priority selections under ANCSA. It is ironic that it was village corporations who gave up their selections so that the Department could create Lake Clark National Park and now the DOI is blocking the villages right to select lands they originally assisted in selecting by saying it would threaten Lake Clark National Park. The legislation I am introducing today is a fair compromise to this problem. In short the legislation would: Require the Secretary to enter into expedited negotiations with the village corporations for the purpose of resolving their remaining land entitlement issues with either the lands in dispute or other lands in Alaska; For any village with much the Secretary reaches agreement he must implement the agreement within 90 days and the issue is then resolved; For any of the villages with which the Secretary fails to reach agreement within 180 days, the Secretary must convey to that village 50 percent of the lands they selected, in the order of their selection by priority rounds; For any of the five villages that still have remaining acreage in their land entitlements, the Secretary must continue to negotiate with them and report back to Congress on the status of these negotiations; Lastly, the legislation will preserve the village's right to pursue the issue through the judicial system. Mr. President, this legislation is fair and balanced. Each of the two parties involved have the opportunity to resolve the issue in an amicable way where both can walk away with positive results. Failing to accomplish this, each party then only gets half of what they want. I would like to point out that, regardless of the rhetoric coming from opponents of this legislation, these selected lands are not part of Lake Clark National Park. I understand the DOI may oppose this legislation. I would like to inform the Department of the Interior that I am opposed to them making Alaska Natives wait 20 years for their promised land conveyances.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1678, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act, has been rescheduled. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 4, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I assure my colleagues, if we don't have adequate funding, there is no point in pursuing this. That is the problem with the proposal that has been offered by the Senator from Kentucky. This requires full compliance with all provisions of the agreed framework, no significant diversion of U.S. assistance of food or oil, and full cooperation on storage of spent fuel. If we are going to do this right, we have to give them the tools to do it. We can't cut it in half and expect it to be done right. That is what we are up against here. It is a significant foreign policy question. I am very pleased Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman and others feel there is a job to be done over there and we can't take it lightly and we can't just cut funding in half. I might add, there is a full accounting of MIA's in this thing. There are more MIA's in North Korea, about 8,400, in fact.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Byrd's comments regarding aid to Azerbaijan in his colloquy with Senator McConnell. I understand that Senator Byrd had intended to offer an amendment, which I cosponsored, to the foreign operations appropriations bill on this issue. Mr. President, Azerbaijan is the only one of the fifteen former Soviet Republics to be denied assistance in the Freedom Support Act. Humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan has been denied as a result of its conflict with Armenia. Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, as currently interpreted, prevents U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations from dealing with Azerbaijan's government in carrying out humanitarian missions. Section 907 states, ``U.S. Assistance * * * may not be provided to the Government of Azerbaijan until the President determines, and so reports to Congress, that the Government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.'' The need for humanitarian aid in Azerbaijan is great, and Section 907 makes it difficult for aid organizations to deliver the much-needed assistance to the people of Azerbaijan, nearly a million of whom are displaced persons and refugees. The U.S. Center for Disease Control, UNICEF and the World Health Organization have all cited serious difficulties in delivering vital medical supplies and other aid to Azerbaijan because of Section 907's ban on direct U.S. aid. However, this was never the real intent of Section 907. Report language which clarified the intent that humanitarian aid be delivered using the facilities of the government of Azerbaijan has been added to this bill. I understand that Senator Byrd agreed to withhold his amendment, which I co-sponsored, with the understanding that the chairman will defend the Senate position in conference and continue to resist the House provisions. It is important to recognize the economic and strategic potential of Azerbaijan. The country, known as ``the Kuwait of the Caspian'' has proven oil reserves of three billion barrels. Experts has put the ultimate potential of the country as high as forty billion barrels of oil. Gas reserves of the country are 184 billion cubic meters on the discovered fields. In 1994, a consortium of Western oil companies signed an eight billion dollar production sharing agreement with the government of Azerbaijan. They have a thirty year contract to work on the Guneshli-Chirag-Azeri offshore fields. U.S. companies have a good opportunity now to establish a commercial relationships with Azerbaijan. The strategic potential of Azerbaijan is also very important, and should be brought to the attention of policymakers. Russia, the United States, the European Union, Turkey and Iran all have a great interest in the geo-political and economic state of affairs in Caspian Sea Rim Region. Whether the pipeline from Baku to Novorossiisk will be able to be used, presents a stability question, since it passes through war- torn Chechnya. In addition, while U.S. oil company's have forty percent of the shares in one project and growing financial participation in other projects in the Caspian Rim, they have accepted Russia's leading role. Finally, Azerbaijan how has a secular muslim government, however, there is a Islamic fundamentalist influence that Azerbaijan has so far resisted, that is cause for concern. But Azerbaijan will not be able to develop, and reach its full potential if it is not able to receive the humanitarian assistance that it now needs from U.S. nongovernmental humanitarian organizations. amendment no. 5047

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee proposed a cut of funding to $13 million. I do not think we are involved, here, in a bean-counting debate. The question is, what does it take to do the job? If we go back to the initiation of the framework agreement, I think many of us were under the assumption that this would be an obligation pretty much underwritten by South Korea and Japan. That has not been the case. We have been involved and we continue to be involved. But my concern, in real terms, is that what we are talking about is a major foreign policy initiative, and that is how we deal with North Korea. I said on previous occasions I do not think the agreed framework was the best way we could have negotiated it, but I am not going to judge the administration necessarily in hindsight. My objection to the agreement was that, in negotiating, we agreed basically not to inspect the two sites, the two storage sites, until after the first nuclear plant was about to be fueled. I think that was a mistake, but I am not going to go on at great length. I am concerned the North Koreans live up to their commitments before the money starts flowing. The Murkowski-Lieberman-McCain amendments would condition the $25 million on the following. The first is Presidential certification that progress is really being made on the North-South relations. This is a condition of the agreed framework, but one that is obeyed in the breach, if you will. There have been significant exceptions to that. North Korea has flouted, in some instances, the armistice agreement and taken several actions in the past few months to increase tensions on the DMZ, by violating borders. The question is how does this decrease tensions? It clearly does not. Cooperating fully on safe storage of all spent fuel--this is a requirement. Again, it is a condition of the agreed framework. Thus far, I think the cooperation has been relatively reassuring on that one. No significant diversion of financial or other assistance--Senator McConnell's provision deals with the important matter of the diversion of fuel oil. But I think it must go further. We have spent $8.2 million in food aid, even though there are conflicting reports about what North Korea does with the money. In fact, in the last 2 years we have spent over $50 million for North Korea in food value and other assistance. So what we are talking about is full compliance with all the provisions of the agreed framework and the confidential part, which includes the timetable for compliance. This should be a no-brainer. If there are violations, the money should simply stop. They should understand that. If, as the administration assures me, North Korea is fully cooperating with the agreed framework and is moving towards advancement on other issues, these should be very, very easy certifications. It should not be any problem at all. Further, before any money is spent, the administration will report on whether North Korea is cooperating fully on activities to account for the MIA's, those missing in action, including the joint field activities. A lot of Americans forget, because the emphasis has been on Vietnam where currently we have unidentified less than 2,300 MIA's, but that is not the case in North Korea. Mr. President, 8,177 service personnel are unaccounted for in the Korean conflict and at least 5,433 were lost north of the 38th Parallel. These are the forgotten men of the Korean war. I am pleased that the first joint operation started on July 10. Another operation is scheduled for September. That is good news. It is a start. But it is absolutely crucial to my support for the KEDO funding. It is an issue I have spoken out on time and time again, and it is an issue I am glad to see the administration and negotiators have finally brought into the discussion process. When KEDO started, when the first negotiations were taking place, there was no mention, no condition of our support and assistance and their cooperation on the MIA's. It is through the efforts of Senator McCain and a number of other Members of this body and Members of the House, to insert this mandate, that I think has brought an awakening to the administration. The highest calling of Government is full accounting for those who have given so much. We can never properly repay that. We simply have to demand it. We know where those battle sites were. We know where those prison camps were, in the north. We know there are 5,433 that are unaccounted for and this is an opportunity to give that accounting to their relatives and loved ones. Further, this would require a report on all instances of noncompliance with the agreed framework, including diversion of fuel oil. It is fair to say we have seen evidence of that in the past. So I think what we have here, thanks to my good friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and others, is a message to the administration that is responsible, is forthright, that meets their monetary requirement, but, if you will, puts behind the agreement the faith and credit of the Congress in an accountability that is oftentimes difficult to find in a Government process such as we have before us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding the rollcall vote will be tomorrow on the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of language in the Senate report for the foreign operations appropriations bill underlining the importance of the work of the United States West Coast- Russian Far East Ad Hoc Working Group, and of the American-Russian Center in Anchorage, AK. Mr. President, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission's United States West Coast-Russian Far East Ad Hoc Working Group, under the leadership of Jan Kalicki, the Counselor to the Department of Commerce, is doing an outstanding job of developing a bilateral framework that will lead to increased trade and investment between the Russian Far East and west coast States. The first meeting of the working group was held in Seattle, WA, in June 1995. In an example of the importance of Alaska's relationship with the Russian Far East, the second meeting of the working group was held in Anchorage, AK, in March 1996. It was a very productive and successful event. I encourage all Senators from west coast States to become involved in the work of the group and to encourage businesses in their states to do so as well. The next meeting of the working group will take place in Khabarovsk, in the Russian Far East, from September 22 to 24, 1996. I have seen first-hand the growth in business activity between the States of the west coast and the Russian Far East. The economic reform efforts taking place in the Russian Far East, in such cities as Vladivostok and Khabarovsk are significant. For example, Vladivostok, once a closed city, now has a stock exchange. Economic reform will also progress as development of the oil and natural gas fields on the continental shelf north and northeast of Sakhalin Island. The oil development is being led by two major international oil consortiums with U.S. partners. They have already announced that they will start designing projects on Sakhalin Island worth $30 billion. Alaskans and citizens of other west coast States will be involved in that development. There are also gold, diamond, timber, and fisheries industries in the region. The Russian Far East's resources could provide the engine for growth, through its export revenues, for the economic restructuring of all of Russia. I have promoted ties between Alaska and the Russian Far East. In 1989 I helped make possible, and traveled on the groundbreaking first flight from Nome to Providenya. From that initial step, relations between Alaska and the Russian Far East have gone very far, very fast. The working group is doing an outstanding job of setting priorities and coordinating joint efforts to move forward on projects and programs that will benefit both Russians and west coast States by building and increasing business ties between the two regions. The projects of the working group will bring about greater private sector development in the Russian Far East. The group has already proven to be an essential and integral part of the economic reform effort currently underway in Russia. In addition to my support for the working group, I would also like to take this opportunity to express my support for the American-Russian Center in Anchorage, AK. The Senate has wisely funded it in the foreign operations appropriations bill at the amount of $2,500,000 for its operation and training programs. The center has played an important role in the growth of business and exchanges between Alaska and the Russian Far East. The purpose of the center is to provide business training and technical assistance to the Russian Far East. It has training facilities in Yakutsk, Khabarovsk, Magadan, and Sakhalin Island. They have provided these communities with communications facilities, small business training, advanced interships with American business, and technical assistance since 1993. Continued funding of the American-Russian Center is ultimately cost- saving to the American taxpayer. The center is seeking to become self- sufficient by 1998. At present, local Russian industries and governments are supporting 70 percent of the cost for training Russian personnel in the United States, and they have pledged 100 percent support by 1997. The operation of these centers by the American-Russian Center will play an important role in the future of market development and democracy building in the Russian Far East.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to the foreign operations appropriation bill. I think it is timely that we have an expression of the Congress toward Japan's failure to follow the letter and the spirit of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. For many years, Madam President, I have been an advocate of encouraging the Japanese to open up their markets, as we have opened our markets to Japanese firms, to ensure that we maintain our competitiveness by having an open-market concept. It has been very difficult over the years for United States firms to do business in Japan. One of our more successful U.S. international markets has been through the competitiveness of the U.S. insurance industry. The industry has proven its ability to compete in numerous countries throughout the world, providing a degree of service and coverage at competitive costs. We seem to have a significant exception in our ability to do business in Japan. It is interesting to note that Japan has the second largest insurance market in the world. However, most of Japan's market is shared by Japanese companies. Foreign and U.S. competition share less than 3 percent of the Japanese market. In comparison, Japanese and other foreign insurers have over 10 percent of the United States insurance market. What we are talking about, Madam President, is addressing equity. The United States and Japan negotiated over a year and a half, beginning October 19, 1994, and the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement was signed in June 1995. Japan committed to a further liberalization under the World Trade Organization. In April 1996 Japan passed new insurance business laws. Despite these commitments over this extended period of time, no progress has been made. The United States and Japan spent several months negotiating over the meaning of an agreement that they signed 19 months ago. This is traditional in many of the business customs in Japan. You negotiate extensively, you negotiate with a committee, and time marches on. As the Japanese have observed, time and time again, many such firms simply give up, go off and do something else, because they simply cannot afford to spend that much time trying to open the market. During this timeframe, Japan threatened to relax rules in the one small sector where foreign companies have some market share, yet they continue to protect the larger sectors where Japanese firms are dominant. It is the same old story. We have an agreement, then that yields no results. We have seen it in the construction business analogy, and there has been this reference, ``Well, to come into the Japanese market you really need to have experience. You need experience to get a license.'' How do you get a license? You have to have experience. You cannot get a license without experience. It is like ping-pong, going back and forth. You cannot have one without the other. You soon come to the conclusion you cannot get there from here. We signed 74 agreements with Japan. I have the utmost respect for the Japanese negotiators, the Japanese tradition and the Japanese way of business. I have had an extensive career in business with the Japanese. They are hard negotiators. They are fair negotiators. They will take advantage of a person who is not on his toes. But, by the same token, with regard to access into their markets, for the most part, they simply stonewall us. This is not something that we have seen much relief on over the years. The agreements have not translated into market access. Our trade deficit with Japan was about $60 billion in 1995--the largest with any country. The insurance issue is important. It has been raised at the highest level, with our President meeting with Prime Minister Hashimoto. The last time the meeting was in Japan. We have had dozens of meetings between the USTR and the Ministry of Finance. I have raised it time and time again in many forums, business discussions, and in interactions with the Japanese side. Last month, I sent a letter, with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Chairman Roth and Chairman D'Amato to President Clinton to express our legitimate concerns about the lack of action. We noted that ``Congress has a responsibility to ensure that trade agreements are honored, and to act when they are not.'' It is time to act, because they are not. Madam President, this amendment and the resolution I am offering today would call on the Minister of Finance to fully comply with the provisions of the agreement. This is the voice of the Congress speaking. If the matter is not resolved by July 31 of this year, that would be the deadline that would direct the U.S. Government to use all of its resources to bring about compliance. I also call on my colleagues and Chairman Roth to join me in pushing for the resolution, to hold hearings in the Senate Finance Committee if the issue is not resolved on the Japanese side. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I understand the floor managers will accept this.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 455, S. 1784.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand there is a substitute amendment at the desk offered by Senator Specter, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3166 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and an amendment to the title which is at the desk be agreed to, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 339, H.R. 782.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 440, S. 1577.