[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S2925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PRESIDIO LEGISLATION

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in response to the minority leader's 
unanimous-consent request, obviously we are all sensitive to the merits 
of the Presidio. The California delegation has worked very, very hard 
on this. But as everyone in this body knows, this was a package that 
was put together with great commitment and great understanding that, 
indeed, in order for it to pass the Congress, it had to stay as a 
package.
  Everybody knew that when we went in, and to suggest action by the 
U.S. Senate would be acceptable to the House everyone knows is 
unrealistic. So we are set with the reality here.
  It is the intention of myself, as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, to again pursue the package. It is the largest 
single environmental package that has come before the 104th Congress. 
We are all disappointed at the action that was taken by adding on the 
minimum wage amendment, but that was something seen fit by the minority 
to do, and we are left with this reality today, which is, indeed, 
unfortunate.
  It is my intention to continue to pursue working with the Members who 
objected to the various aspects of the package, to try to continue to 
pursue it, in this legislative year. That is the pledge I want to make 
to the minority and the minority leader as well.
  I want everybody to understand the rationale behind the objection. 
This would not have gone in the House as a freestanding Presidio bill. 
Everybody is aware of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, the vote just cast had 
nothing to do with minimum wage. It had everything to do with simply 
one provision dealing with Utah wilderness. There was no understanding 
with regard to this package, as the distinguished Senator from Alaska 
has called it.
  Obviously, each one of these bills merits consideration in and of its 
own right. There is no objection to the package were we to remove the 
Utah wilderness bill. That is the issue. That is what this vote was all 
about. But there is no disagreement whatsoever with regard to the 
Presidio bill on either side of the aisle, as I understand it, and to 
hold the Presidio hostage to all the other issues seems to me to be 
unfair.
  I yield to the Senator from California for a brief comment and a 
question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do have a question. I have a comment as well. To 
my friend, Senator Murkowski, who has worked hard, along with Members 
on both sides of the aisle here, the fact is the House has passed the 
Presidio as a freestanding bill.

  Indeed, that is the bill we have marked up. So there is not any 
reason not to pass the Presidio as a freestanding bill. I would ask my 
leader on the Democratic side, since he is a cosponsor of the Presidio 
bill which Senator Feinstein and I have worked so hard on, and as well 
as Senator Dole, he is a sponsor of the Presidio bill, will my leader 
give us his word that he will do all that he can to make this bill a 
reality? Because I would say to my friends on both sides, the Presidio 
is deteriorating? We need to get in there and make sure that that land 
is kept up. It is a priceless jewel. And we have such broad agreement. 
It just seems a pity that we would catch it up in these other debates.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I answer to my friend from California in the 
affirmative. It is our desire to work with the delegation of California 
and others who are interested in maintaining the historic nature of 
this remarkable facility, that we pass the legislation this year. In 
has been a long, long effort, a tireless effort on the part of my two 
colleagues from California.
  I hope we can successfully complete our work this year. It ought not 
be held hostage to very controversial legislation that has nothing to 
do with the Presidio itself. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues of a fact 
that in the package there were about 53 individual items. The package 
was held up almost a year by a Member on the other side who refused to 
allow the individual issues to come up for action. That is a fact, and 
the Record will reflect that. Now we are faced with the reality of who 
is to blame for the failure of the package. I think the Record will 
reflect the reality that this was well on its way to successful 
consideration of cloture prior to the decision by the other side to put 
the minimum wage on it, which changed the complexion and the 
interpretation of the last vote. Many Members looked upon the last vote 
in actuality as a reference to support for the minimum wage and that it 
did not belong there. We all know it.
  So the responsibility has to be with the minority that chose to allow 
and support inclusion of the minimum wage on the largest environmental 
package of this session, the 104th Congress. That is, indeed, 
unfortunate. Let us be realistic and recognize where the responsibility 
lay. It lay in holding that package hostage for a year and it lay with 
the responsibility of putting the minimum wage on it. I thank the Chair 
and thank the leader.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand it is all right with the 
Democratic leader if I obtain a consent agreement on the farm bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me do that while we also work out a time agreement on 
the line-item veto.

                          ____________________