Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator seeks recognition.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if it is in order, I will send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1605, a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 21, 1996. It will begin at 2 p.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to an executive communication referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, at the request of the Secretary of Energy, I send to the desk a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy Policy and conservation Act which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996. Although I do not necessarily agree with all of the provisions of this bill, the reauthorization of the programs covered by the legislation, including the strategic petroleum reserve, is an important issue that must be fully considered by the committee and the Senate. Thus, I introduce this draft legislation today and ask unanimous consent that the executive communication and the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, On March 17, 1996, the great Alaskan city of Fairbanks, my hometown, is hosting the World Ice Sculpting Championships as part of the annual Fairbanks Winter Carnival. The organizers of the event have discovered that Alaska has the best ice in the world for ice sculpting. In 1988 they invited ice sculpting teams from Chicago and China to come to Fairbanks in hopes of reviving the art of ice sculpting. At the time, they were unaware of the fine quality of Alaskan ice, so to make sure they had the right ice for the guest instructors they brought in blocks of ice from Seattle, WA. In addition, however, they harvested some local ice for comparison. As a surprise result, they discovered that Alaskan ice is superior to any other ice found in the world. They now export Alaskan ice to such far away places as Frankenmuth, MI, for ice sculpting. The organizers of this event believe that because of the superiority of Alaskan ice and other favorable conditions, they have been able to attract a growing number of artisans to participate in the Fairbanks ice art ice sculpting championships. This year, Fairbanks is proudly hosting 67 teams from countries around the world including China, Korea, Holland, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Japan, France, Russia, Canada, and the contiguous United States. Fairbanks is able to successfully host this event through the hard work of volunteers. The organizers hope to continue to host the world championships every year except during years when the Winter Olympics are held. I am confident that this year Fairbanks, AK, will hold one of the biggest and best Winter Carnival's ever. My congratulations to the organizers and volunteers for all their effort and hard work.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to an executive communication referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, at the request of the Secretary of Energy, I send to the desk a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy Policy and conservation Act which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996. Although I do not necessarily agree with all of the provisions of this bill, the reauthorization of the programs covered by the legislation, including the strategic petroleum reserve, is an important issue that must be fully considered by the committee and the Senate. Thus, I introduce this draft legislation today and ask unanimous consent that the executive communication and the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last Thursday, as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I introduced legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Johnston, the ranking member of that committee, to sell 1,000 acres of Federal excess land out in a California desert at a fair market value in order that Californians may finally begin to work for their low-level radioactive waste facility at a place called Ward Valley. This is a step that the Governor of California, Gov. Pete Wilson, had asked us to take after the State of California has suffered from some 2 years of frustration at the hands of the Department of Interior. The measure that Senator Johnston and I have introduced to end this stalemate is virtually identical to the language the Senate previously agreed to in the reconciliation bill conference report. But there is an important difference, Mr. President. That important difference is that we want to remove the latest excuse of the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, who has voiced refusal to convey that land, and the rationale for that is pretty hard to explain at this time. Perhaps we will have some justification from the Secretary, but we certainly do not have it now. What we have done is we have added an additional condition, and that is that California must provide its written comment and commitment to carry out additional environmental monitoring and protection measures based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences before the land transfer can be made. This should satisfy the Department of the Interior's objection. Indeed, if the Department of the Interior objects to this bill, it will be obvious that it is merely playing games and promoting delays. With this bill, we are calling the Secretary's hand in a sense, and we will soon know if the dispute is about health and safety or whether it is about something else; perhaps raw politics. For the sake of the other Senators who are listening, let me review a little history. Back in 1980 and 1985, Congress gave to each State the steps necessary for the responsibility for low-level radioactive waste disposal. Let me say that again so there is no misunderstanding. Low-level waste disposal is a State responsibility as deemed by Congress. There is, of course, appropriate Federal oversight in various ways, including congressional approval of interstate compacts, the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the application of all NEPA and other relevant statutes, including the Endangered Species Act. But subject to compliance with all of those Federal requirements, States license their low-level facilities. The States are still responsible and are still accountable. So having studied the rules of procedure some years ago, the State of California began the long process to site a low-level facility for the waste generated in California and its other compact States, including Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Some 8 years went by, Mr. President, during the licensing process, costing more than $45 million. The State of California finally completed its task and awarded a license for a waste facility at Ward Valley out in the Mojave Desert. We have seen opponents of the project ranging from the antinuclear activists to some of the West Hollywood movie stars who continue to oppose Ward Valley at seemingly every opportunity. Obviously, California leads in advanced cancer treatment. They have biotechnology capabilities in various companies, and making new advancements. So there are sources of low-level radioactive waste falling off from these activities. Some in California do not believe that California should have to keep any of its radioactive waste. Some say, ``Send it elsewhere,'' yet they want the jobs. They do not want the waste. So they continue to oppose, continue to litigate, continue to delay. Where will we put the waste, Mr. President? It is not in the interest of California to leave it where it is, scattered all over the State. Those in opposition, as I indicated, went to court. In many cases, the court challenges were virtually all but exhausted. All that remained was a simple administrative land sale from the Bureau of Land Management to the State of California, the kind of routine conveyance that would be normally handled by a BLM office. California had met all the requirements of law and more and had passed every test, met virtually every challenge. Then suddenly we see the Secretary of the Interior--some have suggested on the behest of the White House--change the rules of the game. The Secretary of the Interior simply intervened and effectively kept the land sale from proceeding for more than 2 years, first, by considering new rounds of administrative hearings--that is always a handy dodge for decision--and then by ordering a review by the National Academy of Sciences on seven different issues of convention. Mr. President, that plan backfired. The American Academy of Sciences' review turned out to be highly favorable to the Ward Valley site, much to their chagrin. At the conclusion of the Academy review, we had hoped that any remaining excuse for further delay would have evaporated. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The Ward Valley opponents continued their efforts to delay this, almost indefinitely it seems, like suggesting at each juncture a new study, a new hurdle, a new obstacle, and a new administrative roadblock of some kind. The latest hurdle was directed on February 15 when Interior Deputy Secretary John Garamendi announced yet another round of followup studies to include tritium tests. California is not opposed to the tritium tests. The State is willing to conduct those tests. The problem, Mr. President, is that Interior wants the tests concluded prior to the land transfer. The National Academy of Sciences did not say this was necessary or desirable. In fact, the Academy suggests ongoing testing should be undertaken in conjunction with the operation of the facility. There is a distinct difference here, Mr. President. The Academy suggests ongoing tests should occur in conjunction with operations. The Interior Department's actions, in my opinion, are merely a tactic to delay the commencement of operations at Ward Valley until after, well after perhaps, the next election, if one can believe that. If we do nothing, Mr. President, and allow this land conveyance to be delayed, I can guarantee that there will be some new obstacle erected after the tritium tests are complete. As the National Academy of Sciences pointed out, tritium tests are difficult, tritium tests are often inconclusive. That is why they should not be rushed, they should not precede the conveyance. They should continue along with all other monitoring and testing measures that will be undertaken during the site's operation. If we proceed with rushed tritium testing, we will likely end up with an inclusive result providing project opponents with yet another excuse for delay. At the very least, the project opponents will ask for another supplemental EIS to consider any new information. A new basis for further litigation or new strategies for delay would certainly be fabricated. These delays would simply just go on and on and on. So what we have, Mr. President, is the Department of the Interior, lacking expertise or responsibility in matters related to the regulation of radioactive materials, aspiring to get in the business of nuclear regulation. Even worse, the Secretary of the Interior is acting to usurp the statutory authority of the State of California to protect the radiological health and safety of its citizens through the State management and oversight of low-level radioactive waste disposal. Quite often, Mr. President, the mere mention of the words ``radioactive'' or ``nuclear'' rouse public fear and emotion. It is bad enough when activists manipulate public fears to advance an antinuclear agenda, but when the Secretary of the Interior joins in, we simply have to put a stop to that kind of nonsense. Some of my Senate friends may recall that we made low-level radioactive waste management a State responsibility in the 1980 and 1985 act, which was mandated in response to heavy lobbying by one group, the National Governors' Association. It is interesting to note that at that time Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton were prominent leaders in the National Governors' Association. Governor Babbitt even served on a special NGA task force recommending that low-level radioactive waste management become a State responsibility. Today, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, is working to usurp and erode the very State authority he lobbied Congress for as a Governor. I find that most ironic. The irony is not lost on the Governor of California, I might add. He has asked us for this legislation. Governor Wilson is concerned about the health, safety and welfare of Californians as a consequence of this low-level waste being spread out throughout California in a temporary type of storage until such time as a permanent low-level waste site can be opened. Governor Wilson is aware that low-level radioactive waste is stored in hospitals, residential neighborhoods, in businesses and universities, at 2,254 sites in 800 locations across California, and the waste in these temporary sites are subject to accident, fires, floods, perhaps earthquakes as well. If you oppose this bill, then you are, by necessity, arguing for the continued storage of these materials all over the State of California or the transportation of these materials across the United States to the only facility currently open to California, or any other State for that matter, and that is Barnwell, SC. That is the only site in the country we have for low- level waste. Meanwhile, some hospitals in California are running out of room. Will this result in the curtailment of some cancer treatment or AIDS research that uses radioactive materials? Perhaps. Will this result in an accidental release at one of these disposal locations as a consequence of fire, flood, or earthquake? Perhaps. We can only hope, of course, and pray that that will not happen. But that is our exposure, Mr. President. To summarize, this is a simple, directed land sale that does what this administration should have done a long time ago. If we fail to do this, we not only create problems for California, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, and others in the Southwestern Interstate Compact; we also challenge the viability of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the policy of State responsibility on which it was based. A June 16 editorial in Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a prestigious and respected scientific organization, perhaps said it best. And I quote: The risks stemming from one carefully monitored Ward Valley low-level retrievable waste site are trivial in comparison with those from 800 urban accumulations. Enough of groundless fears and litigation. Mr. President, we have indeed had enough of groundless fears and certainly enough litigation. This is almost a full-employment act for some of the attorneys that specialize in nuclear waste. The time has come to act. We as leaders must decide whether we want to base our actions in this area on the professional judgments of respected scientists whom we can hold accountable, or whether we want to take our advice about radioactivity from Hollywood entertainers and activists who host fund-raisers in their Beverly Hills mansions or Malibu beach houses. Mr. President, it is time to recognize that this decision should be made, as it has been to date, by the best science and technology available. Certainly, the National Academy of Sciences in its recommendation simply says that this site is adequate. Additional monitoring should occur, but let us get on and make the decision and stop the rhetoric. We have had enough antiscientific rhetoric. Let us stand up to those who would manipulate, who would inflame public fears, and fail to recognize their obligation. That is, if they are going to criticize the best advice from the experts that we have, then they better come up with an alternative. These people not only are fearful but absolutely refuse to accept that responsibility. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to work for the passage of this bill. Let California have the responsibilities and prerogatives it was promised when this Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. It is now time to move. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, good morning.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak with regard to the proposed debt increase issue for 3 or 4 minutes.

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about the proposal to increase the debt without having a mandate in place to address a balanced budget. For this body to vote to increase the debt without having a budget that can be achievably balanced is irresponsible. What we are doing here, I think, is extraordinarily irresponsible. We are losing the leverage that we have--and the leverage that we have is the ability to affect just how much spending occurs. Mr. President, this body cannot face an authorization to increase the debt unless this body has found a way to ensure that the debt is not going to continue uncontrolled. This is the realization that we must not be afraid to face: the Government simply does not have the discipline to control its spending; the Government does not have the discipline and constraints to control its spending as is dictated in the private sector. What should this body be doing? Well, Mr. President, this body should be doing the only responsible thing to do when one incurs too much debt--and that is decrease expenses. It is not responsible to the debt without taking corrective action. The greatest concern this country has is too much debt, and now we are being asked to accumulate that debt further by increasing the debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion to somewhere in the area of $5.4 trillion. What is the rationale for this? The argument is that we simply have to. I am not arguing with the reality that we have to pay our bills, but to suggest that we go ahead with this authorization without first having addressed a mandatory balanced budget is absolutely irresponsible. To suggest that we are up against some time frame of tomorrow or the next day is not necessarily true. We know that the Secretary of the Treasury has continued to borrow from funds, and likely can do so for a limited period of time. So, why not take this opportunity--when there is a need now that is greater than it has ever been before--to establish a methodology to achieve a balanced budget? Mr. President, interest currently is about 16 percent of our total expenditure. Mr. President, that is a cost that we have absolutely no control over; it is an automatic cost that continues to grow and does not disappear. It's like having a horse--and the Senator from Montana knows about horses. You may feed a horse and watch him eat, but that horse continues to eat when you're not around--that horse eats while you sleep. A horse's eating cannot be controlled and neither can this country's interest expenditures. In Canada, 20 percent of the budget is interest on the debt. They cannot afford their health care. If you look at Central America countries, South America countries, what put them under was too much debt. Currently our interest costs are more than our annual deficit. We are broke, yet we just keep spending. And to suggest that we are on the right track without having mandatory discipline is absolutely unrealistic. Some may suggest the problem will fix itself--the economy will expand or the tax base will increase, and so forth. Those are all fine. But we have not addressed a responsible method to curtail this runaway debt, and here we are today prepared to increase the debt ceiling without having taken the corrective action, and this Senator from Alaska is going to vote against it. The rationale is obvious: We have to be disciplined. We better face up to it because we are going to be right back here again in a year, 18 months, more or less, increasing the debt ceiling again. Will we have the leverage then? Well, we have the leverage now, and that leverage is to enact a mandatory balanced budget. Only then will I vote for the debt ceiling, but not until. I appreciate the floor manager allowing me this time. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Johnston, directing a land conveyance for the purpose of siting a low level radioactive waste facility at Ward Valley, CA. This measure is virtually identical to language the Senate previously agreed to in the reconciliation bill conference report, with the exception that we have added an additional condition that California must provide its written commitment to carry out environmental monitoring and protection measures based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, subject to Federal oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. President, the Congress--in 1980 and again in 1985--gave States the responsibility for low level radioactive waste disposal. After an 8 year licensing process costing more than $45 million, the State of California awarded a license for a waste disposal site at Ward Valley, in the Mojave Desert. California is the host State for the Southwestern low level radioactive waste compact which includes the States of Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California. The Ward Valley site has withstood the scrutiny of two environmental impact statements, two biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act, and a variety of court challenges. Ward Valley was given a clean bill of health by the National Academy of Sciences in a special report issued in May 1995. No low level radioactive site has received greater scrutiny than this one. It's a safe site, and anyone who reviews the facts with the tools of science rather than the rhetoric of emotion comes to that conclusion. With the license issued, the court challenges exhausted, and the science settled, all that remains is a simple, administrative land sale from the Bureau of Land Management to the State of California. This is the kind of routine conveyance that would normally be handled at a BLM field office. But the Secretary of the Interior has intervened, and effectively kept the land sale from proceeding for more than 2 years by ordering a supplemental EIS, and later, a review by the National Academy of Sciences. Both the supplemental EIS and the Academy review turned out to be highly favorable to the Ward Valley site, and at the conclusion of each we have hoped that any remaining excuse for further delay would evaporate. Unfortunately, Ward Valley opponents hope to delay this forever, suggesting at each juncture a new study, a new hurdle, a new obstacle. The latest hurdle was erected on February 15, when Interior Deputy Secretary John Garamendi announced yet another round of follow up studies to include tritium tests. California is not opposed to tritium tests, and the State is willing to conduct them. The problem, Mr. President, is that Interior wants the tests concluded prior to the land transfer. The National Academy of Sciences did not say this was necessary or desirable. In fact, the Academy suggests ongoing testing should be undertaken in conjunction with the operation of the facility. The Interior Department's actions, in my opinion, are merely a tactic to delay the commencement of operations at Ward Valley until after the next election. If we do nothing, Mr. President, and allow this land conveyance to be delayed, I can guarantee that there will be some new obstacle erected after the tritium tests are complete. As the National Academy of Sciences pointed out, tritium tests are difficult and often inconclusive. That's why they should not be rushed, they should not precede the conveyance, they should continue along with all of the other monitoring and protection measures that will be undertaken during the site's operation. If we proceed with rushed tritium testing, we will likely end up with an inclusive result, providing project opponents with yet another excuse for delay. At the very least, the project opponents will ask for another supplemental EIS to consider any new information. A new basis for further litigation or new strategies for delay would be fabricated. They delays would just go on and on. What we have, Mr. President, is a Department of the Interior--lacking expertise or responsibility in matters relate to the regulation of radioactive materials--that aspires to get into the business of nuclear regulation. Even worse, the Secretary of the Interior is acting to usurp the statutory authority of the State of California to protect the radiological health and safety of its citizens through the State management and oversight of low-level radioactive waste disposal. Some of my colleagues may recall that we made low-level radioactive waste management a State responsibility in the 1980 and 1985 act in response to heavy lobbying by the National Governors' Association. At the time, Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton were prominent leaders in the National Governors' Association. Governor Babbitt even served on a special NGA task force recommending that low level radioactive waste management become a State responsibility. Today, Interior Secretary Babbitt is working to usurp and erode the very State authority he lobbied Congress for as Governor. I find that most ironic. The irony is not lost on the Governor of California. He has asked us for this legislation. He is concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of Californians. He is aware that low-level radioactive waste is being stored in hospitals, in residential neighborhoods, in businesses, and in universities at 2,254 sites in 800 locations across California, and that the waste in these temporary sites are subject to fires, floods, and earthquakes. If you oppose this bill, then you are by necessity arguing for the continued storage of these materials all over California, or the transport of these materials across the United States to the only facility currently open to California--Barnwell, SC. Meanwhile, some hospitals in California are running out of room. Will this result in the curtailment of cancer treatment or AIDS research that uses radioactive materials? Will this result in an accidental release at one of these dispersed locations as a consequence of a fire, flood or earthquake? We can only hope and pray that it will not. To summarize, Mr. President: This is a simple directed land sale that does what the administration should have done long ago. If we fail to do this, we not only create problems for California and Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota as Southwestern Interstate Compact States, we challenge the viability of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the policy of State responsibility upon which it is based. A June 16 editorial in Science magazine perhaps says it best: ``The risks stemming from one carefully monitored Ward Valley LLRW site are trivial in comparison with those from 800 urban accumulations. Enough of groundless fears and litigation.'' Mr. President, we have, indeed, had enough of groundless fears and litigation. The time has come to act. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Nebraska for his diligence in bringing to our attention a very, very important matter that affects the youth of our Nation. I commend him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, an extraordinary thing happened today in the forum in the sense of the effort to try to bring the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act before this body as Senate bill 942. The fact is that here we are 6 o'clock, Thursday, and the information of the Senator from Alaska is that the Democratic minority has refused to allow this vital piece of legislation to come before this body for a vote. The realization, as evidenced by my good friend, Senator Bumpers from Arkansas, is that, if it came up, it would pass 100 to nothing. We are talking about trying to assist the small business community relative to employment, encourage those that are willing to take a risk in the highest area of fallout of any activity, and that is the small business community. We are talking about trying to get some regulatory reform that will assist them. This has been a top priority of this Congress. It has been a top priority of the Senate. We cannot even get it up for a vote. What are we trying to do with this? Some people would say we are trying to unwind the environmental laws, or the labor oversight responsibilities that we have. What we are trying to do is bring some logic into the equation, some cost-benefit, and risk analysis. What does it mean? Mr. President, I live in Alaska. It snows in Alaska. When the snow comes down, either leave it or move it. In the case of the city of Fairbanks, where I live, the snow falls on the area where they park the buses. So what do they do? They move the snow back to the back lot. But that is classified as a wetlands. You cannot put snow in a wetland. Is that a rational reality? You cannot dump the excess snow in the river. Why cannot you dump it in the river? Because it may have picked up something along the way that somehow would be inappropriate to dump in the river. But when it snows in Washington, DC, where do you dump the snow? You dump it wherever. Nobody gets too excited because snow here is a calamity. The city is tied up. It cannot move. You dump it in the Potomac River. Anchorage, AK, the State's largest city, probably has the cleanest water in the world. When it rains it drops down in the street, and goes down the gutter. The gutters go out into Cook Inlet. There is a 30-foot tide twice a day. The water goes out. This is not sewage. This is water that goes into your drain from the rain. It goes out. They did not have any problem until the Environmental Protection Agency came down with a mandate that said you have to remove 30 percent of the organic matter from the water before you can dump it without treatment. And the EPA said to the city of Anchorage, you are in violation of the law. Well, the assembly met. Somebody came up with the idea. ``Let us put a few fish guts in the drains so we would have something to recover and remove the organic matter and, therefore, comply.'' When they appealed to the highest level of the Environmental Protection Agency, they said we are not going to make exceptions. This is uniform throughout the United States. What we are trying to do here, Mr. President, is get some balance, some logic into a situation that has run amok with bureaucracy and the inability of our administrators to address clear decisions that should be made relative to the areas of responsibility the administrators have. You cannot mandate uniformity on things like this. You have to bring in common sense. You bring in the analysis of cost-benefit. You bring in what the risk to the public is. You give the administrators the authority, and you hold them accountable. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle today have worked hard to try to pass regulatory reform legislation. My good friend from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, has labored in the vineyards for an extraordinary amount of time. But for reasons unknown, today the other side of the aisle said, we are not going to bring it up; we are going to object. I do not know whether this is connected with an election year. We have a lot of political issues around here. Everybody is committed to assisting small business by reducing redundant regulatory oversight, and here is a chance to do it. Politics is not an overarching excuse, in my opinion, and getting the American public energized so that we can address the relief needed from some of the ill-founded, erroneous, duplicative regulations is a bipartisan responsibility. We seem to agree on it, but we cannot move. We are stuck. No explanation. Today a constituent of mine came in. He brought me a chart. He is in the business of transporting oil. He has to have five permits. He has to have a Coast Guard operating regulation permit. He has to have a Coast Guard OPA 90 regulatory permit. He has to have an Environmental Protection Agency OPA 90 regulatory permit. He has to have an Environmental Protection Agency spill prevention regulatory permit, and he has to have a State permit, plus the local permits. You have created a whole new industry out there of consultants that are hired to do these permits, do this evaluation, at a great cost to the public. And the justification for this really is questionable, given the lack of cost-benefit and risk analysis that should be associated with the process and unfortunately is not. If you want to go into the logging business in my State, at the last count you have to get some 41 permits. You have to have a radio operator's license to run your camp. You have to have a Corps of Engineers permit to run your camp, and on and on and on and on. There can be no argument that reforming the way we do regulatory business in this country is of paramount importance. We cannot seem to get that reform. We are not ready to give up by any means. We are going to keep going at it. But in the meantime, there is no reason why we should not move with this particular bill, the small business relief that Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers have developed in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. I commend them for their efforts. There is a consensus on the need for the bill. There is a consensus on the content of the bill. There is a consensus on the relief that this bill would provide to the small business community--stimulate employment, stimulate investment, stimulate inventory buildup--and yet we cannot get the consensus we need to bring it up in the Chamber. The question the Senator from Alaska has to ask the Chair is, why? There are so many positive benefits to this legislation--teeth for the 16-year-old Regulatory Flexibility Act to allow judicial review of adverse impacts regulations have on small businesses. It includes penalty waivers and reductions for small business violations that are of little if any significance, recovery of attorney's fees when small business is forced into defensive litigation due to enforcement excesses, and, finally, small business participation in rulemaking. We cannot keep missing the opportunity to pass positive, helpful legislation for important segments of America's small business industry. We should not miss the opportunity to pass this bill. Obviously, the weekend is going to go by. We are going to take this up again next week. But I would encourage my colleagues to allow this bipartisan bill to come before the floor to get it passed. We owe that much to the American people. I think we ought to be asking our friends on the other side of the aisle why they see fit to hold up this important legislation. I encourage America's small business community to demand an answer, because we are ready to go with it on our side, and I think those people out there who are frustrated are waiting and certainly deserve an answer. Mr. President, that concludes my statement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection to that. It was my intention to include each of these editorials in their entirety, though I would like to point out that I only made reference to one Washington Post editorial. What I quoted to the President is what I believe reflects the difference between the two sides, the Democrats and Republicans. What is occurring today is a great deal of finger pointing, and unfortunately the finger pointing will likely continue throughout this debate. Today's debate, Mr. President, reflects a process that has been initiated by one side of the aisle. One side of the aisle wishes to terminate the process by preventing a vote on this resolution. My concern is that the process that they have initiated is based upon misconstruing the facts. Let me explain what I mean. I think the Senator from Connecticut had used the figure of close to $30 million of taxpayers' funds, suggesting that somehow this is connected with the activities of our committee. Well, that is not factual. The Senate has spent $950,000 on the Whitewater investigation. The investigation associated with the special counsel, Ken Starr, has spent $23 million through 1995. The RTC spent almost $4 million. But to suggest by association that the Senate Whitewater Committee is responsible for this expenditure is misleading, to say the least, and far from the disclosure that is appropriate in this body, where we specifically identify each expenditure that is referenced. The reality is that the information still keeps coming in, Mr. President. There is absolutely no denying that fact. I ask my colleagues to address this issue. Is there a reasonable explanation relative to why we would still get material coming in when, clearly, the authority of the funding for the committee has expired? That is evidenced by the activity associated with material that came in on March 1, 2, and 5. We may get some more material in today, tomorrow, or the next day. Now, that is why this process has to continue. At what time in the future will it be appropriate that we make a determination that enough is enough? Well, obviously, that is up to the membership of this body and whether this body is satisfied with the work of the committee. But it is fair to say, Mr. President, that the American public feels that this process should continue. The American public is knowledgeable enough to be aware that once there is a date certain, the committee will face delay after delay from the White House. It's a pattern that has been well established. Witnesses and document production would likely be nonresponsive until shortly before the committee's next deadline. If today this body sets a date certain of when the investigation would end, I believe that much of the information that the committee would attempt to obtain would never be given the light of day. Furthermore, there is a trial starting in Little Rock. The relevance of that trial to this committee's action has yet to be addressed, but it is legitimate and should be part of the ongoing consideration. We all know that there may be individuals in that trial that should come before our committee and give their testimony. We may have some penetrating questions for them. I can certainly say that those of us on this side have several questions that we would like to ask, if given the opportunity. We hope that opportunity will be extended. But, unfortunately, we do not know when that trial is going to be concluded. So we could go on and on here with justifications for legitimatizing this process. However, bottom-line, we have a responsibility as U.S. Senators of oversight; a responsibility to complete the work that was authorized by 96 Senators. And to suggest that we do anything less than that, or restrict ourselves to a date certain, is absolutely irresponsible. I think a majority of the Members of this body recognize that for what it is and are prepared to support a continuation of the committee's activities, without a date certain. Let us face it, it is a political year. We all know that. But we all have an obligation in our conscience to address the responsibility associated with our office, and that is to do the best job possible, recognizing the human limitations associated with an investigation of this type and the realization that each person has to vote his or her own conscience. Mr. President, that is an obligation and trust that has been given to us by our constituents and one we do not take lightly. So we may differ on the merits relative to the political consequences, but we have a job to do, and it would be absolutely irresponsible to suggest that we can set a time certain for that job to cease, especially in light of the fact that the committee has had three separate submissions of subpoenaed materials that came in after February 29, 1996--the date when this investigation was to cease. Mr. President, I see my colleague waiting to speak. I will yield the floor to him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Please proceed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield at the conclusion of my brief statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we heard a good deal of rhetoric relative to the prevailing attitude of the American people. My good friend from Connecticut has indicated that the public has had enough and that clearly this side of the aisle is to blame for continuing the efforts in the Whitewater probe. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are either not listening to the American public or not reading the daily newspapers in the United States. I have a list that was compiled a little while ago, just a very, very partial list, of the newspapers specifically requesting extended hearings--the Washington Times, the Washington Post, New York Times, the New York Post, the Times-Picayune, the Times Union. And in support of the hearings, there has been the same group of newspapers. This is a very, very, very, very small list of those newspapers. That represents public opinion, Mr. President. That represents the public's opinion in light of the overwhelming information that just keeps coming out about Whitewater. So much of this information just seems to be trickling out of the White House, and the public wants answers. Let me refer specifically to what I am talking about by referring to the chart behind me which clearly makes my point. If one looks--I might just make a reflection on a comment that was made in the book ``Men of Zeal'' by Senator Cohen and former Majority Leader Mitchell. I quote: The committee's deadline provided a convenient stratagem for those who were determined not to cooperate. That, of course, is a commentary on the events surrounding the Iran- Contra hearings. But let us look at the record, Mr. President. And this, Mr. President, is why these hearings must be extended. The documents simply keep coming. In August of 1995, The committee requested documentation from the White House. In October it was necessary to send a subpoena to the White House. January 5. The Rose Law Firm billing records were produced. Records discovered by Carolyn Huber in the White House personal residence in August 1995. January 29, 1996, and February 7. Mark Gearan's documents produced, documents ``inadvertently taken'' from the White House. February 13. Michael Waldman's documents produced. Documents found ``in the course of an office move.'' Well, let us move to February. February 20. Harold Ickes' documents produced. Documents were ``inadvertently overlooked'' and Mr. Ickes was under ``mistaken belief'' that they had been produced earlier. February 29. Special committee funding expires. And that, Mr. President, is why we are here are today. But incredulously, the White House documents just keep coming. March 1, suddenly Bruce Lindsey's documents are produced. Documents ``inadvertently were not produced previously. March 2. White House produces 166 pages of documents of various administration officials, including Lisa Caputo, Neil Eggleston, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Dee Dee Myers. March 5. Rose Law Firm documents produced. Documents were ``just located.'' Mr. President, look at the facts. Since the funding has expired, we have received three separate groups of documentation. Why did that occur? Well, one can do some guessing. Perhaps there was some fear of the consequences that occur from withholding evidence? And perhaps memories were suddenly refreshed when those consequences became more apparent. Mr. President, do not buy for a minute the argument of the other side that somehow this debate is a Republican plot, a partisan plot. Well, Mr. President, finding answers to the many unanswered questions about Whitewater is not partisan politics. Let's look at what the public thinks, as reflected in many editorials from newspapers across the nation. The Times Picayune: Senate Democrats should think twice about filibustering to end the Whitewater investigation committee's attempt to get to the bottom of President and Mrs. Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and related matters. The public would likely simply add Senate Democrats to the list of participants in a suspected coverup. I read on: But the Senate investigation has not popped up suddenly in this election year, it began 20 months ago, and it's sometimes snail's pace has not had to do with dragging it out until the election year but instead with the White House's determinedly evasive tactics. The White House, Mr. President, not the Congress. The White House pleads that it is cooperating, but although it has provided the committee reams of requested documents, it still has not provided key documents that might clear the matter up, one way or the other. The natural conclusion must be that the Clintons have something to hide, and that if they do not want to make it public, it must not support the Clintons' declarations that they have done nothing illegal or unethical. It concludes: No matter how this might serve the Democratic campaign interests, it would not serve the public interest. That interest is having the facts, and only then can the public draw its own conclusion. Mr. President, the editorial that I just read, is representative of many editorials across the United States. So, I ask again, is it only the Senate Republicans who wish to get answers about Whitewater? It clearly is not. It is the opinion of editorials across the nation, and these editorials reflect the attitudes and opinions of the American public. Let's look at some more editorials: The Washington Post, March 4, entitled ``Twenty Months and Counting.'' It reads as follows: Twenty months and counting. That is the disdainful cry of Senate Democrats as they rise in opposition to the request of Senate Republicans for an open-ended extension of the now- expired Whitewater investigation. . . . The committee, for example, has been having an exceedingly tough time obtaining subpoenaed documents or unambiguous testimony from administration officials. Seldom have so many key witnesses had no earthly idea why they did what they did, wrote what they wrote, or said what they said-- Or if they even remembered it at all. . . . White House aides keep dribbling down documents-- suddenly and miraculously discovered--to the committee. Just when we think we've seen the last of the belated releases, one more turns up. The latest was Friday night, when one of the President's top aides, Bruce Lindsey, produced two pages of notes that he had earlier told the Whitewater committee he didn't remember taking. At issue today, as has been the case for some time, is whether the Clinton administration has done anything to impede investigations by Congress or the independent counsel and whether the Clintons engaged in any improper activities in Arkansas while he was Governor and the First Lady was partner in the Rose law firm. Nothing illegal on their part has turned up yet. For those who are inclined to dismiss any and everything that falls under the label of Whitewater as just another political witch hunt, it is worth remembering that 16 people have been indicted by Federal grand juries as a result of the independent counsel's probe and 9 have entered guilty pleas. Congress doesn't have the job of sending people to jail. But factfinding is part of the congressional job description. The Whitewater Committee should be empowered to do just that. The St. Petersburg Times has another interesting editorial. And again, Senate Republicans did not write these editorials, Mr. President. Newspaper editors wrote these editorials; editorials that I submit reflect the views of many Americans. Let me quote the last portion of an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, dated February 29: There are many . . . compelling reasons for continuing the Senate work, including the criminal Whitewater proceedings that may unearth important new facts. But the most important reason is also the most democratic: Ordinary citizens need to learn what all this is about, what this Whitewater talk is about. While Arkansas' most powerful couple, did the Clinton's trade their public trust for private gain? Since going to Washington have the Clintons and their associates used the power of the presidency to cover their tracks? These are painful questions, and not just for the Clintons. Americans deserve a President they can trust, someone who embraces questions about integrity instead of running from them. If the answers make the Clintons' campaign more difficult, so be it. The search for answers can't stop now. Let me quote the Washington Post of February 29, which is not a product of this side of the aisle by any means. I read the last paragraph: What the Senate does not need is a Democratic-led filibuster. Having already gone bail for the Clinton White House, often to an embarrassing degree, Senate Democrats would do themselves and the President little good by tying up the Senate with a talkathon. Better that they let the probe proceed. Again, whose idea is this, Mr. President? This is public opinion throughout the Nation through the editorial writers of some leading newspapers in this country.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Craig Thomas, chairman of the East Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee in offering this resolution that reaffirms the Taiwan Relations Act and condemns the People's Republic of China for their attempts to influence the upcoming Presidential election in Taiwan through threats and coercion. The resolution has been submitted to the Chair previously by Senator Thomas. This resolution makes four important points. First, the United States deplores the missile test scheduled for March 8 to 15. It appears that these tests will impose a virtual blockade of Taiwan's two major ports and threaten international shipping lanes in the Taiwan Straits. Second, the Congress calls on the People's Republic of China to cease its threats, and instead enter into a constructive dialog with the Republic of China, perhaps through their respective informal organizations: the Straits Exchange Foundation in Taiwan and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits in Beijing. Third, the resolution directs the President of the United States to consult with the Congress, as required by the Taiwan Relations Act, because there is a threat to the security and the social and economic system of the people of Taiwan. Fourth, the President and the Congress should reexamine the nature and quantity of the defense articles and services that may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability in light of the heightened threat. Mr. President, I suggest that President Nixon must be simply spinning in his grave tonight. When Richard Nixon first opened relations with Beijing some 20 years ago he believed that Asia could not progress if China remained isolated. His actions promised to help that country enter into a new and constructive relationship with the rest of the modern world. But in recent months, the leaders of Beijing have taken a number of self-defeating actions that can only turn back the pages of history and cripple China's economic progress. Over the past 8 months, the People's Republic of China has conducted a series of military exercises, including missile tests, in close proximity to Taiwan. Now, we hear reports of the largest and closest military exercise to take place next week, just 1 week before the first democratic Presidential elections on Taiwan. What is more, Beijing has reportedly included veiled threats against the United States for supporting the process of free elections. One news report indicated that during an interview, a Chinese leader scoffed at the notion that the United States would defend Taiwan by saying the United States cares more about ``Los Angeles than Taiwan.'' China, of course, produces missiles capable of launching nuclear warheads against both Taiwan and Los Angeles, and certainly against my home State of Alaska. I feel confident that these reports, of course, are false, but China's most recent announcement that it intends to conduct massive tests near Taiwan, in effect imposing a miniblockade of Taiwan's two major ports prior to the Taiwan Presidential elections, does little to inspire confidence. Some China watchers are inclined to rationalize Beijing's behavior. Apologists have blamed China's belligerence on the firm stand taken by this Congress. Today it is clear that China, not the Congress, is to blame for the current state of United States-China relations. Time and time again, before and after the 1989 Tiananmen Square attack on student protesters, China's rulers have shown themselves to be almost oblivious to the fact that a larger world--a world sensitive to human rights concerns, one that believes in religious and political freedom, and free and fair trade--exists beyond the People's Republic of China's borders. People's Republic of China's President Jiang Zemin and his lieutenants must understand that this is why the United States finds China's ballistic missile diplomacy unacceptable. We support the peaceful settlement of differences between China and Taiwan and cannot idly watch a peaceful, democratic ally--which Taiwan is--be threatened. Therefore, it is time for Congress, as set forth in this Senate resolution, to recommit the United States to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which clearly states that America believes that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security and economic interests of the United States. Further, the law of the land, the Taiwan Relations Act, commits the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan. We must remind Beijing that the decision of the United States to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1979 was based upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. We also must continue selling Taiwan defensive weapons to help counter any thoughts China may have of using military force against the island. Along with these weapons, we must let the leaders in Beijing know that threats are useless as tools of foreign policy and are the rusted relics of diplomacy from a bygone and dangerous era. China's leaders must know economic gains will evaporate if continued military threats--or worse--create havoc in East Asia. Beijing's officials must understand they cannot conduct business as usual with the world if missiles start falling in the Straits of Taiwan. They also need to know that the fear of war is often every bit as chilling to investment as the real thing. Mr. President, I also want to add that Congress should congratulate the people of Taiwan for their continued advancement toward democracy. Congress should also state our support for the people of Taiwan to become involved in international organizations. Taiwan has emerged as a force for democracy and stability in Asia, and its people should be represented. The United States must also continue at the same time to encourage a true dialog between Beijing and Taipei that will lead to understanding and conciliation, rather than threats and confrontation. With this latest round of threats against Taiwan--and the United States--it simply is time to step back and gather forces to support reason and dialog rather than the rumblings of hostility and war. President Nixon was certainly correct in seeing the vast potential importance of China as a world economic power. But 25 years later the world still waits for Beijing to abandon its totalitarian ways and behave consistently as a civilized nation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, March 14, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1425, a bill to recognize the validity of rights-of-way granted under section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and for other purposes. It will also address the Department of the Interior's July 29, 1994, proposed regulations regarding R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730. subcommittee on oversight of government management and the district of columbia

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me commend the Senator for accepting the responsibility of responding to such a wealth of questions. I know that it is your desire and sense of real obligation to get to the bottom of this investigation so we are all satisfied that the investigation was done fairly, appropriately, and in depth. But I wonder if my friend from New York recalls a comment of one of our colleagues during the Iran-Contra debate? Our good friend, Senator Byrd, said: The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility of oversight, a Constitutional responsibility of informing the people. . . [T]o reassure the faith of the American people in the Constitutional and political system, is to find out about all of these things that we have been hearing, and the way to do it is to go at it, put our hand to the plow, and develop the facts. Now, I think that sets a pretty good direction for the committee. I think we all know that the constitutional process is going to take time. It is going to take expense. Also, I think that it is important for my friend to consider the recommendation of certain editorials--so I ask if my friend from New York would comment on two editorials. I will quote a portion from the Washington Post, February 15, 1996: Hardly a day goes by without someone in the administration suddenly discovering some long-sought subpoenaed documents. . . The committee clearly needs time to sift those late- arriving papers. And, in the New York Times, February 28, 1996: The Senate's duty cannot be canceled or truncated because of the campaign calendar. Any certain date for terminating the hearings would encourage even more delay in producing subpoenaed documents than the committee has endured since it started last July. . . . No arguments about the politics on either side can outweigh the fact that the White House has yet to reveal the full facts about the land venture. . . . Clinton's work as a lawyer on Whitewater matters and the mysterious movements of documents between the Rose Law Firm, various basements and closets and the Executive Mansion. The committee, politics notwithstanding, has earned an indefinite [an indefinite] extension. A Democratic filibuster against it would be silly stonewalling. I ask my friend from New York, recognizing the statement of the former majority leader and our good friend, Senator Byrd, regarding his statement of the Iran-Contra dispute, is not the same constitutional application and principle appropriate in this case? Should not that same constitutional application be used as we search for the facts and attempt to reach a final conclusion so that the American people as well as the Congress can be satisfied in this matter?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask my friend from New York a question, since partisanship has been brought up here more than once or twice in the discussion? Would my friend from New York care to enlighten the Senator from Alaska on what is the objective of our friends on the other side of the aisle? Why do you believe that the other side of the aisle is delaying the majority from bringing this matter before the Senate for a vote? Wouldn't you agree that we are all here collectively to meet our obligation of finding the facts and presenting them to the American public? What could be more political than for one party to ban together in an attempt to delay a vote? I am sure that is of some frustration to my friend from New York. Would he convey, in the graciousness of the cordiality that we are all bound by, why this body is being prevented from bringing this resolution to the floor?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Along those lines, I would ask my colleague from New York if he can explain to me why throughout the testimony of Susan Thomases and Maggie Williams there seemed to be significant memory losses. I am particularly thinking of Maggie Williams, the chief of staff of the First Lady--she responded some 140 times, ``I do not remember.'' These are people that were in positions of responsibility, and, obviously, very intelligent people. These were significant events in their lives. And to suggest that Maggie Williams had no recollection 140 times is troubling to this Senator. Also troubling is the fact that Susan Thomases, the First Lady's friend and adviser, told the committee ``I do not remember'' over 70 times. My friend from New York is a lawyer who has practiced and who knows something about the procedures in the court. What kind of an explanation can you provide for Maggie Williams responding 140 times ``I do not remember'' to questions from the committee? And what kind of explanation can you provide for Susan Thomases telling the committee that she ``didn't remember'' over 70 times? I find that very discomforting because, obviously, it suggests that there are questions that witnesses are refusing to answer. I know the chairman sat through every single witness and was troubled by this as well.