Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nomination of Christopher M. Coburn to be a member of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation will be considered at the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Heninger at (202) 224- 5070. special committee on aging

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could I ask my friend from New York a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from New York has led, as chairman of the Banking Committee, the extraordinary responsibility of this body relative to the Whitewater investigation. I ask my friend from New York, as a consequence of what I understand is accurate to date, the investigations have led to nine convictions and seven indictments, which is reason to believe that more may still be coming. Two indictments occurred just last week. Now, in conscience, how could the chairman suggest to this body, as a consequence of this factual information, to terminate these hearings or even indicate a definitive date at which time these hearings might be concluded? I think that my colleague would agree that the work of the Whitewater Committee is clearly not done, the investigation is not complete. The primary reason for its incompleteness is the inability of the White House to present factual material in a timely manner. It has been suggested that some of the material provided by the White House comes in like a haystack, but the needles--the information that the committee really needs--is missing. I ask my friend from New York, how can those that object to the continuance of this very important process conceivably reflect on the collective responsibility we have as a body? My question to the Senator from New York is, how do you see your responsibility as chairman of this committee? How do you see the responsibilities have been given to you? And, without all the facts before the committee, how can you reach a definitive deadline such as April?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask my friend from New York, is it not a fact that on February 17 the committee received notes of important substance from Mr. Gearan? And, isn't it true that on February 13, the committee received Michael Waldman's notes, which totaled over 200 of information? In addition, isn't it true that the committee received Harold Ickes' documents, which totaled over one hundred pages? That was just 8 days ago. How could the committee possibly evaluate that information? How could the committee possibly be expected to set a definitive date of when this investigation will be completed when we received subpoenaed information only 8 days ago? Do you not believe that this task is virtually impossible knowing that we have every reason to believe there is other material going to come in? I ask my friend from New York if he would feel that he is acting responsibly if he sets a definitive date of when the investigation would end, knowing that 8 days ago the committee just got several hundred more pages of information? How long does it take the professional staff to go through that information, and how long does it take the staff of the minority side of committee to examine that information?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I thank the majority leader.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of the Members what I honestly feel is an overlooked issue relative to one of the highest responsibilities that our Government has, and that is the full accountability of those armed services personnel who have been lost in action. We have always demanded the fullest possible accounting in Vietnam for those listed as missing-in-action, and the question that I pose today is, why not North Korea as well? The fate of more than 8,100 American servicemen from the Korean war remains unresolved. At least 5,433 of these were lost north of the 38th parallel. In Vietnam, by contrast, the number of unresolved cases is 2,168, and Vietnam has cooperated in 39 joint field activities. I have a small chart here, Mr. President, that shows the unaccounted for in our foreign wars. Beginning in World War I, we have 1,648 unaccounted for; World War II, 78,794; Korea, 8,177, and Vietnam, 2,168. As I have said, out of the 8,177, 5,433 were lost north of the 38th parallel. One can see that public opinion has prevailed in demanding a full accounting in Vietnam, and while we must maintain our commitment for accountability of all Americans who are lost, clearly, we have made significant progress in Vietnam as a consequence of a commitment and dedication to do so. So it seems strange that we would still have in North Korea a significant number of servicemen whose fates are unknown. The United States Government recently announced plans to contribute $2 million, through U.N. agencies, to relieve starvation in North Korea, certainly a worthy cause. The donation was consistent with other instances where the United States seeks to relieve human suffering despite disagreements with various governments in the receiving country. But what is inconsistent with United States policy is our failure to ensure that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea addresses the humanitarian issue which is of great concern to the American people: the resolution of the fate of servicemen missing in action since the end of the Korean war, those lying north of the 38th parallel. Relations between the United States and Vietnam--I give you this background as a reference--our relations with Vietnam did not begin to thaw until the Government of Vietnam agreed to joint field operations with United States military personnel to search for missing servicemen in Vietnam. We knew the general areas where conflicts had occurred or where aircraft had gone down. The pace and scope of normalization was commensurate with Vietnam's cooperation on the MIA issue and other humanitarian concerns. In virtually every discussion that our Government had with their Vietnamese counterparts, the MIA issue was paramount. I know that on the numerous occasions that I visited Vietnam, that was the one message we sent loudly and clearly: You have to cooperate with us on the MIA issue; you have to allow us to bring in our personnel in the joint task force teams; and you have to cooperate with us for a full accountability, otherwise our relationship will not go any further. So the Vietnamese received clear signals that progress and normalization of relations with the United States would come only after significant progress was made on the MIA issue. In contrast to our Vietnam policy, United States policy toward North Korea seems to lack this same focus with no explanation. The recent announcement regarding food aid for North Korea did not mention our interests in the MIA issue. There was no explanation as to why. The agreed framework between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not talk about cooperation on MIA's, even though the framework commits the United States to give the North Koreans free oil and to supply two highly advanced light water reactors, a total package that exceeds $5 billion, $4 billion alone for the reactors and some $500 million for the oil, not counting potential future aid for a grid system to distribute the power that the reactors will produce. North Korea simply does not have the transmission capability to handle the new reactors, so we can expect to be asked for approximately another billion dollars so that the power can go out and be distributed throughout the countryside. The agreed framework also envisions that the United States would lift its trade restrictions and normalize relations, regardless of, evidently, any movement on the MIA issue. The most obvious difference between Vietnam and North Korea is North Korea's nuclear program; the United States has an overriding national security interest in stopping the North Korean nuclear program. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we should have ignored the MIA issue. That is why I have introduced Senate bill 1293, legislation that would prevent establishing full diplomatic relations or lifting the trade embargo until the North Koreans have agreed to joint field operations. I recently had an opportunity to sit down with our dedicated armed services personnel in Hawaii, who are responsible for negotiating with the North Koreans on the issue. These are the people that actually negotiate relative to Americans missing in action. These are the people that identify the remains. They are very dedicated and knowledgeable people, doing a tremendous service for our country. It was clear from that briefing that joint field operations would have a high probability of success because, unlike in Vietnam, the United States has concrete evidence of the sites of mass U.N. burial grounds and prisoners of war camps located in North Korea. But United States personnel have had no access to those North Korean sites. The only thing preventing our personnel from going in and making these identifications is the Government of North Korea. The North Koreans have been unilaterally turning over some limited remains. Unfortunately, the North Koreans, without training in the proper handling of remains, have turned over excavated remains that have not been properly handled, that have been mixed, making identification vastly more difficult, if in some cases not impossible. Of the 208 sets of remains that have been turned over since 1990, unfortunately, only 5 sets have been identified. Despite the United States aid flowing to North Korea, the Koreans have repeatedly attempted to link progress on the remains issue to separate compensation. In other words, Mr. President, they expect repayment above and beyond their out-of-pocket costs. These amounts of money seem far in excess of the reimbursement costs for recovery, storage, and transportation of remains. The U.S. Government must stand by its policy not to buy remains. This would degrade the honor of those who died in combat on behalf of our country. Instead, the United States has offered to reimburse the North Koreans for reasonable expenses, as we have done in Southeast Asia over the last couple of decades. Talks to move the MIA remains and the reparation issue seem stalled at this moment. We have reason to believe that the progress is not what it should be relative to our ability to go into North Korea, to the sites where we know we are likely to find remains. Now, the United States has been careful not to link the nuclear issue with other policy concerns in North Korea. But it is not unreasonable for the United States to consider North Korea's behavior on other issues, such as the MIA issue, when considering whether to provide humanitarian assistance to this isolated, closed nation. I was over in Pyongyang last year and can say that, clearly, this is a country that is probably as isolated as any country on Earth. As a consequence, our inability to develop a dialog, other than that which was necessitated after the conversations concerning their efforts to develop a nuclear capability, has brought this whole picture into focus. But the bottom line is that in our negotiations we should demand that we have access so that we can address our responsibility and ask for the fullest possible accounting for those missing, those 5,433 that we believe are still unidentified in North Korea, for the families of those airmen still missing more than 40 years after the end of the conflict. There is no more humane action that North Korea could take than to let Americans have sufficient access to try to resolve as many cases as possible. Mr. President, we have demanded the fullest accountability from the Government of Vietnam on the MIA issue, and we should demand the same of the Government of North Korea. I urge my colleagues to reflect on the merits of the legislation I have offered, Senate bill 1293, that would prevent establishing full diplomatic relations or lifting the current trade embargo until the DPRK, the Government of North Korea, has agreed to joint field operations that would allow us to have access to those sites where we believe we can identify and find remains. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the oversight hearing regarding competitive change in the electric power industry scheduled for Wednesday, March 6, 1996, before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will now begin at 9:30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. as previously scheduled.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 9 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 the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. It will focus on what State public utility commissions are doing to make electric utilities more competitive. Although an oversight hearing, witnesses are asked to provide comment on S. 1526 as it relates to this issue. 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 Judy Brown or Howard Useem at (202) 224-6567. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nominations of Thomas Paul Grumbly to be Under Secretary of Energy, and Alvin L. Alm to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management, and Charles William Burton to be a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. The hearing will take place Tuesday, March 5, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Heninger at (202) 224- 5070. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as part of its strategic realignment and downsizing proposal, the Department of Energy has transmitted proposed legislation to transfer the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission outside of the Department of Energy. Presently, although FERC is part of DOE, it functions as a hybrid agency, neither truly independent, nor quite a part of the executive branch. In 1977, President Carter, in response to continuing repercussions from the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo and wintertime shortages of natural gas, proposed a reorganization of the disjointed Federal energy establishment. The purpose of the reorganization was the creation of a single agency that would possess the responsibility for coordinating all national energy matters and policy. To this end, the Carter administration proposed legislation that was to assign all of the Government's energy regulatory and policy functions to one cabinet- level Department of Energy. Although the Carter administration's goal of creating a unitary energy agency was, to a certain extent, shared by Congress, Congress also wished to preclude executive branch control of various regulatory functions formerly performed by the Federal Power Commission, including the establishment of rates for the transportation and sale of wholesale natural gas and electricity. These two conflicting objectives resulted in the anomaly of an independent agency being established within an executive department. Thus, although FERC is part of the Department of Energy, the power of the Secretary of Energy to influence the policies of the FERC is circumscribed. Specifically, the Department of Energy Organization Act gives the Secretary the authority to propose rules, regulations, and statements of policy of general applicability with respect to any function under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Secretary may set reasonable time limits for action by the Commission, but the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over, and takes final action, if any, upon, such proposals. Although limited, this authority has proven to be valuable to past administrations as they attempt to implement a coherent energy policy. Thus, although DOE claims that its proposed legislation would make the FERC a fully independent agency, the proposed legislation retains the special authority given to the President by existing law. As a result, the proposed legislation has no practical effect. By taking the FERC off of DOE's books, the bill would make the DOE budget appear to be smaller, but would not change the substantive relationship between DOE and FERC or save the Government money. Because I believe the proposed legislation achieves no substantive purpose, I will not introduce this legislation. However, I acknowledge receipt of the proposed legislation and ask that its text be printed in the Record as part of this statement. The text follows: Proposed Bill Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about another matter that this body is going to be asked to address in the very near future, and that is to increase the debt ceiling. As the President and my colleagues know, the authorization to issue debt is limited with a cap. And that cap is $4.9 trillion. It is a debt so inconceivable that no one can comprehend how large $4.9 trillion is. Currently, Mr. President, we are looking in the fiscal year just ended at a deficit of about $165 billion. That is a significant figure. But we cannot stop there because there is a further application of interest, and the interest cost on the $4.9 trillion is about $235 billion. And it should be noted that currently interest rates are relatively low. The effective rate of interest is probably somewhere in the area of 5.5 to 6.5 percent on this $4.9 trillion. Back in December 1980, the prime rate in the United States was 20.5 percent. One can only visualize what the interest cost would be. And this interest has to be paid because the individuals who hold Treasury notes, instruments of debt issued by the Government, have to be paid not only principal but interest. But to suggest that we are currently paying an effective rate of somewhere between 5 or 6 or 6.5, or thereabout--the fact is that interest rates could rise as they have in the past, which would have a disastrous effect on the economic vitality of this Nation. So, if we look at the accumulated debt that we are carrying, the $4.9 trillion, recognizing that each year we spend more than we generate in revenues, and add to that, we are faced with the reality that within a relatively short period of time we are going to have to increase that the debt ceiling. We are going to have to increase that authorization somewhere, we are told, of up to $5.3, or $5.4, or $5.5, or $5.6 trillion for a term of perhaps 18 months, and then we are going to have to do it again. So my point is we are continuing to increase the indebtedness of this Nation. I am told that for a person being born today, his or her share of the debt is somewhere in the area of $150,000, to $175,000. That is going to increase unless we do something drastic and turn it around. We have been talking for a long time about a balanced budget. Everybody, including the White House, supports a balanced budget, a mandatory balanced budget, a process that will get us there. And we have talked about a 7-year ascension. We have had, I think, five proposals from the administration. The first one did not get one vote in the U.S. Senate. The last one really makes the lion's share of the cuts in the sixth and seventh years. That is pretty hard to accept because we know that Congress is not going to have the self-discipline in 6 or 7 years to make those draconian cuts. We know that President Clinton, even if he were to be reelected is not going to be in office in 2001 and 2002 when reality will hit. So we are going into this period of debate on increasing the debt from $4.9 trillion at a time when we are adding $165 billion in deficits each year, and we do not have a way out. When I say ``a way out,'' we do not have a commitment to a real balanced budget in 7 years because the last proposal by the White House was not real. The press and the public do not seem to accept that it was not real in terms of all the cuts in the sixth or seventh year as opposed to proportional reductions in each of the 7 years. It is like taking medicine, Mr. President. You have to take it anyway. If you take it up front and get it over with through the process, why, hopefully, you can reach a cure. If you have to take it when you get too sick, sometimes it might not cure you. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that during the extended debate to try to reach a balanced budget, the Republicans were blamed for shutting down the Government. For reasons that I find a little hard to understand, there was not a recognition that this was a shared responsibility. It was as much the responsibility of the White House as it was Members of Congress because the President vetoed the reconciliation package which would have basically kept the Government going. He vetoed about six of the appropriations bills and signed the others. Those would have funded the Government. So the responsibility is very much that of the executive branch--the President and the White House--as we reflect on the last attempt at a fiscally responsible effort to try to address what the public wants, what we know is good for the country, and that is the realistic balanced budget process. Unfortunately, that process, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, has failed as a consequence of the inability of the administration to recognize that we simply have to reduce the rate of growth of Government. That does not mean we have to cut programs. We simply reduce the rate of growth. That was so evident in the debate over Medicare. We are not cutting Medicare payments. Medicare payments would increase each year. But the rate of growth would be reduced from nearly 10 percent to somewhere in the area of 6 percent. So, Mr. President, again as we reflect on where we are, and the coming crisis with the debt ceiling, it is a responsibility of the administration and the President to recognize that it is not in the interest of the country to proceed with a debt ceiling increase without a realistic way to address a process that will achieve a balanced budget in 7 years. So I urge my colleagues to reflect on just where we are going and the significance that. If we all believe in a balanced budget and we still do not have the self-discipline in the process to recognize that somehow we are going to have to achieve a balanced budget in a meaningful way and we have at the same time the obligation to increase the debt authorization of this country--there is a direct connection between the two. If we believe in a balanced budget, we should know that to increase the debt authorization without a realistic way of balancing the budget is basically irresponsible in the long-term for the fiscal and monetary policy of this country. Our debt has to be brought under control and the spiral of its increase has to be reversed. And we run the risk of increased interest rates on that debt. So, Mr. President, we should make the necessary corrections now by having as part of the debt ceiling increase a realistic accord on a balanced budget process that is meaningful and achievable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during the designated period for morning business be equally divided.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am a bit of a railroad buff, and there have been some recent changes relative to the operation of Amtrak that I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues this morning. I think it is fair to say that it is important that we consider our traditions, and how our traditions have really brought us together as a nation and preserved the fabric of our culture. It has been 30 years ago that we switched our telephones from exchange names to all-digit dialing. I think it is fair to say that while it increased the efficiency, it lost some of its personality. I recall we had Black 789, White 243, Green 910. We had an operator who would occasionally talk to you if you had a problem. Yet, this change was necessary because of the expansion of telephone service and it produced economic efficiencies. However, Mr. President, I note with sadness the decision of Amtrak to stop using the historical and traditional names for train service in the Northeast corridor. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Amtrak had decided that, for the Yankee Clipper, along with the train called the Mohawk, the train called the Mayflower, the train called the Connecticut Yankee, the overnight train to Boston, the Night Owl, and nearly all the other traditional names will no longer be used. In their place, nearly all of Amtrak's Northeast corridor trains will be referred to as the Northeast Direct, followed by a number such as 142, 147, 148. I really cannot understand this decision because I cannot see where it necessarily affects the efficiency or service to the public. A spokeswoman for Amtrak was quoted as saying these names are a colorful part of the past but really not helpful today. According to the spokeswoman, ``If you hear `the Catskill,' it doesn't really tell you where you're going,'' and that may be true, but certainly the Northeast Direct 147 tells travelers even less. At least the Connecticut Yankee suggests the train is headed to New England; the Northeast Direct 147 really tells you nothing. You do not know where it is headed. Mr. President, yesterday I wrote to the president of Amtrak, Mr. Tom Downs, and urged Amtrak to reconsider this decision. Again, I appeal to Amtrak in the sense that these are names that are part of the American heritage. I think it is a heritage and tradition that is partially a public trust, if you will. Unilaterally deciding to change these names, I guess, would be equivalent, perhaps, to having the Interior Department redesignate Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks as Western Park 1, Western Park 2, and perhaps Acadia National Park as Eastern Park 4. Since 1971, Amtrak has received about $13 billion in Federal funding to help cover its operating and labor costs. Legislation which is currently on the Senate calendar, S. 1395, would establish an intercity passenger rail trust fund. The lion's share of whose funds would go to Amtrak. The proposal calls for Amtrak to receive more than $2 billion over the next 4 years. In my opinion, Amtrak has made a mistake in changing the names of the historic trains of the Northeast corridor by replacing them with numbers. I urge Amtrak to reverse this decision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter which I sent to Amtrak's president be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Johnston, Mr. Domenici and Mr. Ford, I submit a substitute amendment to S. 755, Calendar number 244, the USEC Privatization Act. Mr. President, this substitute is virtually identical to USEC privatization language contained in the Budget Reconciliation measure passed earlier by the Senate. The differences in this amendment and the reconciliation language are as follows: We included language in section 4(e) stipulating that the expenses of privatization shall be paid from Corporation revenue accounts in the U.S. Treasury. This language is contained in the bill as reported by the committee, but it was left out of the reconciliation language. The administration has requested that this language be restored, and we have agreed to do that in this amendment. The language in this amendment also departs from the language in the reconciliation bill in section 13, dealing with low level waste. We have reverted to the language in the bill as reported by the committee, and have thus solved another concern related to uranium tails that had been raised by the administration. Mr. President, with all of the discussions about partisanship and the difficulty of working out complex legislation in this Congress, let me highlight the fact that the year-long effort to develop this legislation has been bipartisan and bicameral. House and Senate staffers have sat down with administration officials and jointly developed the bulk of the language in this substitute amendment. I would hasten to add, however, that this amendment does not contain language sought by the administration related to a waiver of trade laws. That matter is the subject of ongoing discussions between administration officials, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee. Those discussions will continue, and those committees will continue their deliberations on the question of waiver language. The absence of waiver language in this amendment should not be construed by anyone as a signal that efforts to arrive at a compromise in that area have been abandoned. It is my hope that we can move this measure as a stand-alone bill, or as part of any other legislative vehicle that is available to us in the coming weeks. For that reason, I wanted my colleagues and the public to have an ample opportunity to review this language.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I would like to address my remarks to those Government employees who were victimized by the process of shutting down the Government. I am sorry--and I think all of my colleagues would share in that sentiment--for that unfortunate set of circumstances. I would like to point out, Mr. President, before we, the Members of Congress, are designated as the sole villain, consider for a moment that both the House and the Senate passed a reconciliation bill to fund the Government fully until all appropriations bills were completed. Our President chose to veto that reconciliation bill. Had he not, there would not have been a shutdown in Government. It seems the media and many have forgotten that, including some Government employees. Further, Congress passed a significant majority of the appropriations bills, sent them to the President, and the President vetoed about half of them. The President made that decision, just as he made the decision to veto the reconciliation bill. He could have signed the appropriations bills, and those Government agencies would not have been shut down. So, as a consequence, as we look at the fallout associated with the shutdown of Government, the blame is not all on the Congress, by any means. The President must share that blame. I find it very disturbing that the media does not seem to be able to pick up on that responsibility. There are legitimate differences of opinion in the President's version of the adequacy of the appropriations bills we passed, and he has reason to veto them. But, by the same token, I think he has to be realistic in recognizing that the responsibility is not Congress' alone. Now, much has been said about the debt ceiling and the fact that sometime in March we are going to be asked to increase that debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion to somewhere in excess of $5.3 to $5.4 trillion, and if we do not, the Federal Government is going to go into default. Some of us feel pretty strongly that the only way to turn this train around of continued debt is to initiate a process that generates a balanced budget in real terms. Real terms means in 7 years--but not 7 years with cuts in the sixth and seventh year, as President Clinton proposes. Clearly, in the sixth or seventh year, regardless of the election, President Clinton will not be around to bear the brunt of those cuts, and those cuts truly are draconian. Congress is not going to have the self-discipline to do it either. We simply have to get spending under control. We have to reduce the rate of growth of the entitlements. That is basically what we attempted to do with Medicare--not cut it, simply reduce the rate of growth. Many of the public, the elderly, did not seem to catch that difference. Medicare would be increased next year over this year and the year after, but not at the same rate of growth. The President's own Cabinet suggested that Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years if we do not address that. It is not being addressed under the President's proposal. The ramifications of that suggest business as usual. Many do not seem to have really captured what this debate was all about. It was not just about a balanced budget. It was about redirecting America, rededicating, if you will, that Washington does not know all, control all, regulate all; but the responsibility should be dictated, as much as possible, to the States and, more directly, to the people. They are capable, and they are frustrated with the dictates from Washington. But that seems to be lost in this debate. So the significance of where we are at this time, I think, needs real examination, because if corrective action is not taken, if somehow we do not get the attention of the administration to address a real balanced budget, we are simply going to add to this accumulated debt, which, as I have said, is $4.9 trillion, and the interest on that is some $236 billion, which is more than our annual debt. That means that what we are spending in excess of what we are generating in revenues is about $160 billion. Yet, our interest on the accumulated $4.9 trillion is somewhere in the area of $350 billion. You do not have to be an accountant to know that if your interest costs on the outstanding principal that you owe are more in each year and each year you are increasing that by an added debt in the area of $160 billion, sooner or later you are going to pay the piper, and you are going to pay the piper through the consequences of a loss of confidence in America's monetary system. That lack of confidence is going to be triggered by too much debt. It happened in Central America, it happened in South America, it happened in Europe, and it will happen in the United States if we do not address a meaningful balanced budget. So as we look at the crucial times ahead, Mr. President, I do not know what we are going to have to do to catch the attention of the administration to get real about this process. Otherwise, we are going to pay the piper. There is a member of my staff whose wife is expecting a baby in April. That child will come into this world with a share of debt in the area of about $157,000. Multiply that per capita in the United States--what are we going to do, simply leave a legacy of debt? We must take the medicine now. We must address the hard decisions now. Otherwise, it is simply going to be too late. I wonder if it is not too late now. If we extend the debt ceiling when we come back sometime in the future and we do not have a commitment for a real balanced budget, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the citizens of this Nation. As a consequence, Mr. President, I think it is time that we go home and reflect on the significance of this crisis. This is very real. Talk to our constituents about the ramifications and share with them the dilemma that is going to be facing us when we come back and we are asked to increase the accumulated debt, the authorized debt, beyond $4.9 trillion. When the only leverage we have is to suggest it should not be done, it is irresponsible to increase that until we have a commitment for a balanced budget. Only when we achieve a balanced budget can we begin to address that 4.9 trillion dollars' worth of debt, and every Member of this body knows it, but not every Member of this body or the House of Representatives is prepared to take the action. That is where we are today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I wish the President a good day. I see another of my colleagues on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, another matter I bring before this body concerns the policy and politics related to mining law reform. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have been working with Senator Craig and other members of the committee to craft a mining bill that is realistic, that is responsive to change. Many know that the 1872 mining law has been a topic of debate in this body for many years. My good friend from Arkansas has spent many hours suggesting reform. The environmentalists continue to cry for reform. This year in an effort to enact a responsible reform we included several mining law provisions in the budget reconciliation package. What did we send to the President? Specifically, for the first time in history, I repeat, for the first time in history, we required miners to pay a 5-percent royalty. For the first time in history, miners were required to pay a fair market value for patented land, and for the first time in history patented lands used for nonmining purposes would revert back to the Federal Government. Patented land would have to be used for mining. If the land was used for non-mining purposes it would revert back to the Federal Government. For the first time in history we established an abandoned mines land fund to start the process of cleaning up the old abandoned mines and try and address abuses that had taken place in the past. We maintained the existing $100 per claim fee for 3 years and doubled the fees to $200 per fee starting in 1999. The Congressional Budget Office score over 7 years was approximately $157 million. This is significant reform. What happened to the proposal, Mr. President? The President vetoed the reconciliation package. What is the administration's proposal? Pretty hard to get a feel for what they have in mind. Secretary Babbitt, continues to demand mining law reform, yet he does not offer a specific solution. In fact, the administration has failed to submit a comprehensive mining law reform proposal this year. Now, let me read some comments made by the administration on mining law reform. ``This process has gone from distasteful to obscene. We support common sense reform that gets the taxpayers a fair return. Congress could and should act quickly to end this travesty.'' Secretary Babbitt, December 1, 1995. Second: ``The idea that we are backing off of mining reform, grazing law reform, is just nonsense. We are totally committed to changing the current policy.'' This was Vice President Gore, May 10, 1993. Further: ``Just recently, a law on the books since 1872 that I am trying hard to change, forced the government to sell minerals worth $1 billion.'' President Clinton, November 4, 1995. By reading these quotes one would think the White House wants action on mining law reform. There is an old saying around here, ``actions speak louder than words.'' In this case I can assure my colleagues we have had no action on mining law reform from the administration this year. What we have had, Mr. President, is a lot of words. There is another old saying around here, ``What is good for the goose is good for the gander.'' I guess it depends on who is the goose and who is the gander. In today's Washington Times there is a very interesting and revealing editorial about Vice President Gore and Secretary Babbitt. Apparently the Vice President's family has an interest in mining property in Tennessee, a family interest I am sure--nothing wrong with a family having an investment in mining property. According to the Washington Times the Vice President or his family receives a 4-percent net royalty from minerals mined on their land. I find this interesting because Secretary Babbitt has been pushing for a gross royalty as high as 12.5 percent. As everybody knows, I support mining in the United States. I am pleased that the Vice President and his family are in the mining business. What troubles me is this administration continues to demand a gross royalty for miners while the Vice President receives a royalty based on net. I agree with the Washington Times, if a net royalty is good enough for the Vice President, why is it not good enough for the Secretary of Interior Babbitt? We can take this process one step further. The Vice President apparently supports exploration and development when it benefits his personal interest, yet he opposes it almost everywhere else, particularly on public land, and certainly in my State of Alaska. He opposes logging in the Tongass, he opposes exploration and development of the Arctic, including ANWR, for oil and gas. Mr. President, what is the difference between mining and oil and gas production? Both are producing something from Mother Earth, providing a return, reducing our dependence on imported resources. It appears to be a rather inconsistent policy, Mr. President. I think it is appropriate that the Washington Times has highlighted this because the Vice President is known as a champion of the environment. We appreciate his contribution to the environment, however, we are troubled by his strong opposition to oil and gas exploration, mining exploration, logging, grazing, and any other development of our natural resources. Yet here we have a personal interest reflected on the families' ownership of the lead and zinc mine that the Vice President and his family have in the State of Tennessee which has been highlighted in the Washington Times article. That is why I question, Mr. President, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Mr. President, a good deal of this is about politics. The administration sees the environment as a political issue, and they will go to any means to exploit it. We have seen the President's remarks-- protect the environment. Many of the issues are not environmental. They are jobs issues. Are we going to have blue collar jobs in this country in our timber industry, in our mining industry, in our grazing industry, in our oil and gas industry? Or are we going to continue to be dependent to an ever increasing degree on imports? We seem to be importing resources and exporting jobs. Currently, over 51 percent of our crude oil consumption comes from imported oil. The Secretary of Energy has just come out with a forecast that is truly alarming because it suggests that this is going to increase dramatically in the coming years. I note for the Record in the ``Inside Energy/with Federal Lands,'' of January 22, 1996, a statement from the Secretary of Energy Secretary O'Leary decrying the deficiency budget. She says an oil crisis is ``imminent.'' That is a pretty strong statement. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary last week predicted that an oil crisis is ``imminent,'' and called on Congress [this body] to help prepare for it by shifting resources from fossil energy r&d to energy efficiency and renewable energy r&d. O'Leary, speaking to reporters Tuesday, reiterated concerns about a possible oil crisis stated earlier in the day by Joseph Romm, DOE's Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. . . . ``It's pretty clear there's going to be another oil crisis. I would say, in the next 10 years,'' Romm said. . . . O'Leary agreed with Romm, adding, ``with the trajectory Congress has us on, we're not allowed to intervene with new technology.'' I find that very revealing. It further reads: ``Any interruption in the Persian Gulf or pipeline failures could lead to supply disruptions.'' Comparing the situation to the blizzard that afflicted East Coast cities earlier this month, O'Leary said, ``I see crisis imminent and something we better take care of.'' Asked what DOE could do to avert it, O'Leary responded that the department is ``beginning to pull away from the traditional energy supply, shave some resources from unnecessary national security programs and high-tech nuclear programs, and put that effort to deploying energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. . . . That sounds great. Some of it is attainable, but not all of it. There are not enough renewable energy resources out there. Yes, we can increase energy efficiency. But to suggest we are moving our focus over there from increasing energy supplies to alternatives is simply unrealistic, and anybody who is in the energy business, having to supply this country with energy, will tell you, ``It just ain't so.'' ``Romm predicted that soon''--and this is the bottom line, and I will urge all my colleagues to reflect on it because one of these days it is going to come around and bite you, it will bite each one of us, because the public is going to say, Where was Congress? Why did Congress not do something to avert this crisis of curtailing a supply of crude oil into the United States? Romm predicted that soon the Persian Gulf region's percentage of the oil market will surpass its highest level ever, which was 67 percent in 1974. That percentage, he said, ``likely will go over 70 percent.'' There are solutions to the problem, and the three that are proposed by the Department of Energy suggest the following: Raise the price of oil, make it scarcer; add to the burden of the family budget, the Northeast corridor that depends on oil for heating. What is that going to do for inflation, Mr. President? They suggest one of the answers is raise the price of oil. Is that not a bureaucratic answer to a shortage? You raise the price. Put in place regulations to increase fuel economy--there is nothing wrong with that, but you can only go so far--and try to improve fuel efficiency technology. We have done that dramatically in our automobiles. The indication here is that the administration is taking all three of these approaches, but they blame Congress for opposing all three. We do not oppose all three but we are being realistic. It is interesting, spokesman Romm ``downplayed the effect that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling would have on reducing oil imports. More oil would be saved by implementing DOE's efficiency and renewable energy programs than would be generated by ANWR, he said,'' if it was opened. The inconsistency there, and what he does not tell you, is that Prudhoe Bay has been supplying this Nation with nearly 25 percent of its total crude oil production for the last 25 years. That field is in decline. As I have said, currently we are importing 51 percent of our total crude oil. As Prudhoe Bay declines, if we do not find more domestic reserves, we are simply going to import more. It is going to come into this country in foreign vessels, so we are not going to have our U.S. maritime fleet as we have currently in the movement of Alaskan oil which requires that all that oil be moved in U.S. tankers with U.S. crews. So here we have a situation where, as Prudhoe Bay declines, if we do not find more domestic oil, if we do not look for it in the most likely place where it is likely to be, and that is, the geologists tell us, in the Arctic, we are simply going to be exporting more of our dollars and more of our jobs overseas. We hear a lot about the deficit balance of payments. That means we spend more than other nations spend buying from us. Half of it is made up in the cost of imported oil. So I find it extraordinary at this time that we have a dire prediction that we are facing an oil crisis and the only alternative that we pursue is greater efficiency and renewable energy and do not prioritize increased domestic production. This administration is selling America short. America has the technology. America has the engineering know-how to develop oil reserves in those delicate areas and do it safely. We have proven that time and time again. The difficulty we have in my State of Alaska is we happen to be a new kid on the block. We have only been a State for 38 years. We are trying to develop our land patterns. The rest of the States did it 100 years ago, Virginia 200 years ago. Prudhoe Bay is the best oil field in the world. Endicott was the 10th largest producing field when it came on line. Now it is the seventh. The footprint is 56 acres. That is the technology we have in industry. If we are allowed to go into ANWR, it will generate $1.3 billion for the Federal Treasury resulting from those lease sales. Developing the 1002 area could provide nearly 700,000 jobs during the life of the field throughout the country. We do not make pipe in Alaska. We do not make valves. We do not make all the seals, all the things that go into the development. We get these supplies throughout the United States and this means jobs. And the industry says they can do it in 2,000 acres. What does ANWR consist of? It consists of 19 million acres. Out of that 19 million, 8 million acres have been set aside as wilderness. The rest of it is in refuge, leaving 1.5 million that Congress set aside for determination to be made of whether to allow exploration. Out of that 1.5 million acres only 2,000 acres would see a footprint. Think of the jobs in this country. Think of the dollars generated. If we lose this opportunity, Mr. President, indeed our only alternative will be to increase oil imports of oil coming in foreign vessels and the export of U.S. jobs and the export of dollars. So, as we look at the situation in general, and this administrations attitude towards development of public lands, I think we have, indeed, a political situation. This administration sees these issues, and certainly the environmental community does, as causes--causes for membership, causes for more dollars coming in. Because the American people cannot go up and see Prudhoe Bay, see the advances that have been made in the Arctic, see what we have done to increase the caribou herds in the central Arctic that were 3,000 or 4,000, and are now over 20,000. So, unfortunately, in their efforts to win political points, this Administration is destroying our natural resource industries. These industries have been significantly reduced--driving jobs overseas and increasing our balance of payments deficit. So, indeed, it is about politics--not policy. I hope my colleagues will see through the smokescreen. The editorial, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, is about the Vice President's mine, and his interest in that mine. I encourage my colleagues to read the editorial. If it is good enough for the Vice President, it ought to be good enough for the rest of the Nation's miners.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for a few minutes.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recently returned from my State of Alaska, where I had the opportunity to speak to our legislature in a joint session and visit constituents in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Mr. President, what I heard from my constituents was, I think, best reflected in their inability to simply understand why we could not reach an accord on a balanced budget. We have seen from the administration several budgets come before the Congress. I think we all recall the first one that came before this body, which did not receive one vote, neither Republican or Democrat. Subsequently, we have had a series of more than five budgets, until the administration has progressed to the point where they claim they have submitted a balanced budget. But virtually everyone is aware of the reality that the sixth and seventh years are where the Clinton cuts occur. As a consequence, I think it is fair to say that virtually everyone who analyzes that proposal finds it unrealistic. It is unrealistic for two reasons. First of all, in the sixth or seventh year, whatever Members are in office clearly are not going to have the ability to make those cuts in just 2 years. Those are going to be draconian cuts, and the political fallout, obviously, will make such cuts unacceptable. The other realization, Mr. President, is that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, President Clinton will not be in office when those cuts arrive in 2001 and 2002. Nor will he bear any responsibility as a President in office. So what the President has sent us is basically a proposal that amounts to a charade because, as you and I both know, if you are going to be realistic, you are going to have a proportionate reduction in each of those 7 years so you can reach a balanced budget in the seventh year. It just points up another instance where we will do anything or go to any length to ensure that we do not have to make the tough decisions up front, take the tough medicine and address the cure up front. I think it is fair to say we all know from our own personal experience if we have a tough situation, you make the decisions early and do not put them off. That is just what has happened with the President's proposal, where in the 7-year so-called balanced budget, all the cuts are basically in the last year. Now, Mr. President, we are going into a situation on January 26 where we will have to address the merits of reauthorizing the extension of Government to operate. And then, by probably in March, we will have to face the reality that we will have to increase the debt ceiling. As we reflect in the extended debate and discussion in this country over the balanced budget on the one hand, and then find that in order to keep Government from being in default, when one thinks of the merits of that, the Federal Government being in default, by increasing the debt ceiling from the current authorization of $4.9 trillion, it really marks the reality of the seriousness of the problem. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President: We are in dire straits. It is one thing to talk about the $4.9 trillion debt, which is the maximum debt ceiling; the other is to recognize we will be asked to increase that to $5.3, $5.4, or $5.6 trillion. That is not the end of it, Mr. President. The realization is we have to pay interest on that debt, and the interest, Mr. President, currently is more than our annual deficit. Think about that. The interest on the $4.9 trillion is more than our annual deficit, and our annual deficit is a consequence of spending more than we generate in revenue. A member of my staff is expecting a child in May. It is estimated that this child will inherit approximately $158,000 as his or her portion of that accumulated $4.9 trillion. Now, if we do not turn this thing around now, Mr. President, at some point in time it will be too late. I know there are many Members here who feel very strongly that they are not going to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling unless there is a commitment from the administration to address a balanced budget that is attainable and that is real. Mr. President, as we enter this week where the President will be giving his State of the Union Message, and as we enter this week, further, where we are asked to reauthorize an extension of Government because the continuing resolution is voted, I point out a few things relative to cause and effect, because when I was home there was concern about why Government was shut down and who bore that responsibility. Some suggested it was the responsibility of Congress alone. I remind the President that this body and the House passed a series of appropriations bills. About 12 of those appropriations bills were passed, and the President vetoed about half of them. In vetoing, the President bore the responsibility of basically not funding those particular agencies. The consequences of this, Mr. President, are a difference of opinion between the administration and the Congress as to the adequacy or inadequacy of those various appropriations bills. To suggest it was all the fault of Congress is unrealistic. Congress did its job. When you look at the vote on the welfare reform bill, Mr. President, I think it deserves particular examination because many of us assume that we have negotiated with the administration to a point that was acceptable. I think it passed this body, Mr. President, about 87 to 12. It is fairly significant that those on the other side of the aisle felt we had a pretty good bill, but the President saw fit, kind of in the dark of night, to veto that bill. One has to wonder just what the objection of that veto message was. I never did quite understand it. Now, we have heard time and time again from the White House that this is the fault of an unresponsive Republican-controlled Senate and House who are proposing to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and on the backs of the low-income groups, on the backs of children; it will affect education and it will affect the environment. Yet, the President's own members of his Cabinet, several members of his Cabinet, earlier did an evaluation of the Medicare Program and found that the Medicare Program would be in default, it would be broke, if it was not addressed at this time. In 7 years we would not be able to meet our obligations with regard to Medicare. After an extended discussion with the leadership of both the House and the Senate, negotiations took place, and the only alternative available to address the runaway increase in Medicare was simply to reduce the rate of Medicare's growth. It had been growing at a rate of almost 10 percent. The agreement finally came down to reducing that rate of growth from approximately 10 percent to just under 6 percent. How did the administration respond to this? ``Draconian cuts,'' they called it. But it was not a cut; it was a reduction of the rate of growth. Those recipients of Medicare would receive an increase this year over last year and next year over this year. Yet, the American people, the elderly and those dependent on Medicare, I think, were frightened by the misleading statements from the White House and the inability of the national media to address the alternative, Mr. President. The alternative was that if we did not reduce the rate of growth, the system would be bankrupt, and then what is the capability of the system to meet its obligation for those who are recipients of Medicare? That was simply excluded from the discussions, excluded from the conversations, and of course excluded from the wire stories, blaming the Republicans for this dilemma. Mr. President, it has been said time and time again on this floor that this is the opportunity to redirect America, to reduce Government control, to reduce Government spending, and bring Government back to the people. Now, the Republicans have dug in and said if we do not do it now, it probably will not be done. Our children and grandchildren are going to share the increasing burden. At some point in time, somebody will have to take that medicine, Mr. President, because as you go back and reflect on that 4.9 trillion dollars' worth of accumulated debt and the realization that we cannot afford to put this Nation in default, the only alternative is to reduce the rate of growth of that debt and that simply mandates a balanced budget. That is what this is all about. It is redefining the direction of our Government to make it simple, to make it smaller, to make it more responsive, to put control back where it belongs, back to the States, back to the people. I urge my colleagues as we address the significance of several events taking place this week that we keep our eye on our objective and the realization, Mr. President, that if we do not do it now, then the question is, When? If it is not now, it may be too late. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me make a reference to the state of affairs relative to the suspended budget talks. I think it is fair to say that we have all observed, with some chagrin, finger pointing, the reality that after these endless meetings we are left with a situation where we have not reached an accord. It is undoubtedly a reality that we will not get this thing resolved until after the State of the Union on the 23d of January. It would be perhaps speculative to suggest we will get it resolved at that time. But we certainly hope so. But I think it is fair to say that the extended discussions covering the major issues of Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, taxes have been thoroughly gone into, but they are still not resolved. The President has stepped forward with a 7-year proposal to balance the budget, but the difficulty with that is most of the cuts are in the 7th year. In the 7th year the President is not going to be here. It is such a draconian mandate that undoubtedly Congress would find it unacceptable. Clearly it lacks the commitment that is necessary for it to be workable; and that is that we have a proportional cut over each year that is equitable and palatable to the American public. Further, Mr. President, we have not gone into the second-tier issues. These are issues that are subject to considerable debate, but they are in the reconciliation, and the reconciliation process as we know it is hung up as a consequence of the continued discussion over Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, taxes, and so forth. As a consequence, we have an emergency not just associated with weather, but in my State concerning resource development on public lands. As an example, we have unresolved the issue of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Area for oil exploration. That is covered in the reconciliation package. We have a mining piece of legislation, a mining bill in the reconciliation package that will either determine the future of domestic mining or the demise of mining in the United States as we find ourselves in a situation where the industry is no longer able to generate a reasonable return on domestic investments and moves overseas. So there is much riding on a resolve, and we also have unresolved major appropriations bills affecting my State and the timber industry in the Tongass and the Interior appropriations bill. So it is imperative that judgments be made and that those judgments be made in a timely manner. As a consequence, Mr. President, I would just like to refer to what I think is the significance of what this debate is all about. It has been suggested that the debate concerns itself with a balanced budget. I think it is more fundamental. I think it is a historic debate about the role and the scope of Washington, DC, whether Washington will continue to tax Americans more, to spend more of America's savings, to regulate Americans more, and to control Americans more, or whether we are going to see a departure that will begin to reduce the size, scope, and power of Washington, DC. I think that is what this debate is all about. I think that is what we should focus in on. We are at a significant crossroads, Mr. President, and it is appropriate that we recognize it for what it is. It is either doing business as usual or a substantial departure from the status quo. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record a letter from Kelly R. King. Kelly King is a college student from Alaska. He was formerly an intern in my office. He has written this letter to each Member of the U.S. Senate who chose not to support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for exploration and, if the oil is there, production. I think it is appropriate that we reflect on the attitudes prevailing concerning whether or not we are going to continue to develop our natural resources in the United States, whether it be on public land for grazing, mining, timbering, oil and gas exploration, or whether we are going to depend on imports. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.