Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to comment very briefly on the matter that has been the subject of some discussion, and that is the weather in Washington, DC. Alaskans operate on the theory that you are hardy because you have to be. I might add, that for reasons unknown, perhaps because of the extended atmospheric conditions or warm air or some might conclude hot air emanating from Washington, DC, in this general area, I think we have attracted something, and it has been snow. Much of that perhaps has moved from my State of Alaska where we have virtually no snow. Our ski resorts in Anchorage have not opened, and in Fairbanks there is not enough snow to go cross-country skiing or snow machining. So I do not know whether that is a blessing in disguise or not. But Alaskans are somewhat concerned, and I might add somewhat confused. But I do not think Alaskans necessarily are the only ones that have made that observation as a consequence of the last several weeks of discussion here in Washington.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I might just add for the benefit of my colleagues a little story that occurred the other day when my wife and I were walking over here on Monday and it was pretty scarce around here. The snow plows had not been active at all on the street that we live on even though it is a street that offers bus service. We are only about 6 or 8 blocks away. We came over and went through the mail and did a few odd things, as we have been doing each day since. Going back I noticed a car was trying to get up a small hill. It was about a two-block hill. They were not having any luck. The more the driver pressed on the throttle, the more the wheels spun. I said I would be happy to get his car up to the top of the hill for him. So he got out of the car, and I got in the car and put it in drive, and very slowly eased up the hill. I noticed that there was another hill at the end of the first block. I thought, well, the best thing to do is take it up to the corner. And as I crept up the second block, I noticed the gentleman was shaking and beginning to run after the car. I stopped at the stop sign when I got to the top of the hill, and he said, ``I didn't think you were going to stop. I thought you were going to steal my car.'' I said, ``No. I didn't want to stop at the first stop sign because we were still on a hill and you would have trouble.'' He said, ``Well, I'm sure glad that you got my car up the hill.'' But he said, ``I was really concerned you were going to run away with it.'' To end the story, he got in the car. I left. He went around the corner and got stuck again. I guess it is a hazard that is associated with so many experiences.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is a difficult issue for all Members of this body relative to the business at hand and the necessity of proceeding with the subpoena. I suggest that probably not since the days of the Watergate constitutional confrontation has this body considered an action that is as serious as the one that we are considering here today. It is the feeling of this Senator from Alaska that this day did not have to come, but it is here. The subpoena was not something that was inevitable. But we are here today for one reason and only one reason, and that is because we have a situation where our President refuses to cooperate with this Senate investigation and turn over the notes that could be very crucial to the public's understanding of the Whitewater scandal. The President and the administration seem to be hiding behind the shield of attorney-client privilege. At the same time, one can see through the raising of the specter of executive privilege. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. The White House claims that it will turn over these notes on one hand, and then lays down conditions, conditions that are so totally unreasonable that what the President is really saying is that he will not turn over the notes in the sense of full disclosure. It is interesting, because from the day these hearings began, in July of 1994, my colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, and I made several appeals on this floor concerning various issues, the statute of limitations and others, relative to questions that had been raised to which were not forthcoming responsible answers. So, back in July of 1994, the White House, at that time, professed the President's desire to cooperate, cooperate with the formation of the special committee of which I am a member. The President said that he, too, was interested in getting the facts--all the facts out on Whitewater. At nearly every turn of the committee's deliberations the White House has tried to make these deliberations more difficult, more prolonged, refuses to answer more questions, and seems to have a shorter memory. What this committee is charged with doing, under the able leadership of Senator D'Amato, is to hold the President to his promise to cooperate with this committee. One has to ask if the administration has an ulterior motive, or other reason, for not cooperating? At all times it seems what the President professes is not necessarily what the President ultimately means. I do not have to go into the issue of balancing the budget with OMB's figures or CBO figures--that's an argument for another time. But I think the American public is now aware that what the President professes is not necessarily what the President means. We see this pattern repeated again and again and again. That is part of the problem here today, Mr. President. The American public has seen this pattern over and over, and the concern now is that the President's tactics have almost conditioned the public for a norm. The public has come to expect this from the administration as a consequence because of this repeated inconsistency, and has become used to it. That is very dangerous. At times it seems that, because of the President's track record, the public's expectations and standards for the President are lower. I think we agree that we have an obligation to hold the President accountable. The President must be held to his promises. Today, we must hold the President accountable by preventing him and his administration from withholding information from the American public, information that the public is entitled to know. We have to put an end to the stalling and to the delay tactics that have become so familiar to the Special Whitewater Committee. Even the media is beginning to pick up on it. You can hardly find a newspaper article today where the term ``stonewalling'' and ``the President'' do not appear in tandem. These delay tactics that this committee has endured, which I know many of my colleagues have elaborated at great length on today, can only lead to one conclusion: The administration has led a deliberate and systematic effort to cover up. And cover up what? What is there to hide? Why is the administration fighting us and being so reluctant to turn this information over? I want to bottom line the seriousness of the vote that we are going to be taking at some point in time. Chairman D'Amato outlined what our investigation is all about. The investigation of Madison Guaranty and Whitewater have led to felony convictions and resignations. Think about that. That is pretty serious, Mr. President. The investigation so far has led to felony convictions and resignations, and there are those that just pooh-pooh this matter and simply say, well, we have not really learned anything. We have some convictions. We have some resignations. The McDougals, the owners of Madison Guaranty, were involved in numerous improper loans and land deals which led to the loss of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Witnesses testified before the committee that the Whitewater Corp., which is half owned by the Clintons and half owned by the McDougals, had improperly ``kited'' funds. That is serious, Mr. President. That is very serious. I spent 25 years in the banking business as the chief executive officer of a statewide organization. I know what cease and desist orders mean relative to mandates by the controller of currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. What was going on in Madison Guaranty was clearly illegal. There is a story that has yet to be told relative to the obligations of the various agencies that examined that financial institution. I am convinced that those examiners were doing a conscientious job relative to the reporting of the true condition of that organization, and they were reporting up to their level. And for reasons that have yet to be made clear to the committee and made public, no action was taken by the administrators associated with the insurance of the depositors with Madison Guaranty. So, clearly, there were pressures brought to bear on the top regulators by political influences that surrounded Madison Guaranty not to take action relative to the illegal activities that were associated with Madison Guaranty, whether it be the kiting of the checks or the manner in which clearly Madison Guaranty, under the McDougals, was being operated almost for the benefit of a few selected individuals who were receiving favorable loans at favorable interest rates. The loans were rewritten to bring the due dates current. The interest was simply added to the principal to bring those loans current. These are all flagrant violations that suggest, if you will, not just inappropriate or improper handling, but an illegal activity of a very, very serious nature subject to formal charges by the banking authorities and the regulators. But we did not see that, Mr. President. That did not occur as the true condition of Madison Guaranty become known to the regulators. I think that there is a story yet to be told. I hope that we find those that are willing to come forth and explain to the committee why appropriate action was not taken when indeed Madison Guaranty was running amuck, running almost as a personal extension of the McDougals and some of their friends. We have been attempting to get information in the committee. The committee has been hindered from obtaining information because of numerous delays, stonewalling tactics. One of the things that is very, very hard for this Senator to accept is the convenient loss of memory. Susan Thomases, the First Lady's friend and adviser, responded, ``I do not remember'' over 70 times to even the most basic questions asked by this committee. These were not everyday events; these were significant events from very, very bright people who were associated with a responsibility to perform. And to suggest that they cannot remember, over 70 times in testimony, significant events is pretty hard to accept by the committee. Maggie Williams, the First Lady's chief of staff, a very, very bright, articulate person, told the committee over 140 times that she did not recall. Once in a while, OK. I cannot recall every specific event that happened last year, but in regard to important matters, I can tell you what happened last year. And I can tell that certain events stand out in one's memory, Mr. President. For example, I have been deposed by attorneys relative to business activities of the organizations that I have run, and those proceedings, those types of proceedings, do stand out in your memory. It may be very convenient to say I do not recall, but to do it 140 times to the committee in response to some very, very basic questions about some dramatic events, events that some of the witnesses themselves documented, is simply pretty hard to accept. During the week of the committee's investigation we learned now of the possibility of more cover up in the White House, and we have discovered that files are missing. Mrs. Clinton's law firm represented Madison Guaranty against the State and Federal investigations that were occurring. Mrs. Clinton professed that she did ``very minimal work'' on the Madison Guaranty case. On Monday, the committee learned that the First Lady's statement may need to be questioned. The personal notes of the close friend and adviser to the First Lady, Susan Thomases, were disclosed in the committee and revealed the following: One, that Mrs. Clinton actually had numerous conferences, which have been documented, with the Madison Guaranty officials. Two, that Mrs. Clinton made several efforts to keep the failing thrift afloat. Obviously, that was her job as counsel representing the Rose law firm. There is nothing wrong with that. But the fact is, we are not able to get the documentation to just how far those efforts went. And lastly, that Mrs. Clinton was solely responsible for all the law firm's bills for the Madison case. The accuracy of that should be able to be ascertained relatively easily by documentation, but we do not have the documentation. Earlier this month, Webster Hubbell, former Assistant Attorney General and former Rose law firm partner, who is now serving 21 months in Federal prison, also testified that Mrs. Clinton did little work on the Madison Guaranty case. However, the committee was able to produce billing records showing that Mrs. Clinton billed the Madison account for more than $6,000. Again, I would remind my colleagues that the suggestion that this matter is not really very important, that nothing has been proven, Webster Hubbell would contend otherwise. He is serving 21 months in Federal prison relative to his role. And again, he was former Attorney General and former Rose law firm partner. What is all this concern about? Why should the committee or the Senate or especially the American people be concerned about Madison Guaranty and Whitewater? Because, Mr. President, when Madison Guaranty ultimately failed, the American taxpayer picked up the cost, which was somewhere between $47 million and $60 million. The scam that went on at Madison was underwritten by the U.S. taxpayers. We know that Mrs. Clinton had involvement to some extent through the Rose law firm in some of the activities of Madison. And I am not suggesting that those were inappropriate. Why can we not find out? Why do they not tell us? What are they hiding? As I said earlier, Mrs. Clinton billed over $6,000 to the Madison Guaranty account. According to the Rose law firm's accounting records, Mrs. Clinton did perhaps more work on Madison than anyone at her firm except one junior associate. Now everything that the committee learned may be just the tip of the iceberg because the Rose law firm claims that its billing files that recorded Madison activity from 1983 to 1986 are missing. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. The Rose law firm now claims that its billing files that recorded Madison activity from 1983 to 1986 are missing. Well, it sounds more like ``I don't remember'' 70 times or ``I don't recall'' 140 times. And here is a sophisticated law firm with a long, long tenure, a respected law firm. There are a number of lawyers in this body, and I think they are all familiar with the meticulous process of billing. We always joke about the lawyer: Start talking to the lawyer and the clock starts. If you have ever received a billing from a lawyer, you have some idea how meticulous they are. They do not forget very much. They are trained to do that. The young attorneys bill out so much an hour, and they are expected to bill out so much a day. I have a daughter who occasionally reminds me of that as a young lawyer. But nevertheless to suggest that these are now missing from 1983 to 1986 is incredible. I am reminded here of a reference that was made in the New York Post today. And this may or may not be pertinent, but it is certainly suggestive. It says, ``A Rose law firm clerk said he was told to shred documents in February of 1994 shortly after a Whitewater special prosecutor was appointed.'' As a consequence, Mr. President, the files contain information of just how involved perhaps the First Lady might be in the Madison Guaranty issue. The files could provide the committee with details of who contacted whom and what was discussed about Madison. It is rather curious to me that we do not have information from the RTC, Resolution Trust Corporation, which took over from the organization when it eventually failed. Upon such a takeover, there is inevitably a series of events that must occur. Madison was taken over by an organization, and then that organization failed and the RTC must have ultimately taken control over all the Madison records. Now, those records should contain billing statements that were sent from the Rose law firm to Madison Guaranty. They might not be as specific as the Rose law firm's own records that would document specific topics and the details of the legal representation, however, the RTC records might be able to shed some light on the amount that the firm billed, the amount of time spent on the case, and may reference certain specific subject matters. I suggest that this might be an avenue that the committee investigates. It would seem to me it would be appropriate to make a determination whether or not the RTC has those records from Madison Guaranty and, if not, then attempt to determine what happened to the records. I think this could shed some light on determining how much the Rose law firm was reimbursed for its representation of Madison Guaranty. Now, Susan Thomases' own notes appear to contradict the sworn testimony of Mrs. Clinton in an affidavit of 1994 in which she said that she had little or no involvement in Madison. Let us find out. Come on up with the evidence. Come up with the records. Yet, when we attempt to get the evidence, the Rose law firm says their records are missing from 1983 to 1986. Were those shredded? The Rose law firm, I think, owes the committee an explanation. Thomases' notes show that Mrs. Clinton had numerous conversations with Mr. McDougal, the Madison Guaranty's President, about a preferred stock plan and brokerage deals that the thrift was proposing to State regulators to keep Madison in business. The only way to find out the extent that Mrs. Clinton was involved is to review the law firm's records. But as I have said before, these files seem to have mysteriously vanished. Apparently the files were removed--perhaps by Webster Hubbell. We believe that the files may have been stored in his garage for a period of time. No one seems to have any accurate knowledge of where the files are now. So to suggest that there is nothing here that bears examination, that there is nothing here that should not be brought before the public, I think, is an injustice to the committee members and those who have worked so hard to bring the facts forward. I am personally, as a member of the committee, tired of the withholding tactics. I am tired of the stonewalling, tired of the excuses, ``I don't recall,'' ``I can't remember.'' I think we are at a crucial point now, a point in which this body can and should make the White House accountable. The committee's request for William Kennedy's notes is not unreasonable, Mr. President. The meeting that occurred between the President's private attorneys and the Government attorneys goes to the very heart of our investigation, an investigation to determine whether the White House misused official information. So I regret that the events have come to this extent today, to the vote that we are going to be taking at some time. However, it is the White House that forces the hand of this body to act. And I would again encourage the President to reconsider and come forthwith the information that has been asked by the committee and keep his promise to fully disclose information. I believe that the American public has a right to know. And it is certainly responsible for this committee to make such a request and initiate such action if that material is not forthcoming. Mr. President, I ask for only one other item to be included in the Record, and that is a recap of the fees from Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. And it is January, 1985. It identifies specific billings. It does not have a total on it for services rendered, but that can be ascertained by anyone looking at it. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, December 20, 1995 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. 594 and H.R. 1296, bills to provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer and to review a map associated with the San Francisco Presidio. Specifically, the purposes are to determine which properties within the Presidio of San Francisco should be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Presidio Trust and to outline what authorities are required to ensure that the Trust can meet the objective of generating revenues sufficient to operate the Presidio without a Federal appropriation. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the committee staff

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I remind the President that it is the holiday season and as the song goes--tis the season to be jolly. Unfortunately, my good friend from Arkansas, as he described the mining law provisions in the Interior bill, did not follow the holiday spirit. I think he may have construed the holiday season with the Grinch of Christmas, or something of that nature, but clearly his description of the legislation was not in the holiday spirit. I think it is fair to say that his comments were hardly constructive toward enacting mining law reform, and might even be construed to be destructive. As the President is aware, today's 6-hour debate on the fiscal year 1996 DOI conference report is, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, a good deal about politics and very little about policy. Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle see the environment as a political issue and are prepared to do just about everything to exploit the issue. Unfortunately, in their effort to win political points with the media they are destroying our natural resource industries. I think we should look at what has happened. A portion of our resource industry and the jobs that go with it are being destroyed. We are driving those jobs overseas. We are increasing our balance of payment deficit. Take for example, the Department of the Interior's attitude toward resource development. They oppose it. Mining, coal, oil and gas, timber, grazing, all of these resource activities on public lands are opposed by this administration. As a result, the administration is forcing us to import many of these resources from overseas. The greatest portion of our balance of payments deficit, Mr. President, is the cost of imported oil. What is the administration doing to encourage exploration in areas such as ANWR? In my State of Alaska, geologists tell us ANWR is the most likely prospect for a major oil discovery. Unfortunately, this administration opposes any exploration in this area. As many of you know, my State of Alaska has contributed 25 percent of the total domestic crude oil produced in the United States for the last 18 years. The arguments prevailing in the early 1970's against opening Prudhoe Bay are the same arguments prevailing today against opening ANWR. The only difference is we have learned how to develop the Arctic in the last quarter of a century, and, as a consequence, we can apply advance technology to do a better job, making a smaller footprint. That is not the policy of this administration. The administration's policy is to constrict resource development. Where have all our high-paying blue- collar jobs gone? They have been exported overseas. As I mentioned earlier, today's debate is about politics, not policy. I hope that my colleagues will see through this smokescreen. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the DOI conference report on its merits. An awful lot of effort and time has gone into the bill. Senator Gorton put together a good bill. There were problems with the House, but ultimately he put together what I think is an acceptable compromise. Earlier today, my friend Senator Bumpers talked about the mining law provisions in the budget reconciliation package. To hear his view, it is a giant sellout of American resources to a few mining companies. I want to clear up a few misunderstandings, because you have to recognize that this industry provides good-paying jobs which provide a solid tax base. Looking at the royalty provision under the proposal sent to the President, for the first time in history in this legislation, miners are required to pay a 5 percent net proceeds royalty. During good market conditions, if an operation is making a profit, they pay a royalty. During bad market conditions, if an operation is losing money, they do not pay a royalty. The significance of the mining industry--it is a world competitive market out there--you either compete with South America, Brazil, Australia, on a world market price or you do not compete at all. In other words, Mr. President, we are trying to provide incentives for operators to stay in production, to keep our U.S. jobs, these high- paying union jobs that keep people working and provide a local and Federal tax base. And I would encourage the unions in this country that are dependent in the resource industry to look behind this smokescreen to what this administration is really attempting to do with resource development jobs--mining of any kind, hard-rock, coal, you name it. They do not want anything to happen on public land. This attitude will not create jobs. Patents--for the first time in history miners would be required to pay fair market value for patented land. There would be a reverter for the first time in history--that patented land used for nonmining purposes reverts back to the Federal Government. So there is no speculation. There are no ski resorts built under the idea that you get a patent for mining and then use it for something else. We protect property rights by allowing the pending patent applications at Interior to move forward under the existing law. The remaining 330,000 mining claims holders would have to prove that they have a ``vested possessory property right.'' If they do not have that right, they are subject to the new law. For the first time in history, we establish an abandoned mine land fund to start the process of cleaning up old abandoned mines. We maintain the existing $100 per claim holding fee for 3 years and then double the fees to $200 per claim starting in 1999. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office's score over 7 years is approximately $157 million. As new mines come into production this figure will significantly increase. What is the administration's proposal? Mr. President, they have no proposal. Secretary Babbitt continues to demand mining law reform, yet he offers no solution. The administration has failed to submit a proposal to Congress this year. In fact, instead of supporting mining law reform legislation, the President's budget calls for the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance for hard-rock mining--a multi-billion-dollar budget bombshell that will cost several billion dollars, and thousands of jobs. According to the administration, this would save roughly $954 million over 10 years--in effect, place a $1 billion-plus burden on the Nation's miners. Once again, the White House has singled out the mining industry for punishment. Why? Its the latest assault in Secretary of Interior Babbitt's and the administration's war on the West on hard-working people and their jobs. Make no mistake about it, they are singling out the hard-rock mining industry for termination. Oil, gas, and coal jobs are not put in jeopardy at this time, however, the camel's nose is under the tent. It is only a matter of time until the administration uses the Tax Code to go after oil, gas, and the coal industry. Mr. President, the hard-rock mining industry provides 120,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide. This proposal could eliminate 60,000 to 70,000 of those jobs. The administration is using the environment as a political issue. The debate is not about policy. It is about politics. I urge my colleagues to see through this smokescreen and vote on the facts. If we can send a man to the Moon, we can surely develop our natural resources and protect our environment. On the matter of the Tongass, Mr. President, I commend my good friend and senior colleague, Senator Stevens, and those who have worked so hard to get approval in the conference. The conferees have significantly modified the provision dealing with the management of the Tongass National Forest to fully respond to administration concerns. In the original amendment, the administration objected to: First, sufficiency language; second, the dictate to follow a forest plan that the administration believes is superseded by more recent information; and third, imposing a permanent ban on the development of wildlife habitat conservation areas. The new amendment agreed to by the conferees contains none of these three requirements. It allows operations on the Tongass National Forest to continue under the current Tongass land management plan [TLMP]. Further, it directs that revision and amendment of the TLMP continue. The new amendment reaffirms the compromise embodied in the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act [TTRA] by requiring that for the next 2 years, any change to the TLMP shall maintain at least the number of suitable available and suitable scheduled acres of timber land and allowable sale quantity as that identified in the preferred alternative of the October 1992 final TLMP (alternative P). The regional forester, at that time, developed alternative P as the best way to manage the Tongass National Forest implementing the compromise of the 1990 legislation. Subsequently, litigation from environmental groups has undermined the compromise. Unfortunately, the ninth circuit court has ruled that the 1990 act's requirement to seek to meet market demand for timber is merely hortatory and not binding on the Forest Service as are numerous other statutory obligations. More recently, on October 19, Alaska District Court Judge, James Singleton, ruled that based upon the ninth circuit's reasoning, the balancing mechanisms of the 1990 Act are not a binding duty. Rather they are merely a Congressional admonition to be factored into the mix of Forest Service goals. Judge Singleton then held that ``the absence of any enforceable duty'' denies plaintiffs (the State of Alaska and the Alaska Forest Association) standing to challenge Forest Service decisions, and that plaintiffs will not receive relief ``unless congress intervenes in a more forcefully way.'' The amendment meets this challenge from the courts by imposing a nondiscretionary obligation on the Forest Service to maintain a land base suitable for timber production and resulting allowable sale quantity as indicated in alternative P, thus restoring the 1990 compromise and establishing a binding duty to maintain the timber land base. The Forest Service has flexibility to work within a number of administrative land use designations to harmonize this duty with other statutory obligations or agency goals. The conference agreement makes it clear that any revision, amendment, or modification shall be based on the application of the scientific method and sound, verifiable scientific data. Data is sound, verifiable and scientific only when it is collected and analyzed using the scientific method. The scientific method requires the statement of a hypothesis capable of proof or disproof, preparation of a study plan designed to collect accurate data to test the hypothesis; collection and analysis of the data in conformance with the study plan; and confirmation, modification or denial of the hypothesis based upon peer- reviewed analysis of the collected data. That the data used shall be from southeast Alaska ecosystem. The current TLMP revision process underway does not meet these standards and should be modified in the 2- year time period provided by this amendment. The amendment also includes language to release timber enjoined by the ninth circuit court because the Forest Service had not conducted an environmental analysis when allowing the transfer of sales from one long-term timber contract holder (the Alaska Pulp Corp.) to another (Ketchikan Pulp Co.). Previously, Congress passed section 503 of Public Law 104-14 which said that the transfer of sales should be authorized, notwithstanding the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. The ninth circuit subsequently determined on September 28, that section 503 or the rescissions bill did not alter the legal basis for the court's original decision. The court stated that section 503 reflected the ``mistaken view that the dispute involves the changing of parties to a contract.'' The court said that, since the alternatives described in the environmental impact statement were driven by Alaska Pulp Corporation's [APC] contract, NEPA and ANILCA required a new set of alternatives in order for the Forest Service to reoffer the timber to third parties (because the Forest Service was no longer under an obligation to sell the timber to anyone). Accordingly, the ninth circuit held that section 503 failed to address the legal significance of the termination of APC's contract by focusing solely on the fact that the sales were transferred from one party to another. By saying that ``the change of purchasers for whatever reason shall not be considered a significant new circumstance,'' the amendment in this bill makes it clear that, even though the change of purchasers is due to the termination of the long term sale, the transfer to third parties is covered by the language in the bill. The language says that it will not be legally significant no matter what reason the Forest Service makes for the transfer. I urge the administration to recognize the good faith negotiations that resulted in this compromise, and to sign the Interior appropriations bill. To do otherwise would be to destroy the small kernel of hope that this provision will bring to the people of southeast Alaska who live in the forest. Because there is no State forest, there is no private land. These people live in the forest-- Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Sitka, Skagway. All of these areas are in the forest, and the people living in this area have hopes that this legislation will maintain their industry at a modest level. Finally, Mr. President, I urge that realism dictate the evaluation of these matters by the Department of Interior. They suggest that the Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf might be endangered as a consequence of logging. It is absolutely without any scientific fact of any kind, and is simply a bogus excuse. They have already been ruled as not subject to the Endangered Species Act because they are not threatened. But they keep bringing this matter up. Mr. President, we have a season on wolves. We allow the taking of wolves. They are predators. If they were scarce, obviously, that would be the first thing to go. But the Secretary of the Interior puts this smokescreen up and suggests that the wolves and the timber do not mix, and it is absolutely based on no scientific fact. Alaskans simply cannot understand it. And the only effort they are making in the evaluation of the goshawk is not to find out how many are in the forest. They simply look at the next proposed area to be logged and use the wolf or the goshawk to block development. There is no substantiation to suggest that the goshawk is endangered either. But it just drives me crazy to see these false excuses coming out of this department that knows better, and they admit they know better. But they will use any excuse at any time to address an emotional argument. I yield the floor. I wish the President a good day. I see my good friend from West Virginia seeks recognition. I wish him a good day as well. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I rise to speak about American participation in enforcing the Bosnian peace agreement to be signed in Paris this week, I want to begin by making clear my firm belief that U.S. participation in this action is the wrong thing to do. I would note here a few of the many reasons for taking this position: The Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and others in the region have been fighting for hundreds of years, creating generational hatreds which no ``piece of paper'' is going to stop. There are many elements in the region, not least the Bosnian Serbs-- the main belligerents--who are unhappy with this settlement and will do everything they can to upset it, including by attacking our forces. There is no clear national interest in our involvement in this endeavor other than, to some, the preservation of our leadership in NATO. However, the question then is: ``is this the issue upon which the future of NATO should be decided?'' I certainly hope not. U.S. troops will be in the middle of a situation fraught with antagonism and hatred. They will have to be arbiters, for example, of who lives where, who gets trained, who is ``right'' in the inevitable thousands of disputes which will arise. Inevitably, they'll become participants, and in that part of the world that means they'll be victims of the violence they are supposed to prevent. The map to which the parties have agreed is a disaster and creates ungovernable nations which the parties will, long after this incident is over, inevitably begin to fight about again. There is no realistic ``exit strategy'' because there is no likelihood that these incredibly difficult problems are going to be resolved in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, or even 100 years. Mr. President, there are countless other reasons why this is the wrong thing to do. My colleagues will be discussing them at great length, so there is no reason for me to note them here. the issue of congressional authorization Rather I would like to discuss another aspect of this issue. Mr. President, eventually the constitutional issue of whether the President must have authorization from Congress to participate in such ventures will be decided in the Congress' favor. However, in the meantime, we have a reality, a sad reality: the President can make this deployment even without congressional authorization or support. He's going to do so without congressional authorization or even congressional support. In fact he's going to do it even if the Congress disapproves. This is unfortunate, and I think the President will regret acting in this way at a time when the Congress and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of the American people, have serious doubts about this policy. We have to support our troops Mr. President, that is the reality. We in Congress have to deal as best we can with that reality--that our troops are going to Bosnia, to Croatia, to Hungary, and elsewhere in the Balkans--by doing everything in our power to support our military men and women. In short, our forces are going into a situation with many risks, with many dangers, with the potential for many of them to be injured or killed during their tour of duty. As they do so, we have to do several things: Make sure they have rules of engagement which allow them to defend themselves and deal with threats to themselves, including by force; make sure they have sufficient back up, including support forces in the region and air support to deal with threat; and, most importantly, make sure they know that no matter what the political differences at home, they have the 100 percent support of all Americans. In sum, Mr. President, no matter how much we oppose this policy, and no matter how the situation evolves in the Balkans, we have to be prepared to show our forces, in every way possible, that they have our full and unequivocal support. The future Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that it is essential that the Congress, with its oversight responsibilities, watch very carefully how this situation evolves, how our forces are treated, and how this complex and convoluted peace agreement is implemented. As we do so, we must be prepared to take appropriate action if what I firmly believe are the overly optimistic predictions of the administration do not come true. That too is an absolutely essential part of our support for our troops as they face this risky, dangerous, unprecedented, and, in my view, unfortunate endeavor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, tomorrow there will be a memorial service for the late Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson. I want to take this opportunity to express my sorrow and sadness over the passing of this man who served not only as Chaplain of the Senate for 14 years, but also as model of the Christian life. Dr. Halverson came to the Senate after serving churches in Missouri, California, and Maryland. His leadership of World Vision, the Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian College Consortium, and the prayer breakfast movement, established him as a world-renowned figure. But I always think of him as the Senate family Chaplain. He did not merely try to give guidance and wisdom to Senators. He served all in the Senate, including the family members of staffers at all levels of the Senate. In moments of great stress, I know many Senators turned to Dr. Halverson for guidance and counsel. And every day, when Dr. Halverson opened proceedings with the prayer, he gave us strength and perspective in understanding the responsibilities we hold as Senators. I am proud to have known Dr. Halverson and can truly say that I will miss him. I know that his family can be comforted in knowing that today he is with God.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was moved by the reference to the increase in trade deficit, and I ask my colleague if he would not agree that nearly half of that trade deficit is the cost of imported oil? Obviously, as a Senator from the State producing the most oil from the standpoint of domestic production, would it not be in our national energy security interest to try to relieve our dependence on imported oil, hence reduce the deficit balance of payment by developing some of our resources, if we can do it in a way that is compatible with the environment and ecology? I am particularly speaking of potential relief that we might find if, indeed, there are substantial reserves of oil in the Arctic oil reserve as part of ANWR. It would seem to me this would alleviate a concern both the Senator from North Dakota and I have inasmuch as oil does make up just about half of our trade deficit.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from North Dakota would yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have one more short statement relative to another policy of the administration. I want to speak briefly on an issue that affects my home State of Alaska. It is coming to a head during this holiday season, but unfortunately, unless there is a legislative solution the problem will not end with Christmas but it will be a gift that will keep on giving throughout the year 1996. The gift is the policies that promote unemployment. The bearer of this unwelcome present seems to be the U.S. Forest Service. In fact, it is not too strong to say that in the small community of Wrangell, AK, a town I once lived in, the U.S. Forest Service is truly becoming the Grinch that stole Christmas and is stealing the hopes and dreams of many of the people in that community. The Forest Service, under the Clinton administration, has canceled the contract that provided timber to the town's only year-round industry, a small sawmill. The Service has also been unresponsive in putting up independent sales to permit the sawmill to operate. For that reason, the timber industry in southeastern Alaska, an industry dependent upon wood from the Nation's largest national forest, the 17- million-acre Tongass National Forest, is being destroyed. People live in the forest. Unlike in many areas where you have State and private timber, in our part of the country, towns such as Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, and so forth, are all in the forest. We have the situation, since the Clinton administration came to power more than 3 years ago, that more than 1,100 direct logging jobs have been lost, cutting timber employment by 42 percent. Environmental groups earlier this year claimed loudly that the economy in southeastern Alaska did not need a timber industry, that everything was doing fine. They should tell the folks back in Wrangell, that 2,500 population town. The local newspaper a week ago filed for bankruptcy. This would end a continuous publication, for 93 years, of the Wrangell Sentinel, the longest continually published newspaper in our State. The paper is only the latest victim of the revenue loss caused for all businesses when the sawmill closed, costing more than 200 jobs in the community. Besides the newspaper, there have been jobs lost in the machine shop, the transportation company, the markets, even the fixture of the community bar, the Stikine Bar. The unthinkable has happened. The bar is shut down, putting 12 people out of work. This is the real result of the shortsighted Forest Service policies. These are not policies that will help the environment. According to the Forest Service draft of a revised Tongass Land Management Plan in 1993, enough timber could have been cut in southeast to keep all these people working with little effect, if any, on the environment. We are only seeking to harvest just 10 percent of the Tongass over a 100-year regrowth cycle, while nearly half the forest old growth is fully protected. Alaskans are seeking just to log 1.7 million acres of that forest--while nearly 7 million acres are fully protected in wilderness or other restricted areas. We are currently working on a temporary fix that may help Wrangell and other southeast towns that depend on timber to have a hope of a brighter future. Hopefully, Congress will approve the fix and I pray that the President will sign it in the Interior appropriations bill later this week. It will present a hope during the holidays for the thousands whose future depends on some level of logging in southeastern Alaska in the Tongass. But the real solution, if residents of southeastern Alaska are to dream of brighter days ahead, is for the Clinton administration to begin to think about the real pain they are causing real people in my State and to permit a rational, environmentally sound logging policy to resume in the Tongass National Forest. Logging is a renewable resource if properly managed. I remind the Forest Service that they said this set of circumstances would never happen; they would be able to maintain a modest supply of timber to allow the industry to sustain itself. That has not happened. If the Forest Service insists on stealing the Christmas of the people in Wrangell, and other towns in 1995, then in 1996 a bill that I have been working on all year with Senator Stevens and Representative Young to honor the terms of the 1990 compromise over logging in the Tongass is going to be back before this body. It is a present I intend to deliver to Alaskans before another Christmas passes. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the time allotted me. I wish the President a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 12 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I will share with my colleagues a little known fact concerning the effect of the Clinton administration's new proposed 7-year balanced budget and the effect it will have for thousands of working men and women in Western States, those men and women working specifically in the mining industry. This is a $1 billion budget bombshell that will cost thousands of domestic jobs, and it will increase our domestic balance of payments, because buried in the details of the Clinton budget alternative is a provision that would hike taxes on many mining operations on Federal land. The administration is proposing an elimination of the percentage depletion allowance for nonfuel minerals mined on public lands where mining rights were obtained by the patent process. ``Patent process'' can be construed to mean patents, as well as the process of applying for a patent. This is extraordinarily far reaching, Mr. President. According to the administration, this would save--they use the word ``save''--$954 million over 10 years, placing a $1 billion burden on our Nation's miners. You can imagine the significance of trying to be competitive in a world market, suddenly faced with a reality of losing the depletion allowance, which in many cases allows our mining industry to be competitive internationally. Why the White House has singled out the mining industry for punishment is anyone's guess. It appears to be the latest assault by Secretary Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Clinton administration on the West. The administration seems to want to paint the miners as some kind of corporate guru, the exception rather than the rule as far as the reality is concerned, because many of the operations are small mom-and- pop operations that are clearly in jeopardy by this proposal. It would provide a war on hard-working people and their jobs. Why they are singled out as the only industry for termination, one can only speculate. Oil, gas and coal jobs are not put in jeopardy by this move by the administration to lose the depletion allowance. However, one should reflect on the fact that this may be the camel's nose under the tent. It is only a matter of time until this administration will again use the Tax Code to go after oil and gas and the coal industry. Having heard my friend from North Dakota express his concern over the deficit balance of payments, I again remind the President and my colleagues, this Nation grew strong on the development of our natural resources, our oil, our coal, our gas, our timbering industry, our mining industry, our grazing industry. All these appear to be put in jeopardy. In fact, the development of resources from all public lands appears to be on the administration's blacklist. The rationale of how they could see the tremendous decline in these high-paying blue collar jobs and the reality that they seem to think it is better to import is beyond me. That is specifically exporting our dollars and our jobs overseas. I remind our colleagues, the hard rock mining industry provides approximately 120,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide. This proposal of the administration could eliminate 60,000 to 70,000 jobs. It is shortsighted and, once again, the White House seems to be proving it really does not care about the men and women working in America's resource industries. When we import more minerals, again, we are exporting jobs and exporting dollars. Unfortunately, the administration seems to be putting politics before policy. It may look good in the press but it would simply destroy America's mining industry by putting a billion-dollar burden on their backs and still expect them to be competitive internationally.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Five minutes will suffice.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe there has been a unanimous- consent request that has been acted upon relative to the continued business of this body. I wonder if I may ask unanimous consent that I may make a statement not lasting more than 5 or 6 minutes on section 609 which I think is the issue before this body.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this bill has a section, section 609, which I feel jeopardizes the new chapter in relations between the United States and Vietnam which began last July. With President Clinton's announcement at that time that he was prepared to establish full diplomatic relations with the Government of Vietnam, and with the subsequent steps to open an embassy and begin trade discussions over the last few months, the two-decade long campaign to obtain the fullest possible accounting of MIA's in Southeast Asia truly entered a new stage and a more positive phase. That progress I think is threatened by this section and I wish to go on record as opposing it. I understand the objective of the authors of the amendment. They want, as I do, to resolve the issue of accountability of the MIA's, and they believe this is the best way to achieve that objective. And while I agree with the objective, I disagree with the means which they have proposed. I supported the President's decision to establish relations. I have been over there a number of times. And I continue to believe, and evidence supports it, that increased access to Vietnam, not reduced access, leads to increased progress on the accountability issue. Resolving the fate of our MIA's has been and will remain the highest single priority of our Government. Under no circumstances should it be any different. This Nation owes that to the men and women and the families of the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and for freedom. In 1986, I was chairman of the Veterans' Committee, and I was appalled to learn at that time that we had no firsthand information about the fate of the POW/MIA's because we had no access to the Vietnamese Government records or to the Government or to the military archives or to the prisons. We could not travel to crash sites. We had no opportunity to interview Vietnamese individuals or officials. That has changed now. The American Joint Task Force, the JTF-FA personnel located in Hanoi now have access to Vietnam's Government and to its military archives and prisons. They are free to travel to crash sites and interview Vietnamese citizens and officials. As a result of these and other positive developments, the overall number of MIA's in Vietnam has been reduced significantly through a painstaking identification process. Most of the missing involve men lost over water and other circumstances where survival and identification is doubtful. Most, if not all, of the progress has come since 1991 when President Bush established the office in Hanoi devoted to resolving the fate of the MIA's and supported further activity by President Clinton. Opening this office ended almost two decades of isolation, a policy which, in my opinion, failed to meet our goals. In 1993, opponents of ending our isolationist policy argued that lifting the trade embargo would mean an end to Vietnamese cooperation. Well, this was not the case. As the Pentagon assessment from the Presidential delegation's trip to Vietnam earlier this year notes, the records offered are ``the most detailed and informative reports'' provided so far by the Government of Vietnam on missing Americans. So let me state firmly here that while we have made progress, we should not be satisfied, and we should continue to push for greater and greater results. But there are limits to the results we can obtain by potentially--potentially--turning to a failed policy which remains rooted in the past and is dominated by the principle of isolation. We have reached those limits. It is now time to continue a policy of full engagement with access and involvement. Being represented in Vietnam does not mean forgetting our MIA's. Having an embassy there does not mean that we agree with the policies of the Government of Vietnam. But it does help us promote basic American values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, and the marketplace. When Americans go abroad or export their products, we export an idea and an ideal. We export the very ideas that America went to fight for in Vietnam. Moreover, diplomatic relations give us greater latitude toward the carrot-and-stick approach. So do economic relations, as evidenced by the administration's trade team which recently visited Vietnam for the first time after relations were established. Retaining diplomatic relations will also advance other important U.S. goals. A prosperous, stable and friendly Vietnam integrated into the international community will serve as an important impediment to Chinese expansionism. Normalization should offer new opportunities for the United States to promote respect for human rights in Vietnam. Finally, competitive United States businesses which have entered into the Vietnamese market after the lifting of the trade embargo will have greater success with the full faith and confidence of the United States Government behind it. The amendment in question could jeopardize all this progress and put us back where we were several years ago, which is nowhere. Now I understand that the President plans to veto this bill for a variety of reasons, including because of this amendment. As the administration has told us, it ``regrets the inclusion of extraneous language in the bill related to the presence of United States Government facilities in Vietnam.'' As a result, I expect that the bill will come back to us, to the conference committee, to be considered again. I hope at that time this section will be removed, or at least modified in a way which will not stop progress down the road which has already led to many positive results. Mr. President. Let me conclude by repeating what I said last July when we first moved toward establishing relations with Vietnam, when I said that I hope that step will continue this country's healing process. I think now, as I thought then, that the time has come to treat Vietnam as a country--and not as a war.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. And I again want to thank my good friend from West Virginia for his accommodation. I wish him a good day. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday, President Clinton, with a great deal of fanfare and theatrics, vetoed the first balanced budget legislation sent to any President in the last three decades. Think about that a moment, Mr. President. The first balanced budget legislation sent to any President in nearly three decades was vetoed yesterday by President Clinton. What is the accumulated debt of this country? It is $4.9 trillion. That occurred as a consequence of prevailing Democratic control of both the House and Senate during those decades. The veto was very well orchestrated, with the President deciding to use the same pen that the late President Lyndon Johnson used to sign the original Medicare legislation back in 1965. However, in what may be a metaphor for this President, when he put pen to the paper, nothing happened; the pen was out of ink, just as the President is out of ideas and just as Medicare is out of money. Mr. President, the American public deserves better. Throughout the entire year, Republicans in Congress have worked night and day to develop and pass a real balanced budget along with family tax relief. There were some Democrats who worked with us. And what has the President done this year? Absolutely nothing. He has spoken empty rhetoric about wanting to balance the budget. Mr. President, there is a difference between wanting and doing. President Clinton has submitted two budgets this year. The first one-- think about this--the first one did not receive a single vote, Democrat or Republican, when we voted on it in the Senate, not one single vote, because the President's first budget would have led us to unending deficits and a sea of red ink for the indefinite future. He came along and said his second budget would balance in 10 years. But like everything else with this President, rhetoric and reality are inconsistent. It is what the polls say that motivates the actions down at the White House. When the Congressional Budget Office scored the President's second budget, they again found endless annual deficits--in excess of $200 billion. Now the President says he is going to send us a third budget, and this one will be balanced in 7 years. I am a little cynical simply because I have been there before. I am from Missouri--maybe--when in reality I am from Alaska, but the same point is applicable. After two false starts, I wish to see something real. I hope the President does send us a balanced budget, but I have had an opportunity this morning for a preview of what we anticipate is his effort, and it does not balance. It simply does not balance. So as a consequence, I fear we are facing a third situation where the President has sent us something that is totally unacceptable. I hope that the President will be willing to recognize and give the American family the relief they need from taxes. I hope he will give Americans incentives to invest in our future and save. I hope that he would give Americans an opportunity for hope--hope that Government can be downsized, more efficient, more responsive. And I hope he will give America the economic security that will come from allowing oil exploration to proceed in ANWR, which I note in his veto statement he rejected. On that point, I would like to defer to his veto statement where he suggests, under title V, the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas threatens a unique, pristine ecosystem in hopes it will generate $1.3 billion in Federal revenues, revenues based on wishful thinking, and outdated analysis. Mr. President, the wishful thinking is in the eyes of some of America's environmental community that focuses on this as a cause for membership and a cause of raising dollars at the expense of our national energy security, and at the expense of our jobs and at the expense of American technology. Geologists have indicated that this area is the most likely area in North America where a major oil discovery could take place. And to suggest the arguments that prevailed against Prudhoe Bay 20 years ago are now being applied to the opening up of ANWR are not realistic is really selling American technology and ingenuity short. This could be the largest single job producer in the United States for the remainder of the century. It could be the largest contributor, if you will, to an increase in tax revenue for the Federal and State governments. The consequence of the President's shortsightedness in dismissing this really underestimates the capability of America's can-do spirit and advanced technology. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say the American public today is fed up with this lack of leadership. The American public wants a balanced budget [[Page S 18120]] they can understand. They do not understand the dispute between the OMB and the CBO figures. They want a balanced budget that simply says the revenue will equal the outflow. We got into this situation as a consequence of spending more money than we generated in revenues, and there is only one way to correct that: Either through increased revenues or reduced spending. We Republicans, I think, have delivered a responsible pledge. It is now up to the President to transform his words into deeds. It is time for the President to get serious, to send us his proposals for balancing the budget with no phony numbers, no rosy scenarios. And it is time for the posturing to end and the serious business of balancing the budget to begin. I thank my colleagues and wish them a good day. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from Idaho. I wish the President a good morning.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last Saturday we saw once again proof that democracy is alive and well in Taiwan. In free and fair parliamentary elections contested by three leading parties, and with several independent candidates, with some 67 percent participation, and with no unrest or contesting of the results, the people of Taiwan chose their own legislative representatives. By that act, those people once again proved that Taiwan is becoming a mature, democratic state worthy of our admiration. Let me review here the results of the election. The Kuominatang [KMT] or National Party, which has been ruling Taiwan for many years, won a narrow majority of seats, 85 out of a total of 164, and saw their numbers reduced from 90. The Democratic Progressive Party [DPP], which has been the major opposition group for several years, and which advocates moving toward independence, increased its seats from 50 to 54 seats. The New Party [NP], which advocates a policy of reunification with China, was probably the biggest winner in the polls, increasing its seats [[Page S 18104]] from 7 to 21. Finally, a total of four independents won seats in the new legislature. As is usual following any election, the media pundits are busy analyzing the results and the trends they may or may not indicate. Some papers are saying that the reduction in the KMT's seats and the increase by the NP were the result, in part, of China's attempts to intimidate the Taiwanese over the last few months by testing missiles near Taiwan's shores and making bellicose threats against any attempt to move toward independence. Given what I know about the Taiwanese people, who can be very defiant when challenged, I wonder if this is an accurate analysis. And I certainly hope that the Chinese Government doesn't believe that its tactics of intimidation are going to work. But no matter what the reason for the result, I think the important point that should be emphasized, as Keith Richburg did in the Washington Post, is that, ``Perhaps most remarkable about the elections was that they took place at all. Just 8 years ago, Taiwan was still under martial law. But in 1988 President Lee Teng-Hui launched his quiet revolution to shift Taiwan toward multiparty democracy. Taiwan has emerged as one of Asia's liveliest democracies and the world's freest and most democratic Chinese society.'' I'm sure that every analyst will agree with that statement. So where are we now, Mr. President? In my view, as a result of the election, the KMT will have to take the steps that any Democratic Party would have to take to ensure passage of its program. There will likely be increased maneuvering on votes among the parties as alliances are formed, issue-by-issue, among the three parties. In short, the legislature will have to take into account the will of the people and their elected representatives--a situation which may cause some inefficiencies in the short term, but which will only strengthen Taiwan in the long term as democracy takes firmer hold in that society. Mr. President, as you know, the next and equally important step in making Taiwan a fully democratized state is a free and fair, multicandidate presidential election. That will take place next march, and it, like the legislative campaign, promises to be very lively. While President Lee Teng-Hui of the KMT party is favored to win the election at the moment, I'm sure that he and the other candidates will be campaigning very hard over the next month to seek the people's mandate. And that too is a very important matter to keep in mind. No matter who wins the presidential election, the Taiwanese people will be able to say, next March, that their freely elected President and their freely elected legislature will, for the very first time, have a full and complete mandate. That in turn will allow the elected leaders to feel confident that the people are behind them as they deal with Taiwan's future and, most important, as they determine their relationship with the People's Republic of China. Then, and presuming that soon the power struggle in the PRC will be over, it is my hope that both sides will return to a period of reduced tensions and renewed contacts, both economic and political. In the meantime, it is important for us to take note of positive steps like the Taiwan parliamentary elections which advance the democratization of the world. The people of Taiwan deserve not only our congratulations but also our support as they and their representatives map out their destiny in what we hope will be, in the future, a less volatile and a more peaceful region.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Then, Mr. President, I would send the modification to the desk and ask for its consideration at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, my amendment authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to Alaska because of the unique rural sanitation conditions in my State. It would improve rural sanitation by assisting with the Federal share--50 percent--of the costs of specifically two items. One, the development and construction of water and wastewater systems, and second, the training, technical assistance, and educational programs relating to the operation and management of sanitation services. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure future funds are provided to improve Alaska's rural sanitation conditions. Our delegation-- Senator Stevens, Representative Young, and myself--have supported $15 million in the EPA's budget this year for rural sanitation, and Senator Stevens on the Appropriations Committee has obtained appropriations in previous years. The problem we have is that the residents of rural Alaska simply do not have adequate drinking water or sanitation facilities. As a consequence, we have an abnormally high amount of sickness and disease, and on some occasions, conditions can be compared to some Third World countries, unfortunately. It is estimated that about one-fourth of Alaska's 86,000 Native residents live without running water and use plastic buckets for toilets. These are commonly called ``honey buckets.'' As a consequence, Mr. President, we have had numerous cases of hepatitis A among villagers, in some instances causing death. I have a chart here which depicts the level of existing wastewater services in rural Alaska communities, and as the Chair will note the area in dark blue indicates about 49 percent of the chart, which is the area of the population dependent on pit privies or honey buckets; 37 percent have flush toilets; 14 percent have a haul system where the honey bucket man comes once a week and hauls the sewage away. In over half of the villages in Alaska, water is hauled to the home by hand from a washeteria, watering points, or from a creek or river. A washeteria is a centrally located community building with washing and drying machines, showers, and so forth. Often times, Mr. President, the trash can is used as a water storage tank. Water for drinking, hand washing, and doing dishes comes from this household trash can, and you can imagine the potential for disease as a consequence of that type of transmission. Existing water service levels in rural Alaska have improved, but they have a long way to go. Only 40 percent of rural Alaska has piped water to residents; 30 percent use a washeteria; 20 percent use a year round watering point; 7 percent have individual wells, and 3 percent have no system at all. One can imagine the residents of this city living without the convenience of running water or toilets that flush. In conclusion, I will continue to work to provide safe drinking water to rural Alaska and along with my colleague, Senator Stevens, we want to see the elimination of the honey bucket in rural Alaska. That is a goal. And as the country moves toward the 21st century, Alaska's rural residents should not have to live in these conditions, again often compared to Third World countries. I wish to especially acknowledge Carol Spils of my staff who has been working with the Environment and Public Works Committee for a long time on this legislation. I would ask that the amendment be considered at this time by the committee. If there are additional details to be worked out, I would be happy to pursue them currently or if the floor managers are satisfied with them, why, I would ask they be included in the package. I would send up the amendment and modification, if it is appropriate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my staff has been working with the floor leaders on S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act, relative to an amendment which has been discussed at some length. I am sure the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee will respond to the status of the amendment. But it would authorize the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants. May I check with the floor leader relative to the status of my amendment authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to Alaska to improve rural sanitation by paying the Federal share, 50 percent, of the cost of those improvements? I would like to offer the amendment, if the leader has not offered it and speak very briefly on it.

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