Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 discuss leasing of the Arctic oil reserve located on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration and production and the inclusion of the leasing revenues in the Budget Reconciliation. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Andrew Lundquist at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator from Wisconsin will yield for a question.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are trying to document accurately the circumstances, and I heard about these free haircuts all morning, but I know of none and my friend from Wisconsin evidently knows of none. So I encourage my colleagues to take a free haircut with a grain of salt because we can get trimmed on the edges, but if we do not portray accurately what this gift ban is all about, why, then I think we are misleading ourselves, as well as being misled on the issue itself. If we are going to talk about free haircuts----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I intend to speak at the appropriate time when my friend from Wisconsin has completed his statement, with the Chair's permission. But I would like to ask a question. I have been sitting here for the last 15 minutes or so, and I heard time and time again about this free haircut business. The Senator from Alaska has been in this body for 15 years. I am not aware of what the procedure was prior to 15 years ago. I would appreciate it if the Senator from Wisconsin could enlighten me on just where those free haircuts allegedly have occurred over the last 15 years, because this Senator is certainly not knowledgeable. I go down and pay $17 for a haircut about every 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks. Could my friend from Wisconsin identify where these free haircuts occur and are available to Members of this body? I would get trimmed all the time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not think there is any question that we need reform, and campaign finance gift ban, et cetera, are appropriate for this body to resolve, but I suggest that there are a few statements that do need some enlightenment. I will refer briefly to a reference made by the Senator from Wisconsin with regard to the perception that Members get free hair cuts. Mr. President, as I stated, when I asked my friend from Wisconsin if he had any knowledge just where a person gets a free hair cut--I have been in this body 15 years, I have read it, that somehow Members are perceived to get free hair cuts--I know of no free hair cuts in existence during the 15 years I have been here. I think this is part of the perception that is out there, that Members do get free hair cuts. We get clipped, we get shaved, but we do not get free hair cuts, Mr. President. It is a misnomer. I think there are other extended examples where it is assumed that because there is a gym, that we get free services. We corrected that some time ago. Those Members that want to pay and receive the services of the gym pay an amount each year equivalent to the cost of those services. That is appropriate. To suggest that somehow this is something that is extreme, that is not accepted in the private sector--if you are with a corporation, oftentimes you have the use of a gym or work-out facility, and anyone that looked at the facility here would come to the conclusion that it is pretty antiquated, I think about early 1910 or 1915, thereabouts. But in any event, I want to put that issue aside, because the reality that somehow this is a gravy train, that there are benefits associated with this, are not applicable in the private sector, I think, bears further examination. As we look at the merits of this legislation before the Senate, the Levin-Wellstone legislation, private entities would not be able to reimburse Members for the cost of transportation and lodging, for participation in charitable events. If we think about this, Mr. President, there is an inconsistency here. Why is there not a ban on reimbursement for political events? What is a political event? A political event is something, perhaps, that occurs in Los Angeles, perhaps it occurs in the Bahamas, perhaps it occurs in Florida, and a Member can go down and participate and receive reimbursement for travel, reimbursement for transportation. Now, under the bill before the Congress, the Levin-Wellstone legislation, Members would still be permitted to be privately reimbursed if they travel to a fundraising event for another Member, in other words, a political fundraiser. Now, under the Senate Ethics Committee rules, the interpreted rule No. 193, it is my understanding that a Senator may accept travel expenses from an official of a district's political party organization in return for his or her appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization. In other words, Mr. President, we are mandating that we will still allow reimbursement, private reimbursement, for political events. We can get our travel paid, we can get our hotel room paid. Mr. President, every Member of this body, because we are all in the business of politics, has at one time or another made a campaign appearance for his party, or a candidate of his party, and often that means flying to another Member's home State, attending a party function, maybe making a speech, sharing a meal, maybe attending an entertainment or sports function. The entire cost is covered by lobbyists and other political contributors. As we look at the merits of this legislation, we should recognize the inconsistency associated with the hypocritical posture that we are putting ourselves in. We are saying, in the gift ban/campaign finance reform, we are eliminating the reimbursement for participation in charities, and we are still allowing full reimbursement for political events for travel, and for lodging. Who pays for it? Political contributors--lobbyists. Why does this proposed campaign finance reform, gift ban and so forth not address political events? Mr. President, we know why. Several Members do not want to talk about that. They are hoping that nobody will bring up the inconsistency and the hypocrisy associated with this bill in the manner it is currently structured. I fail to understand why the sponsors of the legislation would not simply go through and say, ``Let's clean the whole slate. Let's prohibit the other part of this, the unmentionable, the political events.'' It is rather curious, Mr. President, for convenience and other reasons, this has been left out. We have a situation, again, where a Senator can travel all over the country, attending political fundraisers, have lodging, and transportation reimbursement, but a Senator cannot attend a charity event, and get reimbursed. A Senator cannot attend events that raise money for worthwhile causes and have the costs of travel and lodging reimbursed. Is that not an inconsistency? Does this really make sense? Why is it all right for a political action committee to host a $500- a-plate political fundraiser or give a campaign check for $2,000 or $3,000 to an elected official but there can be no solicitation of corporations or other individuals to participate in a charitable event that only benefits a small community or State? I believe this whole notion of preventing Senators and corporations from sharing and raising money for a worthwhile cause outside the beltway, but allowing $5,000 to $10,000 gifts, smacks of sheer hypocrisy. This Senator is prepared to pursue legislation that would address corrective measures to include in this broad campaign finance gift ban prohibition on reimbursement for political events for travel and lodging. Why is it that, in the structure of the proposed legislation, we have eliminated reimbursement for charitable travel? We have had spirited debate about the role and influence that lobbyists and corporations play in shaping the public's perception of the political process in Washington. We have heard a little bit about that public perception. We have heard mentioned, time and time again, the free haircuts. There are not any free haircuts. I have been here 15 years and I defy a Member to suggest where you could get a free haircut in the last 15 years. To get back to my point, much has been made of the fact that corporations have sponsored Senators' travel and lodging in connection with events designed to raise money for charity. But nobody is saying anything about the contributions from lobbyists and political contributors that will allow each of us to go off and attend a political fundraiser in the Bahamas or the Virgin Islands or Florida or Hawaii and get reimbursement for travel and lodging. Why do we not fix it all? [[Page S 10592]] Clearly, it is too sensitive. Politics is our business and we want to exclude, in the perception of things, those that we feel have some exposure, but not those that we feel are necessary--yet provide the same base of support, political contributors and lobbyists. When Senator McConnell submitted the Senate gift rule reform resolution, Senate Resolution 126, it provided that Senators would be permitted to be privately reimbursed for lodging and transportation in connection with charitable fundraising events only if the Senate Select Committee on Ethics determined, ``that participating in the charity event is in the interests of the Senate and the United States.'' So, a Member of the Senate could be privately reimbursed for attending a charitable fundraiser only if the Ethics Committee makes a determination that the charitable function is in both the public interest as well as the interests of the Senate. I believe one of our responsibilities, as public officials, is to promote worthwhile charity causes. Most of us are inclined to associate ourselves with those, from time to time. Not everything that can be done for the public good derives from Government. We all know that. Private charities play a vital role in servicing many of the needs of our citizens. Last year, in my State of Alaska, we had a situation that occurred where the mammogram machine in Fairbanks, AK, which had been in operation for several years, was growing older and it was difficult to get certified. This was a service that had been provided for many women. My wife is associated with it. It was started in the mid-1970's. They offered free mammograms for women in the Fairbanks area and surrounding smaller communities. It became necessary to look at just how that group was going to continue to maintain that free service. We started a fundraiser to purchase a new mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center in Fairbanks, AK. The idea was to hold a fishing event, a fishing tournament at a place called Waterfall, in southeastern Alaska. We held that event and raised $150,000, and were able to buy a new mammogram machine for the Fairbanks breast cancer clinic. It was cleared by the Ethics Committee, corporations contributed, their members came, they fished, and the breast cancer clinic got a new mammogram machine. As a consequence, the center was able to continue to provide free breast cancer examinations and mammograms for some 3,700 women who came to the Fairbanks breast cancer clinic for screening. They came from 81 villages in my State of Alaska. This August, my wife, Nancy, and I are going to be hosting a second event for the center to raise money for a second mammography unit. This is going to be a mobile mammography unit. It will fit into a van. It can traverse the limited highways in Alaska. But more important, it will be able to go into the National Guard C-130 aircraft, which will go out on their training missions and fly into the various villages where there are no roads, and offer this free service to many of the Native women in the bush area of Alaska. This is an example of a function that would be banned under the current bill. We think we can raise, this year, another $150,000 to $175,000. This will allow us to buy a mobile unit. It alleviates a situation where many women will be covered who otherwise are unable to travel into Fairbanks and other areas for tests. They will be able to receive this free screening in their local communities. Otherwise, they would not be able to avail themselves to this technology. So, this kind of a contribution, this kind of charitable event, would be eliminated and, as a consequence, the opportunity to provide vital health services to many of Alaska's rural women would be lost. The State's cancer mortality rate, I might add, is the third highest in the Nation. One in eight Alaska women, I am told, will develop some type of breast cancer. And breast cancer screening can reduce these amounts, I am told, by better than 30 percent. I believe, without the money raised from these two fundraisers, the health of Alaska's women would be reduced to some extent. I am proud of the work my wife and other women, as well as members of the community, have done in providing volunteer efforts to operate these units. But the point is, if we change the rules on charitable events, why, these types of charities will have to find a new home. And if the rules had been changed prior to this, I am convinced that neither of these units would have become a reality. I know of several Members who participate in charity events. Senator Pryor has been running a golf tournament for some time in Texarkana to raise funds for children with development disabilities. Senator Jay Rockefeller has been a supporter of funds for children's health care projects and nonprofit organizations, that I understand operates mobile vans in New York City and rural West Virginia and other locations. Most of you know my colleague, former Senator Jake Garn of Utah, raised a great deal of money for the primary children's medical center in Salt Lake City. Many of us have been at those occasions to assist in the raising of those funds for those worthwhile causes. So, do we want to end our participation and the participation of corporations in these causes simply because there is a so-called perception problem? One of the other things that is even more important than perceptions is proximity, because if we eliminate the ability to participate in charitable events, from the standpoint of travel and reimbursement for lodging, it does not exclude charitable events in the beltway area. So, for those of us who live great distances, we have a problem. But for those who are close to Washington, DC, they can hold a charitable event right here in Washington where there is no need for reimbursement for travel--transportation. So my point, I think, is one of equity. It would basically eliminate charitable events in my State, in California, Oregon, Washington, the West--where, indeed, for a Member to come out, there is a transportation expense of some significance as well as lodging. But if you have it here, where you do not have a problem for reimbursement for transportation or for lodging, why, you can have it. That discriminates against those of us out West. If you eliminate the reimbursement for transportation and lodging then you are in a situation where the only alternative is to hold the event in Washington, DC, and perhaps if you are a large national charitable organization that has the clout to hold such an event in Washington, DC, why you can go ahead and have it successfully. But for those of us in the Western part of the United States, it is just not practical to expect we are going to be able to put on a charitable event here, in Washington, DC, and have the degree of success that we would have if we are able to hold it in our own State. Certainly, if you are a small organization like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer Detection Center, or some of the other charities that I have mentioned, you do not have the resources or the capability to hold your event in the Nation's capital. If Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging reimbursement, events like mine, and others, are going to disappear. They are going to disappear because it costs too much to get to Alaska or to get to other small States. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, I am very sensitive to the prohibition that is in this legislation which would disallow reimbursement for travel and lodging for participation in charitable events. Let us face it, Mr. President. In many of these cases, the presence of the Senators is significant in the ability to raise money for the charitable event itself. This would be eliminated. I hope there still will be some way that we can meet some kind of a compromise in this area. The legitimacy of the event, of course, is the fact that it would have to receive approval from the Ethics Committee. Those who say, ``Well, since the Ethics Committee is made of up Senators, how in the world could you have an unbiased evaluation of the merits?'' That is absolutely ridiculous thinking. If we cannot police ourselves within the Ethics Committee structure to set certain oversight and criteria for charitable events, why, probably none of us should be here. So I am quite confident that the Ethics Committee can set precedents to ensure that the perceptions associated with the worthiness of participation in these charitable events is handled in such a way as to provide a check and a [[Page S 10593]] balance and a public disclosure. Let us ask the public what they think about the ability and the worthiness of some of these charitable contributions that have been made as a consequence of the presence of a Senator. Mr. President, I feel so strongly about this that I am seriously thinking of pursuing legislation on the Levin-Wellstone bill that would preclude reimbursement for the cost of transportation and lodging for political events--if, indeed, my colleagues feel that we must have sweeping legislation with regard to campaign reform and gift ban-- because of the inconsistency, because of the hypocrisy associated with addressing charitable functions and not addressing the other. The other is where Members receive payment from the political organization or the political function or political event which is made up of contributions of lobbyists and other political contributors so that we can travel for those events, and so that we can stay at the elegant hotels in Florida or Virginia, in the Bahamas, and Hawaii. So I think we had better examine a little more thoroughly the ramifications of just what we are doing and just what we are trying to sell to the American public. We are trying to sell to the American public gift ban, finance reform, and convince the American public that there are no free haircuts--and there have not been. But what we are not doing, very cleverly--we do not hear this mentioned--is that we are not banning reimbursement for political events, transportation and lodging, but we are reaching out in a prohibition against participation in charitable events. Well, I find that hypocritical, so hypocritical that this Senator is proposing at some point in time, if we do not get some balance in this process so we can continue a worthwhile contribution to charitable events under whatever set of rules is appropriate for the Ethics Committee to come down with, that I would propose that we also include a ban on reimbursement for transportation and lodging to those political events, because Members are still permitted to be reimbursed for travel to a fundraising event for another Member, or political organization. This is under the Senate Ethics Committee's interpretative rules that a Senator may accept travel expenses from an official of a district's political party organization in return for his appearance at a rally sponsored by that organization. And again, Mr. President, let us look at the makeup of those organizations. Those organizations are supported by lobbyists, political contributors, and that is where the funds come from for reimbursement for each Member who might attend as he or she seeks reimbursement for travel and lodging. So I guess my concluding question is, if we are going to cut out reimbursement for charitable events for travel and transportation after it has been cleared by our own Ethics Committee, why are we not doing the same thing, banning reimbursement for travel and lodging, for political events? It is hypocritical to do one and not the other. So I hope, as the day goes on and we debate this matter fully, that we examine a little bit more the inconsistency, and that the American public wakes up to what is attempting to be done here. It is a bit of window dressing. It is a bit of telling the American people that we have this grandiose scheme for campaign finance, gift ban, and no more free haircuts, as if we have ever had them. But what we are not telling the American public is we are going to still keep our ability to seek reimbursement for travel and lodging for political events. Well, I hope the American public and the media pick up and understand the difference. I hope that some balance remains in this body, and that we recognize the significance of what our contributions and corporate contributions mean to the charities in this country. If we are going to ban the charities and not ban the political events, why, indeed, hypocrisy is the note of the day. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent for about a minute as in morning business to introduce a bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Good morning, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Montana and the Senator from California, who have been so gracious to extend me a minute this morning. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 1054 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 nomination of John Garamendi to be the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. The hearing will take place Thursday, July 27, 1995, 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reluctantly reinitiate a debate concerning the management of the Tongass National Forest. I thought and hoped that Congress had resolved this issue with the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA). I want to emphasize my reluctance and unhappiness with the need to initiate corrective legislative action because the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was hailed by all concerned as a dramatic resolution to a long- standing debate on how to manage the Tongass. The congressional deliberations leading up to passage involved, as Senator Johnston, my colleague from Louisiana, put it ``extraordinary cooperation'' among all of the parties involved. When we passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990, I believe that Congress agreed with the Bush administration that--as long as the demand for timber existed--the industry should be provided sufficient volume from the remaining 1.7 million acre commercial forest land base to maintain the same amount of direct timber employment from operations on the Tongass National Forest that it enjoyed in 1990. I believe that all parties agreed that maintaining this level of employment was part of the compromise underlying the bill. Well, the Congress withdrew 1.1 million acres of land; and the Bush administration unilaterally modified the long term timber sale contracts on the Tongass, and required buffer strips on all major anadramous streams. But the jobs portion of the compromise has been largely ignored by the current administration. Since 1990, direct timber employment on the Tongass National Forest has been reduced by more than 42 percent. As I see it, there are two principal reasons for this decline: First, the Forest Service has failed to seek to meet market demand as required by TTRA section 101; and second, a variety of environmental groups have administratively appealed or litigated most proposed timber sales. Today 13 of 23 currently proposed sales are held up because of legal action taken by the environmentalists. These enjoined sales now make it impossible for the Forest Service to ameliorate the impacts of the sales it has withdrawn from the pipeline. What is happening in southeast Alaska is unfortunately not unique. Through a combination of Clinton administration initiatives and environmental group litigation we are seeing all forms of economic activity--timber, grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration--driven off our public lands throughout the country. We are engaged in a policy of exporting both our jobs and some of our environmental problems to other nations. They will meet our material needs through production processes far less sophisticated and environmentally sensitive than our own. I represent the largest national forest in our system. I cannot believe that this forest cannot be managed to sustain a forest industry. I can no longer stand by as that industry is destroyed. Let me first turn to Forest Service malfeasance and nonfeasance, for it is with the Agency's performance that I am most unhappy. There are four reasons why the Forest Service has been unable or unwilling to meet market demand: First, the Forest Service in Alaska has reinterpreted the definition of ``viable population of a species'' such that it is managing habitat to require that all species exist on all areas of the Tongass, not just the portion of the Tongass to which a particular species is indigenous; second, in accordance with its new hypersensitivity to species protection, the Forest Service in the spring of 1994 canceled the Alaska Pulp Corporation [APC] long term contract, withdrew 600,000 acres, and related timber sales, from the 1.7 million acre commercial forest land base remaining after the 1990 act, and moved Ketchikan Pulp Company [KPC] into the APC contract areas so that habitat conservation areas [HCAs] and goshawk reservation areas could be established on a portion of KPC's then existing sales; third, the Forest Service has subordinated Section 101 of TTRA to species protection concerns, interpreting this part of the compromise as non- binding; and fourth, the environmental groups lawsuits have eliminated the Agency's ability to offset the effects of the first three developments. My most immediate concern with the situation that the Forest Service has created is that it is rapidly getting worse. That is why I, along with other members of the Alaska Delegation, have come to the conclusion that we must act today. Let me describe the situation that exists. The log shortage commenced with the Forest Service action in setting aside habitat conservation areas and goshawk reservation areas in the spring of 1994, continues to cause job reductions, and now threatens new job reductions. KPC has approximately 120 mmbf of timber on hand, needs approximately 220 mmbf to get through the winter until April or May of 1996, and can only achieve this additional volume if timber which is currently enjoined is made available by the Forest Service during this timber harvest season. Meanwhile, the Ketchikan sawmill is closed, the Wrangell sawmill is closed, and the Annette sawmill is operating on one shift only. The timber sales program for the independent and small business timber industry, SBA, currently has 63.6 million board feet of timber under contract as of July 1, 1995. Only 5.92 million board feet of newly advertised SBA and independent timber sales have been made available in 1995 from all three supervisory areas of the Tongass. This should result in one independent SBA production facility closing by September 30, 1995, with a further reduction of regional, independent sawmill operations in the first quarter of 1996. The Forest Service's response to this situation is to continue to assure the Alaska Delegation to rely on the Agency to rectify the crisis as they complete the Tongass Land Management Plan [TLMP] revision process. At first, this sounded attractive. But then we looked into how the Forest Service is conducting the plan revision process. The Agency is making a bad situation worse. Consequently, the TLMP revision will not and cannot resolve this crisis for the following reasons. The TLMP revision process is designed solely to modify the 1991 draft plan alternatives. The 1991 alternatives were the first revision designed to implement the 1990 Act. The Forest Service is modifying this draft to consider such matters as population viability, cave issues, and ecosystem management. All of these priorities will likely reduce timber volumes from the 1991 alternatives; and from what has been offered to date. Second, the current Forest Service approach to implementing the 1990 act and providing timber volume is to reduce market demand to the capacity of only those mills which remain open. Each time a mill closes, volume has been reduced accordingly. This ensures the continued closure of the Ketchikan and Wrangell sawmills, and precludes building a replacement medium density fiberboard facility for the closed pulpmill in Sitka. In my view, all of this is contrary to Congress' intent in the 1990 TTRA compromise. Third, on June 30, 1995, Regional Forester Janik made public the 10- year timber sale projection shown on this chart. This was the final straw that broke the camel's back. This schedule shows an annual average volume of 278 million board feet. As this 10-year period mirrors the 10-year planning horizon for TLMP, we can only assume that the Forest Service has already made up its mind to drop the ASQ to 2.5 billion from the current 4.5 billion board feet, essentially reducing volume availability by almost half. This is both unacceptable, and unconscionable given the Agency's arguments that we rely on the TLMP revision process to fix the timber supply crisis. Fourth, the TLMP scientists have been given an extremely short schedule which provides them insufficient time to collect and analyze data. This converts the TLMP science into off-hand impressions, which will be extremely conservative because of insufficient data. The October 24-26, 1994 meeting notes of the Forest Service's so-called goshawk committee, which have already been the subject of press reports, highlight this problem. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee conducted two oversight hearings on the management of the Tongass National Forest. The hearings were held in Washington, DC, on May 18; and in Wrangell, AK on June 1. In all, the committee heard from 55 witnesses, with an additional 100 or so statements for the record. The Clinton administration was well represented at each hearing. The Alaska Delegation has also been involved in a prolonged discussion with the administration--including an exchange of detailed correspondence with Secretary Glickman--in an attempt to fashion an administrative solution to the timber supply crisis on the Tongass National Forest. Regrettably, that does not now seem possible. The administration appears to be fixed on a path that can only increase job losses in the region. The administration seems to be wedded to a Tongass land management plan revision process that cannot solve the problem. So, where does this leave us? In short, if we continue on our current path, we will most certainly not provide for sufficient volume to maintain jobs at the 1990 level. The compromise I envisioned in enacting the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act will not be realized. The Southeast Alaska Jobs and Communities Protection Act which I am introducing today addresses these problems by restoring the 1990 compromise, and by providing the Forest Service with the ability which it says it lacks to reconcile the provisions of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act and the more general public land and environmental statutes. The organizing principle behind my proposal is the protection of jobs-- the number of jobs that existed in 1990, and that we sought to protect with the 1990 act. The mechanism to accomplish this goal is very simple. Whenever the Forest Service feels it has to reduce the timber base on the Tongass in a fashion that will reduce jobs, the Agency must revisit the land set-asides in the 1990 act and replace the loss of timber base with enough lands to maintain the jobs. By focusing on jobs, and providing the Forest Service with flexibility that it says it does not now have, the Southeast Alaska Jobs and Communities Protection Act avoids tying the Agency's hands, or setting a mandated harvest level. Indeed, provisions in the bill requiring additional primary processing and encouraging value added manufacturing ensure that we get the maximum employment potential out of each stick of timber. Mr. President, I will not review each provision of the bill. Rather, I will submit a section-by-section summary for the record. Suffice it to say that the bill incorporates suggestions from all sides included in the 155 or more pieces of testimony received at our oversight hearings. In the same spirit as the 1990 act and today's proposal were drafted, I now invite all interested parties to offer in their constructive suggestions. I will schedule hearings on the measure, and hope to work closely with the administration and Senator Johnston in the same kind of extraordinary cooperation that was the hallmark of the 1990 effort. This cooperation is necessary because the status quo has become untenable. Even so, we have heard from some that: First, there is no timber supply problem on the Tongass; second, even if there is, they are not at fault; third, we need many more hearings before we do anything; and fourth, we need to sit back and allow the Forest Service to make the 1990 act work. The general pattern of these arguments is not unfamiliar to me. Change a few words, and you could be summarizing the timber industry's arguments prior to 1990 in defending the status quo embodied in the 1980 act. In the late 1980's the Forest Service was slow to acknowledge that there was a problem, and then grudgingly worked with the Congress toward a solution. They are in a similar posture today. Also, as was the case in the late 1980's, middle ground interests like the Southeast Conference went beyond the posturing and the rhetoric to help isolate the problems and identify solutions. That is also the approach that the Southeast Conference took at our oversight hearings. Many of their suggestions are included in today's proposal. By contrast, polemical broadsides and ad hominem attacks are neither helpful in solving this problem, nor an effective smokescreen to distract people who are losing their jobs. It is true that today both sides in the Tongass debate are in court challenging the implementation of the 1990 compromise. They both have lawyers, plenty of them. Forest conflicts usually increase the number of lawyers, even as they decrease the amount of timber. If lawyers were as useful as 2x4's maybe we wouldn't have such a problem today. But it is time for everyone concerned to get beyond denial. The current situation will be improved neither by the TLMP revision, nor by more lawsuits. We will act because we have no choice. Unless we do, we will: First, lose the opportunity to reopen the Wrangell and Ketchikan sawmills; second, forego by default the possibility of establishing a medium density fiberboard mill in Sitka; third, discourage entrepreneurs who are presently considering the construction of a sawmill and kiln-dry facilities in Sitka; and fourth, suffer additional production curtailments at the Ketchikan pulp mill, and the closure of additional sawmills. We are eager to receive--and are already receiving from thoughtful people--suggestions on how to proceed. Our objective is simply this: restore the compromise, and the jobs inherent in it, in the 1990 TTRA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah and wish the Chair a good day. I know it is late in the afternoon. I just wanted to make a few remarks with regard to the status of our regulatory reform debate that has been going on for an extended period of time. There is no question, Mr. President, that we all want to see regulatory reform legislation passed by this Congress for two very, very important reasons. They are simply fairness and common sense. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we passed out a bill that would accomplish fairness and common sense, and in so doing address corrections needed in our regulatory process. We passed a bill that was easily understood. And, as a consequence, we find ourselves immersed now in almost a legal discussion of various types of binding conditions associated with what was generally understood to be a high degree of frustration among the public, a public which was frustrated over policies of the Environmental Protection Agency such as the one that occurred in the largest city of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, where the city was notified that the water that accumulated after rains in the drains that ordinarily went out in Cook Inlet for disposal. Cook Inlet has some 30-foot tides twice a day. Suddenly, the city was advised that they were in violation because, prior to discharging that water, 30 percent of the organic matter had to be removed. In testing the water they found there was no organic matter to be removed, and they appealed to the Environmental Protection Agency. Surprisingly enough, the EPA simply came back and said, ``You are out of compliance and subject to fine.'' As a consequence, some enterprising member of the city council suggested that they add some fish guts to the drainage system so that they would have something to remove that was organic and, therefore, comply. Finally, the issue got so much publicity, Mr. President, that the Environmental Protection Agency saw fit to, so-called, ``clean their skirts.'' So they wrote a letter saying, ``Yes, these were the circumstances, but they did not make the city of Anchorage put the organic matter, the fish guts, into the water system.'' People of Alaska understood that. They understood the lack of sense that such a mandate made. We have these horror stories. We have heard them on the floor. Another concern that was expressed from time to time was the realization that citizens will not be asked to pay huge amounts of money to have trace amounts of arsenic or radon or chloroform removed from their drinking water when there was absolutely no evidence of any adverse health affects, no scientific proof of any kind. We heard cases where workers who have rushed to rescue a colleague from a collapsed ditch are subject to fines, subject to penalties for not having a hard hat on in the first place. We had a situation in Fairbanks--where it does snow occasionally in Fairbanks, AK--where the city was in violation of a wetland permit because they moved the snow off one lot where the city barn is to the next lot which was classified as a wetlands. These are things people understand. These are issues of frustration that have been expressed time and time again. But we find ourselves embroiled in a controversy on this legislation that has gotten beyond the ability of the general public to grasp why we are not getting on it and making the corrections that are needed. We passed a bill that would put consistent procedures for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in place for all agencies and make agencies accountable for the actions taken in reliance on those agencies. Why does this procedure lead to fairness and common sense? Very simply, because they ensure that regulations will direct our limited resources to the substance or activities that are most likely to harm us and prevent that harm in a cost-effective way. It is simply that simple. We find that we have an ally in this process. Let me quote from the statement of the President. I have this chart here, Mr. President, which I will read very briefly. It is from the President. I quote: The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well- being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for the economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today. Those are the words of our President. But in spite of what the President, what the Congress and what the American people all know, this legislation has been bogged down in discussions designed to play on emotions. It has become complex. It has become almost a lawyer's delight to deliberate the application. We went through it the other day on the issue of the Mammogram Quality Standards Act. We all know that this legislation would not in any way have interfered with the promulgation of the rules under that act. I have had some familiarity with that, Mr. President, because my wife and a group of women in Fairbanks, AK in the mid-1970's started a breast cancer clinic. They purchased a mammogram machine, and, as a consequence, provided free services to the women of interior Alaska for an extended period of time. However, 2 years ago, under the Mammogram Quality Standards Acts procedure, that particular machine became outdated. And in order to comply with the quality standards, it was necessary that a new machine be ordered. So a number of us got together and raised approximately $150,000 and bought a new machine. This year we are raising some more money to buy a mobile mammogram machine. This is done without any Federal Government assistance of any kind, and provides the service to the women of the interior who are on the road systems of Alaska, and it will be further extended to the villages because this unit will fit inside the National Guard C-130 aircraft. So when they go into the villages, the vehicle can be backed out and made available to serve women that otherwise would not be available for this type of care. So the point is, Mr. President, that we have a system under the Mammogram Quality Standards Act that works. Not only does this legislation that we are contemplating have an exemption for health emergencies, but it also specifically recognizes that risk and cost- benefit analysis should only be done at the level of detail necessary, taking the need for expedition into consideration. So, as a consequence, we found ourselves spending a good deal of time debating whether or not--by not excluding mammograms--we were somehow risking the health of women in the United States. And while that argument was voiced extensively on this floor, there was absolutely no justification in my mind, or others who have examined the application of existing laws and regulations that were covered under this legislation, that indeed these services were in jeopardy. So what this bill does, Mr. President, under Executive Order 12866 issued in 1983, there is a requirement for cost-benefit analysis for major regulations and the use of risk as a basis for regulating. There are 25 high priority actions which were initiated this past March to reinvent environmental regulations in recognition that the current regulatory system is broken. Further, after several years of no action, the Environmental Protection Agency recently decided to change a longstanding food safety policy related to residual levels of pesticides that treated flour and tomato paste as ready to eat. EPA has already compiled a list of obsolete, duplicative, or unnecessary regulations and obtained concurrence from States on planned revisions and terminations that would eliminate 16,000 pages from the Code of Federal Regulations. The administration is planning a project known as XL that would, for the first time, allow pollutant trading among different media such as air and water, as part of the President's plan to emphasize market- based regulation. A high-level Clinton administration working group has crafted a far- reaching set of proposed administrative, regulatory and legislative changes to reform cleanups under Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including provisions that elevate the consideration of risk and cost in cleanup decisions. EPA has launched a major effort to review, streamline, and offer new flexibility for states in implementing the agency's Clean Water Act Permit Program. This is considered a key proposal in the initiative to modify or delete duplicative, burdensome, or obsolete rules. EPA is moving to pare back routine inspection and enforcement requirements, particularly for industrial wastewater and hazardous waste disposal facilities, to shift agency resources to focus enforcement efforts on high risk facilities or activities. EPA has changed its position from a December preproposal and decided not to regulation low-level radioactive waste storage sites already overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a position taken by six Senators that such regulation would be a wasteful duplication of effort. A major Clean Air Act rulemaking was initiated in January to allow States to automatically implement broad trading programs in emission reduction credits on the open market. In addition, a model rule allowing banking of credits is under consideration. In conclusion, Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that each of these proposals covers areas addressed already in S. 343, so one has to ask why are some Members of this body, why are some of those at the White House fighting this legislation when we all know that we need this bill. The American people know we need this bill. We also know that we should not have to stand here and continually recite day after day, hour after hour, horror stories and examples of regulatory excess to get this legislation passed. We all know it has to be done, and it should be done without further delay. So it is my hope that the leadership on both sides of the aisle can get a handle on this legislation and recognize that the American people want efficiencies in Government; they want efficiencies in regulation; they want efficiencies in oversight; and they want to be able to understand the process that is occurring. They want it based on fairness, and they want it based on common sense, and they want it now. I thank the Chair. I wish my colleagues a pleasant weekend. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing on S. 871, the Hanford Land Management Act, previously scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Thursday, July 20 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, has been canceled. For further information, please call Maureen Koetz at 202-224-0765 or David Garman at 202-224-7933.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on June 30, 1995, I filed Report 104-101 to accompany S. 638, the Insular Development Act of 1995, that had been ordered favorably reported on June 28, 1995. At the time the report was filed, the estimates by Congressional Budget Office were not available. The estimate is now available and concludes that enactment is now available and concludes that enactment of S. 638 would result in no significant cost to the Federal Government and in no cost to State or local governments and would not affect direct spending or receipts. I ask that the text of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record. The text follows: Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, July 11, 1995. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed S. 638, the Insular Development Act of 1995, as reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 30, 1995. CBO estimates that S. 638 would result in no significant cost to the federal government and in no cost to state or local governments. Enacting S. 638 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. S. 638 would restructure as agreement for making payments to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Presently, the federal government is obligated to make annual payments of $27.7 million to CNMI. S. 638 would maintain that funding commitment but would expand the purposes for which those funds could be spent. Based on a 1992 agreement reached between CNMI and the federal government, CNMI would receive a declining portion of those funds for infrastructure development through fiscal year 2000. The remaining funds would be used for capital infrastructure projects in American Samoa in 1996 and in all insular areas in 1997 and thereafter. (Insular areas include Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, CNMI, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.) Of the funds designated for 1997 and thereafter, $3 million would be designated for the College of the Northern Marianas in 1997 only, and $3 million would be allocated each year to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for either federal or CNMI use in the areas of immigration, labor, and law enforcement. Additionally, beginning in fiscal year 1997, DOI would be required to prepare and update annually a five- year capital infrastructure plan for insular projects. CBO estimates that the reallocation of funds that would occur under this bill would have little, if any, effect on the rates at which such funds are spent. CBO has no reason to expect that infrastructure funds used by other insular areas would be spent at a rate different from those used by CNMI. Also, based on information provided by the DOI, CBO estimates that the bill's capital infrastructure planning requirement would result in no significant cost to the federal government. S. 638 also would gradually apply the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to CNMI, which would require enforcement activity by the Department of Labor (DOL). The department expects that it would continue to receive annually $800,000 of the CNMI funds allocated to DOI for immigration, labor, and law enforcement purposes. DOL uses these funds to train CNMI officials to enforce labor laws, while providing additional temporary enforcement assistance. Based on information from the DOL, CBO expects that DOL would continue to receive these funds under this bill and that they would be sufficient to conduct FLSA enforcement. Therefore, we estimate that no additional costs to the federal government would result from this provision. Additionally, S. 638 would require that DOI continue to submit annually to the Congress a report on the ``State of the Islands,'' as well as a report on immigration, labor, and law enforcement issues in CNMI. The bill also would make several clarifications to existing law and would require cooperation in immigration matters between CNMI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. CBO estimates that these provisions would result in no significant cost to the federal government. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. Righter, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Secretary of Energy has transmitted to the Senate legislation to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to create a new funding approach for the Department of Energy's civilian radioactive waste management program. This program was created to meet the Department's obligation under the NWPA to provide for the disposal of spent civilian nuclear fuel in a permanent geologic repository by 1998. To fund the program, the NWPA requires DOE to collect a fee of one mill per kilowatt hour on electricity generated by nuclear energy. The fee is collected by utilities from their ratepayers in their monthly bills and placed into a special nuclear waste fund in the Treasury. The fund receives approximately $600 million per year from collections and interest. To date, approximately $9 billion in fees and interest has been placed in the fund. Although the nuclear waste fund has a balance of about $4.9 billion that was collected from ratepayers for precisely this purpose, the money is considered to be on-budget, and as such, is subject to discretionary spending caps under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Thus, any increases over past spending levels will require spending reductions in other DOE programs under the spending cap. As a part of the DOE fiscal year 1995 budget request, DOE proposed that future contributions to the nuclear waste fund be set aside in a special off-budget fund for the program, with one-half of those funds available as a permanent appropriation each year. This proposal, which would have required legislative action, was not adopted by the Congress. Instead, increased funding for the program was provided under DOE's discretionary spending caps. In its fiscal year 1996 budget request, DOE has proposed again that a mandatory appropriation be established from the nuclear waste fund of $431.6 million per year. The legislation proposed by DOE would be necessary to effectuate that change. I believe that this legislation has no chance of success. There is strong opposition to taking the waste fund off budget for a variety of reasons. First in my mind is the limitation on budgetary oversight that would result from such an arrangement. Although DOE will have spent over $4.2 billion through the first quarter of fiscal year 1995 on the program, DOE has conceded that the 1998 deadline for the acceptance of spent nuclear fuel will not be met. Both the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the General Accounting Office have issued reports that are critical of the management of the Yucca Mountain program. Although DOE has recently made progress in improving the management of the program, in the past, overhead has consumed 56 percent of the funding for site characterization. What is needed is more oversight and involvement by the Congress, not less. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is considering legislation that would alter the structure of the NWPA and DOE's program, with the goal of providing for the more efficient use of the ratepayer's money. Funding and oversight issues will be considered in the context of that legislation. Therefore, although I am not introducing this bill as legislation, I am acknowledging receipt of the administration's proposal and request that it be printed in the Record. The material follows; Proposed Legislation A bill to provide additional flexibility for the Department of Energy's program for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to discuss that portion of S. 343 covering the Superfund. As we know, Senate bill 343 establishes requirements to do risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis and includes Superfund cleanups that exceed $10 million in total costs. The administration, however, and some Senators, want this section removed from the bill on the grounds that the application of cost- benefit analysis to Superfund through the regulatory reform process is somehow inappropriate. I think it is fair to say there is also a question of jurisdiction relative to the various committee references that this bill would ordinarily go to that portion--at least under Superfund. I am speaking of the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, laying that aside, because of the statutory requirements in the Superfund requirements itself, risk and cost-benefit analysis, in my opinion, are precisely the right tools that the Government should be using to carry out the requirements of that law. Provisions in the Superfund law specifically require cost-benefit and risk analysis. Superfund requires that the President select appropriate remedial actions that ``provide for cost effective responses'' and to consider both the short-term and the long-term cost of the actions. Superfund requires the President to publish a regulation called the national contingency plan [NCP], to carry out the requirements of the statute. Now, the NCP must contain, one, methods for analysis of relative costs for remedial action; two, means for assuring that remedial actions are cost-effective over time; three, criteria ``based on relative risk or danger'' for determining priorities among releases of hazardous substances for the purposes of taking remedial action. Now, the national contingency plan also requires a baseline risk assessment to be performed for every remedial action. This means that for every Superfund cleanup, a risk assessment is done right now. Superfund requires the President to identify priority sites that require remedial action through a hazard ranking system that must ``assess the relative degree of risk.'' Unlike other environmental statutes, the Congress explicitly wrote provisions into this law that cost and risk were to be taken into account. Yet, the same entrenched bureaucracies that have been running up the costs of these remedial actions for years now say we simply cannot have reform. But that is what we hear publicly. Within the administration there is a clear recognition that cost-benefit and risk analysis, however, do belong in the Superfund Program. I refer to a memorandum prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality. In that memo, the administration correctly pointed out the blatant inconsistencies between its posture regarding this section of S. 343 and its position on regulatory reform, as well as reform of the cleanup statutes. The memo states that opposition to the intent of the cleanup provisions of S. 343 is ``inconsistent with several administrative policies.'' Further, ``The administration has repeatedly testified that cost- benefit analysis is a `useful tool' in making cleanup decisions.'' It also says, ``EPA, DOD, and DOE, have made well-publicized commitments to more realistic risk analysis in cleanup activity.'' Executive Order 12866 requires cost-benefit analysis for regulations over $100 billion. Many cleanups exceed that amount and the total cost of cleanup activities approaches or exceeds $400 billion. Quoting, ``It will be hard, politically and logically, to defend application of the cost-benefit comparison to the former decisions and not the latter.'' The administration also incorrectly states in that memo that supplementing existing decision criteria with cost and risk considerations allows an illegal departure from statutory standards in developing more reasonable alternatives. As indicated before, remediation under Superfund is currently required to base its decisions on risk and cost considerations. Senate bill 343 has been amended to clarify that statutory provisions cannot be superseded. Critics of this section argue that these reforms should be addressed in the Superfund reauthorization. Superfund authorization expired last year, and the taxing authority expires this year. I know many of my colleagues and other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have been working hard, but Superfund reauthorization may not be completed this year. That is a real possibility. So, in conclusion, I would like to share with you the realization that the Superfund cleanup provisions of Senate bill 343 are entirely consistent with the existing law, and the planned administrative reforms that the Clinton administration is putting in place even now. Superfund is not a level playing field. Federal and State regulators have ignored risk and cost considerations throughout this process, in spite of the statutory requirements to consider these factors. The program is badly broken largely because the degree and costs of cleanup have proceeded virtually unchecked for years. Further, simply having these provisions in this bill has brought about a new willingness on the part of the regulators to be more realistic in the remedial action selection process. Finally, the Superfund provisions of S. 343 are consistent with the law, are a needed reform of the remedy selection process, and are an appropriate and necessary reform of one of the most expensive regulatory programs we have experienced in history. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to speak on two subjects this morning. One is a very timely subject relative to an announcement that we anticipate will be made today by the President with regard to relations between the United States and Vietnam. I want to commend our President. By moving to establish full diplomatic relations with the Government of Vietnam, the two-decade- long campaign to obtain the fullest possible accounting of our MIA's in Southeast Asia really now enters a new and more positive phase. I support the President's decision because I continue to believe, and the evidence supports, that increased access to Vietnam leads to increased progress on the accounting issue. Resolving the fate of our MIA's has been and will remain the highest priority of our Government. This Nation owes that to the men and the families of the men who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and for freedom. In pursuit of that goal, I have personally traveled to Vietnam on three occasions. I held over 40 hours of hearings on that subject as chairman of the Veterans' Committee back in 1986. I think the comparison between the situation in 1986 and today is truly a dramatic one. In 1986, I was appalled to learn that we had no first-hand information [[Page S 9649]] about the fate of POW/MIA's because we had no access to the Vietnamese Government, to its military archives or to its prisons. We could not travel to crash sites. We had no opportunity to interview Vietnamese individuals or officials. All of this has now changed. American Joint Task Force-Full Accounting (JTF-FA) personnel located in Hanoi now have access to Vietnam's Government, to its military archives, and to its prisons. They now travel freely to crash sites and interview Vietnamese citizens and individuals. The extent of United States access is illustrated by an excavation last month that involved overturning a Vietnamese gravesite. As a result of these developments, the overall number of MIA's in Vietnam has been reduced to 1,621 through a painstaking identification process. Most of the missing involve men lost over water or in other circumstances where survival was doubtful and where recovery of remains is difficult or unlikely. Significantly, the number of discrepancy cases--the cases of those servicemen where the available information indicated that either the individual survived or could have survived-- has been reduced from 196 to 55. The remaining 55 cases have been investigated at least once, and some several times. Much, if not most, of this progress has come since 1991 when President Bush established an office in Hanoi devoted to resolving the fate of our MIA's. Opening this office ended almost two decades of isolation, a policy which failed to achieve America's goals. It is an understatement to say that our efforts to resolve the fates of our MIA's from the Vietnam war have constituted the most extensive such accounting in the history of human warfare. There are over 8,000 remaining MIA's from the Korean war. A large number of those are believed to have perished in North Korea, and we have had little cooperation from the Government of North Korea on that issue. There are over 78,000 remaining MIA's from World War II. These are wars where we were victorious and controlled the battlefield. So I find it ironic that we have already moved to set up liaison offices in North Korea when that Government has not agreed to the joint operation teams that have been used successfully in Vietnam. Nor has North Korea granted access to archives, gravesites, or former POW camps. Vietnam, on the other hand, has worked steadily over the last 4 years to meet the vigorous goal posts laid down by successive United States administrations. In 1993, opponents of ending our isolationist policy argued that lifting the trade embargo would mean an end to Vietnamese cooperation. This is distinctly not the case. As the Pentagon assessment from the Presidential delegation's recent trip to Vietnam notes, the records offered are ``the most detailed and informative reports'' provided so far by the Government of Vietnam on missing Americans. During the post-embargo period, the Vietnamese Government cooperated on other issues as well, including resolving millions of dollars of diplomatic property and private claims of Americans who lost property at the end of the war. While we have made progress, Americans should not be satisfied by any means. But there are limits to the results we can obtain by continuing a policy which, even though modified, remains rooted in the past and is still dominated by the principle of isolation. I think we have reached that limit, Mr. President. It is time to try a policy of full engagement. Recognizing Vietnam does not mean forgetting our MIA's, by any means. Recognizing Vietnam does not mean that we agree with the policies of the Government of Vietnam. But recognizing Vietnam 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, a philosophy, and a government. We export the very ideals that Americans went to fight for in Vietnam. We justify most-favored-nation status for China for many reasons, one of which is that it allows us a means to interact and to communicate with the Chinese in an attempt to bring about change in China. The same application is appropriate for Vietnam. Moreover, diplomatic relations give us greater latitude to use the carrot and stick approach. Diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations should flourish, but we retain leverage because Vietnam still seeks most-favored-nation status and other trading privileges which the United States controls. Establishing diplomatic relations should 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 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 them. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I hope this step will continue this country's healing process. I think the time has come to treat Vietnam as a country and not as a war.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to talk briefly about the matter that is currently before this body, regulatory reform. Very briefly, we have been reviewing some of the principles associated with regulatory reform. I would like to talk a little bit about risk assessment this morning and some guidelines for which the applicability of risk assessment should be used, and why it can be very, very helpful as we address the responsibility of determining which policies make sense and which policies are redundant and costly and inefficient. If we establish principles for risk assessment, some of the bases for evaluation should include the following: First, the use of sound science and analysis as the basis for conclusions about risk. Second, to use the appropriate level of detail for any analysis. Third, to use postulates, or assumptions, only when actual data is not available. Fourth, to not express risk as a single, high-end estimate that uses the worst-case scenario. I think we have all heard horror stories about various cases where applications are promoted and promulgated, and over an extended period of time, when much expenditure has taken place in evaluating the prospects for a particular approval, we find that the agency has evaluated under a worst-case basis. If we, in our daily lives, were to make our decisions based on a worst-case scenario, we probably would not get out of bed in the morning. As a consequence, to reach that kind of an evaluation is clearly misleading, in many cases, to the applicant that never would have proceeded with a request for approval from the various agencies if the applicant had assumed that the agency would come down to the worst-case basis. Oftentimes the agency will follow a particular line to reach a worst- case basis, and after expending a great deal of money and time, they look at another alternative, but only at the conclusion of reaching a worst-case scenario. So there are other opportunities that should be pursued with regard to that. Further, some of the other principles for risk assessment would require comparing the risk to others that people encounter every day to place it in a perspective. I could speak at some length on that, but I think that is obvious to all of us. Further, to describe the new or substitute risks that will be created if the risk in question is regulated. Use independent and external peer review to evaluate risk results. Finally, to provide appropriate opportunities for public participation. So what we are talking about here is improved risk assessment, which helps the homeowners, farmer, small business, taxpayers, consumers--all Americans. To conclude, risk reduction equals benefit. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I wish him a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will not take a full 15 minutes, in response in the Senator from North Dakota. I encourage the floor managers, or however the process works, if this could be alleviated perhaps. I am not being critical, but I appreciate the concern of my friend. We are both in the same situation. Maybe the best thing to do is for me to start and get out of here, and then I can yield to my friend from North Dakota the remaining time that I have.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not want to complicate this by any means. I think that there is some legitimate confusion relative to the process here. I asked for morning business. I was told that my time, the 15 minutes, began at 9:30. It is just a little after 9:30. I do not want to belabor it. My only effort in coming over was that I have to chair a hearing at 10 o'clock. So I attempted to try to come over in order to make that. With the indulgence of my colleagues, with no objection, I prefer to make a brief statement and then go and open my hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 receive testimony on S. 871, a bill to provide for the management and disposition of the Hanford Reservation, to provide for environmental management activities at the reservation, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Maureen Koetz, Counsel to the Committee, Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765, David Garman at (202) 224-7933 or Judy Brown at (202) 224-7556. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to use my time to speak on risk assessment. I had intended to do that at 10:30. However, the hearing which I have to chair, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is a joint hearing with the Environment and Public Works Committee on a very important and timely topic, and that is the Komi oilspill which has taken place in Russia at this time as I speak. The significance of this spill is unprecedented in relationship to any spills that we have ever experienced previously. Approximately 400,000 barrels of oil per day are leaking from various pipelines in Russia. That equals twice the Exxon Valdez spill, which, of course, was one incident. This volume of 400,000 barrels a day is occurring each and every day. The joint committee that will be meeting today will be attempting to focus on this and generate notoriety and, hopefully, a plan to assist in cleanup and to ensure that this terrible, terrible tragedy does not continue. My statement this morning, Mr. President, is to call attention to the reality that listening to some people in Congress, listening to some people in the executive branch, you might not think it, but I think those of us who have been listening understand that this town was given a very simple message last November. And that message is that it is time for the Federal Government to wake up and reform the way it does business. It just so happens we now have bipartisan legislation to help point us in that direction. That legislation is the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. Its purpose is to protect public health and safety and to protect the environment while sparing people, you and I and those out there, from the nasty side effects of overregulation. It is a statement in favor of freedom, common sense, and responsible government, and one more, and that is accountability. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the ground we walk on, Federal regulations govern almost every phase of our lives. Their stated purpose, of course, is to help make people healthier and safer by reducing exposure to a variety of risky substances and products and by regulating various activities. In many cases, Mr. President, these goals are accomplished. However, in others, regulations focus on unsubstantiated or minute risks to health, safety or the environment, and end up wasting a lot of taxpayers' money and time that could be spent on more pressing problems. Worst of all, unnecessary regulations, duplication, take away our freedoms. Our freedoms are lost bit by bit by empowering bureaucrats in Washington to tell us what we can and cannot do and almost on a worst-case basis. Last year, Mr. President, Americans spent an estimated $647 billion on regulations. That is more than every element of the average person's budget except housing. Yes, that is even more --$104 billion more, as a matter of fact--than America spent in paying its tax bill in 1994. But, unlike taxes and the other bills we pay, much of the costs of regulations are hidden in the price of goods and services, so most people do not know about their true costs to each of us. [[Page S 9330]] Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. President. We do need regulations that actually do protect health, safety and welfare. No one wants to turn back the clock on the progress that we have made in protecting our health and safety. But there is a movement in grassroots America to shrink the size, expense, and scope of the Federal Government and to reform the way the Federal Government regulates. We need to respond by making sure that the benefits derived from particular regulations are worth the cost and that we use sound science, not emotion, to address and assess risk to health safety and the environment. We also need to rebuild public confidence in Government's risk assessments so people will listen when real threats to health and safety are detected. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Dole; the ranking member of the committee that I chair, Senator Bennett Johnston; and the Energy and National Resources Committee for their efforts on this front. I also want to thank my fellow chairmen, Chairman Hatch and Chairman Roth, who worked with us on the creation of this consensus legislation. My committee and theirs each reported a bill addressing regulatory reform. Now, to those who ask, Do we need reform? Well, there is absolutely no question. Recognizing that there are many horror stories, let me just share one that occurred in my State of Alaska: Anchorage, AK, is our largest city. The water comes down from the mountains, flows into the gutters for the most part, has very little contamination in it, just what it might pick up on the streets. And the Environmental Protection Agency came down with the ruling mandating that before the water moves in the drains and could be dumped into Cook Inlet where we have 30-foot tides a day, that we must remove 30 percent of the organic matter in the water. Well, Mr. President, there was no organic matter there. There was absolutely nothing to remove. As a consequence, the city of Anchorage was in violation of their permit from the Environmental Protection Agency and subject to substantial fines. Finally, an enterprising entrepreneur suggested that they put some of the fish waste in the water. So 5,000 pounds of fish waste was put into the water system so it could be removed so that they could comply. Now, once it became known and the heat began to focus on EPA, they were rather embarrassed and they actually wrote out a press release and said, well, we did not make them do it; they did it themselves. You can imagine the type of an example that sets and the reflection that the people of Anchorage have on the Environmental Protection Agency for coming down in a ruling like that. We had another situation in Fairbanks. We have cold winters. We pick up a little snow. The city properly would bar parked buses from the road, and buses get snow on them. They were moved onto the back lot. They were cited for dumping the snow on the adjacent lot. We have a hard time understanding that, Mr. President. We have a number of other points I am not going to read. I just want to bring your attention to a few. Now, finally, I think as we look at the principles contained in the risk assessment bill passed by my committee, we recognize that while the risk assessment process is used by many Federal regulatory agencies, their application and standards are wildly divergent, and there is no set standard for all uses. In fact, the EPA, OSHA, and FDA often differ in their assessment of chemical carcinogens and other matters that are of great interest and concern. Finally, Mr. President, let me just focus on one more item with regard to our legislation because it provides several important improvements to the risk assessment process requiring Federal regulators to use the following: Sound science and analysis as the basis for conclusions about risk; the appropriate level of detail for the analysis; the mandate to be reasonable in reviewing the data; using assumptions only when actual data is not available; characterize risk in a clear and understandable manner; do not express risk as a single, high-end estimate that uses the worst-case scenario; compare the risk to others people encounter every day to place it in perspective; describe the new or substitute risks that will be created if the risk in question is regulated; use independent and external peer review to evaluate risk assessment results; and provide appropriate opportunities for public participation. Let me close by reading a passage that I think sums up the efforts of all who support this risk assessment regulatory reform. I quote: The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well- being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today. Now these are the words of President Clinton in his Executive order on regulatory planning and review. So I say to the Senate, the time has come to stem the sea tide of regulation that threatens to engulf us all. We need commonsense health and safety regulations based, again, on sound science and not emotion. We do not need and we must take steps to reform the current Federal regulatory tyranny. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota and wish him a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in commending the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for developing a foundation for this truly historic budget resolution conference report. This resolution commits this Government to finally ending the nearly four decades of deficit spending that have brought our Nation's Government to the very verge of bankruptcy. Starting in 1961 and in every year but one, we have run an unending string of deficits and debt. During the past 34 years, our national debt has grown by 1700 percent, from $298 billion in 1961 to nearly $5 trillion, and we have done nothing--we have done nothing, Mr. President--that is adequate. And if we continue to do nothing, interest on the debt, currently at $235 billion, will approach $300 billion in nearly 4 years and interest costs will exceed Federal spending for national defense in 1997. Mr. President, in the face of these massive, unending deficits, our President has failed to present anything close to a credible plan to balance the budget. In February, the President submitted his budget. When the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] analyzed his budget, they found that he had cooked the books down at the White House. The President's budget was out of balance by more than $1.2 trillion and his deficit projections were off by 40 percent. Not a single Member of this body supported the President's budget, which was defeated 99 to nothing last month. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the President went on national television to announce that he had finally developed a 10-year plan to balance the budget. If one looks at that plan, all the cuts are in the last 3 years, and even then according to CBO, the budget would be out of balance by more than $200 billion a year. Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. President. The only plan that will [[Page S 9381]] bring about a balanced budget is the plan crafted by the House and Senate budget conferees, and there is simply no other choice available. That is why I will support this budget resolution. Finally, let me address the issue of tax cuts in this resolution, and let me be very clear on the issue. I do not believe we ought to be cutting taxes in 1995 and 1996 while we simultaneously run deficits of more than $170 billion. Although this budget resolution slows the growth in our interest bill, the fact is that all Federal borrowing today and for the foreseeable future is simply to pay interest on the debt. This is the clearest indicator I know of how broke we are in Washington. And when you are broke, it is no time to go out and declare a dividend. I am a member of the Finance Committee, Mr. President. The committee will consider tax cuts in September. I hope I can convince my colleagues that all savings, or a considerable amount of those savings, should be used to reduce the carrying costs on the interest and thereby reducing the accumulated debt. In other words, we simply ought to be using savings to reduce the debt, not for tax cuts. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues for the time. I wish them a good day. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the President good day. I yield to my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Is there a prescribed time this morning for Senators?