Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 103, House Concurrent Resolution 53, relative to the visit by the President of China on Taiwan, and that no amendments be in order to the resolution or the preamble.

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 administration of timber contracts in the Tongass National Forest, and administration of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. The hearing will take place Thursday, May 18, 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 Mark Rey at (202) 224-2878.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a letter from the Secretary of Energy to the President of the Senate that transmits administration-proposed legislation. The primary purpose of this legislation is to sell strategic petroleum reserve [SPR] oil to fund the decommissioning of the Weeks Island SPR storage facility. I am having the proposed legislation printed in the Record instead of introducing it because I disagree with the policy of selling SPR oil to raise money. Let me explain. The administration's legislation proposes three things. First, it authorizes the sale of up to 7 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR. Second, it earmarks the moneys from that sale for the decommissioning of the Weeks Island storage facility, and for other unspecified activities related to the SPR. Third, the administration's legislation allows the sale of the SPR oil to not count adversely under the budget rules. I will not speak to the asset sale issue because it is not central to my concerns. The key policy issue raised by this legislation isn't whether the Weeks Island SPR storage facility should be drained of oil and decommissioned; that must occur. Instead, the question facing the Senate is whether we should authorize the sale of SPR oil to fund this activity and a host of other unspecified SPR activities simply because the administration is unwilling to ask for the necessary money as a part of DOE's regular budget. In a nutshell the issue is: Should SPR oil be sold to make up for a budget shortfall, or should SPR oil be kept on hand in case of an energy emergency? Before I explain my concerns about the administration's proposal to sell SPR oil, let me first describe why the Weeks Island SPR storage facility must be emptied and decommissioned. Weeks Island is one of the five SPR crude oil storage facilities. Located in Louisiana, it holds 73 million of the total 592 million barrels of oil stored in the SPR. Weeks Island is unique among the SPR oil storage facilities. It was a commercial salt mine before being purchased by the Department of Energy and converted to an oil storage facility. The other four SPR facilities were created specifically to store oil. In May 1992, a sinkhole was discovered on the ground directly above Weeks Island. The cause of the sinkhole was determined to be a fracture in the salt formation. Over time, the fracture has enlarged as a result of water leaking through it and into the Weeks Island storage cavern. In February 1995, a second sinkhole was discovered over Weeks Island, but it has not yet been determined if this indicates a second leak. The water leaking into Weeks Island is accumulating at the bottom of the oil storage chamber and it is pushing the oil up. Although the leak is slow, water intrusion creates a risk of path enlargement and increased water inflow. This could ultimately result in a catastrophic water inflow, which would completely displace the oil stored in occurred the 73 million barrels of oil stored in Weeks Island could enter the underground water aquifer. That would be a major ecological disaster. After extensive engineering studies, DOE has concluded that the long- term integrity of Weeks Island cannot be assured. Thus, the most prudent option is to remove the oil while the leak is manageable. Once emptied of oil, Weeks Island will then be decommissioned by filling the facility with salt brine. Plans are being made by DOE to move the oil to other SPR storage sites beginning in the fall of 1995. As part of this activity, DOE will put a freeze wall around the facility to prevent oil leakage. Full decommissioning of Weeks Island will take 2 to 3 years. I agree with the Department of Energy that Weeks Island must be emptied of oil and decommissioned as soon as possible. I also agree that the life extension activities should take place. As I stated before, the issue facing the Senate is not whether these should occur, but rather how they are to be paid for. More specifically, should we authorize the sale of SPR oil to fund these activities, or should the money come from DOE's budget? In deciding whether or not SPR oil should be sold, it is worth reviewing why we have an SPR in the first place. The SPR was created by Congress in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Recall that the oil embargo caused energy shortages, sharp price increases, long gasoline lines, double-digit interest rates, and economic stagflation. The SPR protects the Nation by having on hand a significant amount of immediately available crude oil. The function of the SPR is twofold. First, it discourages foreign oil exporting nations from using the oil weapon against the United States, as they did back in 1973. Second, it protects the United States from shortages and price spikes if a supply interruption does occur. In addition, the SPR is needed to satisfy the requirements of the International Energy Program, which requires member nations to maintain oil stocks sufficient to sustain consumption for at least 90 days with no net oil imports. Congress intended SPR oil to be used only if there is an energy emergency. The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act specifies that SPR oil can be sold only if the President finds that ``it is required by a severe energy supply interruption or by obligations of the United States under the international energy program.'' The SPR has been tapped only once--other than for test purposes--but when used it was important that the oil be on hand. In January 1991, because of the Desert Storm war with Iraq, President Bush declared an energy emergency and sold 17 million barrels of SPR oil. Had he not done so, oil prices would have spiked, consumers would have suffered, and our economy would have been harmed. Given declining U.S. oil production and the corresponding increase in foreign dependence, if anything we need more oil stored in the SPR--not less. Since the Arab oil embargo in 1973, U.S. crude oil production has declined by 28 percent and U.S. dependence on foreign oil has grown to more than 50 percent. Notwithstanding additions of oil to the SPR, because of our growing foreign dependence, the SPR is increasingly less capable of offsetting a supply interruption. In 1985, the SPR contained 493 million barrels of crude oil--then the equivalent of 115 days of net U.S. oil imports. Today, the SPR contains 592 million barrels of crude oil--the current equivalent of 74 days of net oil imports. Although we have added nearly 100 million barrels of crude oil to the SPR, due to our growing foreign dependence it is 41 days less capable of handling a supply interruption. Thus, I am very concerned that selling SPR oil--even as little as 7 million barrels as proposed by the administration--reduces the protection the SPR will provide in case of an energy emergency. Let me again say that I am convinced that the Weeks Island facility must be emptied and the oil moved to other SPR storage sites. We cannot afford an ecological disaster of the magnitude posed by a catastrophic rupture of Weeks Island. But I want to point out that those actions do not require the amount of money that would be generated by the sale of 7 million barrels of SPR oil, as is proposed by the administration's legislation. At current market rates of $20 per barrel, the sale of 7 million barrels of SPR crude oil will generate about $140 million. Yet the Department of Energy needs only $89 million to move the Weeks Island oil to other SPR storage sites and to decommission the facility. Possibly much less if lower cost transportation options were used. Moreover, only about $38 of the $89 million is actually required in fiscal year 1996 because decommissioning will take several years to complete. Even if the entire $89 million were required in fiscal year 1996, that still leaves $51 million from the $140 million sale. What does DOE plan on doing with that money? They plan on spending a large share on SPR life extension activities that need to occur, but more properly should be part of the regular DOE budget. DOE could have proposed to use part of its budget for Weeks Island, but it elected not to. For fiscal year 1996, DOE asked for $17.833 billion, a $337 million increase over fiscal year 1995. $89 million is only .005 of the DOE's total budget, and only one-quarter of just the proposed budget increase. Surely, the administration could have found the necessary moneys within its existing budget if it really wanted to. A fair question is where will DOE get the money it needs if we do not authorize the sale of SPR oil as requested? I say again, DOE should have asked for the money as a part of their fiscal year 1996 budget request; I believe that we would have approved it. So I turn the question around and ask the administration: If it really is so important to undertake these activities, what are the lower priority DOE programs that you are willing to forgo? You tell us which programs you want to cut. I am also very concerned that selling SPR oil simply to raise money sets a very dangerous precedent. I greatly fear that there will be no end once we start doing this. Every time DOE's budget is put in a squeeze, there will be pressure to sell a few barrels of SPR oil to protect this or that cherished program. How will we be able to say no to other raids on the SPR piggy bank, if we allow it here? Mr. President, the strategic petroleum reserve is this Nation's energy emergency insurance policy. I do not believe that we should cash part of it in just because DOE is unwilling to use even the tiniest fraction of its $18 billion budget to address the SPR's problems. We may need the SPR some day if another supply disruption occurs. After all, Saddam Hussein is still with us. It is for these reasons that I oppose the sale of SPR oil as proposed by the administration and I will not introduce their legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nomination of Charles William Burton to be a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation will not be considered on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, as previously announced. For further information, please call Camille Heninger at (202) 224- 5070.

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, May 10, 1995, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open-Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities (Docket No. RM95-8-000), and Recovery Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities (Docket No. RM94-7-001). write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Howard Useem at (202) 224-6567.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nominations of Charles William Burton to be a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, and James J. Hoecker to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The hearing will take place Wednesday, May 10, 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. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on April 18, 1995, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed the report to accompany H.R. 694, the Minor Boundary Adjustments Act of 1995. At the time this report was filed, the Congressional Budget Office had not submitted its budget estimate regarding this measure. The committee has since received this communication from the Congressional Budget Office, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The estimate follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, April 20, 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 H.R. 694, the Minor Boundary Adjustments and Miscellaneous Park Amendments Act of 1995, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 29, 1995. Assuming appropriation of the necessary sums, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 694 would result in one-time federal costs totaling between $31 million and $32 million, most of which would be spent over the next five years, plus annual costs of between $0.1 million and $0.2 million during that period and about $1.5 million thereafter. Enactment of H.R. 694 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 694 would provide for boundary adjustments at several national parks. The bill also would make a number of changes to National Park Service (NPS) programs. Included are provisions to: extend the life of two advisory commissions; amend the Museum Properties Act of July 1, 1955, to facilitate the disposal of unneeded museum properties; and authorize research and education projects carried out with nonfederal partners through cooperative agreements. Land Acquisition Costs. CBO estimates that the federal government would spend between $4 million and $5 million over the next two or three fiscal years to acquire lands added to the park system by this bill, including incidental expenses associated with property donations and exchanges. Development Costs. Lands acquired at three parks (the Yucca House, Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, and Shiloh National Military Park) would be used for visitor centers or other facilities. CBO estimates that total planning and construction costs for the three projects would be about $23 million. The bill also would authorize construction of a visitor center near or within the boundaries of the New River Gorge or Gauley River park units. We estimate that development of this facility would cost about $2 million. Other Costs. Section 204 of the bill would authorize the appropriation of a total of $2 million over an eight-year period beginning on October 1, 1993. These funds would be used to maintain facilities of the William O. Douglas Outdoor Classroom and to finance programs carried out by that entity. Assuming appropriation of the necessary sums, CBO estimates that about $0.3 million would the six remaining years of the authorization period. In addition, we estimate that annual support for the two advisory commissions extended by Title II would cost the federal government a total of about $20,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 1996. Finally, costs to operate and maintain all of the new facilities authorized by the bill would be between $0.1 million and $0.2 million annually over the next five years, and would grow to about $1.5 million annually once all development has been completed. Other provisions of the bill would have no significant impact on federal spending. For purposes of the above estimates, CBO assumed that H.R. 694 would be enacted by the end of fiscal year 1995 and that funding for all projects or activities would be appropriated as needed. All estimates are based on information provided by the NPS. Enactment of this legislation would have no impact on the budgets of state of local governments. Previous CBO Estimate. On February 23, 1995, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 694 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on February 15, 1995. The estimated costs for provisions that are common to both bills are identical. The Senate version of the legislation, however, contains additional provisions that add $13 million to $14 million to one-time costs and up to $0.5 million to annual expenses. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senate is about to take up H.R. 421, the Alaska Native Claims Act Amendment Act of 1995. I wish to take a few moments to describe H.R. 421 and importance of passing the bill this evening. On March 15, 1995, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources unanimously reported nearly identical legislation for consideration by the full Senate. The bill allows the Cook Inlet Region Incorporated Native corporation, called CIRI, to consider creating a system to buy back the stock of willing sellers, provided that stockholders vote to set up such a system. It will serve as a test for an alternate system of stock distribution that could later be expanded for use by any of the State's Native regional corporations. The goal of H.R. 421 is simple: to provide a responsible middle ground so that shareholders will have access to the capital value of their stock, while preserving the Native control and ownership of the ANCSA corporations. Originally under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Native shareholders were prevented from selling their stock for 20 years. This was to give the corporations time to mature. As part of a series of 1991 amendments to the corporations, Congress changed the law, at the request of the Natives, so that stock restrictions on alienability--the right of Natives to sell their shares--automatically continued unless and until the shareholders of a corporation voted to remove them. H.R. 421 will provide another alternative. Shareholders will be able to sell their stock back to the corporation, helping preserve Native control if: First the corporation's board votes to participate; second, the majority of the entire membership of the corporation votes to permit buybacks; and third, if three conditions must be met before any sale of stock is possible. When the legislation was considered in the House, an issue arose regarding that section of the bill that provides protection from liability to CIRI, its directors and officers and evaluation advisors when making an offer to purchase stock. I have reviewed the amendment and find it acceptable. It contains the protection needed by CIRI, and is consistent with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The protections from liability provided in the language are intended to apply to all causes of action under any provisions of State or Federal law and are limited to stock re-purchase offerings made pursuant to this legislation. H.R. 421 provides a test case for Native corporation stock distribution. Senator Stevens and myself have proposed this bill at the request of CIRI and the Alaska Federation of Natives. The other corporations have said they would like to see how this works in CIRI's case before deciding whether they would like the option extended to them. The important thing to remember is that this legislation has several safeguards to ensure that any stock repurchases will be conducted fairly--the biggest safeguard is that the program can't happen unless approved by a majority vote of shareholders. This bill provides a fair alternate means for distributing corporation stock while preserving Native control of the ANCSA corporations. I have worked with Alaska's Native community for the last 15 years and I am sure that the Native people are more than capable of making their own decisions that affect their own corporate affairs. The Alaska Native people should have the same choices that all other stockholders in America have. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 421. The bill (H.R. 421) was deemed read three times and passed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Thursday, April 27, in room SD-366 to consider S. 537 and H.R. 402, bills to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, will begin at 9:45 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m., as previously scheduled.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see my good friend, the Senator from West Virginia, on the floor. I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to the rescission package which would express the sense of the Congress that the President of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui, be allowed to visit the United States. It is my understanding it is unlikely that I will have an opportunity to offer such an amendment. But I intend, at an appropriate time in the near future to offer the amendment to another vehicle and request an up or down vote. The amendment I intended to offer would have been identical to Senate Concurrent Resolution 9, which has 52 bipartisan cosponsors, including, I am proud to say, both the majority and minority leaders of this body. Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 passed the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously 2 weeks ago. Specifically, that resolution calls on our President to allow President Lee of Taiwan to come to the United States, not on a state visit but on a private visit. It is an identical resolution to House Concurrent Resolution 33, which was introduced in the House by Congressmen Lantos of California, Solomon of New York, and Torricelli of New Jersey. It passed the House International Relations Committee yesterday, I am told, by a vote of 33 to 0. Obviously, the support is there. I hope the State Department will be sensitive to the recommendations of the Congress. We have a rather interesting situation with regard to our relations with Taiwan, as well as China, but clearly we should not allow the People's Republic of China to dictate who can visit the United States. Again, we are not talking about an official state visit; we are talking about allowing President Lee to make a private visit. He has received two invitations that the Senator from Alaska is aware of. One is to come visit his alma mater, Cornell University, where he has been asked to make an address. Further, he has been extended an invitation to the U.S.-ROC Economic Council Conference. This is an organization whose purpose is to promote trade and commerce between Taiwan and the United States. That organization will be meeting in Anchorage, AK, my home State, in September. In both instances, the State Department has discouraged the issuance of these invitations and implied that they would not look favorably on a request for a visa. That is offensive to this Senator. The suggestion of the State Department is that allowing President Lee to visit the United States would upset relations with the People's Republic of China. I think we have to recognize the gigantic strides that have been made by Taiwan over the years. They ended their martial law. They have initiated free and fair elections. They have a very vocal press. Human rights have steadily improved. They have the development of a strong second party. And Taiwan ultimately is a friendly, democratic, stable, and prosperous nation. They are the 5th largest trading partner of the United States, and the world's 13th. They buy twice as much from the United States as the People's Republic of China. They are among the holders of the largest foreign reserves of any country. They contribute to international causes. But our country continues to give a cold shoulder to the leader of Taiwan, President Lee. It went so far that last May in Hawaii when President Lee was in transit from Taiwan to Central America, the State Department refused to allow President Lee an overnight visit. The State Department continues to indicate that a private visit will not be allowed. They suggest that the United States would allow transient stops. That means perhaps the airplane can stop for refueling and President Lee would be allowed to get off and perhaps spend the night. One of the inconsistencies I would like to bring out--and this came up on a recent trip I made to both Taiwan and Beijing--is the expanding relationship between Taiwan and the People's the Association for Relations Across Taiwan Straits. That is the organization in Beijing. On the Taiwanese side, there is the organization called the Mainland Affairs Council. Although the People's Republic of China is telling the United States not to have any relations with Taiwan because it would offend the People's Republic of China, there is a relationship between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China through these two organizations that have been established and that meet regularly. The Association for Relations Across Taiwan Straits and The Mainland Affairs Council talk about everything but politics. They talk about trade, they talk about commerce, they talk about hijacking. I think it is fair to say the Chinese business men and women are among the best in the world. They are motivated, obviously, by the opportunity for trade and commerce. So they are discussing between them matters of interest and matters that are beneficial to both. They have even announced proposals for direct shipping from Taiwan to the southern provinces in China that would bypass Hong Kong. Here we have a situation of inconsistency, and it is beyond this Senator to understand how the State Department can overlook that. Trade and commerce is flourishing between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, yet the People's Republic of China dictates to us that we cannot extend a private visit to the President of Taiwan. I have a great respect and fondness for their representatives. I know the Ambassador. I have had the pleasure of meeting Chairman Deng. But the People's Republic of China bellows about virtually everything that we do-- United States pressure at the United Nations on human rights, world trade organization membership and anything we do with regard to Taiwan. That is the litany. It is expected. We should recognize it for what it is. But we should not be dictated by the terms and conditions which they mandate. In my opinion, in the end the People's Republic of China will make calculations about when and what to risk with regard to their philosophy of doing business and participating in our markets. We should simply do the same. There is precedent for a visit by Lee. I will be specific. This administration has welcomed other unofficial leaders to the United States. The Dalai Lama called on Vice President Gore over the objections from the People's Republic of China. Yasser Arafat came to the White House ceremony. He was once referred to as a supporter of terrorism. Gerry Adams has been granted numerous visas over Great Britain's objection. In each case the administration, I think, made the correct choice to allow us to advance American goals. President Lee's visit would do the same. I would also call my colleagues' attention to the extended debates we have had in this body about most-favored-nation status for China. I have supported MFN for China, and most of my colleagues have also supported it under the premise that engagement helps bring about change. We can bring about greater recognition on human rights if we establish a dialog, open trade, and commerce. So we apply it to China. But with regard to Taiwan, we will not even invite the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan for a visit to the United States. This is a private visit. We are not talking about a state visit. By the number of supporters on the amendment, 52 bipartisan cosponsors, the State Department should get the message of the prevailing attitude in this body. As I said when I started, I am not going to have an opportunity to offer this as an amendment before this body on the rescissions package. But I intend to bring it up later for an up-down vote because that is perhaps the only way the State Department can understand the prevailing attitude. Finally, the U.S.-ROC Economic Council conference is to be held in Anchorage in September. Visiting Alaska would not be a political statement. We consider ourselves almost another country. We are out there all by ourselves and I think it is appropriate that President Lee participate in an economic meeting. Lee's alma mater, Cornell University, as I indicated earlier, is another completely private matter. So I call on my colleagues to vote to send a strong signal to the administration at an appropriate time when I have an opportunity to bring up the amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record. This is a letter from David W. Tsai, President of the Center for Taiwan International Relations.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask that I may extend my remarks concerning an invitation to allow the President of Taiwan to visit the United States. I assume under the rescission package before us, unanimous consent would be sufficient?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague and a number of the freshman Senators for their initiative in pursuing appropriate action relative to cutting Federal spending. While I have been around here a little longer than they have, I think their energy and commitment is to be recognized, and I think the spirit of leadership in relationship to the tough decisions that have to be made are certainly evidenced in this new group that has joined our membership. I believe we are in morning business?

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 S. 537, to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the House version of the bill, H.R. 402. The hearing will take place Thursday, April 27, 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. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would permit the minting of a $1 silver-plated coin with a likeness of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the front and a rendering of the Iwo Jima monument on the reverse side of the coin. I am pleased that Senator Grassley is joining in this effort that will provide a boost to our domestic silver mining industry and could serve to reduce the Federal deficit. Our currency system has not been significantly altered over the past century even though the economy has fundamentally changed. Not long ago, an individual could use one coin--a nickel, dime, or quarter--to purchase a coke from a vending machine or ride a bus. Today, that's just not possible. Vending machines require two, three, or four coins, or, even worse, a dollar bill. And you know how frustrating those dollar bill readers can be on vending machines and Metro fare machines. To make matters worse, a dollar bill reader on a vending machine costs $400 to $500--an utterly unnecessary cost if a dollar coin were available. According to the Coin Coalition, processing dollar coins instead of dollar bills would save the mass transit industry alone more than $124 million a year. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would save $3.5 million a year if it did not have to expend the time and labor in processing--unwrinkling dollar bills. Those savings could be used too buy 24 new buses to move people instead of paper. The Chicago Transit Authority does its own bill-unfolding, at a cost of $22 per thousand. Processing coins costs just $1.64 per thousand. In addition, many economists project that a dollar coin could save the Federal Government several million dollars. Although coins cost more to mint than dollar bills to print, coins last far longer. A bill wears out in an average of about 17 months while coins can last 30 years. Since this is the 50th anniversary of the allied victory in World War II, I believe it is appropriate that the new coin present a likeness of President Eisenhower who also served as the Supreme Commander in Europe. The rendition of the raising of the flag on Mount Surabachi on Iwo Jima has become a symbol of the dedication and valor of our Armed Forces in restoring freedom in the Pacific. I hope my colleagues will join me in getting this coin modernization enacted into law this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly about another amendment that I was prepared to offer. But, again, because of the circumstances on the floor, it is not going to be presented. It is an issue that is ongoing. I would like to speak briefly on the merits of the issue, although, as I have said, the amendment will not be offered. This was to be a very simple and very straightforward amendment. It would require the Government of Mexico to provide our Government with information relative to the names of the individuals or institutions that are redeeming Mexico's debt when the redemptions are made with the funds provided by the United States Government. As my friend in the chair, the Presiding Officer, will recall, this package is almost $52 billion. It is the contention of the Senator from Alaska that is a bailout that has been crafted by the United States through the Treasury Department. It is my understanding that Mexico has already used some $13 billion to pay off the debt, of which $5 billion initially has come from the United States. Another $15 billion of American taxpayer money is at risk. That is money that came from the Exchange Stabilization Fund that was set up when we went off the gold standard. We are all aware of the fact that the administration came to the Hill to seek support for the Mexico bailout. But they could not get our support and decided that they would find another avenue to bail out Mexico. And they came up with the $20 billion that is in the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, and others and the commitment now is some $52 billion. It is rather interesting to reflect on that because the Senator from New York and I had a colloquy some time ago. And both our recollections are that the current debt of Mexico, as communicated by the assistant to the President of Mexico at a meeting we had, was in the area of $70 billion. The current debt is debt payable in a year. This debt is to meet an obligation issued by the Mexican Government in the form of bonds. These are bearer bonds. That means we do not know who holds them. It is like a check payable to cash. The question my amendment attempts to address is who is being bailed out? Is it the Mexican people? Is it Mexican financial institutions? We have not been able to get a definitive answer from the Department of the Treasury. It is my opinion that the ordinary citizens of Mexico are not being bailed out. In fact, the ordinary citizen of Mexico is currently facing interest rates that are clearly out of reach, in some instances 75 and 100 percent. Mortgage rates are absolutely unrealistic. The reality of lost jobs, higher taxes, higher inflation, and when we look at the obligation of who pays this back, we find it is the citizens of Mexico. It is the economy of Mexico. Businesses operating in Mexico are not being bailed out by this commitment, which is the first advance of some $52 billion. Mexico has already used $13 billion to pay off the debt which comes from the United States; hence, the United States taxpayer. Companies that have put brick and mortar in the ground for new plants and employ Mexican citizens are not the beneficiaries of this money. In fact, they are suffering from the havoc caused by the interest rate explosion. They cannot borrow for inventory. They cannot borrow for expansion. American mutual fund investors--let me repeat that--American mutual fund investors whose funds invest on the Mexican Bolsa are not being bailed out. In fact, these equity investors have seen the value of their holdings drop more than 50 percent, and in some cases the loss of these stocks are even larger. So the questions are, Well, where is this money going? Who is it going to benefit? Mr. President, you know who is being bailed out. So do I. The owners of the so-called tesobono debt. Most people do not even know what a tesobono is. In fact, this debt really did not exist a year ago. It is the Mexican debt which, when it comes due, is paid in pesos. It is rather interesting how the financial intrigue of this adjustment occurs. However, the important thing to recognize is the amount of pesos that the debt-ridden holder receives at maturity is linked to the peso-dollar exchange rate. Mexico, unfortunately, made a decision to issue this type of debt early last year because it was finding it more and more difficult to attract more investors to finance its debt. That sounds rather curious, does it not, that they have to have foreign investors to finance their debt? Yet that is the reality that Mexico faced. Canada has to have foreign investors to finance its debt. I noted the other day a figure which indicated that 29.6 percent of the Canadian budget was to pay interest on the debt. That is almost a third. When you get into that area, the ball game is almost over. It is almost over. Now, the foreigners, of course, in order to invest, when they see a situation that is less than stable, demand higher interest rates, and they demanded as much as 20 percent from Mexico. Not only that, but that demanded that the debt be linked to the peso/dollar exchange rate. These are very shrewd investors, Mr. President. They know that money goes to the highest return and the least risk. And they must have foreseen that the peso could be devalued, and they wanted to ensure that they would suffer no currency risk. That is exactly what happened, Mr. President. The peso went from 3.5 to the dollar to 6.5 in barely 2 months, and now that this debt is due these investors are completely insulated from the financial crisis that is affecting all other sectors of the investment community and the working community in Mexico. One asks the question why? It is because the United States Government has decided to give Mexico these billions of dollars to pay off these investors. Now, who are these investors? As I said, they are sophisticated investors. They are the investors who went out there and took a risk because the attractiveness of 20 percent interest suggested that risk was worth taking. These are not the ordinary Mexican people. This was done because the United States Government has decided to give billions of dollars to Mexico to pay off these investors. If we had not come to the rescue, then these investors would have had to suffer the financial consequences that everyone else in Mexico must face. Why should these investors be bailed out? We do not bail out the investors who put money in Orange County bonds. Why are these investors in Mexico so very special? One of the reasons, obviously, we do not know who they are. That makes them special. We know who the investors are who bought Orange County bonds. Who bought these tesobonos? We do not know. They could be American investors, Japanese or German investors, they could very well be some of the billionaires who live in Mexico City and are friends of the controlling PRI party. What we do know is that whoever owns this debt is really cashing in, and they are shipping their money where? They are shipping it out of Mexico. In fact, so many tesobono owners were immediately converting their proceeds into dollars that the peso began to crash above seven to the dollar, and then the Mexican Government decided to stop paying off tesobono debt in pesos and immediately paid the debt in dollars. Where did the money come from? It came from the United States. Whose dollars are they using? They are using U.S. taxpayer dollars. We are bailing them out. Why? We are being told it is to stabilize the monetary and currency system. That is what we are told. If you buy some shares on the New York or American Stock Exchange and lose money, we do not bail you out. But if we had not bailed out the bond holders and the Mexican Government, what would they have done? They would have done as everybody else who runs in to credit problem. They sit down and work a deal out. You know you cannot get 100 percent back on the investment. You might get 40 percent. But that is the way the process works know who the holders of the tesobono debt are. They would have to come forth, submit their bearer bonds through investment brokers, commercial, international banks. We would know who they are and they would sit down and work out a deal. That is what should have been done. I believe it is important that the American taxpayers know who the recipients of this debt are. Some have said, what difference does it make who they are? I think it is important when American taxpayer money is used to provide a guarantee on a foreign government debt to a very select group of holders of debt. Not only are they going to get their principal back; they are going to get the interest back--20 percent. You and I, where do we go to get 20 percent? I do not know. Maybe you get in line down there and buy some tesobonos. But we ought to know who the beneficiaries are because we know that it is not the Mexican economy that is the beneficiary. This is not going to do a thing for the Mexican economy. Those holders of that debt are moving that money out of Mexico. Yet, the Mexican economy, the Mexican citizens are expected to pay it back. In the conditions that exist in Mexico that is unlikely to occur. Now, many of my colleagues make the point that we cannot indicate that we are supporting a process and then not follow it through. The problem with this sales package, Mr. President, is we did not understand it in the first place. We were told continually we were going to stabilize the Mexican economy. What we are doing is paying off the debt of sophisticated investors who bought those tesobonos who are standing in line to get United States dollars and will bail out and they are not going to put that money back in Mexico. There are assumptions that a large portion of this debt is held by Americans, yet the Treasury Department claims that these bearer instruments are of a nature where they do not know who owns the debt. I do not know who controls the debt. But what if we found out that $5 billion of the debt was owned by the Bank of Libya or maybe the debt was owned by an investment house operating as a front for the Government of Iraq or Iran. Would not the taxpayer be curious? Do we not have an obligation as we sign off on this money as a Congress to know who those recipients are? Is it too much to demand that when American taxpayer dollars are used by the Government of Mexico to pay off an investor or speculator the identity of that investor or speculator be known? Because again, we are being told that this has to happen to solidify the economy of Mexico. It is going to solidify the holders of those bearer notes. What my amendment seeks to accomplish is to try to identify who those holders are. Mr. President, reality dictates that if my amendment passes and Mexico does provide the information we are seeking, we will probably never know who really holds that debt. It will probably be reported in the name of the Bank of Panama, the Bank of the Bahamas, a couple of major brokerage house firms, but I think it important that this body focus on this principle: that it was an unnecessary and unwise action taken by this administration at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer to favor the holders of an extraordinary type of foreign debt that was issued out there to make them whole when we do not do it to any other investor when their investments turn bad. But we made an exception for these investors. The New York Times reported last Sunday: Most of those investors, a mix of rich Americans and other foreigners, have swept up their hefty profits and immediately transferred their money out of the country of Mexico. Now, if that is true, Mr. President, we have not done Mexico a favor. We have put a burden on the taxpayer and the Mexican economy because they are the ones we expect to pay that back. So that is the extent of my statement and my concern, Mr. President. And I urge my colleagues who have anguished over whether or not the Congress should take a position on this matter to recognize that we have an obligation to the U.S. taxpayer to make an accounting of the worthiness of a $20 billion commitment, and that is not what we have done. I would feel entirely different in this matter if I felt this was an investment in the Mexican economy which would benefit the Mexican taxpayer. It is like, if you borrow money, Mr. President--and I know you are a businessman--and you could use that money to make more money, that is a good thing. You are employing more people; you are building up inventory. But if you borrow money and you have to mortgage your income to pay it back, I may be doing you a grave disfavor. That is the principle that I think is applicable in this particular case of bailing out this select group of investors, whom we have no knowledge of at the expense of the Mexican taxpayer. Mr. President, I have concluded my statement. I intend to pursue this matter at a later date when the opportunity arises with an appropriate vehicle. In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to consider the merits of my statement this morning relative to identifying who the beneficiaries are of our $20 billion commitment. This is just a part of the current Mexican debt, which will in this year require some $70 billion in order to meet the obligations of the Mexican government. I thank the Chair and I wish the Presiding Officer a good day. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, one of the explanations given in an earlier meeting that I think the Senator from New York was at when the question was asked: ``Who holds this debt?'' The explanation was ``They are bearer instruments.'' Like a check payable to cash, whoever holds it, owns it and can basically turn it into cash. I think there was a comment suggested, if this thing settles down and we try to work it out, then those that hold the debt will be known because they will be represented by themselves as they come in with their pile of tesobono and say we want to work something out with the Mexican Government to get paid. Why did the Treasury Department not see fit to try and address identification? Who are the beneficiaries of this $52 billion bailout?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from New York a question relating to the obligation of a holder of an investment. If, through a mutual fund or a broker, an individual American acquired some of these bearer bonds--tesobonos--now, what obligation does that person have to report the gain or loss to the Federal Government on his or her income tax? Is that not a way of identifying who these holders are? Would not the Internal Revenue Service have a record of who held these bonds and have to report that information?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Why do we know who those holders of the debt are, and we do not know who the holders of the tesobonos are?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Somebody says charity begins at home once in a while. Is there a difference here between the Federal Government's obligation to step in and bail out the investors that hold the Mexican tesobonos? Why not those that hold the Orange County debt?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, why is this deal different than any other deal that basically turns out to be unsatisfactory, and when it comes down to a point where the Government cannot meet its obligation, or the financial house that has issued an instrument cannot meet the demand, the parties sit down and work something out relative to how the creditor is going to get paid. As the Senator from New York said, maybe 50 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents on the dollar. And it addresses itself in a business fashion, and there is a winner and a loser. In most cases, both sides lose if the investment is not successful. But it has been pointed out here in this instance that the Federal Government has seen fit to step in. Why, I ask the Senator from New York, is it not more appropriate that we bail out, say, the investors in the Orange County debt?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In view of this commitment--and I was just given figures relative to the total of $52 billion as the extent of the funding--some $17 billion from the IMF, $20 billion from the United States, which we have identified, and $10 billion from the Bank of International Settlements, and from about five other sources, totaling $52 billion. The American taxpayer has a right to know who are the general beneficiaries of this fortunate commitment by the Treasury Department, because the average American that invests, if he loses, tough; he has lost.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend will yield for another question.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We do not know how much has been expended, but the holders of these instruments, as they become due, are cashing in. They are not rolling over their investment. I assume that they have decided the best thing to do is get their cash. They got their 20-percent interest, and now they are pulling their funds out of Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is simply a second degree to the D'Amato amendment which is the pending business.