Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield briefly, without losing the floor, because I am wandering through this chart.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Illinois for his comments. He has been the leader in the balanced budget amendment for a long time, and I commend him for his commitment and dedication because I know, to some extent, the issue has been somewhat like rowing uphill until this year and truly the public has said, ``Wait a minute. This simply cannot go on.'' We have an obligation to address it, and I am pleased to join with him in that debate. Let me conclude my remarks, Mr. President, by referring to the top line. The top line is rather interesting, because, as we know around here, many of our agencies have a worst-case scenario. The EPA has a worst-case scenario, the Corps of Engineers has a worst-case scenario. This is the worst-case scenario on the chart simply because we did not want to make another worst-case scenario. We could have. But the top line shows our interest bill if interest costs were 5 percent higher than the CBO projects, only 5 percent higher. That would assume interest rates would be 12.7 percent. We can all remember interest rates at 12.7 percent. As many of my colleagues know, it is not without precedent for interest rates to go that high. When I came to the Senate in 1981, the prime rate in this country, in case we have forgotten, Mr. President, was 20\1/2\ percent; 20\1/2\ percent was the prime rate. So when we talk about potentially a 5- percent interest rate increase, higher than CBO projections, for an effective rate of 12.7 percent, we are not being unreasonable in our projection. Now, I do not expect interest rates to take such a rapid jump. However, if they did rise that high, our interest bill over the next 5 years would be $885 billion higher than projected, and the single-year cost of interest in the year 2000 would be $560 billion. Now, to imagine how large that amount would be, I would note that all discretionary spending, all discretionary spending--defense, education, highways, criminal justice, on and on and on--is projected to cost $585 billion, barely $25 billion more than the projected interest bill in the year 2000, if interest rates spike upward. If I were looking at the balance sheet, Mr. President, I would say we are broke. We are broke now. We do not admit we are broke. But the balance sheet simply shows if we are borrowing to pay interest on our accumulated debt, we are broke. We cannot meet our obligations. We are subject to the shifting wind of international investment, because international investment is what funds our debt. They are buying our notes, our bonds, our obligations. A minor change of economic policy in Bonn or London, or even an earthquake in Japan has a direct effect on what the United States Government has to pay to service this unending sea of debt. Can anyone imagine what would happen if the owners of our debt--the owners of our debt are the people out there, firms, mutual funds, that hold this debt, and 18 percent of the debt is held by foreigners--what if they called the debt in and said, ``Hey, we do not want to renew it. We do not want to rewrite it. We want you to pay up. We will not buy any more of your debt.'' They called in 18 percent, just $300 billion or maybe a little more, $500 billion of our debt. How would we pay the owners off? How would we pay the principle when we are borrowing to pay interest? We could not, unless we inflated our dollar to the point that what a dollar buys today would be actually worth 50 cents or less tomorrow. And that is inflation. We have seen it. After the First World War in Germany, the citizens ran around with a wheelbarrow full of nearly worthless marks to buy a cup of coffee. We have already seen what happened the other day in Mexico where we had a collapse of the monetary system. We saw fit to use a monetary stabling fund that we had since we came off the gold standard in 1934, to commit some $20 billion to a $46 billion loan guarantee. Well, Mr. President, there was a warning signal of what can happen when debt gets out of hand. I have mentioned Mexico several times, but I would not attempt to even compare our two economies, for ours is far healthier, far stronger than Mexico. There is no comparison between the importance of the dollar and that of the peso in world currency markets. I note that Mexico's crisis is a crisis of too much debt, and lack of investor confidence. It is simply that simple. The result of that crisis is that Mexico last week had to pay 25 percent interest to roll over a small portion of its international debt--25 percent interest. Well, 25 percent, in 4 years, 100 percent. The only way to get out from under this sea of red ink is to adopt--in my opinion and that of many on this floor--the balanced budget amendment. The public knows, they understand that no family or business can survive very long when year in and year out the principle of the debt grows and all of its borrowing is dedicated to pay off the interest that the debt holders hold. As we begin this debate, we should not forget that a point or two or three change in the interest rates can absolutely devastate our projections and, as a consequence, our capacity to effectively govern and spin our Nation's economy into a spiral of bankruptcy. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to break with the past and begin moving this Government away from the verge of bankruptcy. And those who have doubts about the appropriateness of this balanced budget amendment, please reflect on what these figures mean. Some say we learn by history and others say not much. Let Members recognize the reality. We did not have the self-discipline to address this. It has been proven by our inability each year to bring our revenues in line with our expenditures. Others have said that we cannot do this until we spell out what the cuts are going to be. We saw the same extended debate year after year on what that the only way to address base closings was to put together a commission. The commission would evaluate the priorities, and we in this body would vote up or down on the Commission's recommendations. With the balanced budget amendment, it is the same set of circumstances, Mr. President. To try and spell out first what the cuts will be is simply a copout. We do not have the self-discipline. If those who say, well, this is a very dangerous proposal to mandate a balanced budget because it may affect some of our social programs, I would ask them to reflect on the reality if we do not maintain a healthy economy, a monetary system that is stable, that provides confidence, how in the world are we going to meet those obligations if there is a breakdown in investor confidence, a collapse of our monetary system, because of one single thing--too much debt. It has happened in South America, time and time again. It has happened in Mexico. Canada is paying over 20 percent of their total budget in interest on their debt. They have a government health care system that is costing them more than their initial projection. They are among the most heavily taxed population in North America. They are facing a monetary crisis because they have nowhere to go. They cannot generate more revenue in order to float more debt. They have to pay more interest, and the consequences, Mr. President, are extremely significant and extremely severe. So, I would ask my colleagues to reflect on this reality as we consider this issue. The previous posture that we have had of increased debt has been fraught with inability to bring together the reality associated with any fiscal matter, and that is revenue balancing expenditures. We have that set of facts today. We are not living up to it and we have little opportunity other than to take this measure which may seem extreme to some. Mr. President, I have no further remarks. I know others are anxious to speak. But I wonder if I may be granted 30 seconds under morning business to simply introduce a technical amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we continue in this historic debate, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to share a perspective on the extraordinary burden that our accumulated deficits-- 34 years of deficits in the last 35 years--have placed on the capacity of our Government to operate. I will have more to say at another time, but for now I want to focus specifically on the $4.8 trillion accumulated national debt. You have heard a lot lately of the fact that the deficit has declined for 3 consecutive years. A big part of that decline is a direct result of the growth of the economy that began in the late stages of the Bush Presidency when the country began to emerge from recession. The remaining deficit decline, in my opinion, can be attributed, to a large degree, to President Clinton's record tax increase, which has temporarily increased Federal tax revenues. Further, we have had substantial cuts in spending. But it is interesting to reflect on just where those cuts came from, primarily: The military, a decline in the military budget and military personnel. But the reality, Mr. President, is that the decline in the deficit is but a temporary phenomenon. I am going to show some charts here that will highlight that fact. According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] in every year, starting next year, 1996, and for the unending future, the annual deficit, unfortunately, is on the rise. In fact, CBO projects that the deficit will more than double in less than 10 years. It will more than double in less than 10 years, from $176 billion to more than $400 billion. This unending string of deficits has caused us to accumulate a $4.8 trillion national debt that could easily exceed $7 trillion before the end of the century. So as we add to the deficit, each year as we create a deficit, we are adding to the accumulated debt, and today it is $4.8 trillion. Mr. President, we simply cannot tolerate the continued business-as- usual in Washington that assumes that every year we can run deficits of $150 billion, $250 billion, $350 billion. We dictate under our laws, and our financial community demands, obviously, that we live within our means. Our checks will bounce and we will no longer have credit extended to us. The exception to that, of course, is the Federal Government. The accumulation of this debt has today brought us to the point where, for the first time in our history, we are faced with borrowing from the credit markets of the world for the sole purpose of paying interest on the debt. When you think about that, Mr. President, we are borrowing to pay interest on the debt; we are not borrowing to pay down the principal. We are borrowing to pay interest on the debt. It may surprise some people to know that over the next 10 years, we would be running a surplus in the Federal budget in every year if we did not have to pay a $200 to $400 billion annual interest bill that has resulted from our chronic inability to bring revenue and spending into balance. Let me begin, Mr. President, by showing on the charts the devastating effect that our fiscal policies have shown in the past and suggest over the next 10 years. This chart shows that in every year between 1995 and the year 2004, all American Government borrowing is for the single purpose of paying interest on the debt. We could finance Defense, Medicare, Social Security, and all other Government functions over this period and still accumulate a surplus of some $360 billion if we were not strangled by this extraordinary debt. Now, as the chart shows, beginning in 1994, our deficit was $203 billion. That was precisely the amount of interest we had to pay on the accumulated debt. So here we have the situation where we had a deficit in that year--in other words we expended $203 billion more than we collected in revenues--and we had to pay the interest on the accumulated debt, which was about $4.8 trillion but the interest was more than the deficit that year. Think about that, Mr. President. Think about the implication of what that means. In other words, our entire deficit in 1994 consisted of interest on the debt. Without that debt service burden, we would not have had to auction a single new Treasury note or bond in the market. In 1995, we would be running a surplus of $59 billion if we did not have to service that debt. Instead, as this chart shows, our $176 billion deficit results directly from the fact that our interest costs are $223 billion. The same holds true in every year through the year 2004. In 1997, Mr. President, a $57 billion surplus disappears into a $207 billion deficit. Why? Because, again, we have to pay $260 billion in interest. Some say, ``Well, why do we have to pay it? We are only paying it to ourselves.'' Well, clearly we are not paying it to ourselves. We are paying it to those who hold that debt, the Treasury bills that have to be paid. We have already seen, in the crisis in Mexico, what happens when a government can- not meet the demands of those who held the notes. Now let us look at 1998. In 1998, our interest bill jumps to $270 billion, converting a $46 billion surplus into a $224 billion deficit. And in 1999 our interest bill jumps to $294 billion, converting a $26 billion surplus into a $284 billion deficit. And that is what happens every single year through the year 2004. If we did not have the extraordinary debt overhanging, we would have been able to reduce the national debt by some $360 billion over the next 10 years. We would not have to go back to the credit markets to borrow more than $2.9 trillion--$2.9 trillion--to finance the debt and the deficit. In other words, if we did not have this accumulated $4.8 trillion debt, the United States would be able to retire $360 billion of our national debt and would not have to issue a single new Treasury note or bond over the next 10 years. How did we get into this extraordinary set of circumstances? We did it to ourselves. We have had Republican Presidents, we have had Democratic-controlled Congresses. As a consequence, Mr. President, the simple reality is it has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed now. And the only way to address this debt is to adopt the proposal that is before us which amends the Constitution to require a balanced budget. Mr. President, the projections that I have cited assume that interest rates stay within the projections that CBO assumes. Now what would happen if, as in the past years, we would see a substantial rise in interest rates? In this past year alone, long-term interest rates on Federal borrowing was 1.3 percent higher than the CBO forecast of a year ago. So clearly, CBO makes a forecast and we rely on that forecast in making budgetary judgments. But since the Federal Reserve raised interest rates sevens times in the past year, Government borrowing costs were higher than CBO assumed. As a result, over the next 5 years the Federal Government will have to spend $143 billion more than CBO assumed just a year ago. And that is all due to interest on the national debt. I am going to show you the second chart, Mr. President, because I think it makes my point. What we see here is a projection of our debt service cost if--if-- interest rates continue to rise. We saw the Fed come up with the seventh increase on the current CBO projection with interest rates on 10-year notes averaging between 6.7 to 7.7 percent. Under that, the lowest scenario, interest payments will increase from $235 billion in 1995 to $310 billion by the year 2000. However, if interest rates rise by merely 1 percent, just 1 percent through this period, we will have to pay $175 billion more in interest; by the year 2000 our interest bill would be $50 billion higher or a total of $360 billion. The next line, Mr. President, shows what would happen if interest rates are 3 percent higher than projected. Now mind you, the first one was 1 percent, now we go to 3 percent. Under this scenario, by the year 2000 our interest bill annually would be $460 billion if interest rates are in the 9.7 to 10.7 percent range. That is not unheard of by any means. Now, if that happened, interest on the debt would be the single--the single--largest expenditure in the Federal budget. I was a commercial banker, Mr. President, for 25 years. Interest is like having a horse that eats while you sleep. It goes on and on and on. If interest rates turn out to be 3 percent higher than projected, in the year 2000 interest costs would exceed Social Security payments by $27 billion. Interest costs would exceed combined Medicare-Medicaid spending by $25 billion. And interest costs would exceed our national defense expenditure, all of it, in that year by an astounding $156 billion. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this legislation. I assure you that the public supports it almost unanimously, because the system is simply out of balance. We need to address correctly the forms, cost benefits and risk analyses, which is one way to do it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me acknowledge my colleague, Senator Lott, who has spoken on the necessity of the legislation which we are introducing today, the Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995. I am very pleased to rise today to introduce the Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995 for myself, Senator Johnston, and Senator Lott. Congress needs to require agencies to use sound science, risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decision-making process. So often, as you know, Mr. President, decisions are made on the basis of emotion. The group that speaks the loudest, has the most numbers, or makes the most outlandish statements influences the decision, instead of decisions being made on sound science. If we cannot depend on scientists who spend a portion of their lives becoming experts on a particular subject, we certainly cannot depend on the short span of attention that we have as politicians as we attempt to evaluate the merits of some very difficult and sophisticated subjects. One of the difficulties, of course, is to get the scientific community to step forward and put their reputation on the line behind, if you will, their recommendations. So often, we find a situation where the scientists say, ``Well, if I had another appropriation, I could study that a little bit more and probably give you a little more definitive answer.'' Decisions have to be made every day. You and I, Mr. President, have to vote up and down. We cannot vote maybe. We have to make some decisions. With the regulatory process that has run amuck in this country today these decisions are not being made competently and are not being made on the basis of the best information available. We cannot seem to get the scientific community to bear the responsibility for their advice to those of us who have to vote yes or no. What are we really talking about? This is not a complicated concept. This is risk analysis, cost benefit, and every time you pick up a can of soup or you go buy some crackers it tells you if you have fat soup, skinny soup, or crackers with sodium in them. But with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in the application of a permit by the Environmental Protection Agency and various other agencies, you do not know what the cost is. You do not know what the benefit is. You do not know what the risk is. So this legislation would simply mandate that the public have awareness when the administrative agencies come down with their evaluation of the permitting process as to what the risk is and what the cost is. It is perfectly reasonable. Yet there is a tremendous concern out there among America's environmental community that somehow this will dismantle our environmental laws. What an outlandish generalization. So I think, Mr. President, we need to require the agencies to use sound science, risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decisionmaking process. This legislation applies to environmental restoration activities conducted by the Department of Energy [DOE]. Although the scope of this bill applies to DOE cleanups, we hope to have the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis debate cover all agencies' activities. We are coordinating our legislative effort with other legislative efforts. In the last Congress Senator Johnston offered an amendment to the EPA Cabinet level bill in the spring of 1993. At the same time the Johnston amendment was adopted, I offered an amendment requiring cost-benefit analysis that was agreed to by the Senate. I have continued to look for ways to improve and refine our regulatory decisionmaking process. Senator Lott also introduced legislation last Congress that is incorporated into our bill. Since the last Congress, the momentum for risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis has only intensified and the November elections have brought about renewed interest in advancing risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis legislation. I hope the agencies out there got the message of what the last election suggested, that the process was out of balance, and it needed correcting. On January 17, I hosted, along with Senator Lott, Representative Crapo, and Representative Karen Thurmond, the first meeting of a bipartisan, bicameral Regulatory Reform Caucus now made up of 35 Representatives and some 12 Senators. The caucus wants a proactive strategy to require agencies to use sound science, risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decisionmaking process. John Stossel of ABC News spoke persuasively about how the public's perception of environmental and health risks affects our overregulation of those risks. Mr. Stossel showed a chart that broke down how much given risks shorten the average life. It is interesting to note that we spend billions of dollars regulating toxic waste sites and there are lots of news stories about places, like Love Canal. But, even based on the most extreme estimates provided by environmental organizations toxic wastes are calculated to shorten the average life by just 4 days. Other risks shorten the average life span by years, yet we do not regulate them. Dr. John Graham, Director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, gave an objective view of how government overregulates our lives and businesses. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Graham's point that over 80 percent of Americans favor better risk analysis in environmental policy. And, as Dr. Graham has indicated, risk and cost- benefit analysis is the key to sound environmental policy of the future. In fact, I think it is fair to say that incorporation of sound science, detailed and well communicated assessments, cost-benefit analysis, and the prioritizing of our limited resources is the environmental policy of the future. It is a commonsense policy that is here to stay. American businesses spend more than $150 billion annually just to comply with environmental laws--costs that increasingly strain U.S. competitiveness. Risk-based regulations rely on worst-case scenarios and ignore the best science, producing elaborate, expensive regulation of unimportant problems. Imagine, Mr. President, if we relied on a worst-case scenario. We would not walk outside. We would not be in this building. Worst case means the worst possible case, whether it be flood, earthquake, you name it. So risk-based scenarios really are scenarios that ignore best science contrary to the real world. As a result, the Federal Government is forcing the expenditure of billions of dollars by local government and industry on these excessively hypothetical and exaggerated perceptions of risks. The intent of the policy of incorporating risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis into the decisionmaking process is to ensure better, more cost-effective regulations and decisions over the long term. Again, it is the smart way to make sure we get the most value for our limited Government resources, especially in a time where the American public is unequivocally demanding a smaller Federal bureaucracy and less Government control of their lives. A couple of examples, Mr. President, to liven up the morning. I am told that a Kansas City bank was ordered by Federal regulators to put a braille keypad on drive-through ATM, automatic teller machines. A little food for thought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in another case, required California farmers to dispose of millions of pounds of otherwise good peaches and nectarines simply because they were smaller than Federal standards permitted. Fruit that could have been given away to the needy had to be left to rot. In Boise, ID, a plumbing contractor was penalized by OSHA because proper safety precautions were not taken by the employees, who successfully rescued a suffocating construction worker from a collapsed trench. The $7,785 fine was rescinded due to public outrage. Can you imagine that? A self-employed truck mechanic in Morrisville, PA, was fined $2,200 and sentenced to 3 years in jail for hauling away 7,000 old tires and rusting cars and placing clean fill on his own occasionally wet property without a Federal permit, because it was classified as a ``wetlands.'' The EPA argued the property was wetlands because of a stream--dry for most of the year--was partially trapped by the discarded junk and created several pools of water. I could go on and on with those horror stories, Mr. President, but I know you are familiar with them as well. Finally, the legislation Senator Lott, Senator Johnston, and I have put together on risk assessment/cost-benefit would accomplish several important goals. First, the legislation establishes clear principles to be followed by the Department of Energy. It does not set up a new bureaucracy, but it requires specifics when it performs risk assessments, and they include the consideration and discussion of data that may or may not specifically point to a health risk; precise guidelines for the use of assumptions to bridge some of the data gaps; and most importantly, assessments that are objective and unbiased. Second, the bill establishes principles for risk characterization that will allow for better understanding and communication, so the public can read what the risk is, like they can read the risk if they want fat soup or skinny crackers, because it is on there. DOE must issue a final regulation implementing the risk assessment and risk characterization principles. DOE must develop a plan to review and revise early risk assessments, which shall include a process by which members of the public may petition the DOE for review of particular risk assessments. In addition to establishing a risk assessment procedural framework, the bill would also require the Department to apply the results of those assessments in significant ways that will ensure safer, more efficient and more cost-effective cleanup. Any plan, assessment, or record of decision to conduct an environmental restoration activity must go through a cost-benefit analysis. The Secretary is going to have to certify that the analysis is based upon the best reasonable information; the analysis is objective and unbiased; the environmental restoration activity significantly reduces the targeted risk; no alternative environmental restoration activity is more cost-effective; and the environmental restoration activity is likely to reduce benefits that justify its cost. The Department must prioritize resources to address the most serious and most cost-effective risks first. We intend to expand the scope of this legislation to apply to regulations and all agencies, to provide for an independent and external peer review process. I do not want to complicate this with a lot of words. We are simply asking for a process that the public can understand and it is almost like truth-in-lending, which has never been applicable to the regulatory process. That is what we propose in this legislation. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have printed in the Record some of the risk comparisons that help to illustrate the importance of having comparative risks available to the public, and an article entitled ``Unloading Excess Regulations,'' by Murray Weidenbaum, which appeared in the Journal of Commerce on January 27, 1995.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish the Chair a good day. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 333 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's 1996 proposed budget. The committee will hear testimony from the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday, February 9, 1995. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt or Jim Beirne at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I am to be recognized in morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, oftentimes it is not appropriate to be critical of a proposal unless you have a better solution. But I rise today to speak on the action of the administration which was announced yesterday regarding Mexico. In the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, the administration simply did an end-run around Congress and the American people when it unveiled its latest financing package for bailing out foreign investors in Mexico. There is no question the President has the legal authority under the exchange stabilization fund to provide the $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees to the Mexican Government. However, I am concerned that this establishes a dangerous precedent and represents a use of power by the administration that was, in my opinion, unwarranted. It should be noted that the potential of unilaterally using the emergency stabilization fund was not conveyed to many of the Members who were involved in working with the administration on the potential alternatives associated with this financial crisis. In any event, it has been less than 6 weeks since the Mexican Government reversed its longstanding policy of maintaining a pegged value for the Mexican peso and devalued the peso by nearly 13 percent. This devaluation plunged the Mexican stock and currency markets into a panic and a crisis that resulted in the peso dropping by more than 30 percent in a matter of just a few days. It was at that point that the Clinton administration came forward and offered, first, a $6 billion credit line to Mexico in an effort to stabilize the currency. By January 3, Treasury saw fit to extend this line of credit to $9 billion and there were some other governments that came in, and commercial banks, for another $9 billion. So there was approximately $18 billion available for stablizing the peso at that time. I include the $6 billion I previously mentioned. When I made an inquiry to the administration about this taxpayer- financed $9 billion credit line, I was assured that the American taxpayer would not be at risk because the credit line was fully collateralized by Mexico. Since January 3 we have seen the peso crisis not abate. It only got worse. The peso dropped 45 percent in barely 1 month. This led the administration to raise the specter of as much as a $40 billion credit line to stabilize the peso. And by yesterday, the size of the bailout had grown another 25 percent to nearly $50 billion, with at least $20 billion coming from U.S. participation. The specifics of that participation, as indicated in a newspaper article, suggests that commercial banks will be in for $3 billion; Canada, $1 billion; Latin American countries, $1 billion; the Bank for International Settlements, $10 billion; the International Monetary Fund, $17.8 billion; and, as I have indicated, the United States Treasury, some $20 billion. Why are we putting so much taxpayer money at risk? Who are we defending and who are we bailing out with this taxpayer-financed line of credit? And how did Mexico fall into the crisis? Mr. President I would note that most of this debt is represented by bearer bonds. That means whoever holds them basically owns them. It is like owning a $100 bill. You can walk in and turn it into two 50's or five 20's. The significance of that is it is very difficult to identify who specifically holds those debt instruments. What we have learned in the last month, however, is that this crisis has not just happened overnight. It has been building for a year or more. It was clearly foreseen by the United States and Mexican Governments. In fact, the New York Times recently reported that United States Treasury officials warned the Mexican Government as early as last summer the country's foreign debt had become dangerously high and that the peso was being maintained at an artificially high level. But, for strictly internal political reasons, the Mexican Government chose to compound the crisis by continuing to print billions of pesos. As far as I know they were printing them yesterday. They may still be printing them today. Compounding the Mexican Government's mismanagement of its finances and its insatiable desire to maintain a strong peso and excessive foreign imports, the Government allowed its foreign currency reserves to drop from $29 billion in February to less than $7 billion in December. Now Mexico faces the daunting prospect of having to deal with foreign debt redemptions that are listed at approximately $80 billion this year, $39 billion of which is in the public sector. The significance of that is that is debt that is falling due this year, not all at once this year, but it will have to be met or refinanced this year. It is very likely, when the guarantees are in force, the holders of these notes, these bearer notes, are going to immediately want to convert their pesos into dollars and increase rather than decrease the capital flight out of Mexico. If you and I held bearer notes in this crisis, what would be the inducement to hang on if the guarantees were there and we knew we could be paid? A fiduciary responsibility would suggest the holder of those notes would run in, cash them in, and take his or her principal and leave the country. The only consideration that might keep them That rate may be in excess of 20 percent, which would certainly be an inducement. But then the question is, Who are we bailing out? And the administration has yet to address specifically who holds that debt. They say the mutual funds hold the debt. The mutual funds are sophisticated investors. If they make an investment mistake, should the taxpayer have the responsibility of bailing them out anymore than any other individual who makes a financial investment and looks for a return on that investment, and tries to measure the risk against the inducement which is the interest that he is generating on that investment? If the risk is too great or the investment goes sour, obviously the alternative is you lose your principal. But that is not what is happening here and that is why I am critical of this proposal. I think there is a growing danger that the Mexican Government will have to return to Washington before this year is out seeking another $10, $15, or perhaps $20 billion in taxpayer funds for a second bailout. We were told by the assistant to the President of Mexico that the total debt of Mexico was about $180 billion, that the current debt was something in the area of close to $80 billion, and now we are talking about approximately a $50 billion guaranteed fund. It is interesting to note that yesterday, Mr. Bill Seidman, former head of the FDIC and the RTC, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, indicated that the best way to resolve the Mexican financial crisis was to have the Mexican Government sit down with its creditors and renegotiate the terms of the loans that are coming due this year. He adamantly opposed a taxpayer bailout of speculators in Mexican debt. I believe Bill Seidman is absolutely right. Much of that Mexican debt carries rates of interest of 25 to 40 percent. Where can you get that today in the United States? You are not going to get it in your savings account or your mutual fund. There is associated risk with the attractiveness of the investment and the potential return. Why should the American taxpayer dollars be used to pay off this debt of 100 cents on the dollar plus interest when we do not know who those holders are, other than the gray area of people who bought bearer notes or mutual funds, who made these risky investments simply to attain a higher interest rate? If they can get the Federal Government to guarantee what we have done, they will be very, very happy with such high interest rates. Investors knew precisely what types of investments they were making. They were speculating. They were almost junk bond type of investments. And for American taxpayer funds to be used to guarantee this investment is unconscionable in my opinion. Mr. Seidman's suggestion is that the debtors and the creditors sit down, the creditors being the holders, the debtors obviously being the Mexican Government, to work something out. How does that work? It is done all the time. I was a commercial banker for 25 years. If there is no blood in the turnip, if your borrower cannot pay, you sit down, you try to work something out, and you reschedule the debt, and take 40, 50, 60, or 70 cents on the dollar. You work something out. You just do not let everything collapse. We have not given this process a chance to work. I think we should. Mr. President, yesterday the administration stated that the United States will impose strict conditions on the assistance it provides with a goal of ensuring that this package imposes no costs on the U.S. taxpayer. As of today, I am not aware that any of my colleagues know precisely what those conditions are. I have been involved in the meetings. I would expect the administration will make those conditions known, and I would encourage that they make them known before a single American dollar is used to provide guarantees to the Government of Mexico. A factsheet released yesterday by the Treasury Department implies that these loans will be collateralized with the proceeds from Mexican oil exports. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I asked the Treasury to specifically identify how much of Pemex's revenue the Mexican Government has pledged, and how that revenue will be handled by United States financial authorities; how much of it is pledged, because obviously you can only attach what is not pledged but still assignable. I believe that it is imperative that for every dollar in loans and loan guarantees, the Mexican Government has to come up with some way to make a deposit of an equal amount of foreign hard currency in a Federal Reserve bank account in the United States from their oil export revenues. I think the American taxpayer must be assured that so long as there are outstanding United States Government guarantees of Mexican debt, that an amount equal to the debt is maintained under the control of our Government. Otherwise, we risk the real possibility that the current Mexican Government or succeeding Governments could renounce the collateral agreement with the United States and leave the American taxpayer holding the bag. What are we going to do after these notes are called, so to speak, if the guarantees have to be delivered? We do not have another monetary stabilization fund to go to. The response I received when I made an inquiry from the Treasury Department regarding collateralization of this debt was completely unsatisfactory to me. It does not appear to me that the new agreement will be any different, although I hope it will be. Under the previous draft agreement, the Mexican Government is required to turn over the proceeds from its oil exports only--get this, Mr. President--turn over the proceeds from its oil exports only in the event that the Mexican Government defaults on these bonds and only after such a default occurs. In other words, the Mexican Government would not establish an escrow account in the United States that can be immediately attached by the United States Government in the event of default. Another way of saying it is that there will be no collateral provided by the Mexican Government to offset the risk of default. Mr. President, if we look at the structure of this, where we can only call, if you will, on this process after the Government is in default, I assure you that the practicality of that is basically unworkable. It is simply naive to believe that if Mexico, after receiving some $50 billion in loan guarantees from the United States Government and the IMF, faces a default on these bonds in the future, that it will have the political will and capacity to turn its oil revenues over to the United States Government. At that time, if the Government defaults, it is everyone for himself. The demands internally in Mexico will dictate that there will never be realistically a fund set up for the oil revenues, if indeed default occurs. It does not take much imagination to know that, if in the future, Mexico faces default on United States Government-backed bonds, the entire Mexican economy will surely be in political, social, and economic chaos that will only be exacerbated by being forced to turn over its oil receipts to its neighbor in the north. Let us be realistic. What caused this problem is too much debt. We have other nations that are friendly to us that have too much debt. Canada from the north would be the first to admit that. What I fear is that, if such an economic crisis were to occur in the future in Mexico, the United States, having already put its $20 billion at risk, basically, would simply have to extend further credit lines to Mexico in order to stave off the political crisis that will be evident in that country. In other words, if we start down the line of extending $20 billion to Mexico, we are laying the foundation for future bailouts that I think will put even more American taxpayer money at risk. Mr. President, before we extend $20 billion of credit to Mexico, we must have ironclad guarantees of internal economic reforms in Mexico, and I would like to see 100 percent collateralization of the loan. Finally, Mr. President, it struck me during the entire negotiations that the best way to have handled this would have been to propose a guarantee on a percentage, if you will, of the current term debt that Mexico is exposed to. the $50 billion and require that the holders of the debt stay in on the balance, that other $10 billion. In other words, we would have been first out with a guarantee; the holders would have been last out. The explanation given as to why that was unworkable is we did not know who the holders of the debt were. I do not totally accept that. I think, had we waited, we could have forced the holders of that debt to come forward and make a proposal that they would stay in for a portion of their participation in return for the U.S. Government guarantee. So that was my suggestion, which was recognized but rejected under the explanation that it was impossible to know who the holders of the debt were and, therefore, they could not proceed with that kind of an arrangement. So time will tell, Mr. President, just what the risk to the U.S. taxpayer is. But this Senator is very concerned about the agreement that was made, and I felt an obligation to present my views to my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I intend to make a brief statement on the status of the joint United States-North Korea agreed framework covering nuclear issues. I had the pleasure of visiting North Korea, along with Senator Simon, who is here on the floor today. As a consequence of that particular visit, the framework agreement has been an issue of great concern to me and an issue worthy of congressional scrutiny. There have been a number of hearings on the agreed framework. The Intelligence Committee, the Energy Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Armed Services Committee have addressed this subject. I had an opportunity to speak before the Armed Services Committee just the other day. I want to commend that committee for its important role in reviewing the agreement, because there are some 37,000 American troops on the demilitarized zone in South Korea. They are certainly exposed to harm should any conflict arise on the Korean Peninsula. It is interesting to note that under Armed Services Committee oversight, the Department of Defense has seen fit to fund the purchase of approximately 50,000 tons of oil. The first shipment called for under the agreed framework. Now, Mr. President, I would like to briefly raise three specific areas of concern about the framework agreement. The first is the fate of 8,177 Americans still unaccounted for in North Korea following the Korean war north of the 38th parallel. I find it interesting to reflect on that staggering figure, when we recognize that currently today in Vietnam, we have somewhat less than 1,700 unaccounted for. We have an obligation, Mr. President, to get the answers. How do we get the answers? Well, it is certainly a matter of access. The North Koreans must allow the United States access, including joint recovery teams that proved so successful in Vietnam. In fact, in North Korea, unlike Vietnam, we know the precise location of over 2,000 grave sites and prisoner-of-war camps. We simply cannot get in. During our visit to Pyongyang, Senator Simon and I delivered a letter to President Kim Jong Il. The letter was given to the Foreign Minister and he assured us it had been delivered to President Kim Jong Il. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record. Mr. President, to my knowledge we have received no answer to the letter delivered to President Kim Jong Il. I call on the North Korean leadership to respond favorably to our request for joint recovery teams and further cooperation. It is fair to say that the few remains repatriated thus far have not been well handled. Moreover, there appears to be a profit motive associated with those remains. We have had unofficial indications that the DPRK wants up to $30,000 U.S. per remain. This is an outrageous sum compared to the $2,000 figure used for reimbursement in Vietnam. It is inconceivable to me, Mr. President, that as to the lack of cooperation in fullest possible accounting for those Americans lost in the Korean conflict, there has not been a demand by the administration in the framework agreement that this matter be addressed. I think this is the highest requirement of Government--fullest possible accounting of those who gave so much for our freedoms. Why has it not been included if the framework agreement? Moreover, the administration has not yet seen fit to respond to the inquiries that this Senator has made in that regard. I would also like to call this body's attention to the comparison between Vietnam and North Korea. The administration has moved faster in 3 months with North Korea than in the last 3 years with Vietnam toward diplomatic and trade relation, despite the fact that Vietnam has taken many good-faith steps by providing cooperation, including joint recovery teams. One other interesting comparison, not related to the MIA issue, is the fact that we have agreed to provide the North Koreans with light- water. Yet, we are prohibited from selling that same technology to China. The second issue I want to talk about is the lack of dialog between North and South Korea. One of the requirements of the framework agreement is that there be a dialog. Without a meaningful dialog between the North and South, it will be impossible to implement the agreed framework. Based on administration representations, we anticipate that South Korea and Japan will pick up substantial costs associated with the delivery of the light-water reactors--at least $4 billion. We also anticipate other countries to cover the delivery of a significant amount of oil, approximately 500,000 tons per year over a period of years. I do not believe that South Korea can make such a commitment to the North without a political dialog. But at this point, there is no such dialog. The North is still demanding an apology from President Kim Young-sam for the alleged insensitivity on the death of Kim Il-song, and yet the North continues with propaganda against the South. Mr. President, section three of the framework agreement between the United States and North Korean requires that the North Koreans will engage in a North-South dialog and that the North Koreans will consistently take steps to implement the North-South declaration on the demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula. I am gratified that references to North-South issues were included in the agreed framework, but I am concerned that the references do not have States stop fulfilling its commitments under the agreement framework if there has not been progress in the North-South relations? Just a few days ago, I introduced a resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 that calls on the executive branch to take steps to ensure that implementation of the agreed framework is linked to the substantive and rapid progress in the dialog between the North and the South. I hope this resolution is a step in the right direction. Finally, Mr. President, I think it is appropriate to comment on one of the administration's defenses of the agreed framework. In response to any criticism of the deal itself, the administration response that it was this agreement or war. Although I know that this is second-guessing, I maintain we could have negotiated a better deal. The agreed framework is a bad deal because we left out the inspections of the two suspected nuclear waste sites. What does North Korea have to hide? We still do not know. The administration walked up to the line with sanctions because of North Korea's refusal to agree to the IAEA inspections of the two suspected nuclear sites. But then, if you will recall, President Carter went to North Korea and got Kim Il-song to agree to a freeze, which the Clinton administration apparently felt compelled to accept. We lost leverage with our allies, such as China and Japan, to go ahead with the sanctions at a time when, in my opinion, North Korea was ready to collapse from within. It could not depend on the Soviet Union anymore; it could not depend on the Chinese for subsidized oil. They were totally isolated. Although I readily agree that the North Koreans were desparate and dangerous, I would like my colleague to reflect on the comparison to the Soviet Union. During the cold war, the Soviets were a documented nuclear threat. The Reagan administration, rather than backing down, chose to bring the Soviet Union to its knees in an arms race. So today we have an isolated and broke North Korea. Moreover, Mr. President, I believe there is a leadership vacuum after the death of Kim Il-song. So who are we helping? Perhaps we should wait to see if a moderate regime will come forward rather than giving the current totalitarian regime a new life? I believe we are rewarding North Korea's bad behavior, and it sets an unfortunate precedent. I have indicated previously that I belive that we are bound by agreements executed by our executive branch, even though it is an agreement that, in my judgment, is a poor agreement because it carries a scent of appeasement. But if the administration has to come back to the Congress to fund it--if South Korea and Japan do not come forward-- then as far as this Senator is concerned, all bets are off for this agreement. I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask how much time remains for morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I submit a concurrent resolution that expresses the Sense of the Congress regarding the serious issue of North Korea-South Korea dialog as part of the United States-North Korea Agreed Framework on the nuclear issue. I am joined today by my colleagues Senator Simon, Helms, Robb, and Thomas in submitting this resolution. Several of our colleagues on the House side have submitted a similar resolution today. I do not intend at this time to launch into a lengthy critique of the agreed framework signed between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [DPRK]. I chaired a hearing last week in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to examine the agreement in greater detail. Other hearings on the agreed framework are being held in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee this week. And I believe this body will have an opportunity to debate the entire agreement in detail when the administration seeks additional funding to carry out the provisions of the agreed framework. Today, however, I want to focus on a specific, and critical, element of the agreed framework: the necessity of a meaningful North-South dialog. Without such a dialog, I am convinced that implementation of the agreed framework is unworkable. Section III(2) of the agreed framework specifies that ``[t]he DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.'' The agreed framework goes on to say in section III.(3) that ``[t]he DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this agreed framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.'' Yesterday, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Warren Christopher had this to say about these provisions: ``As part of the framework, North Korea has pledged to resume dialogue with South Korea on matters affecting peace and security on the peninsula. We have made clear that resuming North-South dialogue is essential to the success of the framework--so important that we were prepared to walk away from the framework if North Korea had not been willing to meet that condition.'' I am gratified that the United States negotiators held firm on including references to these two North-South issues, but I am greatly concerned that the requirements were not spelled out in greater detail in the agreement. For instance, what is the time line for progress? At what point will the United States stop fulfilling its commitments under the agreed framework if there has been progress in North-South relations. It is this lack of specificity that has led me and my colleagues to introduce this resolution. The resolution calls on the executive branch to take steps to ensure that the implementation of the agreed framework is linked to substantive and rapid progress in the dialogue between North and South Korea, including developing timetables for achieving measures to reduce tensions between North and South Korea. Although not a comprehensive list, positive measures could include: First, hold a North-South summit; second, prompt dismantlement of North Korea's reprocessing facility; third, initiation of mutual nuclear facility inspections; fourth, establishment of North-South Liaison offices; fifth, establishment of a North-South joint military commission; sixth, expansion of trade relations; seventh, promotion of freedom to travel; eighth, exchanges and cooperation in science and technology, education, the arts; health, sports, the environment, publishing, journalism, and other fields of mutual interest; ninth, establishment of postal and telecommunications services; and tenth, reconnection of railroads and roadways. The resolution also calls on President Clinton to appoint a senior official to communicate directly with the North Korean Government regarding the steps and measures, and to consult with South Korea and other concerned allies regarding such communications. In addition, the resolution calls on the President to report to Congress within 90 days regarding the progress made in the specific steps. Mr. President. I do not need to remind my colleagues that 37,000 American soldiers stationed on the demilitarized zone remain in harm's way. We all received a grim reminder of this when a U.S. helicopter was shot down on December 17, 1994, killing one U.S. airman and detaining another on false charges of American espionage. These American troops are part of the nearly 2 million troops who face each other across a heavily fortified demilitarized zone. Three decades of on-again, off-again talks between Pyongyang and Seoul have produced no significant progress in reducing tensions. Although a cease-fire ended the Korean war in 1953, the two sides technically remain at war. The agreed framework does not adequately address the underlying tensions between North and South Korea. Nor do I believe that North and South Korea will simply work everything out without some outside assistance. For that reason, I believe that the Clinton administration must take specific steps to ensure that North Korea lives up to its commitment under the agreed framework. I hope this resolution will take us a step in the right direction.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from Idaho. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor of this Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995. Unfunded Federal mandates certainly become one of the tools of business as usual in today's legislating to improve the quality of living in America. But in reality, they counteract what we are trying to achieve as legislators by forcing exorbitant compliant costs on our State, local and tribal governments. Change is what Americans called for during this last election. This bill takes, I think, a comprehensive approach to changing the way we do business here. It has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and the support of the States and their respective industries and, I believe, the support of a wide segment of America's taxpaying public. So I am ready to support the passage of this bill when we move to a vote in the Senate. The future of unfunded Federal mandates is about to be changed, and the next step is to move toward providing relief for existing regulations that impose an unbearable cost on State and local governments. Yesterday, I was visited by residents of the small community of Unalaska, near Dutch Harbor. It is a small island community in the Aleutian chain of southwest Alaska. It is a rather interesting community because it ordinarily has a population of about 4,300. But for about 3 months out of the year, that population increases by about 10,000. The rationale is that it is the largest fishing port in the United States, and the fish that are processed there are processed primarily by workers coming from all over Alaska, as well as other States. The community is accessible only by air and water. There are no roads. There is a ferry service that makes approximately six trips each year. The residents of Dutch Harbor and Unalaska, one can imagine, could hardly be affected by the proposed legislation on unfunded Federal mandates. But I stress that the heavy financial burdens caused by existing regulations stacked with unfunded mandates reaches out that far. These folks are not alone. Throughout Alaska and across the country, communities, large and small, are faced with the impossibility of trying to meet the mandates of the Congress. We simply need to provide them with relief. In Dutch Harbor, the EPA recently issued a notice requiring filtration of drinking water to the city of Unalaska. The filter plant requirement would appear to be in the public health interest, but Unalaska's water system has never, ever been associated with water- borne disease. Their primary source of water is a small stream with its headwaters encompassing an area of undeveloped mountain and volcanic regions. And when a storm occasionally passes through, it stirs up the silt in the stream and the water occasionally exceeds the EPA's accepted turbidity level of 5 units. Now, Mr. President, the result is that these people, the majority, as I have said, year-round residents, some 4,300, who have been drinking that water untouched by human development for several thousand years are now forced to implement a $6 million water filtration plant, plus foot the bill for operating expenses to solve a problem that does not exist. They simply cannot afford it, but they are mandated under law. The local officials potentially face liability and criminal penalties if they do not adhere to this demand. This is only one example of many in Unalaska. They must also construct an advanced primary or secondary sewage plant in compliance with Federal regulations at a cost of another $6.3 million, with $200,000 yearly in operating costs. They simply cannot afford it. They also face extremely high costs of complying with the Clean Air Act. They are forced to reduce emissions from their power generation facilities to meet reduced 1995 emissions. What are the circumstances here? There are approximately eight generating plants throughout the community. Their power is diesel generated. The EPA monitors over the exhaust. They compile data collectively and they find them out of compliance. What is not understood is that Dutch Harbor, AK, is probably the windiest place in North America. On an average day it will blow 60, 70, 100 miles an hour in a storm, they have registered 170 miles an hour. Yet the EPA maintains they are not meeting their air quality emissions. problem with the windmills is they simply cannot stand the ice that forms on the blades; they tear themselves apart. These are real people who come to Washington asking us to address a legitimate problem, and it is legitimate in the sense that it affects their livelihood. We talk about millions and billions. These are people who come in to try to explain their circumstances and are asking for relief. This is a fishing community that has been forced to turn away members of the industry seeking a power source because they have already reached the maximum capacity that EPA dictates. They are so caught up in efforts to comply with Federal regulations, as I have said, to avoid civil and criminal penalties, that there are no resources remaining for expansion to meet additional community needs. In my opinion, Mr. President, the real criminals are the agencies forcing these unbearable cost burdens on our communities as regulatory dumping grounds, if you will. Now this community has teamed up with 40 other communities to pass resolutions calling on Congress to address the impact of these unfunded Federal mandates. I ask unanimous consent that a list of those communities be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to make a brief statement on the subject matter that is before us at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. These communities are openly committed to providing high-quality public services to the residents, but as a result of the numerous unfunded mandates and restrictive time schedules, are sacrificing other local priorities. The intent of Congress in passing environmental statutes was not to deplete our States' economic resources. If we are truly committed to changing the future of unfunded mandates in our legislating, we should be willing to go a step beyond, and that is what I am prepared to do. So, Mr. President, reform of unfunded mandates is not a job well done until we have provided relief from those regulations now in effect, and I am committed to finding that balance which raises the quality of public service for Americans at a reasonable cost. If a less costly course of action is available to achieve the same result, we should not limit that window of opportunity but encourage the cost savings. This is possible when solutions are tailored to fit the local needs, not mandated by an out-of-control Washington bureaucracy. Mr. President, I wonder if I could just insert in the Record by unanimous consent at this time the entire statement concerning the announcement that one of our American sons was killed while serving with the special forces on duty in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and is the first American service man to die while on the mission, and the difficulty of course, is the reality that this soldier died while he was monitoring toll booth operations on a road in Haiti. I will repeat that, Mr. President. The first American soldier to die in Haiti died while he was monitoring toll booth operations. He was shot by a passenger in a car at a toll booth. Mr. President, why are American troops still in Haiti? General Cedras is gone. Aristide has been in power for more than a month and still American forces remain in Haiti. What are we doing monitoring toll booths and cleaning streets? In this Senator's view, the return of our soldiers from Haiti is long overdue. Our mission has been accomplished and we should not be performing local civil service functions associated with police work. It is a sad day, Mr. President, when any American soldier loses his life defending freedom. Mr. President, it is totally absurd that this soldier was killed while performing a job he was neither trained for nor should have been doing. I urge the President to bring home our troops now. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, point of order. The Senator from Alaska has been here and waited through two other Senators who spoke. I do not know whether I have been overlooked or what. I had a brief statement. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to give it at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today one of America's sons was killed while serving with the Special Forces on duty in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He is the first American serviceman to die while on this mission. Where did this soldier die? Was he engaged in a battle with former supporters of General Cedras? No. This soldier died while he was monitoring toll booth operations on a road in Haiti. I will repeat that: The first American soldier to die in Haiti died while he was monitoring toll booth operations. He was shot by a passenger in a car at the toll booth. Mr. President, why are American troops still in Haiti? General Cedras is gone. Aristede has been in power for more than a month. And still American forces remain in Haiti. And what are they doing? Monitoring toll booths and cleaning streets. In this Senator's view, the return of our soldiers from Haiti is long-overdue. Their mission has been accomplished and they should not be performing local civil functions. It is a sad day when any American soldier loses his life in defending freedom. But Mr. President, it is totally absurd that this soldier was killed while performing a job he was neither trained for nor should have been doing. I urge the President to bring the troops home now.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I previously announced for the public the scheduling of a hearing before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review the implications of the North Korean nuclear framework agreement. The time of this hearing was inadvertently omitted from the notice. The hearing will take place at 2 p.m. January 19, 1995, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it was great sadness that I learned the death of Jim Fleming last week. Jim, as all my colleagues know, has been the administrative assistant to our colleague, Senator Ford since 1975. During that time he also served as Senator Ford's staff for matters coming before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and its predecessor, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Mr. President, Jim Fleming was one of the true professionals who are responsible for the operation of the Senate. He was respected and liked by the staff on both sides of the aisle. During the 14 years that I and my staff have known him, he was always considerate and helpful. His expertise will be sorely missed not only in areas such as uranium enrichment and utility regulation, but on all the other issues that come before the committee where he was able to see where the differences on issues lay and where a constructive compromise was possible. I know that his death will be an enormous loss to Senator Ford, but it will also be a major loss for our committee and our Members and staff who have known and relied on him for these years. I want to express my deepest sympathies to his two children and my sincere condolences to Senator Ford. Jim had been with Senator Ford since 1967 and I know how close their relationship has been. We will miss him as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Congressional Accountability Act (S. 2), and to urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation. This legislation is way overdue. When the American electorate voted in a Republican congressional majority, the public's sentiment could not have been clearer. Their message to Capitol Hill was straightforward: End business as usual and become more accountable to the will of the people. The legislation that we are about to vote on is the Senate's first response back to the American public. In this bill we say to the American public that we must live under the same rules and laws that we impose on the rest of the country. For too long, the House and the Senate have acted with an arrogance about our institutions. We have, in effect, said that we are above the law. Today, that arrogance ends. Under this legislation, Congress is required to comply with the same health, safety, civil rights, and labor laws that all American businesses must comply with. And that means compliance with the 57- year-old Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and a host of other laws that Congress has deemed appropriate to impose on American business. It is astounding to this Senator that we have waited so long to pass this legislation. There is not a constituent in my State of Alaska who can comprehend how we as legislators can exempt ourselves from the health, safety, and labor laws that they must contend with. Nor can I. But with the passage of this bill, our message to the American people is that Republicans have heard your voice and we are going to change how the people's business is conducted in Washington DC. This is but the beginning, an important first step, but only a step. Tomorrow we will begin debate on another piece of legislation that parallels the concepts embodied in S. 2. The legislation we will begin considering tomorrow (S. 1) will bring to an end the practice of Washington sending mandates to the States and local governments-- ordering them to comply with a plethora of new laws and regulations-- and not giving the States and local governments a single dime to comply with these directives from Capitol Hill. The thread that unfunded mandates and congressional law exemptions share is insular arrogance. It reflects a political philosophy which implies that we in Washington know what is best for the country, but we are unwilling to live by the laws we expect everyone else to live by, and we are unwilling to share in the costs of complying with the laws we impose on the rest of the country. But with the election of the first Republican congressional majority in more than 40 years, Congress' insular arrogance is ending. We will live by the same laws as the rest of the country and we will begin a debate about ending more than three decades of deficit spending by changing our Constitution to put an end to Federal deficit spending. Mr. President, the American public is closely watching this Congress. I believe today's vote unmistakably shows that when they put their faith and trust in the new Republican majority, their hopes for change would not be disappointed. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the wisdom of adopting this legislation on a bipartisan basis. There is no excuse for Congress to remain above the law.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would modify the budget rules governing the sale of Federal assets. It is my hope that Congress this year will review many of the perverse and unintended effects of in a budget process reform package. Under current law, the sale of an asset does not alter the deficit or produce any net deficit reduction in the budget baseline. My legislation maintains this principle. Although an asset sale would not be counted in calculating the deficit, future revenue generated by the asset which the government would have received if the asset had not been sold could be offset by the revenue generated from the sale. I want to emphasize that this rule is narrowly crafted so that revenue gained from an asset sale could not be used to offset a separate revenue losing provision. Mr. President, the current budget rules governing asset sales make it nearly impossible for the Federal Government to sell assets. For example, during the last several years, both the Bush and Clinton administrations have sought to sell the Alaska Power Administration [APA]. The Department of Energy [DOE] has entered into sale agreements and negotiated a price of more than $80 million for these electric generating assets. Unfortunately, legislation needed to implement this sale has been delayed for several years, in part because of the budget rules governing asset sales. Since the APA takes in approximately $11 million per year from the sale of electricity, under our pay-as-you-go rules, the sale is scored by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] as losing the Federal Government $11 million annually. In other words, even though the Federal Government will receive up-front more than $80 million by selling the APA, our budget scoring rules require that the sale proceeds be ignored, but that the stream of lost future revenues be counted. The end result of these rules is that for the sale to proceed, the lost $11 million per year must be offset by other unrelated spending reductions. This is Alice-in-Wonderland accounting that has no relationship to the real world. Presumably, the Department of Energy negotiated what it believed was a fair price for the APA assets. Certainly DOE factored in the amount of revenue that will no longer be coming to the Federal Government as a result of the sale as well as the fact that the Federal Government will no longer have to staff and maintain these operations. Yet when it comes to congressional budget scoring rules, all that is counted is the lost stream of future revenues. The legislation I am introducing today would rationalize the asset sale rules by allowing the price the Federal Government receives from the asset sale to offset future revenue lost as a result of the transfer of the asset from the Government to private parties. Thus, in the APA example, if over the next 5 years, it is assumed that electricity sales from APA would generate $11 million per year--$55 million over 5 years--for purposes of the Budget Act, the $83 million sale price could offset the $55 million loss of revenue to the Government. And I want to emphasize that under my legislation, the remaining $28 million associated with the sale could neither count toward deficit reduction, nor could it be used to increase spending in any other program. I look forward to working with the members of the Budget Committee to resolve the current asset sale anomaly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, January 19, 1995, in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review the implications of the North Korean nuclear framework agreement. 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 contact David Garman at (202) 224-7933.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues acknowledging the remarks of the senior Senator from Louisiana earlier on the floor today. You know, it has been said you really never know a person until you have walked in his footsteps. As the incoming chairman of the Energy Committee, I take my first steps, Bennett Johnston, with great humility. I have observed, as a member of the minority, the manner in which you have conducted the affairs of the Energy Committee. You have always been an extraordinary legislator. You have been a consensus builder. You have had the capability to tackle the tough jobs and get the job done. You have always had the energy and the commitment to move ahead, yet somehow you genuinely accorded each member an opportunity to be heard and most of us an opportunity to exhaust our thoughts on the subject, and then you moved ahead with an agenda as you saw it. I know every Member who has worked with the Senator from Louisiana respects him. The Senator from Louisiana has tackled the national issues. As the Senator from Arkansas indicated, occasionally the Senator has been partisan, but the Senator has been partisan in a way that I think represented the reality that the Senator's party was in the majority. Yet the Senator from Louisiana was always willing to listen to the input from the minority. The Senator was a fighter for the State of Louisiana. I do not think that anyone can observe the career of the Senator in the last 22 years and suggest that the Senator has not served the State of Louisiana well. The Senator has left an example for other Members to follow. I came into the Senate 14 years ago. At that time, Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington was chairman of the committee. Jack McClure followed that tenure. I think one of the extraordinary things that we all wonder about during our careers in the Senate is knowing when it is time to go, when to have the wisdom and the honesty, because as we all know, in this business an awful lot of our everyday activities are associated with our own individual egos. The Senator from Louisiana has chosen to go out at the very top of his career. The Senator has ahead of him, obviously, some unknowns but some very exciting unknowns as the Senator looks to his future and the contribution that he will make to his State and America as a whole. The Senator has given me the honor and the pleasure of working with him, but he has also given me the wisdom and an insight that I will respect and learn from. The Senator has always been very fair in accommodating the interest of the junior Senator from Alaska. The Senator has gone up to Alaska on numerous occasions. The Senator has visited the North Slope, the Senator has visited ANWR, the Senator has listened to Alaskans, and the Senator has listened with a genuine interest to our problems and with a commitment to try to assist as we attempt to develop in our State what was done throughout the United States, perhaps 100 years ago. And that is a sound resource policy using science and technology available today that was not available, perhaps, 50 or 75 years ago. We will miss you, Bennett. I am looking forward to having the pleasure of working together these next 2 years. I look forward to assisting in completing the agenda of the Senator, as well as exploring new agendas. I look to the Senator for advice, consent, and counsel. Finally, in conclusion, let me just comment on a reflection I had when the Senator and his wife, Mary, were kind enough to include us in the Christmas card list. I saw, this time, grandchildren. Not just one, but several. Somebody mentioned to me some years ago when we had our first grandchild that, truly, that was the ticket to eternity. I do not know whether there is any reflection on this decision in the grandchildren, but I, personally, would not be surprised if the Senator has decided to try to spend a little more time with the grandchildren. Obviously, when you are around your grandchildren, you generate a reflection on perhaps some of the qualities of life rather than the quantity. So let me commend the Senator for the service that the Senator has given to this body, the State of Louisiana, and my State of Alaska, and the friendship which I have enjoyed and that I am looking forward, as we spend the next 2 years together, to working on behalf of the many interests that are before our committee. Again, my sincere best wishes on the Senator's new future. We look forward again, those Senators who are at least going to be around here for the balance of our term, to observing the patterns and the footsteps as the Senator from Louisiana moves out and pursues some U.S. Senate. It has been a pleasure, my friend. I wish you well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Arkansas, who I overlooked, who has been waiting for some time. I would like to be recognized following his remarks in tribute to Bennett Johnston.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.