Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate on June 29 and July 1, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on S. 161, the Power Marketing Administration Reform Act of 1999, S. 282, the Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act, S. 516, the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999, and S. 1047, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act. The hearings will be held in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, and will begin at 9:30 a.m. For additional information you may write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce modest legislation that will eliminate controversy between the IRS and people who use their automobiles to perform charitable work. Two years, ago I was successful in convincing my colleagues that the standard mileage rate for charitable activities should be raised to 14 cents a mile. I would have preferred that the mileage rate would have been set higher, but at least this was a step in the right direction. It has recently come to my attention that if a charity reimburses a volunteer at a rate higher than 14 cents a mile, the volunteer must include such higher reimbursement in income. Thus, for example, if a person uses his car for a voluntary food delivery program or for patient transportation and the charity reimburses the volunteer 25 cents a mile, the individual would have 11 cents of income. That is absurd, Mr. President, especially when one considers that if a person was performing the same service as an employee of a company, the person could be reimbursed tax-free at the rate of 31 cents a mile. I understand that there have been cases where volunteer drivers have been audited and subjected to back taxes, penalties, and interest because of unreported volunteer mileage reimbursement, even though that reimbursement did not exceed the allowable business rate and the dollar amounts were quite small. Does IRS have nothing better to do than audit such individuals? My bill would eliminate this problem. It provides that all charitable volunteer mileage reimbursement is non-taxable income to the extent that it does not exceed the standard business mileage rate and appropriate records are kept. It is important to note that my bill does not increase the allowable deduction claimed by volunteers who are not reimbursed by a charity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today there are 204 days left before the Y2K problem becomes a concrete reality for any entity throughout the world that has a computer system. The Y2K issue has been publicized across this nation; sometimes to a greater degree than necessary. Some Americans have even resorted to hoarding food and planning for the end of the world. While no one has a magic answer as to what will happen on the first of the year, enough effort has been made by the public and private sector to ensure that Americans are aware of this issue. However, I am concerned that under the current version of S. 96, companies may continue sales of non-Y2K compliant products even after enactment of this act without disclosing non-Y2K compliance to consumers. While I strongly support this important piece of legislation, I am concerned that unscrupulous marketers may attempt to deceive consumers by continuing to sell non-Y2K compliant products. A computer given for a Christmas gift isn't much of a gift when it stops working 7 days later. Thus I planned to offer an amendment to section 5(b)(3) that would lift the cap on punitive damages for products sold after the date of enactment of this act if the plaintiff could have established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly sold non-Y2K compliant products absent a signed waiver from the plaintiff. However, I have agreed to defer to the chairman so that this issue can be best addressed in conference.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend for his question. My amendment would have imposed liability only if the manufacturer sold a server that was non-Y2K compliant by itself after the date of enactment of this act. My amendment would not apply to a Y2K compliant server that failed due to the non-Y2K compliance of installed software or attached hardware manufactured by other companies.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Arizona for his attention to this issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce modest legislation that will eliminate controversy between the IRS and people who use their automobiles to perform charitable work. Two years, ago I was successful in convincing my colleagues that the standard mileage rate for charitable activities should be raised to 14 cents a mile. I would have preferred that the mileage rate would have been set higher, but at least this was a step in the right direction. It has recently come to my attention that if a charity reimburses a volunteer at a rate higher than 14 cents a mile, the volunteer must include such higher reimbursement in income. Thus, for example, if a person uses his car for a voluntary food delivery program or for patient transportation and the charity reimburses the volunteer 25 cents a mile, the individual would have 11 cents of income. That is absurd, Mr. President, especially when one considers that if a person was performing the same service as an employee of a company, the person could be reimbursed tax-free at the rate of 31 cents a mile. I understand that there have been cases where volunteer drivers have been audited and subjected to back taxes, penalties, and interest because of unreported volunteer mileage reimbursement, even though that reimbursement did not exceed the allowable business rate and the dollar amounts were quite small. Does IRS have nothing better to do than audit such individuals? My bill would eliminate this problem. It provides that all charitable volunteer mileage reimbursement is non-taxable income to the extent that it does not exceed the standard business mileage rate and appropriate records are kept. It is important to note that my bill does not increase the allowable deduction claimed by volunteers who are not reimbursed by a charity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of workers who have responsibly saved for retirement through collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Santorum in sponsoring this bill. This legislation would raise the Section 415 limits and ensure that workers are not unfairly penalized in the amount they may receive when they retire. Under the current rules, for some workers, benefit cutbacks resulting from the current rules means that they will not be able to retire when they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with less income to live on. The bill that I am introducing today will give all of these workers relief from the most confiscatory provisions of Section 415 and enable them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings. Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of Section 415 on government employee pension plans. Most recently, as part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188), we exempted government employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain early retirement limits, and from other provisions of Section 415. Other relief for government employee plans was included in earlier legislation amending Section 415. Section 415 was enacted more then two decades ago when the pension world was quite different than it is today. The Section 415 limits were designed to place limits on pensions that could be received by highly paid executives. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood this original design on its head. The limits are forcing cutbacks in the pensions of middle income workers. Section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker in a defined benefit pension plans to the lessor of: (1) the worker's average annual compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was the highest [the ``compensation-based limit'']; and (2) a dollar limit that is sharply reduced for retirement before the worker's Social Security normal retirement age. The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate pension plans. Unfortunately, that formula does not work properly when applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan have no relationship to the wages received by a worker form the contributing employers. The same benefits level is paid to all workers with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of their individual wage histories. A second assumption underlying the compensation-based limit is that workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer plan industries like building and construction, workers' wage earnings typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables, including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the Section 415 compensation-based limit for the workers is artificially low; lower than it would be if they were covered by corporate plans. Thus, the premises on which the compensation-based limit is founded do not fit the reality of workers covered by multiemployer plans. And, the limit should not apply. This bill would exempt workers covered by multiemployer plans from the compensation-based limit, just as government employees are now exempt. Section 415's dollar limits have also been forcing severe cutbacks in the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension plans before they reach age 65. Construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than in most other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered workers by providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit. Section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar limit is severely reduced for each year younger than the Social Security normal retirement age that a worker is when he retires. For a worker who retires at age 50, the reduced dollar limit is now about $40,000 per year. This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant worn out after years of physical challenge who is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to a reduced limit. A construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding labor, has well earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50 is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. This bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to multiemployer plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of workers who have responsibly saved for retirement through collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Santorum in sponsoring this bill. This legislation would raise the Section 415 limits and ensure that workers are not unfairly penalized in the amount they may receive when they retire. Under the current rules, for some workers, benefit cutbacks resulting from the current rules means that they will not be able to retire when they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with less income to live on. The bill that I am introducing today will give all of these workers relief from the most confiscatory provisions of Section 415 and enable them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings. Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of Section 415 on government employee pension plans. Most recently, as part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188), we exempted government employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain early retirement limits, and from other provisions of Section 415. Other relief for government employee plans was included in earlier legislation amending Section 415. Section 415 was enacted more then two decades ago when the pension world was quite different than it is today. The Section 415 limits were designed to place limits on pensions that could be received by highly paid executives. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood this original design on its head. The limits are forcing cutbacks in the pensions of middle income workers. Section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker in a defined benefit pension plans to the lessor of: (1) the worker's average annual compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was the highest [the ``compensation-based limit'']; and (2) a dollar limit that is sharply reduced for retirement before the worker's Social Security normal retirement age. The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate pension plans. Unfortunately, that formula does not work properly when applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan have no relationship to the wages received by a worker form the contributing employers. The same benefits level is paid to all workers with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of their individual wage histories. A second assumption underlying the compensation-based limit is that workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer plan industries like building and construction, workers' wage earnings typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables, including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the Section 415 compensation-based limit for the workers is artificially low; lower than it would be if they were covered by corporate plans. Thus, the premises on which the compensation-based limit is founded do not fit the reality of workers covered by multiemployer plans. And, the limit should not apply. This bill would exempt workers covered by multiemployer plans from the compensation-based limit, just as government employees are now exempt. Section 415's dollar limits have also been forcing severe cutbacks in the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension plans before they reach age 65. Construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than in most other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered workers by providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit. Section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar limit is severely reduced for each year younger than the Social Security normal retirement age that a worker is when he retires. For a worker who retires at age 50, the reduced dollar limit is now about $40,000 per year. This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant worn out after years of physical challenge who is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to a reduced limit. A construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding labor, has well earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50 is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. This bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to multiemployer plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we consider S. 96, the Y2K bill, I want to point out an area of concern that will affect many northern states, especially my home state of Alaska. January 1, 2000, will arrive in the middle of winter. Unlike many states in the lower 48, where a power failure on the first of the year is a major inconvenience, a power failure in Alaska can have serious consequences if climate control systems fail. Earlier this year my home town of Fairbanks saw the thermometer plummet below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. While I do not doubt the industrious nature of my fellow Alaskans who have for so long used their ingenuity and determination to survive in Alaska's cold climate, any delay in resolving a health or safety related failure in Alaska cannot only be costly, but also deadly. Therefore, I am offering an amendment that would require that companies notified of a Y2K problem must first respond to requests where the Y2K failures affect the health or safety of the public.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Arizona for his attention to this issue. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a full committee hearing on S. 1049, the ``Federal Oil and Gas Lease Management Improvement Act of 1999,'' scheduled for June 17, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been postponed and will be rescheduled for a later date to be announced by the committee. For further information, please contact Dan Kish, of the committee professional staff, at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee oversight hearing has been schedule before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 24, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the implications of the proposed acquisition of the Atlantic Richfield Company by BP Amoco, PLC. Specifically the Committee will examine the following issues related to the acquisition: U.S. national and energy security; Impact on crude oil prices and supply on the U.S. West Coast; Marine transportation; Pipeline transportation; and Exploration and production in Alaska and the lower 48. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to speak briefly on a bill reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 19, 1999. S. 744 provides for the continuation of higher education through the conveyance of certain lands in the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes. The purpose of S. 744 is to provide Alaska's federal land grant college, the University of Alaska, with a federal land grant of at least 250,000 acres. S. 744 would also transfer to the federal government 29 inholdings currently owned by the University within conservation system units in Alaska. When this bill was passed out of Committee it was done so with an amendment that clarified the lands the University was to relinquish under Section 3 of the bill. Those lands are listed in a document entitled ``The University of Alaska's Inholding and Reconveyance Document'' and dated May 17, 1999. I ask unanimous consent a copy of this document be printed in today's Congressional Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Good.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I share that view with the senior Senator from Virginia. It is my understanding that the leader is still prepared to go ahead with his amendment known as the Lott amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had a lot of conversation here on the floor as we have looked at the examples of finger-pointing. It is apparent also that we have had bungling at the very highest level. I'd like to share a couple of examples with my colleagues. Why wasn't Wen Ho Lee's computer searched to prevent the loss of our secrets? Because the FBI claims that the DOE told the FBI that there was no waiver. The FBI then assumed they needed a warrant to search. Well, Wen Ho Lee did sign a computer access waiver. This is the waiver on this chart. I can't tell you how many days of communication it took to get this waiver, because the first explanation was that it didn't exist. When the FBI asked the Department of Energy if there was a waiver on Wen Ho Lee, the Department of Energy examined their records and they could not find a waiver. Here is a waiver signed by Wen Ho Lee, April 19, 1995. It says: These systems are monitored and recorded and subject to audit. Any unauthorized access or use of this LAN is prohibited and could be subject to criminal and civil penalties. I understand and agree to follow these rules. There it is. We found it. What is the result? Lee's computer could have been searched, but instead was not searched for 3 long years. There was a waiver the entire time. What is the excuse of the bureaucrats for that? They point to one another. Then there is the role of the Justice Department. The Justice Department thwarted the investigation by refusing to approve a warrant, not once, twice, but three times. We still have not heard a reasonable explanation. The Attorney General owes to the American people and the taxpayers an explanation as to why it was turned down. What is frightening, as well as frustrating, is that nobody put our national security as the priority. The FBI and the Department of Justice were more concerned about jumping through unnecessary legal hoops than about preventing one of the most catastrophic losses in history. The events involved throughout the Lee case are not only irresponsible, they are unconscionable. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New Mexico. I rise to join with Senators Kyl, Domenici, and Shelby to offer an amendment which I feel confident creates accountability in the Department of Energy for protecting our country's national security information. Mr. President, it is clear that the Cox committee report and the Senate's investigation of Chinese espionage at the Labs highlighted, in a sense, a dysfunctional Department of Energy. Even though the Department of Energy's chief of intelligence, Notra Trulock, was ringing alarm bells starting back in 1995, it simply seems that nobody was listening. Today, we find that nobody is accountable. We recognize the structure of the system simply didn't work. For Mr. Trulock to get approval to brief senior officials, he had to go through more junior officials. He could not brief the Congress without approval. He didn't have access to the executive branch. What the amendment that is pending creates is real accountability-- accountability at DOE, accountability for the President, and accountability for the Congress. It puts into law an Office of Counterintelligence and mandates that the director report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress, any actual or potential threat to or loss of national security information. We have seen a situation where the individual responsible simply didn't have the capability to get the message through the process--to any of the four Secretaries of Energy whom we could identify for the record. Further, this would require a report once a year to the Congress regarding the adequacy of the Department of Energy's procedures and policies for protecting national security information, and whether each Department of Energy Lab is in full compliance with all Department of Energy security requirements. The National Labs clearly had different security arrangements previously. The amendment also would prohibit any officer or employee of the Department of Energy or any other Federal agency from interfering with the director's reporting. No interference, Mr. President. Secretary Richardson has introduced several initiatives aimed at correcting the security problems at the Labs. I commend him for his efforts. I welcome the Secretary's initiative, energy, and enthusiasm, but without a legislative overhaul, I doubt his ability to change the mindset at the Department of Energy which has plagued every other reform initiative. It is kind of interesting to go back and look at the attempted reforms. Victor Rezendes, a director of the GAO, who has closely followed security initiatives at the Labs, made the following observation: DOE has often agreed to take corrective action, but the implementation has not been successful. A former head of security at Rocky Flats weapons plant, David Ridenour, was more blunt. He was quoted in USA Today on May 19: It's all the same people and I think they'll continue to fall back into old ways. If there's a problem, classify it, hide it and get rid of the people who brought it up. Recall the so-called Curtis plan, which was put forth by Deputy Secretary Curtis. A good plan, but after Mr. Curtis left the Department, it was either disregarded or forgotten. It was so quickly forgotten, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Curtis' successor as Deputy Secretary wasn't even informed of its existence. There is no excuse for that. The New York Times reported that a November 1998 counterintelligence report contained some shocking warnings, including that foreign spies ``rightly view the Department of Energy as an inviting, diverse and soft target that is easy to access and that employees are willing to share information.'' So change is necessary. I think creating this new line of responsibility will help change the mindset at the Department of Energy. The amendment puts the DOE on the road to accountability by creating under the law an Office of Counterintelligence, an Office of Intelligence, and a Nuclear Security Administration. More legislation, obviously, is going to be needed. We simply don't have all of the answers now. But the Cox report fills in some of the shocking details. After months of investigation, they have revealed frightening information about the true ineptness of the espionage investigation. I understand that the Secretary of Energy opposes this amendment. I am sorry to hear that. I gather he sent a letter up here indicating that he will recommend that the President veto the bill because Congress is taking action to fix the problem. But what does he want Congress to do? Wait to take action until U.S.-designed nuclear weapon warheads are launched at U.S. cities? The problem is precisely that serious. After what we have learned about security failures at the Department of Energy, I dare--I dare-- the President to veto this legislation. It is time for action, and that is what we are talking about with this amendment. If one looks at where we are today, I am struck by three revelations. First, we have in the Cox report stunning information about a compromise of our national security that was self-inflicted. We can blame the Chinese for spying. But this happened as a consequence of our own failure to maintain adequate security in the Laboratories. Security of our most important Laboratories has been marginal at best. We find that U.S. companies--Loral and Hughes--allowed their commercial interests to override our national security interests. We gave the Chinese a roadmap on how to shoot their missiles straight and how to arm those missiles with nuclear weapons. Aimed at whom? Well, that is another concern. Second, how much of this happened on President Clinton's watch? Third, the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region could be affected by the information they have obtained. Based on these finding, I believe now is the time for Congress to demand accountability from those who allowed this to happen. We should not allow the administration to simply promise change with reforms that in previous efforts have been tried but have failed. One would not respond to, say, a burglary by saying that the robber is irrelevant. Our Nation has been robbed. Years of research and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are lost to the Chinese. Who is responsible? What should be done is that the Attorney General should testify in public and tell the American people why the Department of Justice denied requests for access to computer and wiretaps. FBI Director Freeh should testify in public as to why the FISA warrant was inadequate. Director Freeh should also explain the so- called ``misinformation'' on Wen Ho Lee's signed waiver of consent to access his computer. Sandy Berger should testify. He might require a subpoena. So be it. The public is entitled to his testimony. Mr. Berger was briefed in April of 1996 and July of 1997. Berger should be forced to testify as to what precisely he told the President and when. Congress should also subpoena the written summary of the Cox report to President Clinton, which the President received in January of 1999. Let us judge whether the President was being forthcoming in his March 1999 statement when he said: To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the laboratories during my presidency. What did the Vice President know? When did he know it? The Vice President told the American people on March 10: Please keep in mind that the [alleged espionage] happened during the previous administration. Now the Vice President is rather silent. What was he told by his National Security Adviser, Leon Fuerth, who was briefed in 1995 and 1996? I have held six Energy Committee hearings. At another time I want to detail what I have learned from those hearings. But let me summarize very briefly. Our Laboratories have not and still are not totally prepared to protect our Nation's nuclear secrets. The DOE put our national security at risk by not searching Wen Ho Lee's computer in 1996 in spite of information about Chinese targeting of lab computers. The FBI investigation was bureaucratic bungling. The right hand never knew what the left hand was doing. Regarding the waiver, we have learned that on March 22, 1995, the Los Alamos Lab issued a policy to all employees, including Wen Ho Lee, stating that ``the laboratory or Federal Government may without notice audit or access any user's computer.'' On April 19, 1995, Wen Ho Lee signed a waiver at the DOE Lab to allow his computer to be accessed. This is the actual copy of the waiver that Wen Ho Lee signed on April 19, 1995. My committee heard testimony from the Los Alamos Lab director, the DOE attorney, the DOE director of counterintelligence. All agreed that Lee's computer could be searched because of these waivers. Why wasn't his computer searched and the loss of our nuclear secrets prevented? Because the FBI claimed that the DOE told them there was no waiver. The FBI then assumed that they needed a warrant to search. Here is how the Los Alamos Lab director summed it up. The FBI and the Department of Justice decided they should seek court approval before accessing the subject's (Lee's) computer. The Labortary's policy seems clear to be sufficient for FBI access, but the legal framework affecting the FBI's actions, as viewed by them, apparently prevented this. What is the result? Lee's computer could have been searched but instead was not searched for 3 long years. Yet there was a waiver. This waiver was there the entire time, and the FBI didn't know it. And then there was DOJ's role: DOJ thwarted investigation by refusing to approve FISA warrants--not once, not twice, but three times! Still have not heard a reasonable explanation. What's frightening, as well as frustrating, is that no one put our national security as a priority. FBI and DOJ more concerned about jumping through unnecessary legal hoops than about preventing one of the most catastrophic losses in history. The events involved throughout the Lee case are not only irresponsible--they're unconscionable. That is why we must have this security change. This is why this amendment must prevail. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Rules of Use'' which Wen Ho Lee signed be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend, the floor manager, for the time. I wish the President a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am really appalled at the state of affairs on the floor. Earlier today, I asked that an order for a quorum call be rescinded in order to discuss further the Kyl amendment which Senator Domenici, Senator Kyl, and I have participated in developing. I was really disappointed we were denied that opportunity. I am pleased we have this limited time available to us. When we offered the amendment, we each had 10 minutes. That is not very much time to explain it. I had hoped the minority would have granted more time. I can only assume the minority is very much opposed to a full discussion of the circumstances surrounding the greatest breach of our national security, as evidenced by the Cox report which came down yesterday. I am further shocked that the administration has succeeded in temporarily derailing this amendment. And that is what they have done; they have derailed the amendment. The administration seems to be more concerned about how the bureaucracy within the Department of Energy is organized than whether the national security of the United States is protected. We had an obligation prior to this recess to initiate a corrective action within the Department of Energy. The minority has precluded us from proceeding with that opportunity today. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have held seven hearings. These hearings have revealed the shocking, dismal state of security at our weapons labs. Those on the other side do not want to repair it now; they want to study. How long have they studied it? It has gone through at least four Secretaries, that we know of. It has gone back a decade. Why, for the life of me, do we delay now? I don't know. The pending Kyl amendment would have provided some assurances to the Congress and the American people that this will not happen again. This amendment was about accountability--accountability by the Department of Energy, accountability by the Department of Energy laboratories, accountability by the Secretary of Energy, accountability by the President--because it would provide, if you will, reporting not just to the Secretary but to the Congress and to the President. This would have provided accountability to the people of the United States. They are entitled to it. But not now. The administration and the minority have succeeded in derailing it. The opponents of the amendment claim that it would make the DOE, the Department of Energy, bureaucracy unworkable. Well, I have news for you. Unworkable? It is already unworkable. That bureaucracy is so unworkable, it has allowed all our secrets--all our secrets--that we have spent billions of dollars on, to simply pass over to the Chinese, and perhaps other nations as well. The Department of Energy's bureaucracy has proven time and time again that no matter how diligent any individual Secretary of Energy is, the bureaucracy can outwait the Secretary, the bureaucracy can ignore the Secretary, the bureaucracy can do whatever it pleases without fear of any consequences. Let me just give you one example. In 1996, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, Charles Curtis, implemented the so-called Curtis Plan. It was a security plan. It was a good plan. It was a plan to enhance security at the DOE laboratories. But in early 1997 he left the Department of Energy. And guess what. Not only did the Department of Energy bureaucracy ignore the Curtis Plan, the DOE bureaucracy did not even tell the new Secretary about the Curtis Plan. I have had the opportunity in hearings to personally ask the new Secretary if he was familiar with the Curtis Plan. The specific response was: Well, it was never transmitted. Why wasn't it transmitted? Well, we don't know. We just have fingers pointing the fingers back and forth. I certainly commend Secretary Richardson for his efforts to improve security. He has improved security. But the plans, the traditional Department of Energy security plans, seem to have the life of a fruit fly. The loss of our nuclear weapons secrets is just too important to ignore or to trust to the bureaucracy of an agency that has time and time again proven that it simply cannot be trusted, because the bureaucracy does not work, the checks and balances are not there. So I am extremely disappointed that the Secretary has said in a letter he will demand that the President veto the bill because Congress is taking action--Congress is taking action--to fix the problem. Can you imagine that? We are taking action to fix the problem, and they are saying it is too hasty, we should not fix the problem. This is just part of the problem. This amendment is just part of the answer. But at least we are trying to do something. The Democrats on the other side say: Oh, no, you're too early. The pending amendment would have created accountability and responsibility for protecting the national security at the Department of Energy; but not now, as a result of the administration's objections. The pending amendment would have created three new organizations within the Department of Energy to protect our national secrets; but not now, as a result objections from the minority and the administration. The pending amendment would require the Department of Energy to fully inform the President and the Congress about any threat to or loss of national security information; but not now, as a result of the objections of the minority and the administration. President Clinton will rightfully be able to claim ignorance--claim ignorance--again on what is going on, because he will be ignorant of what is going on. The amendment would have prohibited anyone in the Department of Energy or the administration from interfering with reporting to Congress about any threat to or loss of our Nation's national security information; but not now, as a result of the objections of the minority and the administration. The amendment would have required the Department of Energy to report to Congress every year regarding the adequacy of the Department of Energy's procedures and policies for protection of national security information and whether each DOE laboratory is in full compliance with all the DOE security requirements; but not now, as a result of the objections of the minority and the administration. The amendment would have required each Department of Energy laboratory director to certify in writing whether that laboratory is in full compliance with all departmental national security information protection requirements; but not now, as a result of the objections of the minority and the administration. In short, this amendment would have gone far--not all the way--but it would have gone far in preventing further loss of our nuclear weapons secrets to China; but not now--well, it is evident--as a result of the objections by the minority and by the administration. I suggest that the administration has made a tragic mistake, that the minority has made a tragic mistake. The American people expect a response from the Congress, the Senate, now in this matter--not next week or next month. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I ask what the time remaining is.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I believe there are other Senators wishing to speak at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I also am a sponsor of this legislation and would like to be recognized.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will need another 30 seconds to a minute at the end. You have 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 17, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1049, the ``Federal Oil and Gas Lease Management Improvement Act of 1999''. 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, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the report of the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission. 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 Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-4971.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we will soon vote on a $15 billion spending bill that will, among other things, further fund the war against Yugoslavia. Although the Administration requested some $6 billion for military and humanitarian needs for the Kosovo operation, this amount has almost doubled, and is well over $11 billion. Sadly, this higher figure will not get our readiness back where it needs to be--where we could, at the drop of the hat, successfully wage two full scale wars at the same time--as directed in the ``Quadrennial Defense Review.'' It also illustrates something seriously gone wrong here in Washington, D.C. Only a small amount of these funds are subject to offsets--its as if there is this notion, both in the Administration and in Congress, that this is ``free money.'' Well it's not, Mr. President. For every dollar spent, another priority loses out. And I can think of a whole host of areas where this money would be better spent than in fighting a war in a part of the world where most Americans can't clearly identify on a map. Tax cuts, Social Security, Education, to name just a few. I will vote against this bill for two reasons: (1) our Kosovo policy is seriously flawed and the only way we in Congress can truly voice our opposition is voting where it hurts the most--the pocketbook; and (2) this is a spending bill gone mad--there is no fiscal accountability here, nor is there any notion of fiscal responsibility. This vote, at least for me, will be one of the toughest I have had to cast in my tenure in the United States Senate. I strongly support our military, and am proud of our men and women in uniform. I certainly do not want to jeopardize our people who are charged with carrying out this war. But even so, this is not a vote against our military--rather, it is a vote in opposition to the Administration's seriously flawed, if not inept Kosovo policy. No one disputes that Milosevic is a bad person and that he should be stopped. His brutal, persistent attacks on the Albanian Kosovar people is akin to Germany in the Second World War. But air strikes alone are not going to do it--they will level Yugoslavia, destroy most of its infrastructure, terrorize its civilian population, and most likely, not be successful stopping Milosevic. I do not believe that our war fighters' are being given sufficient latitude to make this mission a success. Their decisions are subject to dual-review: (1) the ``political'' review of the White House; and (2) the ``consensus'' of our NATO allies through every step of the war. A few examples. General Clark's request to deploy gunships continues to be denied by ``senior military advisors in Washington, D.C.'' Who are these people? The Joint-Chiefs of Staff? Or Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright? It took over a month to get Apache helicopters to the region; and they sit grounded because the ``polls'' show no support for a ground campaign. It seems to me that one of the first priorities in waging a war is to cut off the supply lines of the other side--and oil, in particular, so that they cannot fuel their tanks and planes. Unbelievably, the NATO alliance refused to cut off the flow of fuel that fires Milosevic's war machine. Although the U.S. proposed a blockade to stop the oil, it was defeated by France which opposed implementing a blockade without a formal declaration of war. We are executing massive, full scale air bombings every day; people are being killed; but the French believe a declaration of war must be a precondition for a blockade. Our bombs have gone off course several times, hitting refugee convoys, the country of Bulgaria, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade-- which is technically Chinese soil in Yugoslavia. At least in the case of the Chinese embassy, it wasn't the bombs at fault, it was our intelligence. Although the tourist maps in Belgrade accurately place the Chinese embassy in that locale, our intelligence was using an outdated map that led them to believe it was a procurement center for the Serbian military. The Chinese people are outraged, and well they should be. But the American people should be just as outraged--not just by this bombing, but by the continued incompetence which has come to typify this policy. I fail to understand how waging this war by NATO consensus is getting us anywhere except more deeply involved militarily, and less likely to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. Mr. President, wars should not be waged by consensus, and diplomacy should not be directed by polls. Internationally, the world is a much less stable place than it was even two months before. There was a sense of optimism that Russia might help broker a diplomatic solution to Kosovo. The possibility remains, but Russia is far less stable than previously thought: President Yeltsin survived an impeachment proceeding, but he has again disbanded his government to the degree that it is unclear who in Russia has the power to help negotiate an end to this crisis. The Chinese are no longer just a sideline observer. While China has opposed the NATO bombings from the outset, it didn't have a dog in this fight until we bombed their embassy in Belgrade. If a deal on Kosovo is reached, it will have to pass muster with the Chinese who hold veto authority on the U.N. Security Council. We continue to bomb Iraq daily--stretching our Air Force readiness even further. Saddam Hussein shows no signs of letting up, and will most likely use this as an opportunity to push us even further. And last, but not least, the Korean Peninsula continues to be a crisis in waiting. Starvation in North Korea is rampant, food supplies are gone, and the country is undergoing one of the worst droughts in history. If the North Koreans decide to engage us militarily, we will be fighting three wars at the same time--beyond that envisioned by our military strategists in the Quadrennial Defense Review, and perhaps much more than we are currently prepared to do. Again, we will soon vote on this supplemental funding package. Over $15 billion. And when the war is over, we will be asked to vote on additional funding to rebuild Yugoslavia. We will probably vote to rebuild the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. And if we approve additional funds for the military campaign, the end costs of rebuilding Yugoslavia will only continue to mount. My vote does not undermine my support, concern or pride for our military. But I do believe that a diplomatic solution to this problem should have been found, can still be found, and must be found if we are to avoid the further escalation of this war. Failure to do so will cost us precipitously--not just in dollars, but in American lives. I yield the floor.