Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have conversed with my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, on this amendment. It is my understanding that we have worked it out as an accommodation to rectify a situation where veterans, native Eskimo Indian Aleuts, who were on active duty during the time of the Vietnam conflict, were therefore unable to apply for their allotment. This situation should be rectified. It scores zero dollars in the first year and perhaps $1 million each year thereafter. In view of the fact that this is a $93 billion package, I think it warrants consideration to right a wrong for those who served in active duty, served their country, and yet were unable to qualify for their 160-acre allotment because they were on active duty. We have assured all parties that none of the acreage would come out of conservation units, and Senator Bumpers has been most accommodating. It is my understanding the minority will accept the amendment--subject to Senator Bumpers' input.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. I believe we have worked out the amendment. I have asked that the yeas and nays be vitiated, which has already taken place. I submit the modification.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have on my right an obituary. This obituary is very meaningful to the people of a small village in Alaska called King Cove. Ruth E. Croxton, 29, was killed July 15, 1981, when her twin-engine plane crashed and burned on a hillside. The plane was on approach to the King Cove, Alaska airstrip--in what was called ``typical Aleutian weather.'' Five other people died in the accident, including the pilot, Ernest D. Fife. Ms. Croxton was an anthropologist, a pilot, and a 1974 graduate of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Born in Salem, Ore., her family moved to Alaska when she was six years old. She was graduated from Juneau-Douglas High School in 1969. Ms. Croxton and her pilot were bringing four cannery workers into King Cove but would have been evacuating a medical case once they reached the Aleutian village. She is survived by Mr. and Mrs. Loren Croxton of Petersburg; a sister, Mary, of Barrow; and her maternal grandfather, William Older of Livermore, Calif. Ms. Croxton died along with her passengers because there is no road between King Cove and Cold Bay. How many more people must die before we do something about it? I yield the floor. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week the Senate made an important statement that we support Taiwan by passing S. Con. Resolution 107. And that we are committed to her people, to her government and to her democratic way of life. While we have made countless statements in this body before concerning Taiwan, the circumstances which led to S. Con. Res. 107 were different--markedly different--from those in the past. During the President's trip to China last month, President Clinton ``clarified'' his policy toward Taiwan. He indicated while in Beijing--that the United States, in agreeing to the One China policy, had agreed with China that reunification would be peaceful. Further, while in Shanghai, he went a step further and, for the first time, uttered that the United States supports the ``Three Noes'' long advocated by the government of the People's Republic of China. That is: the United States does not support one-Taiwan, one China; the United States does not support Taiwan independence; and the United States does not support Taiwan's membership in nation-state based international organizations. To understand why this concerns me, Mr. President, one needs to understand the nuances of our federal law and policy toward Taiwan. It is in the Taiwan Relations Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 1979--back when the United States officially broke off relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan in favor of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Section 2(b)(3) states that ``. . . the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.'' We have also signed Three Joint Communiques with the PRC which address the Taiwan question. While they all speak to the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question, none goes so far to speak to the question of reunification. Up to now, the saving grace of American policy toward China and Taiwan, if there were any grace to it, was the ambiguity. China did not know what the United States would do if Taiwan declared independence; or if China attacked. They thought they found out in 1996, when the President rightly sent two aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Straits to show our strength and resolve--while the Chinese conducted missile tests aimed at influencing the national presidential elections in Taiwan. But we have a whole new ballgame, now Mr. President. What a difference a day makes. Incredible, Mr. President. The Administration then feigns innocence and insists that the President's remarks did not constitute a policy change and that our policy on Taiwan has not changed since 1979--that it is the same now as it was then. I'm sorry, but I have to expose this for what it is--a world of make believe. If you repeat something enough times, eventually people will take it as the gospel. Well not this time. This is a policy change; and a serious one at that. Considered collectively, which I know the Chinese government is doing, it appears to be a major concession by the United States on the issue of Taiwan. As I said last Tuesday, I know the Chinese; and understand full well that they will use it to their utmost advantage. They will tell Taiwan and the Taiwanese people that if they declare independence, even if by democratic referendum (one person, one vote), that the United States will not support them. Case in point, the Washington Post article last Friday, ``China Tells Taiwan to `Face Reality' Reunification Talks Urged.'' Although I brought this to the Senate's attention last week, I think the point needs to be reiterated so that people are on notice. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article appear in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This article points out that ``Chinese officials have said they plan to use the remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification.'' So let me make sure I understand this--the leader of the greatest democratic society in the history of mankind, has tacitly agreed to a policy which, in itself, undermines democracy. How and why is this possible? Because political expediency took the place of sound policy and support for one of our strongest allies in an increasingly unstable Asian Theater. Well, Mr. President, I am afraid that these developments may have simply added to the Asian uncertainty, rather than clarified it. In agreeing to the ``Three Noes'', President Clinton has effectively stated that the United States will not support Taiwan independence even if Beijing agrees to it. Is this the message that was intended to be delivered? Think about it--the United States used to maintain the line that peaceful resolution was all that mattered because this in itself protected the rights of the 21 million people in Taiwan. If they could cut a deal with Beijing that allowed the two to go their separate ways, presumably our earlier policy would be fine with that. Personally, as the PRC becomes more open, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that an agreement could be reached. But President Clinton's remarks have ruled this possibility out--because the United States will not support an independent Taiwan. President Clinton just told the Chinese that they don't need to negotiate with Taiwan because so far as we are concerned an independent Taiwan is not an option. Although most of my colleagues are not aware of this, there is a terrible contagion going through Taiwan right now--it is very similar to polio. Estimates are that up to one million people may be carrying this bug in some form or another, but it doesn't impact adults. Only the children. In fact, a number of children in Taiwan have died from this disease which, as I understand it, is exacerbated by the heat. Well, Mr. President, Taiwan has applied for membership in the World Health Organization (WHO)--it is a national priority. But, even this application cannot proceed because membership in the WHO requires statehood. And that huge island off the coast of China, which we recognized officially from 1949 to 1979, doesn't have it. This is ridiculous, and it is about to get a lot worse. So, Taiwan is suffering from an epidemic which is killing children, and it can't get access from WHO specialists who might be able to help because Taiwan is not a sovereign government? Although the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, and despite the fact that Taiwan has developed a strong democracy and thriving, stable free market economy, it cannot particpate in the World Health Organization. Well, Mr. President, this seems yet another time when the facts somehow lose out to the politics. Mr. President, we have made statements reiterating our support for Taiwan, but it is time for us to back them up. The Senate should pass S. Con. Resolution 30 calling on the Administration to support Taiwan's bid to take part in international organizations; and we should expand it to include the World Health Organization. We should take every opportunity in this body to force the issue, so that our commitment to Taiwan does not ring hollow as Beijing's steps up the pressure. Exhibit 1 China Tells Taiwan to Face Reality--Reunification Talks Urged (By John Pomfret) BEIJING, July 9--China urged Taiwan today to ``face reality'' and agree to talks on eventual reunification with China following comments by President Clinton that the United States will not support an independent Taiwan. Taiwan, meanwhile, announced it had agreed to a visit by a senior Beijing negotiator to prepare for resumption of high- level dialogue between the two rivals, separated by the 100- mile-wide Taiwan Strait. The developments indicate that after a three-year freeze, talks could begin as early as this fall between the two sides. They also underscore the important role the United States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining table. Clinton's statement, during his recent nine-day trip to China, was taken as a significant defeat in Taiwan even though U.S. officials contended it was simply a reiteration of U.S. policy. Clinton's June 30 remarks in Shanghai made clear the United States would not support any formal independence bid by the island of 21 million people, or a policy backing ``one China, one Taiwan,'' or ``two Chinas.'' Clinton also said the United States will oppose any Taiwanese bid to join international bodies that accept only sovereign states as members. Although the policy was first enunciated in October, Clinton himself had never said it publicly before. Thus, it was taken as a major defeat in Taiwan, which relies on the United States for most of its political support and weapons. In Washington, Clinton's statement has drawn some criticism. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called Clinton's remarks counterproductive, and he threatened unspecified congressional action. The Beijing government, which views Taiwan as a renegade Chinese province, has said it is satisfied with Clinton's remarks, even though it had tried to have Clinton commit them to writing. Chinese officials have said they plan to use the remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification. Taiwanese officials say they want to limit any new talks to specific issues, such as immigration, cross- border crime, fishing rights and protection of investments. China rejects this limited approach and insists a broader discussion of reunification is necessary for improved ties. Taiwan and China ostensibly have been separated since 1895, when Japan occupied the island following its victory over Imperial China in the Sino-Japanese War. In 1949, Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan from the mainland after his forces lost a civil war to Chinese Communist forces led by Mao Zedong. Since then, the two sides have moved further away from each other--in both economic and political development. In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang said Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the resolution of the Taiwan question,'' and he added: ``We hope that Taiwan authorities will get a clear understanding of the situation, face reality and place importance on the national interest. ``Similarly, the official China Daily quoted one of Beijing's top negotiators with Taiwan as saying that Clinton's remarks had helped China. ``This has provided favorable conditions for the development of cross-strait relations,'' said Tang Shubei, vice president of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. ``But cross-strait issues will ultimately be solved by the Chinese people.'' Meanwhile, that group's Taiwanese counterpart, the semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation, informed the Chinese association that its deputy secretary general, Li Yafei, could visit Taiwan July 24-31. Li's visit is to be followed by a reciprocal trip to China by the leader of the Taiwan foundation, Koo Chen-fu. In June, Beijing invited Koo to visit China sometime in September or October, and Koo said later he plans to go in mid-September. In 1993, Koo and Chinese association leader Wang Daohan met in Singapore in a landmark gathering that signaled warming ties between the old rivals. But after two years of improving relations, the ties collapsed in 1995 when Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui obtained a visa to visit the United States for the 25th reunion of his Cornell University class. China launched a series of military exercises off the Taiwanese coast in 1995 and 1996, lobbing cruise missiles into the area. In 1996, the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region as a warning to China not to contemplate a military solution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the floor manager, I appreciate his understanding. I don't want to jeopardize activities of the committee. If there is a significant scoring, I will be willing to withdraw the amendment. But if it is a significant scoring, I would appreciate your consideration. If I may leave it at that, I would reserve the right--it would be my intention to have it listed on the pending amendments. I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will address it in the morning. I thank the floor managers, the gentlelady from Maryland, and the gentleman from Missouri. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we have given the amendment to both of the floor leaders. The simple reality of this amendment is that this affects a group of native Alaskans--Aleut, Eskimo, and Indian--who served in uniform during the Korean or Vietnam war, and as a consequence of that service were unavailable and not in the State at the time when they would have had the opportunity to take advantage of an individual allotment, which was authorized under the 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act, allowing the collection of up to 160 acres of nonmineral, vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land in Alaska to any qualified Alaska Native head of a household. What happened during that timeframe between 1968 and 1972, which is the 3 years that are explicitly addressed in this amendment, is that the authorization for the selection ended. So what we have here is the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 that terminated this selection opportunity, and there were a number of Alaska Natives serving in the military who did not have an opportunity to take advantage of the 160 acres that were due them under the 1906 law. Now, Mr. President, it is fair to say that we do not have a scoring on this. We hope to have one tomorrow. It is fair to say also that scoring would be very insignificant because this is land where they traditionally have fished, they have hunted, they have subsisted, and it is not land in areas of sensitivity relative to parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife areas. In all candor, it is also appropriate to say that the Department of Interior will be in opposition to it from the standpoint of any public land transferring to any individuals, even the indigenous people who were given by congressional action the right to the selection of this land. Now, it is also fair to reflect on the fact that Alaska contains about 365 million acres. We are talking about authorization for those valid recipients of land in an amount less than 300,000 acres. So it would be equivalent to dropping, if you will, a tack in the State of Virginia in relationship to the footprint. I recognize the effect that anything of significant scoring would have on this bill. We do not want to jeopardize the bill. I have talked to the floor manager. It is my hope that we can get an accurate scoring that reflects reality. It is also my hope that we recognize this truly belongs in the category of veterans issues. I am on the Veterans' Committee. I have been on that committee for 18 years. These veterans simply were unable to take advantage of the opportunity because they were serving in the Armed Forces. So the amendment would restore the right of the Vietnam era Alaskan Native veterans to apply for these allotments as a right that they were denied only because they were serving in the uniform of our Nation. The Amendment calls for the same standards that were in effect under the Allotment Act to be used to evaluate the new applications. Additionally, it calls for DOI to develop rules to implement this bill in consultation with Alaska Natives. This amendment allows the Department of the Interior ample time to promulgate regulations needed to carry out the provisions of this amendment. The amendment protects the current valid rights of the Federal Government. The amendment also addresses the concerns of the administration about possible Veteran allotments within Conservation System Units. If an Allotment is within a Conservation System Unit The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to offer other lands to the allottee. I think this is a fair solution as these veterans had rights to these lands long before they were ever made part of a CSU. This amendment is appropriate on this bill as it addresses a specific problem incurred by Veterans of the Vietnam war who are Alaska Natives and were denied a privilege offered other Alaska Natives, for the sole reason that they were overseas defending our freedom. I know the administration would like to see this amendment ``tightened'' to include a smaller class of veterans and I think that is plain wrong. Where our veterans are concerned I think we should always err on the side of greater participation as without every one of them we would not be here today as free people. On a per capita basis, Alaska Natives represent the largest group of minorities serving in active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. It is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays tomorrow sometime, but I hope to have the opportunity to have further discussion with the floor managers on the scoring unless they have specific questions for me at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in response to my friend, it would be my intent to ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I can offer mine.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the full committee business meeting of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources originally scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 1998 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 1998. The business meeting will take place at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please contact Gary Ellsworth of the Committee staff at (202) 224-7141.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 22, 1998 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 consider the nomination of Bill Richardson to be Secretary of the Department of Energy. For further information, please contact Gary Ellsworth of the Committee staff at (202) 224-7141. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the Senator from Arizona wants to propose a unanimous consent.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I recognize the timeframe. I think it is fair to recognize another thing though: That two-thirds of the world's population, or thereabouts, are under some type of sanctions or threatened sanction by the United States. I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, As we address the justification of sanctions, are we really helping the people we want to help? I commend the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for bringing this matter up, because we can continue to debate it, we can continue to evaluate it, but the reality is, it is time to address the effectiveness of these sanctions. And, as a consequence, I rise to support the amendment of the Senator from Indiana on sanctions. I think he is offering the amendment for one reason, which is because sanctions are now a popular choice to promote our agenda and, of course, legitimately protect our national interests. There is nothing wrong with this reasoning except many times sanctions simply do not work in the manner that we have intended. They are one tool that we can use against rogue nations--granted. The question is, How effective are sanctions? In what cases should they be used? Unfortunately, as I have indicated, the tool of choice is sanctions. Some suggest it is a hammer for brain surgery. In any event, it is time to take stock in whether this amendment by the Senator from Indiana passes now or later. I think it is fair to say we should take up this matter and resolve it and examine, if you will, the posture of our policies. Let me conclude with one reference that is in the amendment of the Senator from Indiana; that is, he sets guidelines before imposing sanctions. That is important, in his amendment. The amendment will require a check and balance. It will require information on the goals of the sanctions, the economic costs to the United States, the effect on achieving other foreign policy goals, and whether other policy options have been explored. It is kind of a cost-benefit risk analysis. I wish we could apply it to some of our environmental measures. That is what we are proposing here, and that is why I support the amendment of the Senator from Indiana. This amendment will require careful thought before imposing sanctions. It does not prohibit sanctions. Dozens of sanctions are now pending before Congress. Sanctions, because they are the easy way out, have become a knee jerk reaction. Between 1914 and 1990 we imposed unilateral sanctions 116 times. Between 1993 and 1996 alone we imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times on 35 nations. In 1995 alone, it is estimated that sanctions cost the United States $20 billion in exports. The President has declared a national emergency 16 times during his term. In the case of Burma, the President invoked unilateral powers reserved to ``deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.'' Is Burma an ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to the national security of the United States? I will go out on a limb and say perhaps no. But that is the problem. The choice to use unilateral sanctions is easy. It is a choice made for the short term to appease special interest groups. No thought is given to the chances of success or possible alternatives. Will unilateral sanctions work in Burma--probably not! Will they hurt the people we are trying to help--definitely so! We must look to the long term. I think a perfect example of this is Vietnam. Restoration of diplomatic relations and the lifting of the trade embargo on U.S. exports led to progress on the MIA issue and greater economic freedoms in Vietnam. The old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is true. When we decide on appropriate action to take against rogue countries, we must make decisions based on what are the most persuasive actions rather than the easy way out. I do not condone the policies of Iran, or Libya, or North Korea. All these countries clearly pursue policies contrary to our national interests. But I believe it has come to the point where U.S. unilateral sanctions run the risk of being completely counterproductive because they get in the way of more effective multilateral steps that could be pursued. Unilateral sanctions should be a tool of last resort and only used after careful thought about the consequences, the costs, and the chances of success. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Lugar. Implementing sanctions should not be based on emotion but on a rational process. This is what this amendment does.

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, July 23, 1998, 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 conduct oversight on the results of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, conducted by the United States Geological Survey. Those who wish 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing regarding H.R. 856, a bill to provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico; and S. 472, a bill to provide for referenda in which the residents of Puerto Rico may express democratically their preferences regarding the political status of the territory, and for other purposes, which began Tuesday, July 14 will continue on Wednesday, July 15 at 9:00 a.m. in Room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Jim Beirne (202)-224-2564) or Betty Nevitt (202-224-0765). subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the Administration, I am today introducing its proposed electric power industry legislation, the ``Comprehensive Electric Competition Act.'' I do so not because I agree with all of the provisions of the Administration's legislation: I don't. I do so as a courtesy to the Administration and because I strongly support competition. Mr. President, let me first say that I am a strong proponent of increased competition in the electric power industry. For the past century our electric utilities--investor-owned, municipally-owned, cooperatively-owned--have served this Nation well. Particularly as compared to the rest of the world, we have reasonably-priced, extremely reliable and nearly universal electric service. But with some well thought-out changes, our electric power industry can do even better. We have seen in a number of other industries--oil, natural gas, trucking and airlines, to name but a few--deregulation has greatly benefitted consumers. Market-based competition has reduced prices, increased supply and sparked innovation. There is no reason why increased competition in the electric power industry would not similarly benefit consumers, the economy and our international competitiveness. I believe that there is a growing consensus that increased competition in the electric power industry is in the public interest. This is illustrated by the number of States that have already moved forward to promote retail competition. According to the Department of Energy, 18 States have already implemented retail competition, either through State legislation or by State public utility commission regulation. One hundred and twenty-one million people--49 percent of the U.S. population--live in these States. Of the remaining States, all but two (Florida and South Dakota) are now actively considering competition programs. This consensus is also illustrated by the 20 bills introduced to date in the Senate and the House of Representatives relating to this issue. Moreover, it is further illustrated by the Administration's decision to propose this legislation. Mr. President, as I see it, the issue isn't: Do we want competition in the electric power industry? We do. Instead, the issue is: How do we bring about competition without jeopardizing price and reliability or financially damaging the industry? There is a consensus on the first issue; unfortunately, on the latter there is no consensus. At the risk of oversimplification, there are two camps of thought on how to go about the task of promoting competition. On the one hand, there are those who want to see government-managed competition, not market-based competition. They believe that government should continue to regulate all aspects of the industry--just do it differently. Moreover, they prefer the Federal government--FERC--be put in charge and the States pushed out of the way. On the other hand, there are those who believe that competition should be market-based. They believe that the most effective and efficient regulator of business is the discipline of the free market--not the discipline of the government regulator. I fall into the latter camp. Having seen all too often the results of failed government regulation--wage-and-price controls, oil price and allocation controls, and natural gas wellhead price controls, for example. I believe that for electric competition legislation to benefit consumers it must deregulate, streamline and empower States to promote retail competition. We don't need different regulation; we don't need government-managed competition. We need deregulation; we need market-based competition. Turning now to the Administration's proposed legislation, let me first say that it contains several provisions that are in keeping with my philosophy. For example, it proposes to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (``PUHCA''). This language is very similar to legislation Senator D'Amato introduced, S. 621, which has been reported by the Banking Committee and awaits action by the Senate. I am a cosponsor of S. 621, along with 22 other Senators. If we did nothing else, repeal of PUHCA would significantly promote competition in the electric power industry. This depression-era law, enacted in 1935, has long outlived its usefulness, and today is actually a significant impediment to competition. Repeal would allow both utilities and non- utilities to fully compete without fear of becoming tangled in PUHCA's regulatory spider web. More competitors mean more competition, and that would benefit consumers and our economy. Moreover, repeal of PUHCA would not diminish Federal and State consumer protections, which would remain in full force and effect. Another provision of the Administration's bill that I strongly support is its prospective repeal of the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (``PURPA''). PURPA is one of the few remaining vestiges of President Jimmy Carter's ill-fated 1978 ``National Energy Plan'' that we have yet to extinguish. PURPA requires electric utilities to purchase electricity from others whether or not they need it, and to pay so-called ``full avoided cost'' regardless of the actual market value of the power. This law has, and will until it is repealed, cost consumers billions of dollars in above- market prices for PURPA electricity. As just one example of how this is hurting consumers, just the other day the FERC refused to rescind the PURPA QF status of a powerplant even though the so-called ``useful'' thermal output of the facility is to produce distilled water that, at times, is just being dumped down the sewer. As a result, electric consumers in Brazos, Texas will pay an extra $890 million for electricity over the life of the PURPA contract--$148 per year for the average family of four living in Brazos. It is also essential that PURPA's mandatory purchase requirement be repealed as it is a key contributor to the so-called ``stranded cost'' problem that is plaguing industry restructuring efforts. Clearly, like PUHCA, it is time to repeal this anti-consumer and anti-competitive provision of PURPA. While there are provisions such as these in the Administration's proposed legislation that I do support, there are many provisions that I am very concerned about--some of which raise serious Constitutional issues, others of which I just cannot support. For example, the Administration's bill imposes a Federal mandate on States; it imposes a new $3+ billion per year Federal electricity tax on consumers; and it has a 5\1/2\ percent ``renewable set-aside'' mandate (that curiously ignores hydroelectric power as a renewable). Moreover, the Administration's proposed legislation includes numerous provisions that vastly expand FERC jurisdiction, largely at the expense of States. I am also troubled by the Administration's proposed legislation because of what it does not contain. The Administration's transmittal letter acknowledges that its legislation does not address several key issues. For example, the Administration's legislation does not resolve the competitive status of the Federal utilities--the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Federal power marketing administrations. Nor, does it address the competitive advantage municipal utilities have from tax- exempt bonds and access to Federal preference power. Also, it does not address key issues necessary to ensure viability of nuclear power. I do not see how any bill can be considered ``comprehensive'' if it does not address these and other issues. Mr. President, although I have serious reservations about many provisions of the Administration's proposed legislation, I am willing to introduce it in the spirit of moving forward and trying to develop a consensus. That will not be an easy or a quick task. But, it is one that we must undertake if all consumers-- residential, commercial and industrial--are to enjoy the benefits of increased competition in the electric power industry. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's transmittal letter, its section-by- section analysis and its proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting with swift resolve in passing this important resolution reaffirming our commitments and support to the people and government of Taiwan. This is an important statement, which I hope gives some sense of reassurance to our friends in Taiwan that the United States will not turn its back on the right of any people to choose the path of democracy and freedom. And that we will not waiver in our support simply for political expediency. Yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee, I asked our Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the President's statements in China. Well, to no real surprise, the Secretary had to pretend that there has been no policy change on Taiwan since official relations were terminated with Taiwan in 1979. Mr. President, this is an indefensible line; the Administration clearly agreed to China's position on the Three No's''; possibly as early as when when President Jiang was here in Washington, D.C. last October, but most certainly reiterated by President Clinton himself while in China last month. Make no mistake about it, this is a policy change--and a dangerous one at that. The Washington Post this morning has reported that the People's Republic of China is already using President Clinton's statements for leverage to bring Taiwan to the bargaining table. While this Administration claims it would never force Taiwan to negotiate with Beijing, it has done so by slowly taking away all its negotiating cards in the middle of the night and without consultation. I ask unanimous consent that this article appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, the United States is the greatest example for what democracy can accomplish; we are the greatest advocate for democracy and freedom in the history of mankind. But for some strange reason, the President of the United States chose to publicly handcuff the ability of the 21 million people in Taiwan to pursue the right of democracy. Will this deter others from summoning the courage to pursue the path of freedom? I hope not, but if the example is there that the United States will not support the quest; than I think it is remains more than a possibility. Indeed, this a dark day for democracy and freedom. While I am pleased that the Senate is making this important statement, I fear that the damage has been done. Mr. President, I yield the floor. [From the Washington Post, July 10, 1998] China Tells Taiwan to ``Face Reality'' Reunification Talks Urged (By John Pomfret) Beijing, July 9--China urged Taiwan today to ``face reality'' and agree to talks on eventual reunification with China following comments by President Clinton that the United States will not support an independent Taiwan. Taiwan, meanwhile, announced it had agreed to a visit by a senior Beijing negotiator to prepare for resumption of high- level dialogue between the two rivals, separated by the 100- mile-wide Taiwan Strait. The developments indicate that after a three-year freeze, talks could begin as early as this fall between the two sides. They also underscore the important role the United States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining table. Clinton's statement, during his recent nine-day trip to China, was taken as a significant defeat in Taiwan even though U.S. officials contended it was simply a reiteration of U.S. policy. Clinton's June 30 remarks in Shanghai made clear the United States would not support any formal independence bid by the island of 21 million people, or a policy backing ``one China, one Taiwan,'' or ``two Chinas.'' Clinton also said the United States will oppose any Taiwanese bid to join international bodies that accept only sovereign states as members. Although the policy was first enunciated in October, Clinton himself had never said it publicly before. Thus, it was taken as a major defeat in Taiwan, which relies on the United States for most of its political support and weapons. In Washington, Clinton's statement has drawn some criticism. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called Clinton's remarks counterproductive, and he threatened unspecified congressional action. The Beijing government, which views Taiwan as a renegade Chinese province, has said it is satisfied with Clinton's remarks, even though it had tried to have Clinton commit them to writing. Chinese officials have said they plan to use the remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification. Taiwanese officials say they want to limit any new talks to specific issues, such as immigration, cross- border crime, fishing rights and protection of investments. China rejects this limited approach and insists a broader discussion of reunification is necessary for improved ties. Taiwan and China ostensibly have been separated since 1895, when Japan occupied the island following its victory over Imperial China in the Sino-Japanese War. In 1949, Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan from the mainland after his forces lost a civil war to Chinese Communist forces led by Mao Zedong. Since then, the two sides have moved further away from each other--in both economic and political development. In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang said Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the resolution of the Taiwan question,'' and he added: ``We hope that Taiwan authorities will get a clear understanding of the situation, face reality and place importance on the national interest. ``Similarly, the official China Daily quoted one of Beijing's top negotiators with Taiwan as saying that Clinton's remarks had helped China. ``This has provided favorable conditions for the development of cross-strait relations,'' said Tang Shubei, vice president of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. ``But cross-strait issues will ultimately be solved by the Chinese people.''Meanwhile, that group's Taiwanese counterpart, the semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation, informed the Chinese association that its deputy secretary general, Li Yafei, could visit Taiwan July 24-31. Li's visit is to be followed by a reciprocal trip to China by the leader of the Taiwan foundation, Koo Chen-fu. In June, Beijing invited Koo to visit China sometime in September or October, and Koo said later he plans to go in mid-September. In 1993, Koo and Chinese association leader Wang Daohan met in Singapore in a landmark gathering that signaled warming ties between the old rivals. But after two years of improving relations, the ties collapsed in 1995 when Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui obtained a visa to visit the United States for the 25th reunion of his Cornell University class. China launched a series of military exercises off the Taiwanese coast in 1995 and 1996, lobbing cruise missiles into the area. In 1996, the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region as a warning to China not to contemplate a military solution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on July 28, 1998 at 9:30 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the March 31, 1998, Government Accounting Office report on the Forest Service: Review of the Alaska Region's Operating Costs. Those 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 Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a member of the conference committee, I rise in support of the conference report on this historic piece of legislation which will overhaul the agency that is most feared by the American people, the Internal Revenue Service. However, I want to make sure that the Record reflects my compliments to those many dedicated IRS employees who were not, and are not, a part of the abuses or the horror stories that we heard during the Internal Revenue Service hearings held before the Finance Committee. These are the many dedicated individuals doing their job in a satisfactory manner. With the Finance Committee hearings that began last September and ended in April, the American public heard some chilling testimony, testimony of an agency that is simply out of control and an agency with no or little accountability. For fishermen in Alaska, the conference report retains an important change that was proposed by Senator Stevens and myself. Under our amendment, it will be far more difficult for the IRS to seize limited entry fishing permits. IRS will have to factor in the amount of money a fisherman will earn if he kept his fishing permit before embarking on a seizure. And even if IRS determines that future earnings will not be sufficient to pay a tax debt, the fisherman will, for the first time, be able to appeal that decision--the point being, once the fisherman loses his or her fishing permit, they do not have a source of revenue for payment of taxes; as a consequence, the IRS is very unlikely to make a recovery. Another important change we've made prevents IRS from harassing the divorced woman for her ex-husband's tax cheating. Under the Conference agreement, divorced or separated innocent spouses will only he held accountable for taxes on their own income, not on the taxes owed by their spouse. We heard some horror stories in testimony, Mr. President, from women who were subjected to harassment by the IRS when, clearly, their husbands were cheating on their own taxes in an effort to evade taxes through tax shelters, and so on, without any knowledge of the spouse. In addition, we've added a rule suspending interest and penalties when the IRS does not provide appropriate notice to taxpayers within 18 months of filing. Although I preferred the Senate provision suspending interest and penalties if IRS fails to notify the taxpayer within 12 months, I was persuaded to delay the 12-month rule for 5 years to enable IRS to update all of its computers to meet this standard. The important thing for taxpayers to know is that long notification delays by IRS will no longer benefit the Service because it will not be able to stack penalties and interest on taxpayers who may have unwittingly made a mistake on their returns. We've also changed the burden of proof in cases coming before the Tax Court. This is a long overdue change. When American citizens go into a court, they should be presumed innocent, not guilty until they can prove their innocence. That principle is enshrined in our Constitution and must apply in tax cases as well as any other cases. Now it will. Mr. President, as I said earlier, the culture at the IRS must change. This bill makes very important changes that should give the American public more confidence that if they make a mistake on their tax returns, they will be treated fairly by their government and not subjected to threats and harassment. But this bill is just a first step. It is incumbent on the Finance Committee to hold the agency accountable for implementing this bill. More oversight is needed because it is only through oversight that we can hold this agency accountable to the American people. Finally, I note that problems between the IRS and taxpayers could be greatly minimized if we overhauled the far-too-complex tax code that is so intimidating that less than half of all taxpayers have the confidence to fill out their returns by themselves. I ask each of my colleagues to address his or her own tax situation relative to how many Members of this body do their own tax returns. I must admit that I, for one, do not, simply because of the complexity. I believe fundamental tax reform is the most important thing we can do to restore public confidence in the tax system. This conference report takes a small, but much needed step toward simplification. It changes the holding period for capital gains from 18 months to 12 months. I strongly support this change on both economic grounds and because this will significantly simplify tax filing for any individual who owns a mutual fund or shares of stock. Mr. President, this bill is an historic milestone and I expect it will pass with overwhelming bi-partisan support. I hope that next year we can produce fundamental tax reform that will have similar bi- partisan support. Mr. President, the conferees included a provision which is unrelated to IRS reform but will have an important effect in our on-going debates about international trade. We have included a provision that changes the name of ``most favored nation'' trade status to ``normal trade relations.'' This is a long overdue change that I strongly support. For many years, we have debated extending normal trade status to some of our former adversaries such as China. In determining whether to treat imports from these countries in the same way as we treat imports from our allies, such as Japan and Great Britain, the term ``most favored nation'' has historically been used. That term ``MFN'' has caused confusion among many members of the public, for it implies that we are granting a special favored status that is better than what we grant our other trading partners. As my colleagues in the Senate know, MFN--most favored nation--merely grants equal status, not greater status, for those countries. Changing MFN to normal trading relations should do a lot to clear up public confusion and allow us to debate the issues with a clearer focus. Mr. President, my hope is that my colleagues will support the conference committee's report with regard to the IRS, and, as a consequence, I thank the President and I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for such time as I need to complete my statement concerning the Internal Revenue Service

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business for not more than 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 107 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Considered collectively, which I know the Chinese Government is doing, this could appear to be a major concession by the United States on the issue of Taiwan. My guess is that the Chinese now believe that if the Taiwanese people declare independence, the United States will not support them. What does that say for democracy and the ideals that we have sworn to uphold and support? In 1996, when the Chinese military conducted military exercises off the coast of Taiwan in order to influence Taiwan's national Presidential elections, President Clinton rightly responded; swiftly and with resolve. He showed that the United States will not tolerate the threat of the use of force against Taiwan, just as we will not tolerate the use of force against Taiwan. Mr. President, I am concerned that the President's statements made in China have now sent the wrong message, and one that could be destabilizing both to Taiwan and to the entire Asian theater. I think the United States should pursue our own ``three-no's'' policy on the question of Taiwan, and they are: We will not accept any nonpeaceful resolution of the Taiwan question; we will not force Taiwan to the table with China, nor will we be an intermediary in resolving this dispute; and we will not turn our backs on democracy and the right of the Taiwanese people, or any people, to live according to free democratic principles. So finally, Mr. President, well in advance of President Clinton's trip to China, I and a number of colleagues in the Senate sent a letter to the President urging him to press the Chinese Government on renouncing the threat of the use of force against Taiwan. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.