Frank Murkowski

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of Taiwan and the events concerning Taiwan which transpired during our President's trip to China. While President Clinton maintains that he did not make any concessions on Taiwan, or in any way alter our longstanding policy towards Taiwan, I am concerned that, indeed, he may have; and I think the facts back me up and show that President Clinton may have, in no small way, initiated changes in our policy towards Taiwan. I am specifically concerned with two incidents, Mr. President. First, during a question-and-answer period at Beijing University, President Clinton responded to a question on Taiwan. He remarked that ``when the United States and China reached agreement that we would have a one China policy, we also reached agreement that reunification would occur by peaceful means.'' Well, Mr. President, to my knowledge, the United States and China have never reached an agreement that the Taiwan question would be resolved through reunification. While the United States has not ruled out reunification as a possibility, we have also not ruled out the possibility that the question of Taiwan could be resolved in some other manner, as long as it was done peacefully. So there is a difference. Our Federal law on this question is quite clear. Section 2(b)(3) of the Taiwan Relations Act states that ``The future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.'' The United States has also signed three joint communiques with the People's Republic of China which further elaborate our position on Taiwan. While they all speak to the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question, none--none--go so far as to speak to the question of reunification. So why am I concerned with the President's choice of words while he was in China? Because I think it is misleading, dangerously misleading. It indicates to the Chinese and the Taiwanese that our policy on Taiwan has changed, when the President says it has not. The second incident which raises concern, Mr. President, is when President Clinton seemingly adopted the ``Three-No's'' policy long advocated by China. The ``Three-No's'' policy states 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. As the July 2, 1998, editorial in the Washington Post correctly points out, the United States has long ``acknowledged'' China's position on Taiwan, but has never ever accepted China's position on Taiwan. There is a significant difference. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed its report on S. 1403, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 1998, the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office was not available. The estimate has since been received and I ask that it be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate. The material follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, June 29, 1998. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1403, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 1998. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis (for Federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the state and local impact). Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosure. S. 1403--National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 1998 Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1403 would cost the federal government less than $500,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 1999. Because the bill could increase direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that any such effects would be negligible. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. S. 1403 would create two programs related to historic lighthouses. The first of these would be a program to preserve national historic lighthouses, under which the National Park Service (NPS) would collect information about such facilities and would support related education and research projects. The second would be a process under which the federal government--acting through the NPS and the General Services Administration (GSA--would convey or sell surplus lighthouses to nonfederal entities. The bill would authorize the appropriation of whatever amounts are necessary to carry out these programs. In addition, proceeds from any sales of lighthouses under the bill could be spent without further appropriation for the NPS's national maritime heritage grant program. Under existing law, proceeds from sales of property such as lighthouses are treated as offsetting receipts and cannot be spent without appropriation action. The NPS, GSA, and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, already perform many of the duties that would be required by S. 1403, including both preserving historic lighthouses and disposing of surplus stations. Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that the federal government would spend less than $500,000 annually in appropriated funds to carry out the more formal preservation program required by this legislation and to process lighthouse conveyances under the new disposal process. CBO estimates that any effect on direct spending would be insignificant because the government would be as unlikely to sell any lighthouses under this legislation as it is under existing authorities. Entities eligible to receive title to historic lighthouses under this bill would include state and local agencies. Participation by such agencies and any related costs would be voluntary on their part. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis (for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf the Administration, today I introduce legislation to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to provide for the acquisition of lands formerly occupied by the Franklin D. Roosevelt family at Hyde Park, New York, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to permit the payment of medical expenses incurred by the United States Park Police in the performance of duty to be made directly by the National Park service, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to establish the Adams National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to allow for wavier and indemnification in mutual law enforcement agreements between the National Park Service and a state or political subdivision, when required by state law, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to amend the Act which established the Frederick Law Olmstead National Historic Site, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, by modifying the boundary and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to amend the Act which established the Frederick Law Olmstead National Historic Site, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, by modifying the boundary and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to allow for wavier and indemnification in mutual law enforcement agreements between the National Park Service and a state or political subdivision, when required by state law, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to establish the Adams National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf the Administration, today I introduce legislation to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to provide for the acquisition of lands formerly occupied by the Franklin D. Roosevelt family at Hyde Park, New York, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the Administration, today I introduce legislation to permit the payment of medical expenses incurred by the United States Park Police in the performance of duty to be made directly by the National Park service, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the Administration's letter of transmittal and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 856, To provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico and S. 472, 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. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should contact the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. For further information, please call James Beirne, Counsel at (202) 224-2564, or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Montana would simply allow me to announce, for those who have been anxiously awaiting the acceptance of Executive Calendar 264, that was the nomination of Mary Anne Sullivan to be the general counsel of the Department of Energy. I know that Secretary Pena has been very interested in that, as well as Mary Anne Sullivan. I am very pleased with this action today; and, further, Executive Calendar No. 501, the nomination of Mr. Donald J. Barry to be Assistant Secretary of Interior, Fish and Wildlife. I know that Secretary Babbitt, as well as Mr. Barry, has been anxious for this evening. I wanted to take this opportunity with the indulgence of the President to make that statement. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I offer substitute amendments to two similar bills passed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year. The two bills are S. 1158, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Huna Totem Corporation Public Interest Land Exchange, and S. 1159, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Kake Tribal Corporation Public Interest Land Exchange. Both of these bills direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conclude land exchanges which collectively will allow Kake and Huna to exchange land needed as municipal watershed in exchange for other Forest Service lands. By passing these bills two objectives will be met. First, the two corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that provide the respective communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kaka, Alaska will be protected in order to provide safe water for those communities. The substitutes I offer today clarify several issues that were raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up. First, the substitutes again direct that the Sealaska subsurface interest will mirror the Kake and Huna lands to be conveyed to the Secretary of Agriculture and the new lands to be conveyed to the corporations. Second the substitute clarifies that these exchange are to be done on an equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the corporations insisted this be the case. I believe this is critical, Mr. President, because both S. 1158 and S. 1159 provide that any timber derived from the newly acquired lands be processed in-state, a requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the corporations are exchange. Therefore, if this exchange was simply done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, would have a much higher value then what they get in return. It is for this reason that these exchanges were not done on an acre-for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive additional compensation, either additional land or cash to equalize the value, then it is my hope this is done in an expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times specified in the legislation. I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and pass these bills out of the Senate before the end of this session of Congress.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to an article which ran on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday morning regarding missile sales by North Korea. Although North Korea has denied selling missiles in the past, I for one have never taken them at their word on this and have long believed that they have been and continue to be actively engaged in the weapons trade; without question, the sale of weapons to rogue states has been and continues to be a major source of revenue for the North Korea government. Well, despite their past denials, the Washington Post reports that North Korea now admits to selling weapons to countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria, and has actively assisted these countries with their own missile development programs. Mr. President, this article really comes as no surprise--it simply verifies what many of us have suspected all along. But I think we should also consider for a moment whether we have, in no small way, contributed to North Korea's missile development program. I am referring, of course, to the 1994 Agreed Framework, whereby North Korea would dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for American assistance in building two light-water reactors. Without going into the details, Japan and South Korea would contribute several billion dollars worth of assistance to the construction of the reactors, and the United States would also supply heavy oil to North Korea until the reactors were up and running--this would help North Korea meet its energy needs pending construction of the facilities. Mr. President, the Agreed Framework, no matter how well intentioned, puts a gaping hole in the international sanctions which we have levied against North Korea. The United Sates has already given close to $200 million taxpayer dollars, perhaps more, in combined food aid and to support the Korean Economic Development Organization (KEDO), which is tasked with sending heavy fuel oil to North Korea and carrying out other activities under the Agreed Framework. For a country whose economy is completely isolated and strapped for cash, this assistance frees up sizable amounts of money which North Korea can invest in other areas--including their national missile development program. So, the North Koreans use the aid which comes from the United States, Japan, South Korea and other countries to support other aspects of their economy, freeing up resources which can be used to develop weapons. These weapons are then sold to our enemies, and pointed at our troops, our allies, and even us. Mr. President, last year two North Korean defectors indicated in testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee that the North Korean missile development program already poses a verifiable threat to American forces in Okinawa and is on track to threaten parts of Alaska by the turn of the Century. Mr. President, I have no problem with humanitarian aid in itself-- this is not the issue. The issue is whether we have an effective policy toward gaining cooperation with North Korea? I would argue, and I think the facts back me up, that we do not! Think about it. Every concession North Korea has ever granted has been on their terms--not ours, theirs! And when things do not appear to go their way, they take action which we try to deter through additional concessions. Sounds to me like the tail is wagging the dog. Last month, the New York Times ran a story indicating that North Korea announced it would suspend their efforts to carry out the 1994 nuclear freeze agreement, the Agreed Framework. I would ask that a copy of this article appear in the Record at this time. What does this tell us, Mr. President? That North Korea is not committed to a freeze; and that the freeze is simply a vehicle by which North Korea can exploit aid and other concessions from the United States and our allies. I am not at this time suggesting that we should cut off all assistance to North Korea, nor am I suggesting that we should cut off funding and assistance to KEDO. We can discuss these issues during the appropriations process--and I suspect we will. But I am encouraging my colleagues to think hard about this issue. Last week, we were honored to receive President Kim Dae-jung from the Republic of Korea. He hinted that the United States should consider easing sanctions against North Korea. Well, Mr. President, in light of these incidents, I don't know how we could possibly consider easing sanctions against North Korea--although I wonder whether we haven't already vis a vis KEDO and other assistance which we continue to extend to the North Korean government. Mr. President, when the Senate turns back to the Defense Authorization bill, Senator Kyl and I will offer an amendment which requires the Secretary of Defense to study the issue of effective deployment of a theater missile defense system for the Asia-Pacific region. This is obviously needed to protect our troops in Okinawa and on the Korean peninsula. This amendment will further require that Korea, Japan and Taiwan be allowed to purchase, should they desire, such a system from the United States. I suspect that all of them would be extremely interested in such a defense system, Mr. President, and I think it is incumbent upon us to extend this protection to them. Finally, Mr. President, I would simply reiterate that the United States needs a policy whereby we can effectively gain cooperation with North Korea. KEDO does not appear to be that framework. Perhaps we need to evaluate this, or whether a different approach is needed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise with an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill which relates to our chemical weapons demilitarization program. I thank the managers of this bill, and the professional staff at the Senate Armed Services Committee for agreeing to adopt this amendment. This is a straightforward amendment, but may be on track to save us a lot of time and money with respect to our chemical weapons stockpile demilitarization program. Over the life of the stockpile demilitarization program which as gone from about $2 billion to $15 billion, to perhaps $16 billion as we speak. The anticipated time it will take to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention has also been extended, and it is increasingly unlikely that we will make the April 29, 2007 deadline which we agreed to here in the Senate last year. Mr. President, my amendment is intended to help save time and money in this program. It simply requires that the Department of the Army and the EPA be allied instead of adversaries. It requires that the Secretary of the Army sit down with the Administrator of the EPA and report back to Congress on how these departments can work together to help expedite the permits which are necessary for the demilitarization program. Most of these permits are pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While the EPA does not have a role issuing permits, it does act in an advisory capacity to the various State governments which review and issue permits. Since the States are likely to follow the feds, cooperation between the Army and the EPA is critical. Let's simply make certain that all arms of the federal government are cooperating. Mr. President, we aim to be rid of these weapons by the year 2007. If we are serious about meeting this deadline, we need to do all we can now to give the program stewards the tools they need to get the job done. Again, I thank the bill managers for agreeing to adopt this amendment. amendment no. 3039 (Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to the administration of certain drugs to members of the Armed Forces without the informed consent of the members) At the end of title VII, add the following:

Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is, it is cleared by both sides.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in honor of my close friend, the distinguished senior senator from South Carolina and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Strom Thurmond, on the completion of the FY 99 Defense Authorization bill. This marks the last time that Senator Thurmond will manage a Defense Authorization Bill in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Thurmond is an exceptional man, a truly remarkable individual who has unselfishly dedicated his entire life to the service of others. Mr. President, earlier in the 105th Congress, on May 25, 1997, Senator Thurmond made history in this institution when he became he longest- serving United States Senator in our nation's history. He is a model in perseverance and is a testament to the greatness of this body and to this nation as a whole. Senator Thurmond was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1954 as a write-in candidate. He was the first person in U.S. history to ever be elected to a major U.S. office in this manner. He has since served the people of South Carolina continuously in this body for over 41 years and 10 months, a record which is likely to stand the test of time and to never be broken. Throughout his career, Strom Thurmond has served South Carolina and the United States in a number of important ways: he has served South Carolina as a State Senator; a South Carolina Circuit Judge; a Governor and currently as a U.S. Senator. He served his country in World War II, and landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division. He went on to earn 5 Battle Stars during World War II and 18 military decorations during his distinguished military career. He ran for President in 1948. And in 1959, while serving in the U.S. Senate, Senator Thurmond was made a Major General of the U.S. Army Reserve. First and foremost, however, Senator Thurmond is a teacher. He began his distinguished career as a teacher in South Carolina in 1923 and has continued to emphasize the importance of education in everything he does. He wrote the South Carolina school attendance law; worked hard to increase the pay to teachers and for longer school terms; and even today, Senator Thurmond continues to send a congratulatory certificate to every graduating South Carolina high school student. Senator Thurmond has taught all of us in this institution, Mr. President, I am honored to call him a friend and am pleased to rise today in tribute to this great man, this great American. It is fitting that we name this bill in his honor, and my deepest congratulations go out to him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I have sponsored an amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to study the issue of effective deployment of a theater missile defense system for the Asia-Pacific region. This is obviously needed to protect our troops in Okinawa and on the Korean peninsula. This amendment would further require that Korea, Japan and Taiwan be allowed to purchase such a system from the United States, should they desire. I suspect that all of them would be extremely interested in such a defense system, Mr. President, and I think it is incumbent upon us to extend this protection to them. A form of this legislation has already passed the House--albeit the House version was more specific in relating just to Taiwan. This legislation makes sense, is deeply needed, and would be a good show of support, meaningful support, to our allies in Korea, Japan and Taiwan. I thank the managers of the bill for agreeing to accept a scaled down version of this amendment. I had hoped that the entire version would have been eagerly accepted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but clearly there are other issues at play in the Senate at this time. I want the Record to reflect that this scaled down version in no way reflects a diminished commitment to Taiwan. Quite the contrary. This amendment should be seen as a victory--because it is. It is one of the only provisions to be adopted into this bill addressing ballistic missile defense, and one of the only provisions adopted which addresses security issues in the Asian theater. And it is perhaps the only provision which addresses China and Taiwan. Our commitment to Taiwan is unwavering. As President Clinton goes to China, this amendment reiterates our support for the people of Taiwan, and the government of Taiwan. The question of Taiwan must only be resolved through peaceful means--and I again call on President Clinton to raise the issue of renouncing the threat of the use of force against Taiwan when he meets with President Jiang in Beijing. The Chinese missile tests off the coast of Taiwan in the Spring of 1996 brought our relations with China to the brink of conflict. Their actions were reprehensible and intended only to intimidate, and I think test, whether the United States was serious on the issue of Taiwan. They learned that we are, that the United States is unequivocal on the issue of Taiwan's security, and here right to a free and democratic society. We will not condone efforts to intimidate national free elections; the people on Taiwan have chosen to live a life of freedom-- we commend them and support them in this. Finally, Mr. President, at a time when the United States is being pressured to reduce its forces in Asia, ballistic missile defense for Korea, Japan and Taiwan is even more important. if we reduce our forces in Asia, make no mistake--there will be a security void, a vacuum. Our amendment is intended to prevent a vacuum; to reduce the impact of missile development by China, North Korea and perhaps others in the region. Mr. President, the Loral Space communications issue has shown us one thing--that if our policies, even by accident, allow others to improve their missile capabilities, it is incumbent upon us to provide our allies with the support they need to defend themselves. Be extending ballistic missile protection to Taiwan, we are doing just that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Last week, the administration's climate change negotiators returned from Bonn, Germany. These negotiators were in Bonn from June 2 through the 12 with their counterparts from many other countries, working out the details of how to implement the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Mr. President, people often say ``the devil's in the details'' and I think we have a case here with this Kyoto Protocol where the devil is definitely there--in the details. So, that is just what I want to talk about today--the details. Back in October of last year, President Clinton outlined his climate change proposal during a speech. If it seems strange that I have to refer to the text of a speech to describe the administration's climate change proposal, I have to do that, because the speech is all we have. Last year, I, along with Senators Craig, Hagel, and Helms, asked the General Accounting Office to review the administration's climate change proposal. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing earlier this month on GAO's results so far. The Office of Management and Budget told the GAO auditors that the Administration has no documentation of its climate change proposal, beyond the President's speech last October. The speech is the plan. I must admit, I was amazed by this. The administration is asking for an increase of $6.3 billion over the next five years for its climate change program, and the documentation of that program is a speech that is about 3 or 4 pages long. Out in the business world, you don't get $6.3 billion in financing based on a three page proposal. So, in this brief climate change proposal, what do we find? We find a statement of the administration's principles for addressing climate change. One of the administration's principles on climate change is: ``Developing Countries Must Participate.'' The President's climate change proposal says: ``The President has committed that the United States will not adopt binding obligations without developing country participation.'' Take note that this statement came from the Administration prior to the Kyoto negotiations, when the administration conveniently abandoned that principle, in order to come home with some kind of agreement to show everyone how successful they were. The administration still claims to be committed to ``meaningful participation''--whatever that means--by developing countries. In fact, Mr. Dirk Forrister, the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force, told me during our hearing on June 4 that ``meaningful participation'' does include China and India. So, the President's climate change proposal says you must have developing country participation. Mr. Forrister tells me just three weeks ago that we must get China and India to participate. But then, what happens in Bonn, Germany? Over 1200 negotiators met there to start negotiating the details for the Kyoto treaty. The U.S. negotiating team had over 25 members. I wasn't at the Bonn meeting, so let me read from a report of what happened in Bonn. This is from the Washington Times, June 13, 1998. The headline is: ``Third World, EU knock U.S. effort on global warming. Two week talks in Bonn end in impasse.'' The article says: Third World and European nations dealt a blow to President Clinton's effort to make the global warming treaty more palatable to Americans at a negotiating session . . . in Germany. China and India, speaking for a group of 77 developing countries, opposed even discussing proposals that would require them to drastically cut so-called greenhouse gas emissions as the United States and industrialized nations are required to do under the treaty. Let me repeat that: China and India . . . opposed even discussing proposals . . . that would require them to . . . cut . . . emissions. What are we to make of this? The administration says China and India must participate. Yet, in Bonn, China and India led an effort by developing countries to oppose even talking about their participation. Let me point out another disconnect. President Clinton's climate change proposal says: The President is committed to a market-based emissions trading system, both domestically and internationally, that will har- ness the power of the market to reduce emissions . . . The administration's climate change proposal states that an emissions trading system will allow the United States to meet its reductions targets ``with minimal economic costs.'' In fact, Janet Yellen, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, has testified before Congress that according to the administration's economic analysis--the details of which, by the way, almost no one is allowed to see--that Kyoto targets can be met for minimal costs. We are just finding out how you meet the Kyoto targets so cheaply. Apparently, the administration relies on achieving 85 percent of emissions reduction through emissions trading. They think we can ``buy our way out'' of the problem. But let's see what happened in Bonn. What did the rest of the world have to say about extensive use of emissions trading? Again, let me quote from the Washington Times article: The European Union said it would oppose extensive use of a complicated [emissions trading] scheme Mr. Clinton devised to ensure that Americans pay only modestly higher energy prices under the treaty, saying the United States should bear the brunt of such costs, which could total in the hundreds of billions of dollars. So, here are the results of Bonn. 1. Developing countries are still saying ``not interested'' when it comes to signing up for binding reduction targets. 2. Our European friends are saying, ``Hey America, you can't buy your way out of your commitments through emissions trading. We want you to take more expensive action at home. What kind of actions might we take to reduce emissions, if we can't rely on emissions trading? To answer that question, I think it's helpful to look at the current situation. Where do we currently get our electricity from? We generate 53 percent of our electricity from coal. The administration says coal pollutes so we have to cut back on dramatically on how much we rely on coal. We generate 18 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. This is our largest emission-free source of power. I've talked about this issue over the years and the percentage of nuclear keeps falling. A few years ago we were 22 percent nuclear, last year this figure was about 20 percent. I think we should be clear about why this number is falling. We have an administration that won't deal with the nuclear waste problem. We have a President who says he will veto our nuclear waste bill, which has passed both this Congress by wide margins. The bottom line is that we are at risk of losing our nuclear power. We generate 14 percent from natural gas, but the administration has issued OCS moritoria and won't provide access to public lands for gas production, so there are limits to what gas can do. We generate 10 percent from hydroelectric power--another emissions- free source of electricity. But again, the Admin opposes hydropower and we have a Secretary of the Interior who brags he will be the first Interior Secretary to tear down a dam. We generate about 3 percent--a little bit under 3 percent--from waste or ``biomass''. This is electricity from burning wood, garbage, old tires. This isn't exactly a carbon-free activity, so we will have to curtail our use of biomass for power production. We generate 2 percent of our electricity from oil. Again, this is something unpopular with the administration. They are opposed to fossil fuel use, and they won't allow access to public lands for further oil exploration. The remaining less than 0.1 percent comes from wind and solar. This is a very small percentage, yet the administration claims these are the technologies that will make-up for reductions in all the other sources. How realistic is this? The Sierra Club refers to wind turbines as ``cuisinarts for the birds.'' Wind power also depends on a limited number of sites, with strong, dependable winds. Solar technology has many obvious shortcomings. First of all, the sun doesn't shine at night. Also, solar panels take up a tremendous amount of space. It would take about 10,000 square miles of solar panels to replace the 18 percent of our electricity generated with nuclear power. This is about the size of the entire states of Vermont and Delaware, combined. So there are obvious limits to renewable resources, but there are places where they make sense. For instance, remote villages in Alaska, where electricity is now generated with diesel fuel for 30-40 cents per kilowatt hour. But for large populations these renewable technologies probably are not feasible. How does the President say we will meet our Kyoto targets? In addition to buying carbon credits from Russia and Ukraine, the President says we should increase energy efficiency . . . and ``pay the bill'' by deregulating electricity. I'm all for efficiency and rational deregulation . . . but if you've endangered your major sources of generation, efficiency and generation aren't much help. The President is clearly pushing this issue off onto somebody else's watch. So, where does this leave us? Well, we are headed into larger, higher-level negotiations in Buenos Aires, Argentina this fall. Should we be hopeful that we will have any better success than we did in Bonn? Don't get me wrong. I happen to think that principles are a great thing to have. The point is you have to stick to them. I fear that in Buenos Aires, the administration will once again be desperate for the appearance of success. In their desperation, the administration might conveniently abandon more of the principles they claim to hold regarding what the U.S. should demand of the rest of the world in a climate change treaty. Mr. President, I have been watching these events unfold for some time now. I have watched this climate change deal become more and more of a raw deal for Americans. But to sum up, I don't think I can put it any better than one of my constituents, Sam Tatum from Wasilla, Alaska. He wrote me a letter saying ``this climate change treaty is bad news for our country.'' Well, Sam, hold on to your pocketbook and let's see what comes out of Buenos Aries. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Times be printed in the Record, plus a table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Washington in offering this amendment requiring the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration to sit down with the Veterans Service Organizations to find ways to honorable pay our last respects to our nation's veterans. Six months after enactment of this legislation, DoD will submit to Congress a report noting changes in DoD's policies for burial honors and recommendations for possible legislation to address this problem. Why is this needed? Let me tell you. Veterans across the country are dying. These are the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. How do we as a nation pay our final respects--many times with one person with a folded flag and a tape of taps. With World War II veterans growing older, the problem will only get worse. Even around Washington, DC, with its many military bases this happens. This is not uncommon. The father of one of my staff members passed away a few years ago on the West Coast. She thought that since he was a World War II veteran, he would receive an honor guard--an appropriate thank you for the service he had given our country. What happened? As the family members watched, a member of the military--one member came and handed over a flag. There was no honor guard, no bugler, no final send off for a job well done. My staff person was shocked at the insensitivity and the impersonal nature of the burial service. I am shocked as all of us should be. This is a disgrace. Earlier this year Senator Murray, Senator Sarbanes and myself introduced legislation that required a five person honor guard with a bugler. DoD opposed the legislation because of the potential costs and drain on our military personnel. Mr. President, although I understand DoD's arguments, something must be done. This amendment moves the ball forward but it does not solve the problem. I expect in DoD's report realistic suggestions on solving this problem. One person and a tape of Taps is not an alternative. In closing, I would like all of us to think about the honor that our country bestows on our veterans and the honor they deserve. An honor guard is the last instance that we as a nation can thank them for their service. They deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. President.