Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment from the Senator from New Mexico to strike section 630 of this legislation. The provision that would be stricken by the amendment addresses substantive issues regarding the energy efficiency requirements that apply to Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The requirements addressed by this provision are complex and, along with many, if not all, of the energy efficiency provisions of EPAct, have resulted in quite a bit of controversy during their implementation. As chairman of the Energy Committee, I intend to investigate these issues thoroughly and address them legislatively, as appropriate. I believe that the supporters of section 630 have raised a legitimate concern that will probably require a legislative resolution. However, as I noted, these issues are very complex, and within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The scope of this section is very broad and its full impact is unknown at this time. Its impact on existing contracts is unclear, and it may, in fact, prohibit some activities that are appropriate and beneficial to the American taxpayer. We simply have not had the opportunity for the Energy Committee to evaluate this language and assess all of its implications, as it should. As such, I must object to their resolution in this piece of legislation on procedural grounds and would ask that my name be added as co-sponsor of the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolu- tion that China's most-favored- nation trading status should be revoked. This is the worst of all possible alternatives. Mr. President, you will recall that Teddy Roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick, well this resolution is just the opposite--it is speaking loudly, and carrying no stick. The traditional resolution of disapproval for MFN has already been defeated in the House of Representatives. So this vote has no force. In my view, that is the worst possible way to send a message to China. Much has been written that this year the debate over MFN is different, that the issues have changed, but I do not think the fundamental choice has changed: Do we choose engagement--striving to bring China into the international community on terms we support--or isolation--allowing China to enter the international arena on terms beyond our control. I think the answer is obvious. MFN should be renewed unconditionally not because it is a reward to the Government of China, but because revocation of MFN hurts the very people we want to help. We have many grave concerns with China ranging from the treatment of dissidents and Christians to weapons proliferation. But severing economic ties is not the right tool to address these issues. Revoking MFN only succeeds in hurting Americans, hurting reformers, and hurting the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan. But what I have to say about linking MFN to Hong Kong's future is far less important than what the people of Hong Kong themselves have told lawmakers. Martin Lee, Hong Kong's leading democrat described revoking MFN as punishing Hong Kong. Miss Denise Yue, Hong Kong's Secretary for Trade and Industry, best described the threat of MFN revocation as double jeopardy, ``[K]nowing that if China takes away their freedoms, the United States will respond by taking away their jobs . . .'' Similarly, Hong Kong's Chief Executive designee Tung Chee Hwa has stressed that unconditional renewal of MFN is in the best interests of Hong Kong. So I think we should listen very carefully to what those who live and work in Hong Kong have said, rather than pretending we know better. This also applies to the Chinese on the other side of the strait--the people of Taiwan. This year, as in past years, the Government of Taiwan is quietly supporting the renewal of normal trading ties. One has only to look at investment in Southern China to understand that cutting economic ties between the United States and the People's Republic of China will have a significant and negative economic impact on Taiwan. Taiwan companies and individuals have invested more than $30 billion in over 30,000 enterprises. My colleagues should also take note that the board of the United States-Republic of China (Taiwan) Business Council, a collection of American companies doing business in Taiwan, unanimously adopted a resolution supporting renewal of MFN. The council noted that ``renewing MFN for China is good for the United States in its business with China, with Taiwan, and with Hong Kong.'' Supporters of Taiwan, and I put myself firmly in that category, should also look at the history of the United States relationship with Taiwan, before rejecting the claim that economic liberalization leads to political liberalization. This United States commitment to the people of Taiwan was indispensable to the development of the economic and democratic miracle that is Taiwan today. This was not always the case. Martial law lasted from 1950 to 1987. During that period, individual rights and freedoms were stifled and political opposition was silenced. Yet, today, once imprisoned opposition leaders such as Peng Ming-min have been released. In fact, Peng was the DPP's Presidential candidate in last year's March election. During this less than free and open period, the United States stood by Taiwan, maintained normal trading relations, and gave the Republic of China economic aid. Most historians agree that United States aid and investment served to enhance market-oriented economic reforms that contributed to rising living standards and expanded economic freedoms, and injected a liberalizing influence into Taiwanese society. But the transition to an open, democratic society took 50 years on an island of 20 million, and was the first democracy in 5,000 years of Chinese history. Of course, Taiwan's success also depended on a leadership decision to reform the political structure. We certainly cannot predict what direction the People's Republic of China leadership will take the 1.2 billion mainland Chinese, but we can follow the formula that has worked before. Hong Kong's and Taiwan's freedom and power as a model for China's future evolution rests on continued economic vibrancy. U.S. policy should strive to maintain confidence, not destroy it. I hope that next year we can have a more constructive debate over whether this annual exercise should be scrapped in favor of a deal to grant permanent MFN status for China if they make the necessary commercial concessions to enter the World Trade Organization. The yearly exercise of public handwringing over MFN renewal has proven a liability to a coherent China policy. MFN was never intended to serve as a weapon of punishment for every problem we have with nonmarket economies. Its original purpose of guaranteeing freedom of emigration from the former Soviet Union has been grossly distorted, and I would say without achieving any positive results. But there is a time for everything, and unfortunately now is not the time to push permanent MFN. Integrating China into the international community poses great risks and equally great opportunities. If we continue down the road of inconsistency and fail to deal honestly with the Chinese, in concert with our allies, and based on a clear understanding of the United States national interest, we will have failed the sacred trust of the Nation. The United States-China relationship is pivotal to the continued security and prosperity of Asia and America. We must ground that relationship in the solid foundation of the U.S. national interest-- ensuring stability and security in Asia to limit the potential for conflict and tension and to provide fertile soil for democracy and economic prosperity. We must also work together with our Asian allies to design and raise its frame; their future is as much at stake as our own.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending, and I had asked for the yeas and nays some time ago. There was a question, and I would like to again ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment on North Korea.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment that is pending.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays on my pending amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. At 10:40 a.m. Tuesday morning along the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, North Korean soldiers exchanged heavy gunfire with South Korean troops. This is accurately described as the most serious clash on the Korean Peninsula since a North Korean submarine full of special forces went aground off South Korea's coast last September. According to news reports, 14 North Korean soldiers crossed the military demarcation line and traveled 70 meters into the DMZ. South Korean border guards used a loudspeaker to order the North Koreans back. When the North Koreans failed to respond, South Korean soldiers fired some 200 warning shots in the air. The North Koreans responded by firing their rifles at the South Korean soldiers, who then directed fire at the North Koreans using rifles and machine guns. North Korean soldiers returned fire. And although reports are in dispute, it appears there was at least one mortar round fired by the North Koreans. The firefight lasted for over 1 hour before the North Koreans stopped firing and withdrew. Mr. President. Why do I come to the floor and talk about an artillery exchange thousands of miles away? There are several good reasons why Americans should pay attention to what is going on on the Korean Peninsula. First, I don't need to remind my colleagues that I am talking about the DMZ where 37,000 American troops stand guard across from a 1.1 million man North Korean army. Second, according to a GAO report that I requested last year, the United States has sent over 115 million taxpayer dollars 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 signed in October 1994. Just yesterday, the administration announced that the United States will donate an additional $27 million worth of surplus grain to North Korea. And today, in the foreign operations appropriations bill, there is an additional $44 million appropriated for KEDO, subject to certain conditions that Senator McCain and I added to last year's appropriation bill. Now $200 million may be a small price to pay to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula, and I am not arguing about the money per se. But if there was ever a case of a recipient biting the hand that feeds it--it is North Korea. Incident after incident--from the submarine incursion to this latest round of gunfire--is dismissed as ``not intentional'' or not ``serious'' enough to derail U.S. assistance under the agreed framework. After the North Korean submarine landed on South Korean shores, our administration asked for ``both sides to show restraint.'' I was outraged that we asked our South Korean allies to ``show restraint'' when it was their country that had been invaded by commandos. I understand that right now the administration is preparing a response to this latest violation of the Military Armistice Agreement. And true to form, the administration is asking once again that this issue not be ``blown out of proportion''. Not blown out of proportion? I think we should be outraged at North Korea's continued belligerent actions that are clearly designed to intimidate. The South Koreans did nothing wrong today, unless you think defending one's borders and shooting in self-defense is wrong. I hope the administration's statement recognizes that reality and does not even implicitly agree with the North Korean foreign ministry propaganda claiming that their soldiers were acting in self-defense. That is why in offering this amendment, Mr. President, I would condition further funding--this is the important part of the amendment--on a certification from the President that North Korea has not violated the Military Armistice Agreement of 1953. Although I have very strong reservations about the agreed framework, which I have expressed on this floor from time to time, and particularly because North Korea does not have to submit to inspections that were required 5 years ago, for several more years--and this is in association with the construction of the light water reactors that Japan, the United States, and South Korea are assisting in--I have supported continued funding for KEDO, subject to specific conditions that are spelled out in the bill. But I now believe that these conditions should be expanded to ensure that North Korea belligerency comes to an end. If the North Koreans want economic assistance from the United States, they are going to have to learn that their troops and munitions ought to stay on their side of the border. Their people, unfortunately, don't have enough to eat. Many of them are starving. We continue to help them with food assistance and humanitarian assistance. Yet, they continue to use their military to provoke those who would help them. I think it is time for the administration to stop appeasing this tyrannical and barbaric government that has brutalized the people of North Korea for more than 45 years. We, in effect, are supporting a government that would probably fall by its own weight. I am not suggesting that it is not a very dangerous situation with the 1.1 million men in arms. I am not suggesting that the regime isn't dangerous, in the sense of being very unpredictable. But they have to get the message that they can't bite the hand that feeds them. We continue to assist North Korea even while that Government continues a very aggressive posture. If the administration cannot certify North Korean compliance with this amendment, I think financial assistance must come to an end. If the President can make the necessary certification that the North Koreans have not violated the Military Armistice Agreement of 1953, I certainly would not stand in the way of meeting our commitments to KEDO. But I think the North Koreans should certainly get the message that they simply cannot continue to operate under the theory that anything goes with regard to its commitment to KEDO. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman. Amendment No. 894, As Modified (Purpose: To provide an additional condition on the availability of $14 million in debt relief for North Korea)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the order for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Nickles, be named as cosponsors.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 894, and I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the amendment has been agreed to on both sides. It provides that the additional $14 million appropriated to relieve the KEDO debt not be available until the Secretary of State certificates that North Korea has not violated the military armistice agreement of 1953 during the preceding 9 months. Basically, the amendment puts North Korea on notice that additional funds will not be available if North Korea commits another violation like the incident this morning at the DMZ. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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 Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 967, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes, and S. 1015, a bill to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, and for other purposes. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 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. MURKOWSKI. I would like to further clarify that this language is not intended to endorse or accelerate the pace of external regulation, which should be the subject of hearings and legislative action on the part of the authorizing committees, and that the Senator will work with me to ensure that the statement of managers reflects this understanding.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to add another voice to this discussion, and another point that has not yet been addressed. In May of this year, I wrote a letter to Mr. Daniel Reifsnyder of the U.S. Department of State, transmitting my comments on the Draft Second U.S. Climate Action Report. In this letter, dated May 15, 1997, I reminded Mr. Reifsnyder that nuclear energy is responsible for 89 percent of all the carbon dioxide emissions avoided by U.S. electric utilities between 1973 and 1995 and that over 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon emissions have been avoided in the United States alone through the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has made and can continue to make tremendous contributions in avoiding carbon emissions. Although the contributions of nuclear energy appear to have gotten little acknowledgment in the U.S. Climate Action Report, if we look at what is happening internationally, we see that other countries have not failed to take notice of the nuclear option. Specifically, France and Japan continue their reliance on nuclear energy for substantial percentages of their energy needs, and China has ambitious plans for developing its civilian nuclear program. The failure of this country to take a long term view and invest in nuclear research and development has the potential to damage not only our own civilian program, but our ability to observe and influence the programs of other nations.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Mexico regarding a section of the report accompanying the energy and water appropriations bill entitled ``External Regulation.'' This section addresses DOE's ongoing evaluation of the question of whether DOE's nuclear facilities should be subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I would like to clarify that this section of the report is intended to allow DOE to gather quantitative and qualitative information on external regulation to serve as guidance to the authorizing committees as they address this issue in the future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have stricken the language that made it impossible for the Department to study alternatives to the methods we currently employ for disposing of chemical weapons. During the consideration of the Defense authorization bill last week, I offered an amendment to provide for a study. This amendment was readily accepted by the floor managers and was included in the final bill which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last Friday. Depending on the conclusions of the study, the taxpayers of this country could save somewhere between $3 and $5 billion. This is real money. Perhaps they could save much more in the cost of disposing of these chemical weapons. This was just a study. It did not mandate changes in the program at this time. It merely provided Congress with an opportunity to responsibly evaluate alternatives in the future. I think it is clear we need to take a fresh look at this program so we can responsibly evaluate whether safer and cheaper alternatives to the present system exist. In 1985, the Congress directed the Army to destroy our stockpile of obsolete chemical weapons. These are the nerve gases and the various other agents that are so deadly. The Senate took action and reiterated this commitment by ratifying the Chemical Weapons Treaty earlier this year, and we are in the process of disposing of those weapons. But the present system, I suggest, is not working the way it should. The present system is increasingly expensive, and a timeline for completion of the program is increasingly uncertain. If we look at the figures, according to the GAO, the program faces dramatically increasing costs. I am going to describe where these weapons are in a moment. The stockpile disposal program went from an initial estimate of $1.7 billion as the cost of disposing of these chemical weapons in 1985 to a current estimate of about $12.4 billion. So, as we begin to look at the cost of disposing of these weapons, why, the cost just simply goes out of sight. The nonstockpile program could cost an additional $15.1 billion and it is estimated now to take 40 years to complete. We have these weapons stored in various locations around the country. Clearly, we want to dispose of the weapons. But now they are telling us it is going to take 40 years to dispose of them. It is a hole out there we are going to pour money into for 40 years. The estimate is a minimum cost of over $27.5 billion. But, remember, that is up from what the original estimate was in 1985 of $1.7 billion. So we go from $1.7 to $12.4 to $15.1 to $27.5. And now we are talking about 40 years. These stockpiled munitions are, obviously, highly deadly. Their long- term viability is questionable. We simply cannot continue to postpone our responsibility to act on this program at this time. We have stockpiled munitions at nine sites, and here they are, Mr. President, with disposal facilities up and running at only two. The only two we have running are one out in the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Atoll, out there, about 600 miles south of Hawaii, and recently, Tooele in Utah is up and running. These facilities are costing well over $1 billion in Tooele, and the Johnston Island site is somewhere around $1.3 billion or thereabouts. It is interesting to note where we are. We are in Alabama, we are in Arkansas, we are in Colorado, we are in Maryland, we are in Kentucky, we are up here in Indiana, and, of course, we are in Umatilla, OR. Every State is sensitive, including the State of my friend, the Senator from Oregon. The reality is they want this removed from these various States where they exist. So the Department of Defense and the Pentagon and the appropriate committees have determined the best way to get rid of it is to build individual sites at each of the seven or eight--or actually potentially nine--sites, at a cost of over $1 billion, and, once the material is disposed of, that terminates the facility because it is not beneficial for anything else. However, it is interesting to note a couple of facts. In the Johnston Atoll, most of the material that is being incinerated there and disposed of came from NATO. It came from Europe. It was shipped across the ocean. Some of it came from Guam. That facility is functioning. It is underway. There is a prohibition about it taking any more. I can understand the sensitivity of the delegation from Hawaii, but, again, as we look at this catch-22 that we are in, I am just wondering, is it necessary that we build six new plants? Or, can we somehow look at some other alternatives? Is there a way to incinerate this at sea? We have built incinerating barges and facilities before quite successfully. Is there an advanced technology? What the Senator from Alaska has proposed is a study, a study to see if there is another and more beneficial return for the taxpayers of this country for the disposal of this weaponry. In Oregon we have the adjacent coastline. In Aberdeen--in several of these areas we are not too far from the water. But each is very concerned about shipping this material across another State to get it to a place where you can dispose of it. So we are in this round-robin here. Nobody wants the stuff. Everybody wants to get rid of it. Nobody wants it to cross their State line. Nobody wants to take any more. Nobody wants to accumulate it and reduce the cost. So we simply sit here and watch the costs go up to $27 billion, we watch the time extended to up to 40 years, and we are being irresponsible by not allowing a study. That is what my amendment would have done. It would have been to allow a study. However, because there is a prohibition even against a study, the conference and/or the committee itself is refusing to accept my amendment, which I can understand, given the sensitivity. I can understand how the process works around here. But I think we need to highlight how irresponsible we are in just ducking this issue and hoping that it will be resolved on somebody else's watch. We have stockpiled these munitions at nine sites. We cannot, by laws that we passed, transport these munitions. So, you know, the alternative is to build these sites at more than $1 billion each at the same time we continue to face permitting problems at every Federal site, every local level at the other seven sites, and a start date for construction seems to be extended on and on and on. The logic of the present disposal system really escapes me, and, as a consequence, I offered the amendment so we could take a rational look at what we are trying to accomplish with regard to this problem. This again, Mr. President, is just a study. But in order to take a rational look at the program, it is imperative that all aspects of the program be considered so we can best evaluate how to proceed. I hope the conferees on this bill will consider their responsibility and reconsider the Senate language which permits us an opportunity to take a second look. It does not demand that we do anything. It is not that we ship anything, not that we do not build these, it simply says, ``Is there another, a better, a more efficient, cost-savings way?'' I think there is. To suggest we are going to eliminate even the ability to take a look at this program, I think is terribly irresponsible on the part of those who bear the responsibility of addressing this, because this is just a study. What is the harm in looking at the problem? I had proposed striking the prohibition against the study. We could always ask the inspector general for a study, and probably will. But I did want to take an opportunity to present before the Members the reality. This is something we cannot hide. We cannot overlook this. We have a responsibility to address it. We are spending huge amounts of money, and the public should recognize just what our alternatives are and face up to the fact that this was created as a consequence of decisions made in the national defense interests of our Nation. We created this terrible nerve gas. I have seen the canisters it is in. I have seen how they dispose of it at Johnston Island and the manner in which it is taken into chambers where the explosive charge is removed, the gas is incinerated in one chamber in a closed cycle and the explosive material is taken in another chamber and incinerated. This was the development prototype. But, here we are today faced with the inability to even look at a better way of disposal because of the sensitivity of this issue and the concern, if you do a study and you find a better way, it might suggest you might have to move it, and, therefore, you would have to move it across another State, and they don't want that to happen. So leave it where it is, simply build the plants and get on with it and spend God knows how many billions of dollars in the process. So, you might say the Senator from Alaska is a little sensitive to the prohibition to even allow a study and an evaluation of a better way to meet our obligations to dispose of our chemical weapons. You might say, ``What in the world is the Senator from Alaska doing in this area?'' Under the responsibility as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have spent an awful lot of time on the merits of moving high-level nuclear waste across the United States at various sites over an extended period of time. Hundreds and hundreds of shipments have moved safely without incident. I am suggesting that we have the technology to move this lethal material to a place to dispose of it that is appropriate, even perhaps in a self-contained facility offshore that could contain the physical process of disposal at a much less cost. With that, Mr. President, I simply make an appeal to my colleagues to recognize the extent of our responsibility to successfully dispose of our chemical weapons that have accumulated over a long period of time in a manner that is most responsible to the taxpayers, as well as safe, by using American ingenuity and technology. Seeing no other Member on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the President pro tempore a good morning and a good day. Let me also welcome my good friend, the Senator from the State of Oregon. I wish him a good morning, and our staffs as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. By consent, at 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1005, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, with only those amendments listed in last evening's unanimous-consent agreement being in order. Following the disposition of those amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on final passage of the Department of Defense appropriations bill, hopefully, by early afternoon. Further, by previous consent, the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. Following that recess, the Senate will complete action on the Department of Defense authorization bill, if not earlier disposed of, or will begin consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill. The majority leader wishes to remind all Members that the Senate is working to complete action on three or four major appropriations bills this week. Therefore, late sessions can be expected and votes should be anticipated throughout each day of the Senate session. On behalf of the majority leader, I thank our colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I am going to speak in morning business on the subject of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.