Frank Murkowski

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 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, today I am introducing legislation to authorize and direct a land exchange which will greatly benefit the community of Sitka, AK. This bill will: ensure that an important water system now currently under an easement will be conveyed to the city of Sitka in order to provide its residents with an assured water supply into the future; provide for a spectacular inholding encompassing approximately 50 acres on Admiralty Island to be added to the Admiralty Island National Monument; extinguish a reversionary interest on land owned at Sitka by the Alaska Pulp Corp. In return for the extinguishment of the reversionary interest, the corporation will convey the 50-acre inholding on Admiralty Island to the Forest Service to be included in the monument, as well as the water system lands to the city of Sitka. Mr. President, Admiralty Island is an area with outstanding conservation values. The land exchange authorized in the bill I am sponsoring will ensure that this private inholding is included in the monument and in the wilderness area as appropriate. This exchange is supported by the city and borough of Sitka, and the city administrator has requested me to sponsor this legislation and expedite the exchange. This exchange is truly in the best interests of all involved. The U.S. Government even comes out ahead on value. Recent appraisals for the various lands and interests exchanged show that the Admiralty Island land is valued at more than the reversionary interest which will be exchanged. As a condition of my legislation, the corporation is required to waive its right to any compensation for this difference in value. In summary, as a result of this exchange the Admiralty Island Monument land ownership pattern will be consolidated, the city of Sitka will receive valuable lands in fee ownership on which parts of its water system are located, and the corporation will be free of a problematic reversionary interest in its property. As a bonus, the Federal Government realizes a net benefit in the value of the exchange. This is a sound deal in the best interests of all parties. It is my hope that this legislation can pass this body and the Congress in the near future.

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 Wednesday, July 23, 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 broadly examine three aspects of natural gas issues into the next century. Specifically, the committee will want to look at world energy supply and demand to 2015, what percentage of that will be filled by natural gas and how this could be impacted by other large scale energy projects, such as nuclear, that are being developed in Asia. Second would be to explore the role of Government in large scale gas projects in foreign countries, what type of assistance the U.S. companies competing for overseas projects receive from the U.S. Government and what can be done in the United States to make American gas more competitive worldwide. Third would be to examine the emerging technologies in gas field development that are making natural gas more economical to market. 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. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize and direct a land exchange which will greatly benefit the community of Sitka, AK. This bill will: ensure that an important water system now currently under an easement will be conveyed to the city of Sitka in order to provide its residents with an assured water supply into the future; provide for a spectacular inholding encompassing approximately 50 acres on Admiralty Island to be added to the Admiralty Island National Monument; extinguish a reversionary interest on land owned at Sitka by the Alaska Pulp Corp. In return for the extinguishment of the reversionary interest, the corporation will convey the 50-acre inholding on Admiralty Island to the Forest Service to be included in the monument, as well as the water system lands to the city of Sitka. Mr. President, Admiralty Island is an area with outstanding conservation values. The land exchange authorized in the bill I am sponsoring will ensure that this private inholding is included in the monument and in the wilderness area as appropriate. This exchange is supported by the city and borough of Sitka, and the city administrator has requested me to sponsor this legislation and expedite the exchange. This exchange is truly in the best interests of all involved. The U.S. Government even comes out ahead on value. Recent appraisals for the various lands and interests exchanged show that the Admiralty Island land is valued at more than the reversionary interest which will be exchanged. As a condition of my legislation, the corporation is required to waive its right to any compensation for this difference in value. In summary, as a result of this exchange the Admiralty Island Monument land ownership pattern will be consolidated, the city of Sitka will receive valuable lands in fee ownership on which parts of its water system are located, and the corporation will be free of a problematic reversionary interest in its property. As a bonus, the Federal Government realizes a net benefit in the value of the exchange. This is a sound deal in the best interests of all parties. It is my hope that this legislation can pass this body and the Congress in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nomination of Kathleen M. Karpan to be Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, will be considered at the hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Flint at (202) 224-5070. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today is the first day of testimony in the Senate Governmental Affairs special investigation of the 1996 Federal election campaign contributions. There is, of course, but one purpose to this investigation. That purpose is to review campaign financing practices during the 1996 election to determine whether Federal laws were violated. I think it is fair to state that Federal campaign laws in question are relatively straightforward. It is illegal under U.S. election law for a noncitizen to contribute to campaigns; It is illegal for anyone to contribute to a campaign in someone else's name; And, it is illegal to solicit campaign funds on Federal property. Yesterday, at the opening of these hearings, Chairman Thompson announced exceedingly alarming evidence of violations of these Federal laws. The gravest of these violations is an alleged covert plan by the Chinese Government to subvert the 1996 United States election process. I note, Mr. President, that was headlined in the Washington Post this morning. The chairman indicated that the plan implemented a series of alleged illegal efforts by high members of the Chinese Government to influence United States policy by giving substantial sums of money. The intent had to be clear: To cultivate relations with the White House to influence foreign policy. Two key figures in the committee's investigation are John Huang of the Lippo Group and Charlie Trie, a Macao-based campaign fundraiser. Between Huang and Trie, nearly $4 million in questionable funds were raised. Over half of those funds have already been determined to be improper contributions and have appropriately been returned by the Democratic National Committee. This allegation goes to the very heart of the workings of our Government, and questions must be answered. First would be: What efforts were used by foreign nationals to influence U.S. policy? Second, to what extent was the U.S. political process infiltrated? Third, ultimately, was the United States compromised at any particular time? Additionally, these hearings will focus on the disturbing use of President Clinton's perquisites of the Presidency as a fundraising tool. Even though Federal law precludes campaign fundraising on Federal property, the committee has revealed the following information. During the 5 years that President Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938 guests have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. This figure is an unprecedented escalation of past Presidential practices. Presidential historian Richard Norton Smith stated that there has ``never been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of the White House for fundraising purposes * * * it's the selling of the White House.'' On March 15, 1997, the White House counsel, Lanny Davies, stated, ``It's fair to say these additional functions at the White House were for the purpose of encouraging support for the President's campaign, including financial support.'' These overnight guests at the Clinton White House donated at least $6 million to the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, President Clinton hosted some 103 Presidential coffees. Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms-trading company, donated some $27 million to the Democratic National Committee. White House officials have denied that such events were planned with the intention of raising specific amounts of money. However, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes--who will testify before the committee--recently turned over a large number of documents that show figures for both expected and actual donations from nearly every White House coffee. Here's a comparison. President Bush hosted one Presidential coffee. No money was raised. And I am told the cost was $6.24 cents. The accuracy of that I will leave to the historians. But, finally, Mr. President, on March 11, 1997, this body voted unanimously to hold this investigation. I commend Chairman Thompson for his commitment to Congress and to the constitutional duty of the oversight process; that is, to provide the American people with a fair, unfiltered, and bipartisan view of the 1996 campaign practices. The American public deserve no less. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe there is a special order pending.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me explain very briefly the amendment that I put before the Senate. This amendment would direct the Department of Defense to conduct a study of alternatives to our present approach to chemical weapons disposal. Depending on the conclusion of this study and its evaluation, there is a potential savings to the taxpayer, somewhere in the area of $3 billion to $5 billion, and perhaps much more, in the costs of disposing of these weapons. The Chair might wonder why the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is interested and involved with this issue, and to what degree does he have expertise in this area that falls under the auspices of the Department of Defense and under the Defense authorization bill. The Chairman would respond, Madam President, by noting that, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I spend a great deal of time and energy in the area of nuclear waste and nuclear waste disposal and the transportation of nuclear waste. I might add that there has been moved globally about 25,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste throughout the world. We have, currently, in some 80 reactors in 31 sites in the United States, high-level nuclear waste that we are contemplating at some time moving to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So I think the qualifications for a contribution to the area of disposing of chemical weapons is appropriate in the body of the amendment. This amendment simply calls for a study. It does not mandate changes in the program at this time, but will provide the Congress with an important and needed opportunity to responsibly evaluate alternatives to our chemical weapons disposal program in the future. Surprisingly enough, there is no authority to evaluate alternatives at this time for the Department of Defense. It was my hope this amendment would be accepted by the floor managers. I think it is noteworthy, Madam President, that prior to the Senate's ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the United States did adopt the policy that we would dispose of our chemical weapons in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. As most of my colleagues know, the disposal process is now underway, but it is becoming clear that we cannot afford to continue this program as it is currently constructed because of the costs. According to the General Accounting Office, the costs of the stockpile disposal program have escalated seven-fold, from an initial estimate of $1.7 billion to a current estimate of $12.4 billion. The costs of the nonstockpile program, which consists of the location and destruction of chemical weapons ordinance that was disposed of through burial or other means in the past, could cost an additional $15.1 billion and take up to 40 years to complete. Well, that is a total of about $27.5 billion to dispose of our chemical weapons. However, the GAO indicates that both the costs and the disposal schedules are highly uncertain and that it will likely take more time and likely take more money to get this job done. Well, as a consequence of that dilemma, Madam President, I think the program needs a fresh look, a new comprehensive evaluation by the program managers in the Department of Defense. Today, we have stockpiled chemical weapons stored at 9 locations. On the chart on my right, one can see that we start out with the Johnston Atoll, an island in the Pacific, roughly 700 miles southwest of Hawaii. We have another in Tooele, UT. Umatilla, OR; Pueblo, CO; Pine Bluff, AR; Anniston, AL; Blue Grass, KY; Aberdeen, MD, and Newport, IN. The chemical consistencies of the weapons stored there are abbreviated here by GB, which is a sarin nerve agent, and HD, which is a mustard blister agent, and VX, which is a nerve gas agent. Now, I have had the opportunity to visit the facility at Johnston Island on two occasions in the last 3 years. The chemical weapons are stored in capsules that look like hundred pound bombs. And within the bomb itself, or the casing, we have two components. One is an agent that is separate and distinct from the other nerve gas agents, and there is a triggering mechanism. Of course, the chemical reaction takes place when the two are mixed, or the exterior shell is punctured or broken. It is rather revealing to contemplate the terrible consequences of this type of weaponry, Madam President. It was explained that these can be fired from a Howitzer in ground activity, exploding perhaps 300 or 400 feet in the air, and the mist of the vapors, upon contact with the skin, will take a life within 30 seconds. Now, when you see this stored, you come to grips with the reality of the devastation of this type of weaponry and the necessity of proper disposal. It is also important to recognize how it got there because this stuff wasn't made at Johnston Island. It was shipped there from Europe, and some was shipped from some of our bases in the Pacific. It was shipped under the observation of the Army Corps of Engineers. It was shipped safely and met the criteria for shipment, which was evaluated to ensure its safety. So it is important to keep in mind in this discussion that these weapons we are now disposing of at Johnston Island, for the most part, were weapons that were part of the NATO capability, shipped from Germany, and have been safely transported to Johnston Island and are under the process of being destroyed. Now, at Johnston island, we have this capability for weapons demilitarization and incineration. This complies, as it must, with all applicable environmental laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is a superbly safe, state-of-the-art facility. It is also very expensive. This plant cost approximately $1 billion. What they have there are chambers where they take these things that look like bombs with the chemical in them and they actually take, in parts, the Chamber--that is, the inner Chamber, remove that, and put it in an area where they are able to dispose, through heat, of the volatility of the particular chemical agent. The other part goes in another Chamber and is burned at a very high temperature in an enclosed cycle process. So there is nothing that gets into the atmosphere. Now, we have recently opened another $1 billion facility in Tooele, UT. The theory is that we are going to have to build some seven more of these plants, capable of disposing of this chemical waste at each of the locations where stockpiled chemical weapons are stored. So while we have operational facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, UT, we are prepared to put in seven more at a billion dollars each, simply because we are prohibited from even considering shipping this to safe disposal sites already on line. As I said, we have a perfectly functioning facility on Johnston Island, which has been operational for a number of years. Should we move or even consider moving chemical weapons to Johnston Island and dispose of all of them in that plant we have already built? The answer clearly is no. There are objections from California and objections from Hawaii. Nobody wants this to happen in their own backyard. These States that have the chemical weapons stored are in kind of a catch-22. They don't want them there anymore. If they want to get rid of them, they have to build a plant at a cost of over a billion dollars, as opposed to the alternative of shipping them to one or two sites. Well, the answer to this $5 billion question is simple. Under current law, the Department of Defense cannot move chemical weapons across State lines. In fact, they can't even study the concept of transporting the munitions to an existing plant and thus build fewer plants. So if you look at the practicality of where we are, we are of one mind set. Reality: If we want to get rid of this stuff, we have to build seven plants rather than move the stuff because we have a law that prohibits us from moving these agents across State lines for disposal at one or two plants. In other words, the Department of Defense can't even think about saving money by having this process occur in just a couple of plants instead of--well, it would be a total of nine. My amendment is designed to allow the Department of Defense to study the transportation issue, as well as whatever other approaches might be available to help bring down program costs consistent with the safe disposal of these chemical weapons. My amendment does not repeal the provision in the 1995 defense authorization bill that prohibits the movement of chemical weapons munitions across the State lines. At this time, we are only seeking a study to identify and evaluate options. This study will assess lifecycle costs as well as risks. We are not moving beyond the study phase because I, for one, will await the results of the study before reaching any firm conclusions. But I have a hunch--and it is more than a hunch--that we can save money by reassessing this process. I am not suggesting it should go to any one place. But the reality is that we are designing a framework here for disposal in seven new additional sites which still need to be built. Given that we have two state of the art, fully operational facilities at Johnston Island and Tooele, UT, is it really necessary that we need to build seven additional sites? Or can we consolidate this process, perhaps with one site on the east coast and one site in the middle of the country? Our technical people have proven the competency of disposing of this, as we have had this process underway at Johnston Island and Tooele for some time. We seem to be so paranoid over the fact that we have this stuff and we are caught, if you will, in a dilemma of, well, if we want to get rid of it, we have to build a plant where it is stationed because nobody wants to see it moved across to someplace else where it can be disposed of. But nobody addresses what the experts tell us relative to the ability to move this stuff safely. We moved it safely from Germany to Johnston Island, it can be done and has been done. To suggest that we can't move it 400 or 500 miles by putting it in the type of containers that will alleviate virtually any exposure associated with an accident, I think, sells American technology and ingenuity short. We can move chemical weapons in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, and we can save a lot of money by reducing the number of facilities that we are committed to build. So I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment. Again, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the reality that this amendment does not mandate any changes in the program. It will not mandate the movement of any chemical weapons from one place to another or remove the prohibitions to move weapons across State lines. It would merely allow the Department of Defense to study alternatives and report back to Congress by March 15, 1998. I know of the sensitivity of Members whose States are affected. But I ask them to consider the merits of a study to evaluate, indeed, whether we can move some of this to some places and reduce the number of facilities that we are going to build at a billion dollars a crack. What are we going to do with these facilities when the weapons have been deactivated and destroyed? We are going to destroy the facilities. I urge adoption of the amendment. Madam President, if I may, it is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment at the appropriate time. The floor managers can address it at their convenience.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am not sure whether the Parliamentarian recorded my request for the yeas and nays. I would like to withdraw asking for the yeas and nays on my amendment at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 753, as Modified

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment which is pending at the desk at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, at the request of the administration, to make technical corrections to the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. Mr. President, I would like to submit a copy of the administration's letter of transmittal along with a copy of the bill and section-by- section analysis, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record. At the end of the 104th Congress, legislation was enacted making a number of changes to various laws affecting the national parks and other public lands. This new law, Public Law 104-333, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, included over 100 titles. With over 119 individual bills being included in this package, a number of cross-references need changing, along with some spelling and grammatical errors. Mr. President, this bill, when enacted will make the necessary technical corrections.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, at the request of the administration, to make technical corrections to the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. Mr. President, I would like to submit a copy of the administration's letter of transmittal along with a copy of the bill and section-by- section analysis, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record. At the end of the 104th Congress, legislation was enacted making a number of changes to various laws affecting the national parks and other public lands. This new law, Public Law 104-333, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, included over 100 titles. With over 119 individual bills being included in this package, a number of cross-references need changing, along with some spelling and grammatical errors. Mr. President, this bill, when enacted will make the necessary technical corrections.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nominations of Robert G. Stanton to be Director, National Park Service and Kneeland C. Youngblood to be a member of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation will be considered at the hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 17, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Flint at (202) 224-5070. committee on energy and natural resources

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 Tuesday, July 22, 1997, at 9 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to review the Department of the Interior's handling of the Ward Valley land conveyance, the findings of a new General Accounting Office [GAO] report on the issue, and to receive testimony on S. 964, the Ward Valley Land Transfer Act. Those wishing to submit written statements should contact David Garman of the committee staff at (202) 224-8115.