Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska addressed the Chair in a timely manner.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, during today's debate on S. 1664, I wanted to take the opportunity to speak on a bill I have cosponsored, the Korea visa waiver pilot project legislation, S. 1616. While this legislation is not being offered as an amendment to S. 1664, the subject of the bill is relevant to today's debate. I would urge all Senators to consider cosponsoring this legislation, and I would hope that the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the problems of visa issuance for Koreans, and the partial solution offered by S. 1616. I have worked closely with Senators Inouye, Akaka, and Stevens on this legislation. This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States tourist visas to Korean citizens, and their, too often, subsequent decision not to vacation in the United States, including Alaska even though there are direct flights available for tourists from Korea to Alaska. The United States Chamber of Commerce in Korea has made resolving this issue a top priority on their agenda. The main problem is that Koreans typically wait 2 to 3 weeks to obtain visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a result, these spontaneous travelers decide to go to one of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand. This bill provides the legal basis for a carefully controlled pilot program for visa free travel by Koreans to the United States. The program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the cumbersome visa system. For example, in 1994, 296,706 nonimmigrant United States visas were granted to Koreans of which 7,000 came to Alaska. It is predicted that there would be a 500- to 700-percent increase in Korean tourism to Alaska with the visa waiver pilot project. In New Zealand, for example, a 700-percent increase in tourism from Korea occurred after they dropped the visa requirement. This pilot program allows visitors in a tour group from South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa. However, it does not compromise the security standards of the United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The travel permits could only be used for supervised group tours. Many restrictions are included in the legislation for the pilot proposal. The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate the program if the overstay rates in the program are 2 percent. The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days. The visitors have to have a round-trip ticket, in addition, the visitors have to arrive by a carrier that agrees to take them back if they are deemed inadmissible. We recommend to the Secretary of State to institute a bonding and licensing requirement that each participating travel agency post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule. The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be certified after each tour. Security checks are done to ensure that the visitor is not a safety threat to the United States. This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be a successful program. Again, I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the resolution that would have allowed the States to decide whether the Constitution should be amended to impose term limits on Congress. I supported invoking cloture and I want to express my disappointment that we were not able to limit debate on this important issue. Mr. President, in 1994, 63 percent of Alaskans who voted cast their ballot in favor of congressional term limits. I want to explain why I support the resolution and also cite some reservations I have concerning this idea. As a majority of Alaskan voters believe, term limits may indeed provide for the infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives through the Halls of Congress. Term limits may also make Congress more responsive to its constituents; decrease the possibility of corruption that some see as stemming from longevity in office; and enhance the role of merit, rather than seniority, in the distribution of power. However, term limits unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish, thereby indiscriminately terminating the public service work of both good legislators and bad legislators, alike. Term limits would remove many of the most competent and experienced Members from office prematurely, thereby destroying the so-called institutional memory. The only individuals who would retain an institutional memory would be professional staff. Term limits may very well enhance their ability to shape legislation and become entrenched as the permanent bureaucracy of Capitol Hill. Similarly, the professional lobbyists in Washington may also find their influence with Members of Congress improved, as they are far more familiar with the details of issues affecting their industries than new Members of Congress. Finally, I would note that term limits could well diminish the influence of Senators and Congressmen from States with small populations, such as Alaska. I am especially concerned that term limits in the House will increase the power of States like California, Texas, and New York, which have delegations as large as 52 Members as opposed to States such as Alaska and Wyoming, each of which only has one Representative. Despite my reservations, Mr. President, the people of Alaska have clearly indicated their preference for term limits and I abide by that decision. I would support the constitutional term limit amendment because it would establish a uniform term-limit rule which would apply to all 50 States. Uniformity among States is imperative not only because the Supreme Court has ruled that individual States cannot constitutionally limit mandated uniformity, but also because States with term limits would be placed at a serious disadvantage in the Congress with States that do not limit Members' terms. A uniform term-limit amendment would place all 50 States on equal footing in representing constituents in Congress and that is why I support such an amendment. I will therefore vote in favor of the constitutional amendment approach to term limits to ensure that Alaskans are guaranteed equal representation in the Congress. I hope the majority leader will be able to bring this measure back before the Senate this year so that we can bring this issue to a final vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a recent event hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy honoring the first popularly elected President of the Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui. I was honored to serve as a cosponsor of this event with Senator Lieberman. It is entirely appropriate that this reception was organized by the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]. The recent direct, free and fair multiparty election for President in Taiwan is a model example of the activities supported by NED. I want to use this occasion to congratulate the NED for its continued involvement in encouraging free and democratic institutions throughout the world through private sector initiatives. A copy of the National Endowment for Democracy's tribute to President Lee is included at the end of my statement. Americans everywhere should congratulate the people of Taiwan in casting ballots to complete their transition to a democracy during trying times--the first such transition in Chinese history. It is a tribute to the people's spirit and determination that bullets did not deter people from casting their ballots. And President Lee, who received 54 percent of the vote, can proudly take credit for having led Taiwan to this important juncture. He has set an example in leading his countrymen in deciding that the leadership of Taiwan will forever more be settled at the ballot box. His victory on March 23 culminated a series of reforms--including lifting martial law, deregulating the media, legalizing opposition parties, and holding popular elections for all parliamentary seats-- that have taken place in a peaceful and prosperous environment. This is an accomplishment for which all the free world should be proud. President Lee deserves not only our well-wishes, but also our continued support as he now moves forward to map out Taiwan's destiny. As Taiwan continues to emerge as a force for democracy, freedom, and stability in Asia, I believe the United States should encourage their efforts to be represented in international organizations such as the World Trade Organization. The United States should also do what it can to encourage dialog between Taiwan and Beijing, and to contribute to peace and stability in the region. I join my many friends in Taiwan in celebrating President Lee's triumph as Taiwan marks a milestone in civilization's march down the road of self-determination leading to liberty, human dignity, and personal and societal fulfillment. I ask that a statement from the National Endowment for Democracy be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Tribute to President Lee Teng-hui (By the National Endowment for Democracy, April 16, 1996) The election of Lee Teng-hui on March 23, 1996, as the first popularly elected President of the Republic of China was the culmination of a 10-year process of transition which The Encyclopedia of Democracy has called ``a political miracle in twentieth-century Chinese politics, making Taiwan the first Chinese democracy.'' President Lee was the central figure and driving force behind this remarkable political transformation. From the moment he assumed the presidency on January 13, 1988, becoming the first native-born Taiwanese to hold this office, he devoted himself entirely to the historic task of democratic transformation launched by his predecessor Chiang Ching-kuo. The process was at once swift and methodical, with each bold step coming in the proper sequence, laying the foundation for each subsequent advance. Acting in the Confucian tradition of governance through consensus, he initiated the process with a conference on national affairs that achieved a political reconciliation between his own Nationalist Part and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party. There followed an agreement to establish a memorial and pay compensation to the victims of the uprising of February 1947; the elaboration of an approach to the issue of unification which became the basis for a new, pragmatic policy toward the People's Republic; the election of a new National Assembly representing only the voters of Taiwan that amended the constitution, preparing the way for the popular election of the president and vice-president by 1996; the voluntary retirement from the government of the party elders from the generation of Chiang Ching-kuo; and the first election for provincial governor and for mayors of Kaohsiung and Taipei, the race in Tapei being won by a member of the DPP who was a former political dissident. This stunning process of change, leading ultimately to President Lee's election and the establishment of the first Chinese democracy, was all the more significant because it took place against a background of mounting threats from the mainland--which fears a Chinese model of democracy--and skepticism emanating from some capitals to the effect that democracy is a Western system unsuited to Asian cultures. But it is precisely on this point, having to do with the roots of Chinese democracy in Confucian culture, that President Lee has spoken with unusual power and eloquence. At the conference on third wave democracy sponsored last August by the Endowment and the Institute for National Policy Research, President Lee expressed his confidence that ``by injecting into our modern democratic order the political precepts long inherent in Chinese culture--of exalting the people's will and claiming that the government and the people form a unity--we can infuse democracy with a new vitality.'' Lee Teng-hui is thus a unique figure in Chinese history, an individual with the wisdom to understand the need to integrate the two competing camps of contemporary Chinese political thought: the Confucianists and the advocates of Westernization. In so doing, he has embodied the Confucian ideal of ren. described in the entry on Confucianism in The Encyclopedia of Democracy as ``cultivating benevolence, developing one's faculties, sublimating one's personality, and upholding the right to education, the right to subsistence, and the right to social and political mobility without distinction according to class.'' Ren, according to the Encyclopedia, represents ``a new democratic ideal of society,'' It is this ideal which President Lee Teng-hui has sought for his country and for the Chinese people. The National Endowment for Democracy is therefore proud to honor President Lee by presenting him with an embossed four-volume set of The Encyclopedia of Democracy, which recognizes his extraordinary contribution and confirms his philosophical vision. We do so in the belief that his message of democracy and reconciliation, rooted in Chinese history and culture, have an enduring relevance for China's future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska has asked for 4 minutes following the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if following the Senator, I could speak for 4 minutes in morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. What is the order of business, if I may ask the Chair?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and my colleague. Mr. President, on the eve of Earth Day, I want to alert Members of legislation that I will be introducing to help raise funds from the private sector to support our national parks, particularly with regard to repair. In this regard, I think it is appropriate that we thank the thousands of people and organizations who are answering the call to help repair and preserve an important part of this Nation's past and future: the historic C&O Canal. That canal extends 184 miles between Cumberland, MD, and Georgetown in the District of Columbia. The C&O Canal National Historic Park is a major recreation attraction and a part of our national heritage. As we know, the flooding of the Potomac River in the blizzard of 1996 has taken a heavy toll. Repairs require funds at a time when our Federal budget is already stretched to the hilt. That is where the sweat and ingenuity of the private sector is going to come in. Let me tell you about it, because it is going to come in a big way. In the spirit of Earth Day, which asks every one of us to do what he or she can to help make the Earth a better place, people and organizations are rising to the challenge and giving their money, time, and effort. The National Parks and Conservation Association, with the help of WRC-TV Channel 4 and others, has organized and publicized tomorrow's March for Parks along the canal route. The purpose is to raise funds for the canal. These organizations have done an outstanding job on the project and thousands of dollars are already pouring in. They are doing a wonderful service to the Nation. In an effort to keep these private donations coming in, I am today announcing the introduction of legislation which will help raise as much as $100 million in each year in support of our national parks, specifically for repairs. First, the legislation will revitalize and expand the scope of the operation of the National Park Foundation so it can work with the private sector to raise additional funds for parks. It would encourage business relationships similar to those engaged by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the National Forest Foundation. Second, it will grant the sort of authority already enjoyed by the U.S. Olympic Committee to sanction appropriate private sponsorship of the parks. Third, each year publishing, advertising, movie making, and similar pursuits make use of the intellectual property and assets of our national parks with virtually no return to the parks. Reform is needed to enable the Park Service, through the National Park Foundation, to capture some of the potential income through licensing and other marketing agreements. Fourth, the legislation will contain safeguards to negate improper commercialization of our parks, but it will allow new revenue-generated opportunities outside the parks in partnership with the private sector. The National Park Foundation was created by Congress in 1967 as an official nonprofit partner of the National Park Service. It serves as a vehicle for donors who want to contribute with the assurance that gifts will be carefully managed and used wholly and exclusively for the purpose specified by the donor. It is governed by a board of civic and distinguished leaders committed to helping the parks, with the Secretary of the Interior serving as chairman, and the Director of the Park Service serving as secretary. None of this is going to change, Mr. President. During the last 5 years, the foundation has made over $10 million in grants to our national parks, but the changes contained in my legislation will empower it to contribute much more for the repair and preservation of the C&O Canal and other elements of our park system. Obviously, none of this will or should detract from the Federal Government's or the Park Service's responsibility to our parks. The goal is to augment that involvement with additional private funds, much like those currently being raised by the March for Parks, and I commend the Secretary of the Interior for his effort in this regard. Finally, we need the private sector, including those for-profit organizations who have used the National Park Service facilities and property and given little or nothing in return to help sustain our parks for the future. The private sector can help by providing additional funds for resource management and infrastructure repair required in our parks across the Nation. The C&O Canal National Historical Park and our other park units across the Nation connect us to our past and provide us with a vision of the future. They are some of the most beautiful and historic parcels of land to be found. In the spirit of Earth Day and American generosity and philanthropy, it is time for us to make the effort to meet the challenge. Thanks to the NPCA, WRC-TV and the thousands of marchers and volunteers who tomorrow will be helping to show us the way. In the spirit of Earth Day, I ask for each Senator's help in passing this legislation to help our parks, and I commend our leader, Senator Dole, for supporting this. I thank the Chair and thank my friend from Georgia.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, while the Senate was in session yesterday, I was unable to participate in our proceedings because I was attending the funeral of my late uncle, Harry Murkowski, in Washington State. My late uncle, Harry was 92 when he passed away late last week. He was the last of my relatives who was of my parents' generation and I felt it was important that I share my mourning with members of my family. Harry, who was widowed several years ago, lived in Puyallup and Enumclaw, WA, worked his entire life as a fire fighter on the McChord Air Force Base. He is survived by his daughter, Beth Newman. Mr. President, yesterday I missed two rollcall votes because of my attendance at the funeral. The April 16, Congressional Record reflects how I would have voted, had I been here to participate in the Senate debate. As the Record reflects, my vote would not have changed the outcome of either vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the scheduling of an oversight hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on the Tongass Land Management Plan. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Testimony will be received from various administration witnesses. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements for the Record should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey of the committee staff at 202-224-6170. committee on small business

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last night we had several hours of debate and that debate was around the issue of the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act relating to Taiwan. As we addressed the disposition of the conference report, this particular portion received a good deal of scrutiny. There were a lot of words spoken, a lot of technical interpretations. What I am going to do today is simplify that debate by referring to the Taiwan Relations Act as the law of the land. I will also give a brief explanation of the section that was the subject of the debate, but I will use the actual factual language, as well as definitions, not just personal interpretations. I was surprised by the debate surrounding one provision in particular, and that was section 1601, which states that sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act supersede any provision of the 1982 joint communique between the United States and China. I was surprised by the debate because, obviously, a number of people seem to be cloudy on just what ``supersede'' means. Allow me to clear up any misconceptions of that term. The Oxford dictionary refers to the term ``supersede'' specifically as ``overrides, takes precedence over.'' That definition seems pretty clear to me, Mr. President. The administration indicated it is going to veto the entire conference report, in part because of opposition to section 1601, even though that section only restates reality. In order to enlighten some of my colleagues on this issue, I have a chart here. I would like to refer to the chart. This is April 10, 1979, section 3(a): . . . [T]he United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' Section 3(b): The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and defense services based solely upon their judgments of the needs of Taiwan. . . . It could not be any clearer, ``solely on their judgments of the needs of Taiwan.'' That is to say, the President and the Congress shall determine the nature, quantity of such defense articles, et cetera. It is crystal clear. The issue is the interpretation of the United States- China joint communique. The previous reference was the law of the land. This is a communique. In the communique, August 17, 1982, the administration pledged, ``to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution.'' Paragraph 6. This pledge to reduce arms sales over time, for those of us who have labored in this vineyard and those in the defense community, we recognize this as the ``bucket,'' so to speak; that is, after the executive branch implemented the pledge by decreasing the amount of defensive goods and services that would be sold to Taiwan. That is readily understood. That was the specific intent. This is the communique, the other is the law of the land. But you can see the difference. Congress, and the President, clearly have the authority under the law of the land to designate and determine the nature and quantity of defensive arms provided to Taiwan. Yesterday in the debate, several of my colleagues claimed that section 1601 nullified the entire basis of United States-China policy. This simply is not true, Mr. President. I should know, this was my legislation. I know what the legislative intent was. As the original author of this legislation, I know the intent of the legislation is simply to reassert the legal primacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as public law over a statement of policy, such as the joint communique. It is this intent that so many of my colleagues on the other side, and evidently the State Department, are missing. It reasserts the legal primacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as public law over a statement of policy, such as the joint communique, if the two are in conflict. That puts the burden on the President and the Congress where it belongs. For example, if the threat to Taiwan is increasing, defensive arms sales may need to go up, and this should not be arbitrarily limited by the bucket. It has not been in the past. The bucket is whether it is inside or outside, and we have seen sales outside. Prior administrations have followed the principle and practice, such as President Bush's decision to sell the F-16's to Taiwan, even though they were outside the dollar limits and, therefore, outside that bucket. It is referred to, basically, as decreasing in the amount of collective arms sales to Taiwan. The point I want to make today is, more important, that Secretary Christopher, in a letter dated April 22, 1994, to me assured me that this administration's position is as previous administrations; the Taiwan Relations Act as public law takes legal precedent over the 1982 Joint United States-China Communique. That is the issue, does it take legal precedent or does it not? The Secretary of State said it did. Let me make one more distinction, Mr. President. That communique I referred to, has never been ratified by Congress. The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land. In referring to this letter of April 26, 1994, the Secretary provided that letter and asked me not to release it for the Record. I am going to honor that commitment. But now the administration seems to say it is ready to veto the entire conference report, and one of the reasons, in part, is because of a provision that simply acknowledges their prior position. If they are going to veto it, that is their own business, but let us be up front about the veto, if other rationale is the driving force. Why is this being selected? I do not know. Has the administration been pressured to change some of its positions? I am sending a letter to Secretary Christopher today asking him to clarify his position: Does the administration stand by the April 22, 1994, letter or not? If not, then why not? It is my hope to share that answer with my colleagues. This is important, because many on the other side are very uncomfortable now as they recognize what the law of the land says and the fact the law of the land supersedes the communique if the two are in conflict. Very few people seem to have picked up on that difference and it's significance. Some of my colleagues have asked why this provision was necessary and if it was. My response is simply this: it sets legal precedent. This is a reason I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will appreciate. Sometimes it is necessary to remind the executive branch that the Executive policies cannot ignore the law of the land, and that is where we are today. The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land. So, Mr. President, this administration cannot ignore Taiwan's defensive needs nor the role of Congress in determining these needs, even if some in China demand it. That is what this legislation is really all about. Some of my friends in this body may imply that this language somehow suggests that former President Reagan was wrong when he signed the communique. That is certainly not my interpretation, nor my my intention. But the reality is, this is 1996, not 1982, and this language dictates that if the threat to Taiwan is greater now than in 1982, arms sales may go up accordingly. So that is where we are, Mr. President. I hope that sheds some light on the debate over this language. I simply stated what was actually written, and hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize this. (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to make reference, in my remaining time, to some facts on the budget. It is rather curious, but in the last 13 months, President Clinton has sent up to the Congress nine separate budget bills. We have one now, like the others, containing, in my opinion, some fairy-tale numbers, some rosy scenarios. They propose economics and delays into the next century when the spending cuts are actually going to take place, when it will be reduced. Mr. President, 60 percent of the President's spending cuts are in the years 2001 and 2002 when we know, regardless of what happens this year, President Clinton will not be in office. Spending will increase 25 percent from $1.5 trillion this year to $1.9 trillion in the year 2002. Spending will increase 25 percent, and the national debt will rise by more than one-third, from $4.9 to $6.5 trillion. Think about that, Mr. President. From $4.9 trillion to $6.5 trillion we are increasing the debt. That is like increasing the balance on your credit card or increasing the overdraft, if your bank holds such an overdraft. Although the deficit drops to $158 billion this year under the President's proposed reelection budget, the deficit goes up to $164 billion next year. This is our annual deficit. This means every year we are spending more than we are generating in revenue. We will spend $164 billion more than we generate in revenue, yet we mandate the American public balance their checking accounts. The Federal Government goes through a budget process. Everything it needs, beyond what it generates in revenues, it gets by adding to the deficit to the tune now of increasing it from $4.9 trillion--that is the total accumulated debt that has arisen as a consequence of the debts each year--we are going to increase that up to $6.5 trillion. I spent a little bit of time in the banking business before I got in the business of being a Senator from the State of Alaska. Interest costs are, I think, one of the most interesting and underrated considerations in this process, certainly among the more deceptive elements of the President's budget. This year we are going to spend 14 cents of every $1 of Federal spending on our $235 billion interest bill--14 cents out of every $1 of Federal spending. That costs us $235 billion. Next year the interest costs are going to rise to $238 billion. That is about 14.5 percent of the budget. Interest is like having a horse that eats while you sleep. It continues throughout the night eventually eating faster than you can feed it. Interest does not employ anybody, does not provide any new jobs, and does not pay any taxes in that sense. It has to be addressed if you have debt. The United States has debt. There is a rather curious process going on here. I will try and wind this up because I see my friend from Tennessee is on the floor as well. But the administration says that by the year 2002, interest costs are only going to be 12 percent of the budget and interest spending will be down to $223 billion. How is it possible for debt service costs to go down while the debt goes up from $4.9 trillion to $6.5 trillion? Is it lower interest costs? The President assumes flat interest rates at 5 to 10 percent on 10-year notes. So that is not it. As I said, I used to be a banker. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the size of your debt rises by a third and interest rates are flat, the amount of interest you are going to pay has to go up. Why does that not happen under President Clinton? I wonder if we have rejected some of the principles of mathematics. The answer, Mr. President, is hidden in the back of the President's budget. I think this deserves the light of day. During the next several years, trust fund surpluses, especially the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, rise by nearly $1 trillion. For every $1 of surplus, the Federal Government issues a special debt note--a debt note--to the trust fund that is not counted as interest under our budget rules. I would ask the Chair why. I am sure the Chair would have the same difficulty in explaining it. But for every $1 of that Social Security trust fund, which is going to be somewhere in the area of $1 trillion, for every $1 of surplus, the Federal Government issues a special debt note to the trust fund that is not counted as interest under our budget rules. That is $1 trillion of debt service not counted in the President's budget. If you counted the interest we will pay the trust fund on the $1 trillion in new debt we owe the trust fund, as a consequence of that, going into the interest formula, the real interest figure would look more like $350 billion as interest on the debt in the year 2002 instead of $225 billion, which is what the administration would have us basically accept or believe in this proposal. My point is, Mr. President, the administration projects the interest at 14.5 percent, or 14.5 cents on the dollar, when in reality it is 18 percent as a consequence of borrowing from the trust fund. Mr. President, I will attempt to pursue this after the recess with some charts that I think will more visually show just what is going on here. The American public better be concerned because, as we look at greater portions of our total budget going for interest on the debt, we recognize we are going to have less for social needs and other priorities in our country. This must come to a halt. It could only come to a halt by adopting a balanced budget. We still have not been able to convince the White House of the realism of a real balanced budget that will actually cut spending. I thank the Chair and wish the Chair a good day. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For example, if the threat to Taiwan is increasing, defensive arm sales should go up. They should not be arbitrarily limited by the bucket. Prior administrations have followed this principle in practice, such as selling F-16's to Taiwan, even though they were outside the dollar limits of the bucket. It was a matter of convenience. We wanted to do it, so we found a way to do it. I do not see why the administration is objecting to this provision, because it is consistent with current practice. I would also remind my colleagues that the identical language passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee in 1994 on a 20-0 vote when I was a member of that committee. Mr. President, I again find it incredible that the administration would issue this veto threat over a provision that was intended merely to restate reality: The law of the land takes precedence over a statement of policy. I do not think you could find one constitutional scholar who would disagree with that proposition. Secretary of State Christopher, in correspondence with me in 1994, acknowledged that it was the administration's position, as it was of previous administrations, that the Taiwan Relations Act as a public law takes legal precedence over the 1982 joint United States-China communique, an Executive communication that was never, as I said, ratified by Congress. Mr. President, I have that letter from Secretary of State Christopher. When the letter was given to me, I told the Secretary, at his request, that I would not release the letter. But I think that the State Department should look up that letter and find out what the Secretary said because I think what he said then is as applicable today, March 28, 1996, as it was April 22, 1994. So I suggest that the State Department do a little backtracking. It is important to remember that the 1982 communique was based on the premise that the future of Taiwan would be settled solely--this is important--by peaceful means and was signed at a time when decreased tensions between China and Taiwan meant that Taiwan's self-defensive needs were not increasing. The Senate voted 97-0 last week to reaffirm the commitments made in the Taiwan Relations Act. One of the commitments is that the President, in consultation with the Congress, will review whether the capabilities and intentions of the People's Republic of China have increased the threat to Taiwan. If so, defensive arms sales to Taiwan, obviously, should be adjusted upward accordingly, if indeed that is the case. Well, we have seen, in recent weeks, the heightened tensions. I do not have to go into the significance of what the M-9 missile message was. It was that China can indeed launch a missile from the mainland, and it can indeed go to Taiwan. Indeed it has a payload of about 1,200 pounds, and it drops its locomotion in entry, and, as a consequence, it is very difficult to pick up. I am not sure that the technology is available to counter that missile threat. As we look at some of the other missile threats to the United States, including to my State of Alaska and to Hawaii, we find we are in the range of some of those, which the rest of the United States is not in the range of. I do not think Hawaii and Alaska are expendable, although some of my colleagues may differ from time to time. Since 1994, China has mounted a series of military exercises near Taiwan. In September and October 1994, the People's Liberation Army conducted combined air, land, and sea exercises on Chou Shan Island, about 60 miles south of Quemoy. At that time, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord described these exercises as ``the most expansive * * * that China has conducted in 40 or 50 years.'' In June and July of last year, the PLA conducted more exercises, including firing four medium range M-9 missiles--the first time China had used missiles to threaten an opponent. Right before the Legislative Yuan elections in November, China conducted large-scale com- bined-arms, amphibious and airborne assault exercises designed to simulate an invasion of Taiwan. Then, on the eve of the first direct democratic presidential election in Taiwan, China began a series of three more tests. First, China fired four more M-9 missiles into closures within 25 to 35 miles of the two principal northern and southern ports of Taiwan. China followed the missile tests with live ammunition war games in a 2,390-square-mile area in the southern Taiwan Strait, followed by another live ammunition exercise between the Taiwan islands of Matsu and Wuchu. China may not yet have the capability to invade and conquer the Republic of China on Taiwan, but it does have the capability to do significant harm by mining ports, undertaking a limited blockade with its 5 nuclear-powered and 45 conventional-powered attack submarines, and conducting a terror campaign with missiles capable of carrying nuclear or chemical warheads. Taiwan lacks a reliable missile defense and has only two modern conventional submarines. I do not consider myself an expert on defense matters, but it appears that Taiwan needs additional deterrence capability, especially with regard to missile defenses. I commend the Clinton administration for sending our carriers into the area of the Taiwan Strait recently to monitor China's war exercises. This exercise should put the Defense Department in a very good position to evaluate the threat to Taiwan from China in determining the level of future arms sales. Mr. President, I only hope that the diplomats in the State Department do not ignore the military reality in making decisions about future arms sales to Taiwan because of a fear of China's reaction. But, unfortunately, that is what I believe is the driving force behind the veto threat. The administration states that section 1601 ``would be seen as a repudiation of a critical and stabilizing element of longstanding U.S. policy toward China, increasing risks at a time of heightened tensions.'' Mr. President, the most critical element in U.S. policy toward China is the peaceful resolution of Taiwan's future. If China, by force, repudiates that element, then the basis of the United States' one-China policy is simply stripped away. We should recognize that that provision in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act does not repudiate U.S. policy, it reaffirms it. I call on the administration to drop this veto threat and implement the law as required. Mr. President, I am grateful to my good friend from Arkansas, who has accommodated me and my schedule. I thank the floor manager. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on the conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995, I rise to express my specific concerns that the statement of administration policy indicates that the President appears to be going to veto this bill based at least in part on section 1601, which reaffirms the primacy of the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr. President, the opponents of the provision claim we are nullifying the joint communique. I totally disagree with this interpretation. Let me refer to the definition of the specific word ``supersede'' as used in section 1601. The Oxford dictionary say ``supersede'' means override. I was an original author of this language so I know a little about its legislative intent, and that is that the Taiwan Relations Act overrides the provisions of the communique only if the two are in conflict. Now, section 3 of the Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to sell Taiwan whatever defense articles it needs for self-defense and that the executive branch and the Congress will jointly determine what those needs might be. In 1982, President Reagan pledged in a joint communique with China to decrease arm sales to Taiwan. That was the so-called bucket. The Taiwan Relations Act was ratified by Congress and is the law of the land. Make no mistake about it. The 1982 communique is an executive agreement never ratified by the Congress. Now, all that the provision in the conference report says is that the law of the land--the law of the land, Mr. President--the Taiwan Relations Act, will supersede the provisions of the joint communique if the two are in conflict. They have to be in conflict, Mr. President. That is the difference. This is simply a matter of legal precedence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reference from the Oxford dictionary be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with the floor manager. Senator Pryor was kind enough to allow me to go out of turn.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe Senator Helms indicated a willingness to yield time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2854, the farm bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we have just witnessed a preview of the course of the Senate action from here on until the elections. It is going to be crass political attacks against the Republican Presidential nominee, Bob Dole. Nothing meaningful is going to get done in this body, and that is simply too bad.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield my remaining time to the Senator from Oklahoma after I make a few remarks. Mr. President, I think it is interesting to reflect that the attack now is being made on the majority leader as a consequence of the fact that he is the designee, Republican nominee for President. The comment has been made that there is a filibuster going on. I do not know that there is a filibuster going on. We voted yesterday on cloture. We will vote today on cloture, but, instead, the attack is on the majority leader. I resent that. Mr. President, the amendment today being offered would raise the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15, a 20-percent increase over 2 years. Now, our Democratic friends suggest that this would be very meritorious and everybody would be a winner. They are accommodating, obviously, the interests of the unions. Of course, those members are virtually all in the unions, receiving a wage much higher than the minimum wage. But look at what they are not addressing and the consequences associated with that. That is why I oppose the amendment, because of the danger that it is going to foreclose job opportunities precisely for those who we want to help. They do not mention that. Increasing the minimum wage will raise the lower rung of the economic ladder and leave behind those just trying to get a foothold with their first job. They will not be hired and we all know it. The amendment, though well-intentioned, will cause a loss of entry- level jobs. It will limit job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This will not help raise the standard of living for the poor. They do not even want to address that in the discussion. The U.S. Senate cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Common sense tells us we cannot make it more expensive to hire new workers and then expect employers to hire the same number of workers. Experience has shown when we raise the minimum wage, employers hire fewer workers and substitute new machinery and new technology in place of those workers. That is why we pump our own gas today. That is why we pay with a credit card rather than have a gas attendant do the job, wash our windows. It is why we bus our own trays in the fast food restaurants. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, this is not a win-win-win. As a consequence, the appropriateness of putting this on the parks bill, the most significant environmental measure to come before this body, is simply unconscionable. It is political opportunism at its worst. The fact that it is directed at the majority leader is absolutely uncalled for. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the committee that brought the Presidio legislation to the floor, I want to make some very brief comments at this time. I think we are all very much aware that minimum-wage legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the parks package that included the Presidio, the Utah wilderness, Sterling Forest, and numerous other titles. As a matter of fact, we had some 35 titles in the bill that affected some 26 States. It is no secret that, unfortunately, the parks package coincides with the national convention of the AFL-CIO, or at least their Washington meeting, and it is unfortunate for this legislation that the timing and the announcement by the group that they were going to raise some $35 million to put into the campaign effort against Republicans who were up for reelection. The announcement that they were clearly endorsing the Clinton administration, provided Members on the other side the opportunity to put the minimum wage, which is one of labor's criteria, on something that might move. Unfortunately, the parks package, the Presidio, all the 35-some odd titles, are affected. The point is, Mr. President, minimum wage legislation has nothing to do with this package of bills before the Senate. It has really no business being offered or even debated while there is one of the most important environmental and conservation legislative packages before the 104th Congress. Yet, they have seen fit to take advantage of this opportunity. They are well within their rights, but, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, this is simply politically motivated and it is political grandstanding. We all know it, even if the media refuses to report it that way. It is rather interesting to see the media's comments with regard to the bill and the support base concerning the adequacy of wilderness in Utah. Not too many people are aware of just how much a million acres of wilderness is in size. It is about three times the size of the State of Rhode Island. Two million acres is about half the size of the State of New Jersey. It is a pretty big hunk of real estate. In any event, in this legislation, there was a provision that would have put 2 million additional acres into a wilderness classification in Utah. There are those who suggest that the legislation prevents the Federal Government and the Congress from making a determination that additional wilderness might be created. That is absolutely false, Mr. President. Anyone who studied the legislation, anyone who looked at the bill, and particularly the media, should recognize that Congress can create more wilderness any time they see fit, as is evidenced by the creation of 56 million acres of wilderness in my State of Alaska. So, the point I want to make at this time, Mr. President, is, as we look at the status of this bill and the package in the context of its significance, this package of park-related issues constitutes the most significant single environmental package before the Senate in this Congress. Those who criticize the package process have a responsibility for two things. One, ask the question why is the package needed? The answer to that question is simple. As these individual bills came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and were reported out, had their hearings, and so forth, a hold was put on virtually every one of these 50 plus bills now found within the 35 titles of this legislation. The Senator from New Jersey who saw fit to hold up the entire collection of reported bills to negotiate his particular interests relative to the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. That issue was Sterling Forest. We have no problem with that, but it did force us to package all of the individual bills into a single piece of legislation. Some are now suggesting we take it apart. Yet we all know it will not prevail in the House if one goes and the others do not. Mr. President this process has been going on for a year. Mr. President, the other interesting thing is that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended criticizing this package by unnamed, motivated elitists. They do not have to report where the money comes from. They simply write full-page ads in some of the Nation's major newspapers. I think that is a bit irresponsible, Mr. President, they are responsible to no one. They are well-financed groups that are single focused. They are not the people of Utah. They are not the legislature of Utah. They are not the delegation from Utah. They are an elitist group that wants to dictate the terms and conditions under which they can recreate in Utah or any other Western State. I advise my colleagues that perhaps it is time to put a little wilderness in all of our States. We have six States that have no wilderness. Is there justification for that? Mr. President, in conclusion, I urge my colleagues to show some restraint in their enthusiasm to get 5 seconds on the evening news tonight. Let us move forward with the most important conservation measure to come before this body. We have an opportunity to preserve that magnificent Presidio, provide the necessary authority for the Bureau of Land Management to set aside 2 million acres of new wilderness, and provide critical protection for other areas. Mr. President this bill affects almost every single State, let us move forward on this important environmental bill and leave this specific amendment for the Labor Committee. We need to pass the Presidio bill, Mr. President. The minimum wage has no business even being on this bill. We all know it. I reserve the balance of my time. How much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry I was distracted. I think the Senator from Massachusetts suggested time run over here.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed its report on S. 1467, the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System Act, the estimate from the CBO was not available. We have now received the estimate and I ask that it be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate. The CBO estimate states that enactment of S. 1467 would not affect direct spending or receipts and does not contain any unfunded mandates. The estimate follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 27, 1996. 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. 1467, the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System Act of 1995. Enactment of S. 1467 would not affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to the bill. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Congressional Budget Office--Cost Estimate 1. Bill number: S. 1467. 2. Bill title: Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System Act of 1995. 3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 15, 1996. 4. Bill purpose: The bill would authorize the construction of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System and authorize assistance to the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning, design, and construction of the proposed water system. 5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts for fiscal year 1997, S. 1467 would result in discretionary spending totaling $6.6 million over the 1996-2000 period. This estimate reflects the basic authorization of $5.8 million, increased, as specified in the bill, by the estimated impact of inflation during the time between October 1, 1994, and the construction period. Outlays are estimated based on historical spending rates for similar water projects. Funding for the Fort Peck project would constitute new spending--to date, no amounts have been appropriate for this project. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spending subject to appropriations action: Authorization level............................................ 0 7 0 0 0 Estimated outlays.............................................. 0 1 5 1 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300. 6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 7. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: S. 1467 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill would limit the federal share of this project to 80 percent. The Fort Peck Rural County Water District would have to provide matching funds of about $1.5 million in order to receive the full amount of federal assistance authorized. This project would be voluntary on the part of the district, however. 8. Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would impose no new federal/private sector mandates, as defined in Public Law 104-4. 9. Previous CBO estimate: None. 10. Estimate prepared by: Federal cost estimate: Gary Brown. State and Local Government Impact: Marjorie Miller. Private Sector Impact: Patrice Gordon. 11. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.