[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S3854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NORTH KOREA

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak very briefly on 
two points, one involving the framework agreement between North Korea, 
and the other a resolution pending to allow President Li to visit the 
United States. It is my understanding that the occupant of the chair, 
Senator Thomas, also wishes to speak briefly on the matter of President 
Li's visit to the United States. I would be willing to relieve him from 
the chair for the period of time for his statement.
  If I may proceed, Mr. President, one of the issues I want to bring to 
the attention of my colleagues that is rather disturbing is associated 
with the United States and North Korea agreed-to framework on nuclear 
issues. There is an agreement that has been entered into by the United 
States directly with the Government of North Korea. As the President 
will recall, the framework agreement was signed on October 21 and we 
have so far had some four senatorial committee hearings covering 
various aspects of the framework agreement. The Foreign Relations 
Committee has addressed it. The Energy Committee has addressed it. The 
Armed Services Committee has addressed it, and the Intelligence 
Committee has addressed it.
  In the agreed-to framework, the administration has stressed 
consistently North Korea's adherence to the terms of that agreement. 
But I share two specifics with my colleagues concerning recent articles 
that cast some doubt on North Korea's good faith.
  First, North Korea is conducting vigorous military exercises at this 
time. In a March 6 Defense News report, it says:

       North Korea is conducting its most vigorous winter military 
     exercise in recent years, an event that the U.S. and South 
     Korean officials here attribute, in part, to the U.S. 
     shipments of heavy oil authorized under the October 1994 
     nuclear package deal with Pyongyang.

  Having been in Pyongyang with my colleague, the Senator from 
Illinois, I think we both find this rather distressing and 
inconsistent.
  I remind my colleagues that the story is referring to the 50,000 tons 
of oil that was paid for with $4.7 million in Department of Defense 
emergency funds. Although not intended, the provision of heavy oil to 
North Korea has the perverse effect of strengthening North Korea's 1-
million-man military machine. The story states:

       This year's exercises are significant because of the 
     increased air sorties and a surge in the number of armored, 
     mechanized and artillery corps practicing joint warfare 
     operations.

  I further point out in the March 6 Defense News the following:

       Although U.S. oil is not used directly to fuel military 
     maneuvers, the influx of heavy oil into the country has 
     allowed North Korea to divert other types of fuel reserves 
     from domestic to military use.

  We were assured, Mr. President, by the administration that this would 
not happen. Well, it has happened. What is our response? Well, the 
United States response is to cancel our winter ``team spirit'' military 
exercises with South Korea. I find that very inconsistent. What are we 
following it up with? The preparation to send 100,000 tons of 
additional oil in October, without safeguards.
  The second report is that North Korea is not fully cooperating with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency. The March 2 Nucleonics Week 
reported:

       Pyongyang categorically refuses to allow the IAEA to 
     reconstruct the history of fissile materials production at 
     its Yongbyong complex.

  The report of Nucleonics Week points out that Pyongyang's refusal to 
grant access could cause irreparable damage. The North Korean position 
is that the IAEA will have access to the inside of the reprocessing 
plant on or after a 5-year period. But IAEA officials report that 
access to the inside of the plant before then is paramount. The IAEA 
doesn't know right now what is going on inside the plant, if there is 
any plutonium separation, or if there are any materials being moved 
around.
  The second story illustrates the problems with the agreed-to 
framework. We should have had a broader agreement that addressed other 
issues of concern--such as North Korea Army activities; should have 
demanded access to the two suspected wastesites, complete and total 
access to past, current, and future nuclear activities--something we 
demand from all other nations that are a party to the nuclear 
proliferation agreement.
  We asked South Africa to come clean and they did, but the North 
Koreans have not. We have left the North Koreans, in the opinion of the 
Senator from Alaska, with too many cards in their hands.
  I have sponsored two specific resolutions, one that is being taken up 
by the Foreign Relations Committee next week, requiring that we show 
progress on the framework agreement, and one that was accepted last 
week on the defense appropriations stating that no further funding 
could take place without the administration coming to Congress for 
approval.

                          ____________________