[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9329-S9333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            RISK ASSESSMENT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to use my time to speak on 
risk assessment. I had intended to do that at 10:30. However, the 
hearing which I have to chair, as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, is a joint hearing with the Environment and Public 
Works Committee on a very important and timely topic, and that is the 
Komi oilspill which has taken place in Russia at this time as I speak. 
The significance of this spill is unprecedented in relationship to any 
spills that we have ever experienced previously. Approximately 400,000 
barrels of oil per day are leaking from various pipelines in Russia.
 That equals twice the Exxon Valdez spill, which, of course, was one 
incident. This volume of 400,000 barrels a day is occurring each and 
every day. The joint committee that will be meeting today will be 
attempting to focus on this and generate notoriety and, hopefully, a 
plan to assist in cleanup and to ensure that this terrible, terrible 
tragedy does not continue.

  My statement this morning, Mr. President, is to call attention to the 
reality that listening to some people in Congress, listening to some 
people in the executive branch, you might not think it, but I think 
those of us who have been listening understand that this town was given 
a very simple message last November. And that message is that it is 
time for the Federal Government to wake up and reform the way it does 
business.
  It just so happens we now have bipartisan legislation to help point 
us in that direction. That legislation is the Comprehensive Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1995. Its purpose is to protect public health and safety 
and to protect the environment while sparing people, you and I and 
those out there, from the nasty side effects of overregulation. It is a 
statement in favor of freedom, common sense, and responsible 
government, and one more, and that is accountability.
  From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the ground we walk on, 
Federal regulations govern almost every phase of our lives. Their 
stated purpose, of course, is to help make people healthier and safer 
by reducing exposure to a variety of risky substances and products and 
by regulating various activities.
  In many cases, Mr. President, these goals are accomplished. However, 
in others, regulations focus on unsubstantiated or minute risks to 
health, safety or the environment, and end up wasting a lot of 
taxpayers' money and time that could be spent on more pressing 
problems. Worst of all, unnecessary regulations, duplication, take away 
our freedoms. Our freedoms are lost bit by bit by empowering 
bureaucrats in Washington to tell us what we can and cannot do and 
almost on a worst-case basis.
  Last year, Mr. President, Americans spent an estimated $647 billion 
on regulations. That is more than every element of the average person's 
budget except housing. Yes, that is even more --$104 billion more, as a 
matter of fact--than America spent in paying its tax bill in 1994. But, 
unlike taxes and the other bills we pay, much of the costs of 
regulations are hidden in the price of goods and services, so most 
people do not know about their true costs to each of us. 

[[Page S 9330]]

  Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. President. We do need regulations 
that actually do protect health, safety and welfare. No one wants to 
turn back the clock on the progress that we have made in protecting our 
health and safety. But there is a movement in grassroots America to 
shrink the size, expense, and scope of the Federal Government and to 
reform the way the Federal Government regulates.
  We need to respond by making sure that the benefits derived from 
particular regulations are worth the cost and that we use sound 
science, not emotion, to address and assess risk to health safety and 
the environment.
  We also need to rebuild public confidence in Government's risk 
assessments so people will listen when real threats to health and 
safety are detected. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Dole; 
the ranking member of the committee that I chair, Senator Bennett 
Johnston; and the Energy and National Resources Committee for their 
efforts on this front. I also want to thank my fellow chairmen, 
Chairman Hatch and Chairman Roth, who worked with us on the creation of 
this consensus legislation. My committee and theirs each reported a 
bill addressing regulatory reform.
  Now, to those who ask, Do we need reform? Well, there is absolutely 
no question. Recognizing that there are many horror stories, let me 
just share one that occurred in my State of Alaska: Anchorage, AK, is 
our largest city. The water comes down from the mountains, flows into 
the gutters for the most part, has very little contamination in it, 
just what it might pick up on the streets. And the Environmental 
Protection Agency came down with the ruling mandating that before the 
water moves in the drains and could be dumped into Cook Inlet where we 
have 30-foot tides a day, that we must remove 30 percent of the organic 
matter in the water.
  Well, Mr. President, there was no organic matter there. There was 
absolutely nothing to remove. As a consequence, the city of Anchorage 
was in violation of their permit from the Environmental Protection 
Agency and subject to substantial fines. Finally, an enterprising 
entrepreneur suggested that they put some of the fish waste in the 
water. So 5,000 pounds of fish waste was put into the water system so 
it could be removed so that they could comply.
  Now, once it became known and the heat began to focus on EPA, they 
were rather embarrassed and they actually wrote out a press release and 
said, well, we did not make them do it; they did it themselves. You can 
imagine the type of an example that sets and the reflection that the 
people of Anchorage have on the Environmental Protection Agency for 
coming down in a ruling like that.
  We had another situation in Fairbanks. We have cold winters. We pick 
up a little snow. The city properly would bar parked buses from the 
road, and buses get snow on them. They were moved onto the back lot. 
They were cited for dumping the snow on the adjacent lot. We have a 
hard time understanding that, Mr. President. We have a number of other 
points I am not going to read. I just want to bring your attention to a 
few.
  Now, finally, I think as we look at the principles contained in the 
risk assessment bill passed by my committee, we recognize that while 
the risk assessment process is used by many Federal regulatory 
agencies, their application and standards are wildly divergent, and 
there is no set standard for all uses. In fact, the EPA, OSHA, and FDA 
often differ in their assessment of chemical carcinogens and other 
matters that are of great interest and concern.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me just focus on one more item with 
regard to our legislation because it provides several important 
improvements to the risk assessment process requiring Federal 
regulators to use the following:
  Sound science and analysis as the basis for conclusions about risk; 
the appropriate level of detail for the analysis; the mandate to be 
reasonable in reviewing the data; using assumptions only when actual 
data is not available; characterize risk in a clear and understandable 
manner; do not express risk as a single, high-end estimate that uses 
the worst-case scenario; compare the risk to others people encounter 
every day to place it in perspective; describe the new or substitute 
risks that will be created if the risk in question is regulated; use 
independent and external peer review to evaluate risk assessment 
results; and provide appropriate opportunities for public 
participation.
  Let me close by reading a passage that I think sums up the efforts of 
all who support this risk assessment regulatory reform. I quote:

       The American people deserve a regulatory system that works 
     for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects 
     and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-
     being and improves the performance of the economy without 
     imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; 
     regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector 
     and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; 
     regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, 
     and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, 
     consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such 
     a regulatory system today.

  Now these are the words of President Clinton in his Executive order 
on regulatory planning and review.
  So I say to the Senate, the time has come to stem the sea tide of 
regulation that threatens to engulf us all. We need commonsense health 
and safety regulations based, again, on sound science and not emotion. 
We do not need and we must take steps to reform the current Federal 
regulatory tyranny.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota and 
wish him a good day.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, of the 30 minutes allotted to me in 
morning business, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, 
Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me 
time. I do believe that it is heartening that we have a consensus for 
deficit reduction here in the country. I believe the President led the 
way in that effort during the first 2 years of his term, and I commend 
my Republican colleagues for the commitment they have shown to bringing 
us back to that important goal this year in this Congress.
  But, Mr. President, I want to express some concerns that arise when I 
look at the budget resolution that has been brought to the floor by the 
Republican majority, concerns that we may be losing sight of our real 
objective in this budget-cutting exercise.
  It seems to me the sole purpose of deficit reduction is to increase 
our investment in the future. What we are attempting to do is to get 
the Government to live within its means so as not to leave the bill for 
this generation's largesse to our children.
  Mr. President, indiscriminately slashing budgets is no recipe for 
growth and is a bad way to organize investments for the future. To 
leverage our investment, I believe that we need to support programs, 
particularly education programs, technology programs, and export 
promotion programs that contribute to our economy's growth and that 
help create high-wage jobs that enhance the standard of living for all 
Americans.
  I will speak separately on the importance of maintaining our 
investment in education, but let me first discuss the issues of 
technology and export promotion.
  In this analysis of what works and what does not work, what 
Government should focus on and what it should not, we need to worry 
about tomorrow's bottom line just as much as we worry about today's 
bottom line. Growth policies that help keep our economy strong are 
vital in looking at that bottom line for tomorrow.
  America has much to be proud of in its technology infrastructure, but 
it would be wrong to believe that Government did not help lead in 
building that infrastructure, but it would be wrong to believe that 
Government was not an essential partner with the private sector in 
helping to innovate and to nurture technologies that the corporate 
world has further developed.
  The conference report on the budget resolution promises to seriously 
damage our Nation's future vitality. I have a number of problems with 
the plan, none greater than handing the bill for this balanced budget 
to those least able to pay and leaving the wealthiest in society in 
better shape. But I also know that if our Government fails to remain 
steadfast in its commitment to a national technology infrastructure and 
to 

[[Page S 9331]]
the funding of civilian research and development and to programs that 
support and help finance export efforts, then our economy will continue 
to erode; and we will forgo the gains and growth from high-technology 
developments and will become a nation built on a lower paying service 
economy.
  Mr. President, in this Chamber, we have heard a great deal about 
leaving things to the market; that the private sector and the invisible 
hand will solve our problems most effectively if we essentially shut 
down many areas of Government. I believe, as do all of us, in a lean 
and a streamlined Government, but I do not believe that the market 
alone can solve all the problems of our citizens. And I do not believe 
that we should ignore the fact that our Government has a good track 
record and has gotten a great deal right in technology support and in 
export assistance. There is no doubt that we would be eating our own 
seed corn if we were to go forward and dismantle these programs.
  I recommend to those who frequently call on the ghost of Adam Smith 
and subscribe to a prescription of the invisible hand that Smith 
referred to in the ``Wealth of Nations,'' that they go back and reread 
some of that treatise that he wrote.
  Smith clearly outlined a role for Government, a perspective with 
which I agree.
  He states that first, the state has a ``night-watchman function'' to 
see to the safety and security of its citizens. He argues that the 
state must educate its labor force, something that we have not done 
well in this Nation. He continues that the state must build 
infrastructure on which commerce depends; that is the Government must 
build roads, canals, and bridges. In the modern context, that means 
airports and a national information infrastructure and basic research 
laboratories and export assistance offices.
  The Government must pay for itself and must, therefore, tax and 
charge for its services and the Government must support development of 
those technologies that are not at first easily commercializable. In 
his day, an example was shipbuilding, and in our day an example is 
nuclear energy. Adam Smith himself outlines these as indispensable 
functions of Government, of minimalist Government, as he saw it and 
leaves the rest to be fixed by the market.
  Those of us who are tasked with the responsibilities of writing 
budgets and voting on budgets, as we will today, cannot neglect the 
indispensable roles that Government does have to play. But I believe 
that the theologies that are driving the Republican budget we are 
dealing with here have neglected many of these roles. And we must 
revisit this effort knowing that while we must cut our budget deficit, 
we must also promote high-end economic growth which creates high wage 
jobs and a better standard of living for our citizens. And enmeshed as 
we are in a global economy, we have to export more and erase the 
chronic deficits that represent real job leakage from our economy.
  As I have previously stated in this Chamber, our Government's program 
in civilian research and development under this budget will be cut by 
30 to 40 percent by the year 2002 and will be pushed to a 40-year low 
as a percentage of the gross domestic product. In contrast, the 
research communities in Germany and Japan continue to receive increased 
resources as the growth they have generated for their nations has been 
recognized and rewarded.
  Yet in the United States, we are abandoning those who won the cold 
war, those who put men on the Moon, who initiated genetic research and 
biotechnology efforts, who created computers and advanced electronics, 
who have fought disease and revolutionized a myriad of enhancements in 
agriculture. Our national investments in science and technology, that 
have yielded semiconductors, molecular biology advances, and materials 
science development, have paid off tremendously for the Nation.
  In 1969, when the Federal budget was last in balance, Federal 
civilian research spending was 0.76 percent of gross domestic product. 
Only the Bush administration stands out among the administrations of 
the last several decades in trying to correct the downward decline in 
commitment by this country to technology support. This present 
administration has maintained the commitment that the Bush 
administration demonstrated. Today, our support of civilian research 
and development is running at approximately 0.46 percent of gross 
domestic product, and in the Republican budget plan is estimated to 
fall to 0.27 percent of GDP.
  The real impact, the impact on our children and on the citizens of 
this great Nation, is that we will strip them of their opportunities in 
the future if we go the path that this budget resolution calls for. Are 
we prepared to do that? Are we prepared to forfeit the important 
leadership role the United States has played in technological 
innovation and growth? I hope that we give a resounding ``no'' to those 
questions.
  I have to say that our ambivalence about these issues has already 
allowed Japan to quickly rise to parity with this Nation in the number 
of patents produced and in the overall excellence of its technological 
and manufacturing infrastructure. It is anachronistic to say that Japan 
simply licenses American technological wizardry. They have their own 
stable of wizards now, and we must compete. We simply cannot role over 
and allow ourselves to become followers in the field of high technology 
advancement. That would be an unforgivable legacy to leave to our 
children.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reconsider our Nation's technology support program. I think that most 
would agree that our Government should not be engaged in picking 
winners and losers. That is not the issue. What we need to understand 
is that the combination of fierce market forces and the globally 
competitive environment we are in rarely support the precompetitive 
stage of product development. Despite the prospect of substantial 
reductions in federally supported civilian research and development, 
the Wall Street Journal has reported that numerous private commitments 
to research and development are also being cut. In fact, the Wall 
Street Journal reported that AT&T, General Electric, IBM, Kodak, 
Texaco, and Xerox have all announced intentions to cut their research 
budgets.
  While other nations ensure that they will build and maintain a strong 
foundation for research support in their private sector, our Nation is 
turning away from this strategy and seems all too ambivalent about 
letting advanced manufacturing move abroad, allowing high-wage jobs to 
disappear, and allowing the responsibilities and rewards of innovation 
to be taken by our competitors. If we hope to restore the economic 
health of our Nation, then we should embrace these proven growth-
producing programs which help our industry and help our citizens, 
rather than running from those programs. Adam Smith, if he were here 
today, would argue that our precompetitive technology programs are 
indispensable to the national interest.
  Export assistance programs are also in our national interest. On the 
19th of June, Senator Bond outlined for us the important role that the 
International Trade Administration and the Bureau of Export 
Administration of the Department of Commerce play in our international 
trade activities and in our economy. I agree with him that these 
governmental functions need to be maintained. To the degree that the 
conference report fails to support these activities, we need to go back 
to the drawing board.
  Let me first point out that our great Nation spends less than 2.8 
cents supporting each $100 of exports. On one hand, given that export 
related jobs tend to earn higher wages and, on the other, that our 
Nation is approaching a $200 billion trade deficit this year, our 
support for export activities is a worthwhile investment. In fact, our 
investment in exports is too paltry as it is.
  Comparatively, as a recent report from the Economic Strategy 
Institute reports, the lowest level of export assistance support among 
other developed nations is about 10 times the U.S. level. The recent 
trade agreement that was just consummated yesterday between ourselves 
and Japan should highlight for the American people and for this body 
the importance that trade plays in our ability to maintain good-paying 
jobs in this country.
  A gauge often used to assess the jobs impact of exports is that a 
billion dollars of exports equals about 20,000 jobs 

[[Page S 9332]]
in the American economy. If you run the numbers, it is clear that our 
economy is losing about 4 million jobs because of trade deficits. 
Cutting the budget deficit should help increase the overall health of 
the economy, should lower interest rates, and should help spur business 
activity in the Nation. But it is also clear that the export sector 
will become an even more important driver of our economic growth. Given 
these trends, it is important that Government address market failures 
in the export sector.
  Exports are important to this economy. And exports create jobs, good 
jobs. Export-related jobs are growing seven to eight times as fast as 
the growth of total employment. A decade ago, less than 7 million 
Americans worked in export-related jobs while today the number is close 
to 12 million. In another 5 years, the number will approach 16 million. 
And given what we know about the stagnation of wages in this Nation, 
that despite high corporate profitability today, our workers are not 
benefiting from increased productivity, it is important to underline 
the fact that export jobs pay more, in fact, about 15 percent more than 
other manufacturing jobs.
  Companies that manufacture for export are more productive, and they 
are less likely to be caught in the tailspin of a shrinking 
manufacturing sector. We ought to consider putting manufacturing jobs 
on the endangered species list, Mr. President, if we turn away from our 
efforts to export. To be clear about the financial impact: white-collar 
manufacturing workers earn an average of $20.50 an hour in wages and 
benefits, blue collar workers earn $16.69 an hour, and people employed 
in the service sector average just $8.39 an hour. Every time we replace 
a manufacturing job with a service job, we are cutting our wages in 
half. Mr. President, just going with this trend cannot be in the 
national interest. We need to support our export base and support our 
technology base. Anything else would be irresponsible.
  Some might ask, why not leave a sector that is growing--and that is 
the export sector--that seems healthy and headed in the right 
direction, free from any Government meddling? First of all, this export 
activity has been achieved through private partnerships with 
Government. When the market fails to provide critical export financing, 
the Ex-Im Bank, a classic example of Government/private sector 
partnerships, absorbs credit risks that private institutions would not 
absorb. And has the Ex-Im Bank been a deficit creator? No. During the 
last fiscal year, the Ex-Im Bank took $785 million from the U.S. 
Treasury and provided $15 billion in financing that supported $17 
billion in United States exports, with nearly half of this going to the 
fastest-growing big emerging markets such as China, India, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, South Korea, Argentina, and Brazil.
  There are many other examples of how we have helped in promoting 
exports in this economy, Mr. President, through Government/industry 
partnerships. Addressing risks that the private sector would not, the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a quasi-Government 
institution, has provided the insurance to make global trade and 
investment more secure. OPIC, which has not paid out any large claims 
since the mid-1970's, has actually generated significant returns to the 
treasury. But even when discussions have been held about privatizing 
this activity, private providers contend that they will not make 
insurance commitments that OPIC can. These are examples of the 
Government addressing failures of the market; and they happen to be 
examples where the costs, if any, to the Government, have been turned 
into strong positive gains.
  In the international arena, when foreign markets are truly free, then 
the Department of Commerce and USTR need not negotiate for and protect 
American economic interests, but such free markets exist only in 
theory. A realistic look at world trade would show the French 
subsidizing their export financing; Chancellor Kohl offering $2 billion 
in low cost loans to China linked to purchases of German products; and 
Tokyo pouring over $2 billion a year for foreign aid into Indonesia to 
grease the way for its firms.
  The neoclassical economist would argue, no problem. They would argue 
that American consumers still win, and these other governments are only 
harming themselves and their people. The problems with that line of 
reasoning are many, but in particular, we are not engaged in a perfect 
world economy. In Japan, producers' interests are dealt with more 
preferentially than consumers'. And as we know in this Nation, 
consumers' interests are not generally subordinate to producers. Over 
the long run, specialization will occur, and production will move to 
areas like Asia where consumer interests have been constrained. To 
prevent further erosion of the American manufacturing and export base, 
we need to support industry efforts to penetrate otherwise closed 
foreign markets.
  The Department of Commerce estimates that over $1 trillion of 
infrastructure projects will come on line in Asia in the next decade. 
Virtually all of these projects will be awarded by governments, and 
virtually all will be hotly contested by companies supported by their 
home governments. I believe that we cannot responsibly afford to 
further diminish the meager support that we provide our exporters just 
as other competitors are expanding theirs. We need our Government on 
the front line to make sure that American firms and American workers 
get a good share of these projects.
  Furthermore, over the last 40 years, the American economy has been 
the robust growth market on which our firms have focused and which 
firms around the world have targeted. Our corporations have not 
developed the same skills base and support structures that other 
nations have developed to promote exports. For smaller and mid-size 
firms, international opportunities are new and important, and America 
has hardly tapped the tremendous potential of this sector. For these 
companies, acting purely on their own, the task of penetrating foreign 
markets is expensive and overwhelming.
  Fifty large firms account for about half of America's exports. We 
need to do better, and we need to, as a Government, support an 
infrastructure for export growth. That means that we need to support 
the efforts of the Foreign Commercial Service, need to broaden our 
counseling activities, and need to continue to connect our small firms, 
which are the backbone of our economy, with resources to achieve 
export-led growth. This is what Government is supposed to do. And I 
would propose to you that such a jobs-growth strategy complements our 
budget reduction goals, the combination of which will maximize our 
investment in the future.
  Let me briefly share with you two brief stories of encounters of 
firms from the great State of New Mexico with the Department of 
Commerce, that so many here seem bent on dismantling. FMI, an 
Albuquerque developer of software applications for barcode scanners, 
had never exported to the Mexican market. With the assistance of the 
Santa Fe office of the International Trade Administration, FMI 
participated in RepCom '94, a show organized under the State of New 
York trade division that enabled the firm to secure important 
distributors, establish relations with potential client firms, and even 
yielded a significant direct sale. The firm has just secured its first-
ever sales in to the Mexican market and expects its position to grow. 
Second, United States Cotton, a manufacturer of cotton pads and other 
cotton cosmetic products, recently reported the signing of a joint 
venture agreement with a firm in Chile, where it too had never traded 
before. Using the Gold Key Service Program of the Department of 
Commerce, U.S. Cotton has been able to generate first-year sales 
approaching $500,000. The firm anticipates that expanded production 
capabilities in Chile will result in expanded sales and will create 
additional jobs.
  Let me also add that the great State of New Mexico, which has led the 
Nation in terms of export sector growth over the last 5 years, trades 
today nearly as much with Japan as with Mexico. And New Mexico exports 
to the Asian region in total are actually much greater than to Mexico. 
Last year, New Mexico exported approximately $100 million in goods to 
Mexico, $80 million to Japan, and $150 million to the Asian region. The 
combined efforts of the state's trade development offices and the Santa 
Fe office of the International Trade Administration in 

[[Page S 9333]]
the Department of Commerce as well as the resources of the Small 
Business Administration have helped New Mexico to participate in the 
global economy. We have a long way to go in our great State, but 
supporting exports, supporting technology development make sense for 
New Mexico and make sense for America.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, we need to heed Adam Smith's word. We 
need to make sure that Government addresses those tasks that the 
private sector cannot or will not address. We need to maintain our 
investment in civilian research and development efforts, and we must 
continue to build the export platform that has been under construction 
for some time. To fail to do this would limit our leverage in building 
a more prosperous future and securing continued American leadership.
  I would like to remind my Republican colleagues that their opposition 
to these export programs is an entirely new development. Letters of 
support for the Foreign Commercial Service, for expansion of 
International Trade Administration domestic service centers, and for 
prevention of reduced staffs for sites have been sent to the Secretary 
of Commerce by Senators Brown, Campbell, Coverdell, D'Amato, Domenici, 
Hatch, Hatfield, and numerous others. I realize that we are all facing 
a confluence of tough choices in our budget deficit reduction efforts, 
what to cut and what not to cut--but I would argue that our colleagues' 
earlier intentions were correct, that supporting our small and mid-
sized businesses into the international arena was the correct strategy 
to jump start growth, spur jobs, and create a more healthy economy.
  Claims that these programs significantly impact our budget deficit 
are not supported by the facts. We spend less than a billion a year for 
all export programs in a $1.2 trillion annual budget, but reducing this 
amount would harm our business sector, reduce growth, stifle incomes 
and keep us blocked out of important growing economies. We would 
effectively be handing over to other nations important, high-paying 
jobs that would otherwise go to American workers.
  That, Mr. President, is not what we have been elected by the citizens 
of this great Nation to do.
  Mr. President, let me just urge that in finalizing a budget 
resolution between this Congress and the President, we need to keep our 
eye on the ball of those programs that will promote job creation and 
promote more economic growth in the future.
 This budget, as it comes before us today, does not do that. Mr. 
President, I hope that can be corrected before final action is taken by 
this Congress.

  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume of my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes remaining of the 
Senator's time.

                          ____________________