Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be laid aside.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in view of the fact that much of the opening description of the amendment has already been read, I am going to dispense with that. I am sure the reporter has it. Let me take a moment and review for my colleagues what was in the October framework agreement that I think deserves a little reflection. You will all recall that North Korea gets two 1000-megawatt light water reactors at a cost of at least $4 billion. We do not know exactly what that cost might be. It might be more than that right now. North Korea gets free oil, $500 million worth, until the new reactors can be brought on line. And North Korea gets normalized relations and relaxed trade restrictions with the United States, which they have sought for a number of decades. North Korea gets freedom from the IAEA special inspections for some years into the future. I might add that North Korean is the only country which has been exempted from immediate special inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to exempt from the mandatory inspections. South Africa, for example, opened up its entire program for inspection. So, clearly, what we have done in North Korea is without precedent. Furthermore, we were led to believe that the United States would not be responsible for any significant funding. I am told unofficially that after we get a little further along the line with the commitments to provide the light water reactors, we are going to be asked to contribute a significant amount of aid for switch gear. The switch gear is the mechanical capability to dispense power once the power is generated, and the North Koreans do not have that capability, nor do they have anywhere near the capacity in their current switching gear. They will be requesting assistance in the amount of roughly $1 billion. We should see that as a likely reality. I have told you what was in the October deal and what the North Koreans get. Let us review what we get. We get North Korea's promise to freeze the current nuclear program, including their graphite-moderated reactors and reprocessing facilities; we get North Korea's promise for the IAEA special inspections--only we get it some 5 years in the future, something they previously agreed to in January of 1992 but have refused to allow. Finally, we get North Korea's promise that its some 8,000 spent nuclear rods filled with weapons-grade plutonium will not be reprocessed in North Korea. In the interim, we have won the right to stabilize these rods, at, apparently, our expense. The question of where these rods are going to be stored is still open--we have an issue in our own country, a significant issue, on the unacceptability of storing high-level nuclear waste rods at our power sites. That is what we get--promises, but nothing else yet. So I remain a critic of several aspects of the deal, although, as they say, hindsight is cheap. I also recognize [[Page S 13932]] that the administration, of course, had the authority to negotiate the deal. I have always been critical of the deal because I think we gave away our leverage when we allowed the North Koreans to simply dictate the terms of the agreement. When you negotiate a deal, there are certain things that are on the table and certain things that are not on the table. The fact that we allowed the North Koreans to be exempt from special inspections, I think, was a very, very poor decision on behalf of the administration. Nevertheless, it is a decision that was made by the administration. But I do believe that Congress has a role as well, and that role has thus far been somewhat ignored. It has been piqued when we had discussions or floor statements on the subject. But I do not think we can ignore it any longer, now that the administration has turned to us for funding. I will have, in a future speech, some specific references where the administration assured us there will be very little likelihood of significant funding. However, today we are told the administration has sought funding from Congress for all aspects of the deal--all aspects: delivering heavy oil, dealing with spent fuel, the light water reactor project, and even the setup costs of KEDO. That is the international consortium that is attempting to put this together. For fiscal year 1995, the administration spent $4.7 million in emergency Department of Defense funds. I have heard members of the Armed Services Committee on this floor question how in the world Department of Defense emergency funds could ever be utilized for this purpose. But that is where the administration saw fit to expend the funds. The administration took $4.7 million in emergency DOD funds and bought heavy oil for North Korea. What did North Korea do with the heavy oil? They were supposed to use it for power generation. We know for a fact some of it was funneled off into industrial complexes, and it was interesting to note there was an increase in military activity shortly after that oil flowed in, which I find rather confounding. Mr. President, $10 million in reprogrammed Department of Energy funds have been used and $4 million from reprogrammed Department of State funds. So when the administration suggests it is not going to cost much, we have already expended approximately $20 million. For this fiscal year, the administration has requested $22 million in Department of State funds and $5 million of Department of Energy funds--about $27 million. If U.S. taxpayers' funds are going to be used, then I think Congress must play a monitoring role. My legislation outlines that role for the Congress. The proposed amendment is consistent with the agreed framework. It is not an attempt to sabotage the agreement, but the amendment does attempt to hold North Korea to its promises before the United States simply gives it everything it wants. So far we have been doing all the giving and North Korea has been doing all the taking. Eventually North Korea, too, has to do some giving, including giving up entirely its nuclear ambitions as well as the sale of arms to other nations. Specifically, before the United States fully normalizes political and economic relations with North Korea, my amendment would require the full implementation of the IAEA safeguards requirements, including allowing inspections of the two suspected nuclear waste sites; allowing the removal of all spent fuel to a third country--any third country, of course, other than the United States, by preference; and making progress in North-South dialog. In addition, North Korea must address other areas of U.S. concern: First, they must agree to go beyond the current and very ineffective process for returning remains of United States missing in action from the North Korean war. Mr. President, currently we have 8,177--8,177-- still listed as missing in action in North Korea. We have reason to believe we know where many of those remains might be, as we have identified crash sites and other areas of high-intensity activity. It is interesting to do a comparison: 8,177 MIA's in North Korea, 1,621 in Vietnam. Yet the entire focus of the Nation has been traditionally on those missing in action in the Vietnam conflict. As a consequence of the success of the joint field activities in Vietnam, we propose that same type of joint field activities in North Korea. Finally, North Korea must cease the export of ballistic missiles and related military technology. There is evidence that North Korea is exporting missiles to Iran, among other terrorist nations, from time to time. The amendment would also condition future funding on North Korea fulfilling the terms of the agreed framework and the confidential minute in accordance with the schedule set forth on the agreed framework. On the particular issue of the supply of heavy oil, the amendment would restrict U.S. support for exports of heavy oil if North Korea diverts heavy oil to purposes not specified in the agreed framework or otherwise is not in compliance with the agreed framework. We have already seen violations of this section of the agreement, as I have outlined for my colleagues. Finally, the amendment makes clear that the United States will suspend its participation in the agreed framework if North Korea reloads its existing 5 megawatt reactor or resumes construction of nuclear facilities. In concluding, let me reiterate that this amendment should not be seen as a rejection of the committee's original language but as a necessary enhancement. It contains a reasonable and detailed road map for progress in the United States-Democratic Republic of North Korea relations, while providing an appropriate monitoring role for Congress, because after all it is our money. The House has also taken similar action. I think we should take steps to ensure that North Korea keeps its promises. I urge my colleagues and the administration to support this approach in the national interest and in the interest of continuity. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that Eugene D. Schmiel, a recent addition to my staff, be extended the privilege of the floor. He is a State Department Fellow who will be fulfilling legislative duties.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with permission of the floor managers, I propose a freestanding amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nominations of Derrick Forrister to be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Energy; Patricia Beneke to be Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior; Eluid Martinez to be Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior; and Charles William Burton to be a member of the Board of Directors of the United States Enrichment Corporation. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 28, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Heninger at (202) 224- 5070.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I feel inclined to share with my colleagues my own personal feeling about the process that is underway here. Ordinarily, the President has the right to name his team to carry out his policies, and that is just the way it goes. You may not agree with those policies from time to time, but ordinarily we are able to work under a situation where we are able to communicate our point of view. While we may not always prevail in a situation such as we have here, where we have both the House and the Senate controlled by one party and our executive branch controlled by another party, we can still communicate and maintain a dialog and represent our constituencies. Now, we are able to do that with the Secretary of Agriculture. There is absolutely no question. We have invited him up to our State of Alaska. He has met with us. We have expressed concerns. He has been responsive. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the Under Secretary for Natural Resources, Under Secretary Lyons. I serve as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Under Secretary has appeared before us on numerous occasions. While this debate may seem a debate focused on the West, let us remember that we have some unique natural resources, and timber is certainly one of them. We are blessed with those resources. Timber is a renewable resource. There is an industry that is dependent on it. It previously had been managed within the Forest Service by professionals who have dedicated themselves to, and come from, an approach to forest management based on the renewability of that resource. We need wood fiber; we need timber; we need paper products. With proper management we have that capability on a sustained basis. That has been the whole concept of harvesting within our national forests. For the most part, that process has worked. Unfortunately, we seem to have in Mr. Lyons an Under Secretary who is going to manage lands as he sees how the public lands should be managed as opposed to the professionals. We have seen a mass exit of professional forest managers from the Forest Service within the last few years. That is, indeed, unfortunate. It is my understanding that the proposal from the senior Senator from Alaska would be to not fund the Office of Under Secretary for Natural Resources. It has been addressed that, indeed, this is not a precedent. It has been done before. The purpose would be to transfer his reporting authority directly to the Secretary. I hope my colleagues who are not from the West have listened to this debate carefully, because you have heard from all points of the West. You have not just heard from Alaska or Colorado. You have heard from Washington; you have heard from Idaho; you have heard from Montana. All of these are areas that have been heavily impacted by this Under Secretary's management according to the world as he sees it. I am not going to repeat the specific points that have been brought up, the references to meetings, the references to not carrying out what were perceived agreements. But clearly, Members of the Senate, we have here an Under Secretary whose policies are not working. They are not working in communications with us. They are not working in concert with us. I think it is appropriate to reflect that, in the last year of the Clinton administration, this is the first time we have had this unique situation where we have an individual with whom we simply cannot deal. So I would encourage you to reflect that something is clearly wrong here. We have a situation that is not working. This is an extreme action, I agree, but we have had many conversations. We have tried to work out differences. But he seems to have a personal agenda virtually disregarding those of us who have a dependence on the national forests. This is simply not the way to carry out public administrative responsibility. I can honestly say in my efforts to communicate with Mr. Lyons, I found a total insensitivity in the manner in which, while listening to our concerns, there was virtually no policy direction toward the points that we made or the people who were affected in our various States. So I think this action is in order. And while I listened to the comments from the Senator from Vermont suggesting this is not the way to do things, I do not know how we should do things relative to the manner in which Mr. Lyons is carrying out his responsibilities, because it is simply not working. It is not my intent, by any means, to embarrass the administration. If this were a different situation, different administration, and we had the same set of circumstances, I would like to think I would be up here doing the same thing. I firmly believe we have an extraordinary situation that we simply cannot ignore, and we would be shirking our responsibilities as Senators representing States with national forest lands to just suggest this is a situation we can live with, because clearly we cannot. So I intend to support the Stevens amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. To make a long story short, Mr. President, I no longer hold any resource development-type stocks in my personal portfolio and feel that I have acted appropriately with regard to full disclosure on my personal assets. I believe that there is no conflict of any kind other than the effort to proceed with responsible development in my State of Alaska relative to jobs, the economy, and the economic contribution Alaska can make as a resource-rich State to our overall economy in this Nation. I am proud of my personal efforts to abide by the Senate rules and the rules of disclosure. Again, I somewhat resent being ambushed on my way to work last Tuesday. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. I will speak as in morning business for 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak this morning relative to an incident that occurred last Tuesday, and I think, if I recall correctly, the senior Senator from West Virginia also had such an incident which, to me, amounted to a certain invasion of privacy. Last Tuesday, Mr. President, I was leaving my home to walk to my car and, as I rounded the corner, a neighbor asked me why someone was videotaping our block. I smiled at her and said, ``Well, I have no idea.'' As I came around the corner, I was confronted by a news crew from an organization called ``A Current Affair.'' As I attempted to walk toward my car, I found that there was a request for an interview. I said, ``We have a number of votes and I am sorry, but I have to go to work.'' As I proceeded to walk toward my car, I was confronted not only with the microphone and a cameraman, but somebody carrying the cord and a couple of other people and, I assume, a director. I said, ``I am sorry, but if you want an interview I would be happy to accommodate you at my office.'' Well, as I began to get closer and closer to the car, I finally became aware that there was a question that was forthcoming, and it was, ``Why have you voted against the highway bill?'' I said, ``You have the wrong Senator. I have no jurisdiction over highways. You must want somebody else.'' I was thinking of Trent Lott who lives next door. But clearly they were not after Trent Lott; they were after me. The next question was, ``Senator, why did you vote against the highway funding legislation and vote for logging roads?'' I responded by saying, ``You really do not know anything about logging roads,'' and I went to my car and I closed the door and they said, ``Well, you have some stock in one of the logging companies in Alaska.'' I responded by saying, ``No, I do not have that stock,'' closed the door and backed out. Then I found that later on in the day this organization from ``A Current Affair'' had contacted my stockbroker after we had released a public statement, and I will have that printed in the Record, relative to the disposal of some of my holdings in natural resource stocks. They had the gall to suggest that perhaps my broker had predated or backdated the letter, indicating the actual date on which I sold my stock. Now, Mr. President, we are all victims of living in a glasshouse in our particular business, but I find this kind of activity a personal affront to my own integrity and my own personal affairs. [[Page S 13678]] Nevertheless, I think that we are all subject to this kind of harassment from time to time, but I did want the Record to note the circumstances surrounding this particular event. As a consequence, Mr. President, of allegations concerning private holdings that I have had in various resource companies that I have held for a number of years--some for as many as 40 years have been held in my family--and criticism associated with that, when I first came to this body I declared all my personal holdings. There was criticism from some that I should sell those holdings because I did have small amounts in organizations such as Chevron Corp., James River, Louisiana Pacific, RTZ, Champion International. Then I moved the shares into a blind trust, Mr. President, and moved my assets into a blind trust. Then I was criticized for hiding my assets. Again, after a short period of time, having placed my assets in a blind trust, I released them and have publicly disclosed all of them ever since. As a consequence, Mr. President, I have absolutely nothing to hide about my personal investments. I try to invest in my home State of Alaska, developing resources and creating jobs. I think that is probably the best evidence of my commitment to my State of Alaska. All my interests are disclosed publicly, and the fact that a producer from ``A Current Affair'' thinks they bear some kind of additional public disclosure, why, they are certainly welcome to that conclusion. The bottom line, evidently, Mr. President, is that ``A Current Affair'' intends to do some kind of expose on logging in my State. I have had my press secretary cooperating with them, giving them the names of knowledgeable people in Alaska and Sitka, Ketchikan that they can contact with regard to the specifics of any question regarding logging in our State on public lands. Mr. President, for the Record I supply a statement from my broker to be printed in the Record dated July 20, 1995, verifying the following securities were sold on July 17, 1995, covering Champion International, Chevron Corp., James River, Louisiana Pacific, and RTZ. The value of those stocks at the time they were sold was $57,272.89. I also ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record that these stock holdings were sold 4 days prior to the introduction of legislation covering the Southeast Alaska Jobs and Community Protection Act which proposes to expand the timber harvest in the Tongass National Forest. These were done prior to any substantive action occurring on the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil exploration development or before my committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, subsequently took up the debate on the mining reform legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Good morning, Mr. President. On behalf of the leader, and for the information of all Senators, this morning there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m. Immediately following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1976, the Agriculture Appropriations bill. The majority leader has indicated that Senators are expected to offer their amendments to the bill. However, no rollcall votes will occur before 5:15 p.m. today. Members are also alerted that the Senate will complete action on the welfare reform bill tomorrow, with rollcall votes on the welfare reform bill beginning at approximately 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, sometimes this body resembles, at least to me, perhaps ``The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.'' Let me share an example from Alaska relating to Senate passage of new restrictions on the acceptance of gifts by Senators, which was recently adopted by this body. In crafting this new rule, we were certainly shooting at the Senate's past practices, where some Members inappropriately did accept gifts from lobbyists. Unfortunately, the target that we actually hit with our shots were the charities that had committed absolutely no wrongdoings, unless trying to raise money from time to time for the needy is now, somehow, inappropriate in this body. First, let me make it clear that I fully support the new rule limiting gifts to Senators from any one source to $100 and making all gifts over $10--whether they be lunch or a fruit basket--count against the limit. Through that limit, the Senate has gone a long way to end the public perception that lawmakers give special favors to those who take us to lunch or take us to dinner or whatever. But the new rule contains a glaring inconsistency and a level of hypocrisy that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The chief problem is that under the measure we now have adopted, private parties would not be able to reimburse Members for the costs of transportation and lodging to a charitable event. But Senators still would be permitted to be privately reimbursed if [[Page S 13679]] they travel to a fundraising event, in Hollywood or San Francisco or Florida, for another Senator, and they could receive reimbursement for lodging--a clear inconsistency. We cannot do it for charity; but we can do it for politics. Some suggest that politics is our business and that is why we should be allowed to continue to do it. But charity is also a worthy cause. Every Senator has, at one time or another, made a campaign appearance for his party or another member of his party. But the Senate now has created a system where politicians can travel all over this country attending political fundraisers and be reimbursed for travel and lodging but cannot be reimbursed for participating in charity events. This means the Senator can accept travel, lodging and dinner in some plush spot, elbow to elbow, on occasion, perhaps, with lobbyists, if he or she is raising money for a political group but cannot be reimbursed for participation in a charity event. The source of funds for both charity and political events is often the same, donations of lobbyists and political action committees. The irony is that inside the beltway, charities still will be able to encourage the participation of business executives with the presence of Senators as a lure, but the charities in the distant States such as mine, in Alaska, will be shut out of the means to raise funds for worthy causes such as breast cancer detection screening. Last year my wife, Nancy, and I were the honorary chairs of a charity fishing tournament held outside Ketchikan, AK. The tournament raised $150,000 for the Breast Cancer Detection Center of Fairbanks. Money for the center was used to pay for a new mammography machine. The center, founded in 1976 by my wife and a group of Fairbanks women, provides free or reduced-cost breast cancer examination for about 2,200 women a year on average. Over the years, women from 81 Alaska villages have benefited from these tests. This year, we proceeded with a second event at a place called Waterfall, near Ketchikan. We raised approximately $210,000 and were able to give the Breast Cancer Detection Center of Alaska $200,000 to allow them to order a mobile mammogram unit, which will be traversing the highways of Alaska next spring. It will be able to be utilized on the ferry systems and by barge systems and will be brought into the remote villages. This is a van, equipped with a mammography machine. It will also be able to be transported by the Air National Guard into some of the 220 rural villages in my State. This unit is going to be vital to preserve the health of Alaska's women, including many Native women. I might add, the State's breast cancer mortality is the second highest in the Nation. One in eight Alaska women will develop breast cancer, with about 50 a year dying from that disease. Breast cancer screening can reduce this rate by some 30 percent. My clear preference would have been to allow Senators to continue to come to this charity event, events approved previously by the Senate Ethics Committee to guarantee that they were legitimate charities. It seems to me, when Congress attacks charity events while leaving big loopholes for political travel, it simply puts us all in the bull's eye, furthering the public's growing skepticism toward public officials. The gift rule and related lobbying reform legislation that the Senate has approved overall are certainly good steps to restore public confidence in the Senate and Congress. But why shoot down legitimate charities? Mr. President, that is just what we have done. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I thank my colleague for allowing me this extra time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the full committee hearing to consider S. 1144, a bill to reform and enhance the management of the National Park Service; S. 309, a bill to reform the concession policies of the National Park Service; and S. 964, a bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 with respect to fees for admission into units of the National Park System, which was previously scheduled for Thursday, September 14 at 9:30 a.m., has been rescheduled for Friday, September 15 at 9 a.m. in room SD-366.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our friend from Rhode Island, Senator Claiborne Pell, who today announced his plans to retire from the Senate. I would like to commend Senator Pell for his years of service in the Senate and to wish him much happiness in retirement. I had the pleasure of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee during Senator Pell's chairmanship. I know that it comes as no surprise to my colleagues that he was a fair and cordial chairman who treated Republicans and Democrats alike with great respect. He was a reliable ally on issues on which we agreed and an equally reliable adversary on those issues on which we disagreed. But whether we agreed or disagreed, he never deviated from his standards of decency and character. I have the utmost respect for how he conducted himself throughout his distinguished career. My colleagues have spoken of the many accomplishments of the Senator over his 36-year career. I will only highlight the fact that he was a foreign policy pillar throughout his career--from being a witness to the signing of the original United Nations Charter to guiding through ratification of landmark fishery treaties. The Senate's institutional knowledge and expertise in these matters will be greatly depleted when Senator Pell departs. He will be missed. best wishes to senator pell

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would convey certain property located in the Tongass National Forest to Mr. Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and his brother, Mr. Douglas K. Gross. I introduced similar legislation in the 102d and 103d Congresses. Mr. President, in the early 1930's Mr. William Lee Gross and his wife Bessie Knickson Gross homesteaded 160.8 acres of land at Green Point on the Stikine River. The Gross family lived at Green Point for several years and have claimed titled to the land since the 1930's. Unfortunately, the legal documents that conveyed title of the land to the Gross family were destroyed when their home burned to the ground in Wrangell during the winter of 1935-36. Mr. President, the Gross family should not be punished because the title to their land was destroyed in a fire. No one living in the Stikine area doubts the claims of the Gross brothers. Dan and Doug Gross are old timers from Alaska who have been seeking title to their land for decades. Despite overwhelming support from the local community, and substantial evidence submitted by the Gross family, the Forest Service continues to refuse to convey title of the land at Green Point to Doug and Dan. For this reason, I am introducing legislation to resolve this issue. Doug and Dan Gross are ordinary people who have come up against a bureaucracy that threatens to dismiss over 50 years of their family history. I cannot allow this to happen.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 1266, to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, known as the ``Greens Creek Land Exchange Act of 1995.'' The hearing will take place Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Michael Flannigan of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources Mr. MURKOWSKI: Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 14, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 1144, a bill to reform and enhance the management of the National Park Service, S. 309, a bill to reform the concession policies of the National Park Service, and S. 964, a bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 with respect to fees for admission into units of the National Park System. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two [[Page S 12417]] copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the committee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Park Service Enhancement Act. This legislation, when enacted, will revamp the National Park Concession Policy Act by creating a true and equal private/public partnership while offering more competition, less regulation, consistent inter- and intra-agency policies and at the same time increase returns to the Federal Government. This legislation also addresses fee increases to our national parks, needed improvements to land management employee housing, and the establishment of strict criteria by which areas are considered for national park status. Finally, the bill sets forth a simplified and cost-saving mechanism by which the Federal Government determines the fee schedules for ski operators who use portions of lands under the jurisdiction of the National Forest System. The 1916 Organic Act creating the National Park Service gave the agency a dual mission--to care for the Nation's parks in such a way as to preserve the resources for future generations while at the same time providing for public use and enjoyment of the same resources. I must say, Mr. President, that after hearing the General Accounting Office report on the current state of the National Park System, the Service needs major assistance in meeting their legislative mandate and they need to improve their accountability as well. I offer the National Park Service Enhancement Act as a way to help the National Park Service to: First, reap the benefits of viable partnerships with the private [[Page S 12216]] sector; second, become more user-friendly; and third, begin the long road back to being the flagship conservation system that was once the envy of the world. Mr. President, on March 7 of this year, the General Accounting Office testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation that the National Park System is in failing health. The addition of numerous new areas to the System, increased visitation, and unfunded mandates have stretched the financial resources of the Service so far that basic visitor services are being cut, infrastructure maintenance is deferred, and accountability is sorely lacking. In addition, the National Park Service has other problems it cannot solve under existing law. Many park employees live in Government housing that most of us, even those with Spartan tastes, would find unacceptable as decent living quarters. Yet these employees are afraid that if their housing is brought up to standard, their rent will go beyond the range of their ability to pay. Private companies acting as partners with the National Park Service and other land management agencies to provide needed accommodations, facilities and services to park visitors are subject to ridiculous regulation and redtape under existing laws. With this legislation, I propose to correct this problem. Simply put, if we can't afford to take care of the caretakers, how can we hope to take care of the resources under their charge? The current park admission and special use fee systems need revamping so that fees are fair for all types of visitors, whether they bring their own car into the parks or arrive by commercial bus. Mr. President, I would like to give a brief outline of provisions of the National Park Service Enhancement Act, which I believe will solve the problems I just described. Title I of the bill reforms National Park Service concessions policy. It provides clear definitions of concessioners and commercial use contractors and establishes similar procedures for awarding and managing contracts with both types of businesses. An example of how ridiculous the existing system is comes from my home State of Alaska. At Glacier Bay National Park, commercial cruise ships that come into the bay between June and August operate under 100-page concession contracts; the rest of the year they operate under 2-page commercial use licenses. Two sets of paperwork for one kind of service. The problem is further exacerbated from region to region and from park to park. There is no consistency for the issuance of a simple permit. This legislation, when enacted, provides uniformity and user-friendly systems. In addition, this title will relieve the National Park Service of having to approve a concessioner's rates and charges for every single sales item and service where nearby competition will allow market forces to set a reasonable price. This alone should free National Park Service concessions specialists from spending weeks deciding what a hot dog should cost at Padre Island National Seashore, only to reach a determination that there is no hot dog to compare it to. My bill, when enacted, will correct this sort of overregulation. Other key provisions in title I include possessory interest, probably the most controversial aspect of concessions reform. Other legislation introduced would do away with possessory interest. As a former banker, I have to wonder what financial institution is going to loan funds to a business for real estate improvements which are not expected to hold their value? What sense does it make to amortize possessory interest so that all assets constructed or improved by concessioners would eventually be owned by the Government? The National Park Service, by its own admission, has billions of dollars in infrastructure maintenance backlog. Why would we want to add to the backlog when everyone on this floor knows the National Park Service cannot afford to maintain what it already has? On the issue of competition, discussion has focused on the current preferential right of renewal. I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of both the National Park Service and the visiting public to maintain continuity where existing concessioners have a track record of good service. My bill creates incentive for high quality service by awarding good concessioners with a credit of extra points to apply toward the total points that the Secretary may award proposals submitted by bidders. There is no reason to have turnover for the sake of turnover--continuation of high quality service only makes sense, and it is good business. The combination of provisions in title I of this bill should result in higher franchise fees offered by bidders because they know that their investment in improvements will not be depreciated to zero for non-tax purposes, and that they will have incentive to provide superior services to the public. Commercial use contractors will be less subject to inconsistent application of Park Service policy and enjoy the benefits of a binding contract, just as concessioners do. These provisions add up to good business sense for the private sector, the public, and the National Park Service. Ultimately, they will add up to good sense for the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as they are directed to adopt consistent regulations for substantially similar commercial and non-recreational uses on lands within their jurisdiction. Title II amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act sections relating to admission, recreation, and special use fees. It is only realistic that actual park users shoulder more responsibility for maintaining the national parks and visitor services provided in the parks than those who are not users. This bill raises fees to a reasonable level for the Golden Eagle Passport, the annual park pass, and establishes a uniform per-visit fee at parks that charge admission fees. Commercial tour use fees will be set solely according to vehicle capacity, without the addition of a per person charge. This flat fee rate relieves the ranger at the gate to Yosemite National Park from holding up a commercial motor coach for 15 minutes in order to see which riders have Golden Age, Access or Eagle Passports exempting them from additional entrance fees. Multipassenger commerical vehicles will no longer be penalized for what should be recognized as an environmentally sound practice--providing a national park experience to many people at one time while using only a single vehicle. The results are less pollution and less congestion in our busier parks. Reforming National Park Service fee programs will not make the agency self-supporting. That is not the intent of my legislation. However, current admission fees are below what anyone would reasonably expect. Fees should be more uniformly applied across the System and should contribute to offset diminished appropriations. To that end this bill removes many of the prohibitions on collecting admission fees at certain types of National Park System units. If we are to restore the System, everyone must contribute. Exceptions must be extremely limited or eliminated. What is fair is fair for everyone. Title III of the National Park Service Enhancement Act relates to ski area permits on national forest lands. It would establish a ski area permit fee that returns fair value to the United States. The fee formula outlined in the bill is simple, equitable and consistent, and will simplify the administrative burdens on both the ski area permittees and the Forest Service personnel who administer the permits. Title IV will make it much more difficult to add units to the National Park System without careful consideration. The National Park System should be a collection of the finest and most fitting examples of our national heritage, maintained accordingly. Dilution of the System by less than suitable sites threatens to bring the National Park System down to the lowest common denominator. The National Park Service will develop a comprehensive plan to guide the direction of the National Park System into the next century. The plan will include clarification of the Park Service role and mission in preserving our national heritage in concert with other such efforts by Federal, State, and local entities. New criteria for inclusion of areas in the System will be [[Page S 12217]] developed. Topics and themes not represented in the System will be identified and a priority list for representation developed. I mentioned the need for housing reform earlier. Title V of the bill will give the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture greater authority to provide housing for their employees, both within and outside of national park boundaries. For employees at Dry Tortugas National Park, who live for 8 days at a time on a tiny island, the bill will enable the National Park Service to rent housing on the Florida mainland for them to use when they come off the island for their days off. In the past, rangers and other employees were forced to rent motel rooms at tourist season rates or sleep in their cars just to be able to wash their clothes and buy groceries before going back out to their remote duty stations. Agencies will be able to work with the private sector to construct, develop, rehabilitate, manage, and lease housing for their employees. This proposal has the potential to remove huge financial and administrative burdens from those agencies. In addition, employees will be assured that their rent, as paid to their Government landlords, will not be more than a reasonable percentage of their pay. Title VI establishes a system for disposition of receipts collected by the National Park Service as admission, recreation, special use, and franchise fees. As allowed now, parks collecting admission and recreation fees may retain amounts equal to their direct costs of collecting such fees to cover those costs. Receipts equal to those currently going into the general Treasury will continue to be deposited there, as well as half the additional receipts. The other 50 percent of additional receipts will go into a newly established National Park Service account in the Treasury, known as the park improvement fund. Moneys in the park improvement fund will go back to the national parks to take care of operational and project needs. Seventy-five percent of fund receipts collected at a specific park as part of a particular fee program will go back to that park. The remaining 25 percent will be distributed among other parks that may not collect that type of fee. To ensure accountability, parks must submit requests for spending their returned funds for approval by the Secretary of the Interior, who in turn forwards them to Congress for review. The final title of the bill renews the recently expired authority for the National Park System Advisory Board and charges it with conducting two important studies. Within a year of enactment of this legislation, the advisory board, working in consultation with the National Park Service, must review most units of the National Park System to determine whether greater or equal resource protection and visitor use could be achieved through alternative management of those areas. Additionally, as part of this study, the advisory board will use the organic legislation of the National Park Service and of its units to develop criteria to guide the Congress and the Secretary of Interior in establishing and supporting new additions to the National Park System. The second task of the advisory board is to review existing visitor services at each unit of the National Park System for adequacy and to identify specific park needs for new or additional services. Mr. President, I offer this legislation as a way to help the National Park Service, other land management agencies, and even Congress to do the right thing. The National Park System is strained to the breaking point by poorly conceived additions. We must reexamine the definition of a worthy unit and ensure that any additions to the System meet the new definition. We must assist the National Park Service and other agencies in establishing businesslike, and mutually beneficial relationships with partners in the private sector, including park concessioners and others who provide needed commerical services on public lands. Often these agencies operate with a rather one-sided view of what partnership means. A partnership is a two-way street--this legislation takes us down that road. Mr. President, the National Park Service Enhancement Act is a course correction which will help the National Park Service get back on track in preserving and protecting our national heritage and allowing and encouraging opportunities for people to enjoy that heritage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis appear in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 1987 an explosion rocked a mine in a remote region of Denali National Park and Preserve. Newspaper reports were sketchy; few individuals could have read between the lines to realize that a man's life work was involved, that the U.S. Army, the University of Alaska, and the National Park Service were interested parties, and that no one was willing to accept blame. Mr. President, the very short version of this story is that the National Park Service illegally took private property, and blew it up and in the process violated a number of environmental laws as well as the provisions of the Historic Preservation Act. The Stampede Creek mine is 115 air miles southwest of Fairbanks, located in the Kantishna Hills region of Denali National Park and Preserve. As early as 1915, the site was mined for antimony, a high-priced metal used for alloys and medicine. In 1942, Earl R. Pilgrim purchased the claims and under his hands-on direction the mine continued to operate and ship antimony until 1972. At one time, the mine was the second largest producer of antimony in the United States. Located in an isolated section of the park preserve, The Stampede mine was found to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places on June 20, 1989. Today the mine site contains, or excuse me, did contain several historic structures. The site is rich in equipment, machinery, tools, and the myriad objects that make up the stuff of a mining camp. Many of these items are unique to Pilgrim's operation and reflect his own inventiveness and mechanical skills. In 1979, Stampede Mines LTD. entered into negotiations with the National Park Service and the University of Alaska. As a result of those negotiations the mining company made a donation to the National Park Service of the surface rights including road access from the airstrip, the historic buildings, water rights, and stream banks. It was thought at the time that the National Park Service possessed the wherewithal to better maintain and protect the valuable historic structures. Unfortunately, history would record that there was little merit to this line of thinking. At the same time, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering was donated all the mineral rights, mining equipment and fixtures with mineral development restrictions for the education of students. Mr. President, the mineral development restrictions included provisions which allowed for only educational use of the mineral estate. No commercial mining would be allowed, only small-scale educational mining, and even though the buildings, roads, trails, and air strip were owned by the Park Service, the university would be responsible for maintaining them. The school of Mineral Engineering was most pleased with the arrangement and looked forward to providing their mining students a unique opportunity to learn first hand about past and present day mining operations and equipment. Given the chance, they would like the opportunity to conduct such an educational program in the future. The educational program is consistent with the intent of the university's receipt of the property. The School of Mineral Engineering has developed a meaningful program that provides instruction- investigation about environmentally sound mineral exploration and mining techniques in a sensitive natural environment--as well as studying the geology, biology, and ecology of the area, and studying the historical aspects of Mr. Pilgrim's mine. The program has already helped the mineral industry develop methods to explore for and develop minerals on lands located in sensitive areas throughout Alaska, even on land controlled by the Department of the Interior. Mr. President, it was to be an absolute win for the National Park Service and a win in the field of education for the university. No one in their worst nightmares, would have believed that the National Park Service could blow this opportunity. During 1986 to 1987 National Park Service personnel conducted field inspections of old mining sites located on their lands for the purposes of identifying potentially contaminated sites and hazardous conditions. Toward the end of July 1986, the Stampede Creek site was examined. The inspectors recommended immediate action to examine the safety of old blasting caps and chemicals at the site. Before taking any action, the inspectors recommended that the ownership issue be resolved. In other words, someone actually considered private property. The matter was treated as serious, but not as an emergency or life-threatening situation. Nothing further occurred for 8 months. Subsequently, National Park Service personnel and members of the U.S. Army's Explosive Ordinance Detonation Team arrived, unannounced, at the Stampede Mine site and on April 30, 1987 changed the configuration of the mine site and its historic structures. Mr. President, they moved 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate--private property of the University--and placed it on top of the still frozen Stampede Creek. Ammonium nitrate may sound dangerous but in its packaged state it is nothing more than common fertilizer. They piled 4,000 pounds of fertilizer on top of the creek and added several half gallon bottles of acid--more private property which they retrieved from the assay lab. Finally they added 45 points of high explosives--set the charge and left the area. When the smoke cleared and all of the debris fell back to Earth, they found the explosion left a crater 28 feet wide and 8 feet deep in the creek. There was also a noticeable change in the mining site. Mr. President, this is a picture of the Stampede Mine site prior to the arrival of the National Park Service. This is a picture of the mill upon their return to see if they had gotten rid of the fertilizer and chemicals. In addition to the mine entrance and mill, damage occurred to other buildings, trees, landscape, and stream bed. The bombing also blew up a 5,000 ton tailings pile which, by using USGS records for the current price of metals, would be worth approximately $600,000 in place. Unfortunately the heavy metals of the tailings pile were last seen moving from the site and being scattered throughout the environment by the force of the blast. One of the most telling reports concerning this debacle is from the U.S. Army incident report No. 176-23-87 which stated that the NPS personnel were aware that detonation would result in damage to the surrounding buildings and according to Sergeant Seutter ``at no time was it relayed to me that damage--was unacceptable.'' Mr. President, violations of the law are clear. There are violations of the Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act involving wetlands, not to mention the taking and destruction of private property. Further, since the explosion, approximately $2 million worth of mining equipment--some historic--has been damaged or destroyed due to exposure to inclement weather and the normal Alaska freeze and thaw cycles. What I find equally outrageous is the fact that no one from the National Park Service has said ``I am sorry.'' Mr. President, my amendment does not attempt to rectify all the wrong that has been done. My amendment would direct the Park Service to issue a 10 year special use permit to the University of Alaska so that they may continue their worthwhile education program with some assurance of program continuity and to insure that the $20,000 they have invested and other monies they continue to invest will not be lost or be spent in vain. My amendment also directs the Park Service, within appropriated park funds, to provide appropriate committees with cost estimates for the repair and or restoration of buildings and equipment damaged or destroyed by the National Park Service in this unfortunate incident, and to provide temporary shelter on site for any equipment and materials now exposed to the weather on the site. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. amendment no. 2323 (Purpose: An amendment in regard to the Department of Energy Code and Standards Program) On page 128, strike section 320, and insert the following: ``None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used by the Department of Energy in implementing the Codes and Standards Program to propose, issue, or prescribe any new or amended standard: Provided, That this section shall expire on September 30, 1996: Provided, That nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Government from promulgating rules concerning energy efficiency standards for the construction of new federally owned commercial and residential buildings.''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Denali National Park and Preserve is one of the Nation's most magnificent of natural resources. The park exemplifies Alaska's character as one of the world's last great frontiers for adventure. Every year, the park instills awe into the thousands of visitors who are lucky enough to see it. Unfortunately, few ever have the opportunity to enter the park. The 1994 visitor season brought 490,149 visitors to the entrance of the park, only 241,995 of which were allowed to proceed past the entrance check point. The other 249,154 visitors were turned away. In other words Mr. President, 51 percent of the visitors intending to visit Denali National Park were not allowed to set foot in the grandeur of this 6 million acre park. To some, 6 million acres may not sound like a significant piece of real estate, but once you realize that the park is equivalent in size of the State of Maryland, and that within this vast area there is only one 90-mile gravel road to accommodate a very limited number of park visitors, you can begin to realize some of my frustration with the management practices of the National Park Service. The National Park Service sees nothing wrong with operating a park the size of the State of Maryland in a way that keeps the majority of visitors out of ``their'' park. Those fortunate enough to get past the entrance check point, complete with an armed guard, who I affectionately refer to as ``check point Charley,'' the average park visitor is then confined to the narrow corridor of one gravel roadway, the length of which is less than a round trip from Washington to Baltimore. I find this whole concept to be a fraud on the park visitor. The visitor in this case is bused 90 miles down a dusty road and then afforded the opportunity to return to ``check point Charley'' by exactly the same route. Thankfully, the NPS does not charge extra for this double look at the resource. From a park management standpoint it makes little sense to crowd every visitor onto one length of existing roadway in a 6-million-acre park. The Park Service is now complaining that visitors are causing some compaction of soils along the side of the existing corridor. Now that is what I call a scientific discovery. It proves that there is some intelligent life within the Service. Someone has actually noticed that if you confine most of your visitors to a single pathway, eventually some soil compaction will take place. Mr. President, great strides are being taken here. Unfortunately, we are going the wrong way. There is little movement to accommodate the increasing number of park visitors, only warnings that increased visitation will damage every singe acre of the 6-million-acre park. Mr. President, from the very beginning, the national park equation included the accommodation of visitors. It is apparent that visitors are becoming less important in the park management scheme. It is high time that we balance the national park equation again by reestablishing visitors as important and desirable components of the system. Mr. President, my amendment will assist the National Park Service in fulfilling their mandate: it will encourage the accommodation of park visitors. When enacted, my amendment would direct the Service to accomplish a feasibility study on a second access road into Denali National Park using a northern route which would carefully avoid any designated wilderness and would have little impact on the environment. Mr. President, in all fairness, the National Park Service is looking at a southern location from which visitors will at least be able to see the mountain. The proposal calls for a visitors' site to be located on adjacent State land. But you may be certain that the road will stop at the park boundary. God forbid that anyone would let additional park visitors actually visit a park. The visitor needs access, moreover, the visitors want access. Mr. President, imagine how disappointed you and your family would be, if after you had traveled thousands of miles to see the great vistas of Denali and Mount McKinley, ``check point Charley'' told you there was no room in the 6-million-acre park. I doubt that you would be overjoyed. Last year it happened to 51 percent of the visitors. Mr. President, it is far more intelligent to provide additional access by a well planned alternative route than to continue turning away thousands of visitors and managing the rest in a way that results in damage to Denali's resources. This amendment does not construct a highway, it only studies an alternative solution to accommodate park visitors. My amendment would require the National Park Service to complete a feasibility study, within available park funds. The study would evaluate current proposals for a northern access route. It would ensure that the resource impacts from any plan to create a new access route are evaluated with accurate information and in a process that considers park values, visitor needs, a full range of alternatives, the viewpoints of all interested parties, including the tourist industry and the State of Alaska, and potential needs for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The study would also address the time required for development and all associated costs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. amendment no. 2322 (Purpose: Within existing park funds to provide design and construction drawings for the replacement of buildings accidentally destroyed by the National Park Service, and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following section: Sec. . Consistent with existing law and policy, the National Park Service shall, within the funds provided by this Act, at the request of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, enter into negotiations regarding a memorandum of understanding for the continued use of the Stampede Creek Mine property consistent with the length and terms of prior memoranda of understanding between the National Park Service and the University of Alaska Fairbanks: Provided, That within the funds provided, the National Park Service shall undertake an assessment of damage and provide the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, no later than May 1, 1996, cost estimates for the reconstruction of those facilities and equipment which were damaged or destroyed as a result of the incident that occurred on April 30, 1987 at Stampede Creek within the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve: Provided further, That the National Park Service shall work with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to winterize equipment and materials, located on the Stampede Creek mine property in Denali National Park, exposed to the environment as a result of the April 30, 1987 incident.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to respond to my good friend from Louisiana relative to his points on the net smelt or the end of patenting. The concern that we have expressed time and time again is relative to value. And we are proposing that the patent reflect a fair market value. We further propose that there be a mandate that would eliminate the use of that land for anything other than its intended mining purposes. Now, there is a concern in the committee relative to the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. There is a certain sensitivity about not duplicating oversight, not taking away from the States the inherent right that they would have, say, to control and have authority over water issues, which obviously the States are very sensitive to. So, I think we are very close to accommodating most of these concerns. But the devil is in the details. Again, the Senator from Arkansas wants to eliminate patenting. We are suggesting that we pay a fair market value, that the small miners have an assurance that they have the right to patent. It is not so much an issue for the larger corporations that have the sophistication internally to have the assurance that their interests are protected. We have also proposed that there be a reverter back to the Federal Government upon a determination that either the mine has been worked out--then the land could go back to the Federal Government. So on many issues the Senator from Louisiana, as former chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, and others, have worked together and I think have made accommodations. As I have indicated--the Senator, I think he is aware of this--that the Secretary of the Interior--he and I have had conversations about a willingness to try and work out something to resolve this issue. But clearly the position of the Bumpers amendment, with a moratorium, circumvents that effort. I think it puts us substantially behind our goals of reaching accommodation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Craig amendment and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. The Senate has rejected similar amendments in the past. The amendment that we are offering, which I am proud to cosponsor, would require, make no mistake about it, patent applications to pay fair market value for the surface estate. It is not a giveaway. It requires patented land to revert back to the Federal Government if the land is used for anything but good-faith mining purposes. The balance is there; direct the Secretary of the Interior to clear all pending patent applications at the Department of the Interior within 2 years of enactment of the bill and restore the third-party mineral examination program at the Department of Interior so that the Secretary can process the pending backlog of patent applications within 2 years. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, patents are almost impossible to get. On June 14, 1993, the BLM director, with Babbitt's approval, issued a BLM instruction memorandum which established an extremely convoluted procedure for processing patents. For example, the application must be reviewed by the local BLM staff, the BLM State director, the regional solicitor, the DOI solicitor, the BLM director, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior and, after that process, the application must then go back to the BLM director and, finally, back to the State BLM director. A mineral examination is then conducted by a mineral examiner who prepares a mineral report. Is this what the administration calls streamlining the Federal bureaucracy? Our amendment will end Mr. Babbitt's de facto moratorium by requiring the Secretary to move forward with processing pending patent applications. In short, Mr. President, I believe we need to enact comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, Senator Bumpers is forcing us to offer a solution to the patent issue on the Interior appropriations bill. We all know that is not where it belongs. It should be in the Energy Committee. Currently, my committee is considering three--three--mining law reform bills: The one introduced by Senator Bumpers, one introduced by Senators Craig and Reid and myself and S. 639, introduced by Senator Johnston. The majority and minority have been negotiating on this issue in good faith, and I am hopeful that during the coming weeks we can reach an acceptable compromise that I can bring before this body; that we can debate fully on this floor where it belongs. Until then, as a result of Mr. Bumpers' amendment, I believe the proper solution to the patent issue is to require miners to pay fair market value--fair market value--for the surface estates of future patented land. Our amendment will achieve this goal, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to support the Craig amendment. I yield the remainder of my time back to the floor manager, Senator Craig, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank the Chair. This is not the first time that we have debated the Bumpers amendment on appropriations with regard to the mining bill and the patent issue, specifically. I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas. There are lots of arguments that have been used and a lot of generalizations that have been made. But what we all agree on is that mining law reform should be done appropriately in the authorizing committee. We all agree further that there is a need for substantial reform, and we have initiated a bill. We have had considerable discussion in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The realization is that every Member agrees that we need this reform. But the question today is, are we going to pass mining law legislation as part of an appropriations bill? Most Members would say, no, we should not do that. I am chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I can assure each Member of the Senate that we have made extensive progress on comprehensive reform. This is a difficult domestic issue. It is an issue ultimately of whether we are going to depend on imported minerals coming into this country and export our dollars and export our jobs, or are going to be able to continue to sustain a mining industry that provides high-paying jobs in this country. Make no mistake about it. One of the interesting reflections we hear all of the time from the labor community is, What is happening to the high-paying jobs in this country? We have more people employed, but the job pay range is lower. It is quite obvious; we are not developing our resources in mining, in oil and gas, and in timber. We are simply importing those resources and exporting our dollars. We have held hearings on mining law legislation before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are getting closer to reaching an agreement. There is no question in my mind as chairman that we have enough votes currently to report out a bill. A mining claim patent moratorium is going to delay that process. Moratoriums, such as the one offered by the Senator from Arkansas, become the means by which Congress avoids its responsibility under the law and to make changes in statutes such as the mining laws. The moratorium is going to slow it down. It is going to perhaps kill any incentive that exists at the present time to complete action on this comprehensive bill. And I am sure my friend from Arkansas would agree. We have heard these horror stories from Senator Bumpers each year-- they get better each year--about the Federal land giveaway. Yet, when given the opportunity, he apparently wants to take away the very incentives which should drive Members to enact comprehensive reform. It is not a giveaway. He does not address the investment that goes into exploration and the realization that in many cases when you are looking for reserves which you do not find, or if you do find them, you do not find enough of them, or you may find an ore body and it dribbles out and it is lost, and, as a consequence, the ability for the investment to make a recovery is a relatively high-risk prospect. Maintaining the status quo--what effect does it have on the mining industry? It certainly has none. If we are proceeding with a bill with which we want to enact true reform, then it is the authorizing committee that has the responsibility to complete action on a comprehensive bill. And that is what we are doing. The rules for patent application are steeped with longstanding agreements and legal history in accordance with Federal law. Compliance is costly. Compliance is time consuming. Many people fail to recognize that. They think one goes out and simply picks up and sells the minerals. By the time a miner has filed a patent application--in many cases, they have invested tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases, millions of dollars--in proving the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. You do not locate it without a significant investment of time. You have to prove it up. It has to be able to sustain the investment necessary to bring about a return on the investment. There are some claims that have been discovered that are rich, and apparently the risk associated with the investment has provided a handsome return. But there are hundreds of thousands that have been expended in what constitutes dry holes in the sense of an oil reference, but in minerals that simply have been petered out because they have not been able to sustain either the quantity or quality necessary to develop it. A moratorium is a kind of misguided Federal policy that simply creates confusion and distrust among the American people and tramples on their inherent rights. And those rights involve private property. We have an obligation here under the sanctity of private property, and the mining law created a system by which citizens of this country are awarded real property rights in mineral lands in return for developing a valuable mineral deposit. The generalization is, well, this is a giveaway. How is it a giveaway? They go out; they make expenditures; they do exploration. And if, indeed, they develop that property, they provide employment; they pay taxes; and they generate a return. I can show you each year mines that shut down. They do not shut down because they did not find ore. The ore is not rich enough to [[Page S 11870]] sustain the investment and as a consequence they have to shut down and lay people off work. The Supreme Court has held that the right conveyed in a patent is a property right in the highest sense of the term. The Senator from Arkansas wants to do away with that. Senator Bumpers' amendment grandfathers a few patent applications currently pending at the Interior Department but his amendment also tramples on numerous pending patent applications. There is already a de facto moratorium on processing patents, and that is as a consequence of the prevailing attitude at the Department of Interior. Secretary Babbitt has made no secret of the fact that he strongly opposes the patent system under current law. The Secretary has taken numerous actions designed to indefinitely delay processing of pending mining mill site claim patent applications. In fact, for the first 2 years of Babbitt's tenure the Department of Interior did not issue a single, not a single mining or mill site claim under existing law except what the Court ordered the Secretary to do. Now, two Federal courts have ruled that the delays caused by the Secretary's action have been unreasonable and unfounded. As a result of the Secretary's de facto moratorium, we have seen a huge backlog of patent applications develop. We all know that even if the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas fails, the Secretary of the Interior is going to continue his de facto moratorium, so in essence Senator Bumpers' amendment is more politics than substance. In reality, Madam President, the amendment offered by Senator Bumpers is unnecessary and we should defeat the Bumpers amendment. Let the Energy Committee complete its action on comprehensive reform, debate that bill in the Chamber of the Senate, because as I have indicated before we do have the votes to vote it out of committee, and not fool with a piecemeal moratorium on appropriations bills. Now, Madam President, by defeating the Bumpers amendment, I think we can send a strong message, a message that needs to be sent, to the authorizing committee to enact comprehensive reform. Let us talk about that comprehensive reform because it has been addressed by the Senator from Arkansas and others. Make no mistake, Madam President, on the issue of patents miners should be required to pay fair market value for the surface estate. That is what we propose in our legislation, fair market value for the surface estate. So do not tell me this is a giveaway. It is not a giveaway. We are talking about fair market value. Some people have a way of generalizing and seeing what they want to see and not listening and not understanding what the intent of this reform is. They would pay fair market value for the surface estates. Now, we have heard a lot of conversation about speculation or using patents for nonmining purposes. That has happened in the past, but it will not happen again. The National Mining Association supports this legislation. They agree that miners should be prohibited from using future patented lands for anything but good-faith mining purposes. If the land is used for other purposes, Madam President, we should require the land to revert back to the Federal Government. Now, let us make sure we understand the reforms we are talking about. You pay fair market value for the patent, unlike the characterization of my friend from Arkansas, who says this is a giant giveaway. Speculation or using patents for nonmining purposes would end under the proposed legislation. You could not use it for anything other than good-faith mining purposes. If you use it for anything else or attempt to, it goes back in the Federal domain. Now, the issue of royalty, talking about what is a return to the Federal Government. We should assure that the Federal Government receives a fair return on all minerals production by imposing a net royalty. Some Members of this body have suggested that true mining reform must impose the same concept of gross royalty on hard rock minerals as applies to the oil and gas industry. But those who suggest that fail to understand the difference between the two industries and that both the net royalty and gross royalty basically achieve the same results. It depends on how they are structured. Mineral production and oil and gas extraction are fundamentally different operations. Oil and gas are removed in almost a marketable condition. Very little has to be done. Gas comes out and you condition the gas. The oil comes out and you take some of the residue out of it. But you basically have, when you take it out of the ground, a salable product at that point. But gold, silver, copper, hard rock minerals are extracted in a raw form. When you roll that mineral out of the mine, you have basically a big rock in front of the mine. What is it worth? Nothing. It may have gold in it, copper in it, silver in it. But in that form it is a rock-like material. Raw ore is almost valueless until a mining company has added the significant value to the product. That means transporting it to a mill. That means crushing it. That means recovering the ore. That means disposing of the rock. That means the reclamation process back in the mine. Recognizing that these costs are necessary, to put the hard rock mining royalty on a par with the oil and gas industry is simply not applicable. You have these steps that have to be taken--concentrating, smelting. When you take the mineral out of the mill, then you have it in a powder form. You have to take it to smelting, put it in the furnace. These are all unlike the availability of a product that is salable when it comes out of an oil or gas well. Now, on the issue of reclamation, the mining law should give the States the primacy for assuring that surface effects from mineral activities are reclaimed. We have reclamation in the bill. We have the Western Governors Association which opposes restrictive Federal standards that many believe can be seen as another unfunded mandate from Washington. We have had enough of unfunded mandates. In addition, let us not forget the position of the National Academy of Sciences. It has concluded that uniform reclamation standards similar to those applicable to reclamation of coal mine lands are not appropriate for hard rock mining. So we have a difference. In short, mining law reform should protect the U.S. mining industry, protect U.S. jobs, protect the environment, and provide a fair return to the U.S. Treasury. That is just what we are attempting to do with my comprehensive mining law reform legislation. Now, Senator Bumpers has been at this a lot longer than I have relative to his efforts to terminate the mining industry in the United States as we know it today. Under the direction of my good friend from Arkansas you would have prescribed a royalty that would simply drive the industry out of the United States. We have seen the experiments in Mexico and Canada where they have developed a royalty system very similar to that which was proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, and they have revised it because it simply has not worked. It has resulted in the industry moving out of both Mexico and Canada. We ought to learn something by experience around here. The Bumpers amendment may look good on the surface, but like any book, when one begins to read the text, one quickly learns that one should not judge a book by its cover. Mining law reform belongs in the Energy Committee, not in the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. Some of the senior Members who have argued long and fast for legislation on appropriations should be sensitive to authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill. Senator Bumpers has offered similar amendments in the past. Each time this body has opposed his proposal based on the same logic that I am proposing that you consider here today. So I would urge my colleagues to defeat the Bumpers amendment, resolve mining law reform through the legislative process, not the appropriations process. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I promise, Madam President, to yield the floor to Senator Craig.