Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I make an inquiry, if I may?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review proposals with regard to disposition of Power Marketing Administrations. The hearing will take place Wednesday, July 12, 1995 at 9:30 a.m., in room [[Page S 9467]] SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, Senior Counsel to the Committee (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing before the Full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources previously scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. has been rescheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review existing oil production at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and opportunities for new production on the coastal plain of Arctic Alaska. The hearing will be held in room 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 Andrew Lundquist at (202) 244-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review the Secretary of Energy's strategic realignment and downsizing proposal and other alternatives to the existing structure of the Department of Energy. The hearing will take place Tuesday, July 11, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 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 call Karen Hunsicker (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am glad we could come to an agreement on an amendment to restrict the Department of the Interior or any other Federal agency from taking any action on finalizing a rule or regulation with respect to Revised Statute 2477 until December 1, 1995. This will allow some of my colleagues, including my colleague from Arkansas, to take a careful look at this issue. I want to make it clear that we will be offering legislation in the future to resolve this problem for Alaska. R.S. 2477 simply states: The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted. The 1866 law was repealed by FLPMA in 1976. But between 1866 and 1976, R.S. 2477 allowed the creation of property rights across Federal lands for rights-of-way. These rights-of-way have provided essential access through the Western States--and especially in Alaska. Recognizing this, Congress intentionally protected the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in FLPMA. However, the Department of the Interior proposed regulations in August of 1994 to make it much more difficult to establish right-of-way claims across Federal lands established under the Revised Statutes 2477. DOI claims the reason they are doing the regulations is to make a logical process to get R.S. 2477 rights-of-way recognized. BUT the regulations would actually: Override State law with restrictive new definitions of highway and construction; Put a cloud on the title to R.S. 2477 roads, treating them as invalid until proven valid; Prevent any future expansion of scope of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way, preventing making the right-of-way any wider, so a dogsled trail will remain a dog sled trail; Set a sunset on administrative and court action on validity of R.S. 2477 by extinguishing claims not filed within 2 years and 30 days after final rule is issued; Although a claimant could still turn to the courts, DOI states that the regulations serve as notice to claimants for purpose of the Quiet Title Act, which provides a 12-year statute of limitations--but true to form, DOI did not put a time limit on themselves to process the claims; Construction and maintenance will not be permitted without approval of DOI with 3 days notice, preventing the fixing of washed out roads until DOI approval. The draft R.S. 2477 regulations from the Department of the Interior are nothing more than an attempt to prevent legal access across our public [[Page S 8925]] lands. It would impose an impossible task on State and local governments to make all claims for rights-of-way on Federal lands and then have to validate each one of the claims. Nowhere would this be more burdensome than in my State which is one-fifth the size of the United States and more than twice the size of Texas--yet has less roads than Vermont. There regulations are clearly an effort to make sure Alaska and other Western States cannot have access across Federal lands. This amendment to stop the Department of the Interior from taking any action to implement the final rules and will provide us time to look at the best approach to finally resolving the R.S. 2477 issue. I want to thank the Senator from Arkansas for his cooperation on the Steven's R.S. 2477 amendment. As chairman of the Energy and National Resources Committee I intend to have hearings on this matter soon and will be working on a legislative or administrative solution. The Senator from Arkansas has expressed interest in working with me on this issue, and I appreciate that offer. However, if we work in good faith, but fail to find a solution by the December date in the Steven's amendment, the Senator from Arkansas has assured me that there will be a further extension. I want to join with the senior Senator from Alaska and also thank our colleagues: Senator Warner, Senator Bumpers, Senator Chafee, and Senator Baucus, and as a consequence of their willingness to acknowledge the concerns expressed by the Western States, I would like for the Record to submit a list of States that currently have an interest in R.S. 2477. There are 16 States, and I might add for the Record that the Eastern States are included but they are taken collectively and not listed by name. So clearly this is a western issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I also want to assure my colleagues that such an effort to accommodate us is deeply appreciated, and I assure them as chairman of the Energy Committee I will hold hearings at the first opportunity on this matter to address the necessity of moving along under the stipulation for R.S. 2477 to the States that were affected, and that we do this in an expeditious manner. And the fact that we can have this input prior to the Department of Interior promulgating regulations is the interest that we share.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could inquire of the manager and the leader, if, indeed, it is set aside and not taken up for a time, if Senator Stevens and I may have a time to be recognized at that time certain, right after the leader calls up the bill? I wonder if the leader could indicate when he intends to do that?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Then, if I could ask the leader again, roughly, he anticipates being back on the securities bill on Monday?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if the leader gets an agreement, then it is my understanding that he will potentially come back to this bill, the highway bill, at which time we would be recognized and pursue our amendments with no time limitation and try to resolve the differences that we currently have been unable to clear. Then there would be final passage. Is that correct?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are currently waiting to hear from Senator Bumpers with regard to the pending agreement. I assume that he will be forthcoming.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we should know very soon.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry. This is of such importance to us. I appreciate the patience of the floor managers and the fact we are going to proceed with this tomorrow. But we have been at this for some 15 years since statehood, and we are so close to it now that unless we can reach some kind of an accord, I feel compelled to raise an objection at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not object, but it is just simply inconceivable and unacceptable to those of us in Alaska that this basic right that we were guaranteed under the statehood compact that we go out and identify those traditional trails, winter trails, access wagon roads, across Federal lands that have been utilized and those that have been completed--some 500 and some have been documented--and submitted, that we cannot consummate what was guaranteed under the Statehood Act. It is very disappointing to me to find objections from other Senators that are strictly based on the feeling that this is a giant land grab. This is nothing more than the opportunity for the citizens of the State to traverse Federal land so they can get to their private land, so they can get to the State land. It is something every single State--at least in the western United States--which had any public land has enjoyed. And we simply cannot understand why it is not acceptable.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think my friend from Virginia would recognize that in the years I have been here I have been most cooperative in trying to accommodate various Members. But this is an issue that is as important to us as any issue that we have ever had, and it is simply the right of access across Federal lands so that we can get to our private lands in the State, and there is an environmental objection from various groups that have persuaded Members that this is something they simply do not want to see addressed and resolved. We see no other alternative other than to attempt to use every method that we can to try to bring some justice to the contract that was made when we entered into the statehood compact. The fact that we have been at this for so long, the fact that it belongs in this bill--and I recognize the comment made by the Senator from Virginia that some of the objection is within the Energy Committee, of which I happen to chair, and I hope that I will be able to prevail. I wonder if the senior Senator from Alaska has any comments relative to this. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, because of our inability to resolve an issue that affects our State, not having the assurance that we can resolve this, even though I arranged for a meeting to take place tomorrow morning relative to the concerns that we have concerning that issue, I feel I must object.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing previously scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Tuesday, June 20, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. to review existing oil production at Prudhoe Bay, AK, and opportunities for new production on the coastal plain of Arctic Alaska has been canceled and will be rescheduled at a later date. In addition, the hearing previously scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Wednesday, June 21, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. regarding the Secretary of Energy's strategic alignment and downsizing proposal and other alternatives to the existing structure of the Department of Energy has also been canceled and will be rescheduled at a later date.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the provisions of S. 652, as reported, that seek to amend section 224 of the Pole Attachment Act of 1978. As a result of that review, I am deeply concerned that these provisions would have a significantly adverse impact on electric utility ratepayers throughout the Nation. I am particularly concerned that these provisions would require electric ratepayers to shoulder the burden of subsidizing not only cable operators but also telephone companies and telecommunications providers. The amount of money foregone by the bill as reported is not trivial. It amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Put simply, it is not fair to ask consumers of electricity to subsidize cable operators and telephone companies. In this connection, it is important to point out that this subsidy does not even necessarily go the customers of these companies. From a consumer protection standpoint, I believe the legislation should be amended to ensure that all entities that attach to poles are required to pay a fair and proportionate rate that provides for recovery of the cost of installing and maintaining the entire pole, including the common space. I ask the chairman of the Committee, Senator Pressler, and the ranking minority member, Senator Hollings, whether they have any concerns on this matter and what their plans are to remedy the situation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Minerals Management Service as a permanent agency at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Colorado, Senator Brown, and by the ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Johnston. The legislation I sponsor is very straightforward. It would simply authorize the establishment of a Minerals Management Service at the Department of the Interior, require that it be headed by a Director who is to be appointment by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and direct that it administer royalty management and Outer Continental Shelf lands programs. The Minerals Management Service already exists although, as I will explain, the Clinton administration has proposed to dismantle it. My bill, which is an MMS organic act, would authorize and preserve MMS. Mr. President, the Minerals Management Service--or MMS--was established by Secretarial order in 1982 in response to concerns about the amount of money the United States was receiving for Federal coal leases in the West and for the job that was being done in collecting mineral royalties owed the United States. When MMS was created, it was given two basic functions: first, to assure that there is timely and efficient collection, disbursement, accounting for and auditing of the royalties owed the United States for mineral leases both onshore and offshore. MMS has principal responsibility for handling the mineral receipts under provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Second, MMS was given responsibility for managing a program to promote and regulate the use of lands on the Outer Continental Shelf for purposes of mineral exploration, development and production. The OCS contains abundant supplies of oil and natural gas, as well as other minerals used for industrial and commercial purposes, such as sulfur. When MMS was formed, many good Federal employees from the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey, as well as some from the Department of Energy, were selected to staff this new agency. Most of these people brought a particular expertise to their jobs, with some having experience at the General Accounting Office and the Internal Revenue Service. What has MMS and its employees done with its responsibilities in last 13 years, Mr. President? Well, it has significantly improved the royalty management program. It has reduced the number of data-related errors and royalty payor mistakes from about 39 percent in 1982 to less than 5 percent. In increased the percentage of monies being distributed on time from 92 to about 99 percent in a period of about 10 years. For its handling of the royalty management functions, MMS received an award for management excellence from the President's Council on Management Improvement in 1991, and twice in the last 5 years has been a finalist for the Federal Quality Institute's Quality Improvement Prototype Awards. Besides the IRS, the MMS is the second largest source of revenues for the Federal Government, handling more than 4 billion in mineral royalties, bonus bids, and rental payments each year. That is tremendous responsibility, and MMS is handling it well. Sure, there are disagreement over policy issues. But, for the most part, people would say MMS is doing a good job. As for its responsibilities over the OCS lands program, Mr. President, I believe MMS can take great pride in the fact that the OCS is contributing to our Nation's energy supply in an environmentally sound and safe manner. The OCS accounts for about 23 percent of the Nation's natural gas production and after 14 percent of our crude oil production. The OCS contains about 25 percent of our known natural gas reserves and about 15 percent of our known oil reserves. Historically, the OCS has accounted for more than 106 trillion cubic feet of natural gas produced and the production of 9 billion barrels of oil. Remarkably, there has never been a blow-out from an oil well on the Federal OCS. The amount of oil spilled as a percentage of oil produced on the OCS amounts to one-one thousandth of a percent [.001 percent]. And, the Department has never lost a challenge to one of its 5-year oil and gas plans, which are the activity planning documents laying out the Department's proposed oil and gas leasing program each 5 years. For its part in assuring that NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] and other environmental requirements are fully implemented and adhered to with respect to oil and gas exploration, development and production activities on the OCS, MMS received the President's Council on Environmental Quality Award in 1994 for making environmental considerations an integral part of the agency's mission and decision- making process. These are achievements of which MMS can be proud. All this from an agency that is not even 15 years old. Compare the effectiveness of MMS to one of its sister agencies at Interior, the Office of Surface Mining, and you have an example of one agency that functions well and one that is an absolute mess. Now, however, Mr. President, along come President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt and their half-baked reinvention of government proposal to dismantle MMS, to devolve some of its functions to the States, and to absorb the other functions elsewhere in Interior. If it weren't for the fact that we know the President and the Secretary are not economists, I'd swear the MMS devolution idea is the work of an economist. Economists have been described as people who sit around and wonder whether things that actually work in practice can work in theory. Here, we have the same kind of genius at work. MMS is recognized by people inside and outside of government as an effective agency. Yet President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt want to give States the task of collecting, disbursing, and auditing royalties, have the Federal Government keep responsibility for all major substantive functions, and double the States' contribution to administrative costs. What a deal! Under the present system, States are assessed 25 percent of the total administrative costs of royalty collection, disbursement and auditing. Under the Babbitt devolution proposal, the States would be assessed the present 25 percent, plus another 25 percent. Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah would pay an additional $3.2 million, $3.3 million, $1.5 million, and $1.1 million, respectively, for the privilege of doing MMS's job. At first blush, Mr. President, the concept of devolving responsibility to the States sounds like a good idea. It's one that Republicans have been espousing for years and one that Democrats only recently have begun to imitate. Give States primacy. Give them the ability to make decisions regarding issues affecting their economic well-being. Give them a greater say in how public lands and natural resources are managed. That is what Republicans [[Page S8383]] have been advocating for years. The Clinton-Babbitt proposal gives States more work at greater cost. This is their idea of reinventing government. Well, the President and his friend Secretary Babbitt have got it wrong. The devolution proposal was not clearly thought out beforehand, because it doesn't really pass true responsibility to the States. All it passes to the States is the ministerial function of royalty collection, disbursement, and auditing. And, as I just stated, for an added 25 percent administrative charge. Under the President's proposal, the Federal Government would retain rulemaking authority, responsibility to make valuation determinations, and other important responsibility. So the devolution of MMS responsibility is not really what it's cracked up to be. We have yet to see an explanation of the economic effects of the President's proposal that fully sets out the benefits of this proposal. We haven't seen a rush by the States to accept this responsibility, because many are still trying--as we are--to figure out the proposal, whether they are equipped to handle the responsibilities, and whether the proposal would impose an unfunded mandate. I suspect that some of the numbers used by the President and Secretary Babbitt came from the same creative genius that thought up the MMS devolution proposal in the first place. Mr. President, the long and short of it is this: President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt have missed the mark with their MMS devolution proposal. The President's efforts would be better directed in improving the Office of Surface Mining, or in significantly eliminating functions of the Department of Energy. MMS is not broken, and does not need to be dismembered as proposed by this ill conceived devolution. Mr. President, I am concerned that all the good things MMS has achieved will be lost if it is dismantled and its functions are spread to the wind. We are likely to get inconsistent interpretations, rulings and policies from the States on the few functions they will be given, while we still have the major ``inherently federal functions'' retained by the Interior Department. This will lead to costly litigation and an inefficient use of private and public sector resources. In addition, Mr. President, if the OCS minerals management function is absorbed--or more likely buried--elsewhere in the Department, who will be the advocate for the offshore oil and gas program? Who will assure that the OCS continues to be a vital contributor to our Nation's energy security and energy policy? The answer, I submit Mr. President, is that no single person and no agency will assure that responsibility. The President has not assumed responsibility for a national energy policy, and has no energy security program. The President is AWOL--absent without leadership--on our Nation's energy policy. The dismantling of MMS is consistent with that AWOL approach to executive management. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I urge them not to succumb to the baiting that is likely to come from President Clinton, his friend Secretary Babbitt and others who are attempting to ``reinvent government'' by destroying an agency that works and claiming that Republicans are against government reform, reduction of the Federal work force, and saving money. The MMS devolution is a bad idea, and is forced on an agency that works. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message to the President that he has completely missed the mark on this one.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may. I simply want to speak very briefly, about 3 minutes, in opposition to the Ohio Power amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend, the floor manager. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment to overturn the Ohio Power court case. I am opposed to it simply because it is bad policy, and I will explain briefly why. In the Ohio Power case, the U.S. court of appeals held that the Congress gave a single Federal agency--the Securities and Exchange Commission--jurisdiction over the interaffiliate transactions of registered electric utility holding companies. Those utilities sell power to an estimated 50 million households in 30 States. The court said that a second Federal agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, cannot also regulate the same matter. No dual regulation, the court said. So, Mr. President, good public policy is that if something must be regulated, then one and only one agency should do it, not two, which is the provision in the amendment before us. Utilities should not be whipsawed between the conflicting decisions of two different regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, that is precisely what this amendment does. Mr. President, the proponent of the amendment argues that the FERC is a better regulator than the SEC; that we ought to overturn Ohio Power so that the FERC can regulate these transactions. But rather than take jurisdiction away from the SEC and give it to the FERC, the pending amendment allows both agencies to regulate the same matter. I question the claim that FERC has been a better regulator than the SEC. I am less concerned about which agency regulates than having only one agency regulate. If both agencies use the same statutory standard for making their decisions and if both made their decisions at the same time, then the problems created by dual regulation might be manageable. But that is not how it will work if the pending amendment is adopted. First, the SEC will regulate pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and the FERC will regulate pursuant to the Federal Power Act. These two laws have different statutory standards, and the result will be conflicting regulatory decisions. Second, because of differences in the two statutes, the decisions made by the SEC and the FERC cannot take place at the same time. The Public Utility Holding Company Act requires preapproval by the SEC, whereas the Federal Power Act provides for post-transaction review by the FERC. In the Ohio Power case, for example, the FERC acted 11 years after the SEC made its regulatory decision. In short, the two regulatory systems are incompatible. Neither is inherently better than the other, they are simply different. The Ohio Power court recognized that fact; the pending amendment ignores it. Mr. President, I am also concerned that the pending amendment does not respect the sanctity of contracts. It is intended to allow the FERC to retroactively overturn longstanding, SEC-approved contracts. Some of these contracts have been in place for more than a decade, and the parties have invested many hundreds of millions of dollars. Those investments will be placed in jeopardy if the pending amendment is adopted. Mr. President, the proponent of the amendment also claims that it is needed to restore State public utility commission jurisdiction to where it was prior to Ohio Power. However, in some respects, the amendment actually has the opposite effect. It specifically prohibits State public utility commissions from using a cost allocation method different from one the SEC uses. In short, the pending amendment will require State public utility commissions to do what the SEC tells them to do. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the amendment is its resurrection of the very cost trapping the Ohio Power court found unacceptable. This will happen when a utility incurs costs pursuant to an SEC-approved contract but the FERC subsequently denies the passthrough of those approved costs. In summary, Mr. President, the amendment would create a complex, overlapping, and confusing regulatory maze. It would allow electric agencies to be squeezed between the conflicting agency decisions. That is bad public policy. Mr. President, the amendment should be rejected, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I thank the floor managers for the opportunity to speak in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, along with Senator Chafee, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been jointly scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 29, 1995 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the energy and environmental implications of the Komi oil spills in the former Soviet Union. Those wishing to submit written statements should write to the Committed on Energy and Natural Resources or the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information please call Ms. Linda Jordan (Committee on Environment and Public Works) at 202-224-6176 or Mr. Howard Useem (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources) at 202-224-6567.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to resolve a longstanding problem ski areas permittees on Forest Service land have encountered with the fee system the Forest Service developed to calculate their rental fees. This legislation creates a new and simplified ski area fee system to calculate rental fees for these ski areas for use of the national forest lands. This same fee system legislation passed the Senate during the 102d Congress but time ran out before the legislation was considered in the House. This proposal was determined to be revenue neutral to the United States by the Congressional Budget Office. The ski area permittees support this proposal because it is revenue neutral and at the same time collects their fees utilizing a simplified formula that everyone can understand. The Forest Service manual and handbook currently contain over 40 pages of guidelines on the currently utilized fee system. Ski area permittees and the public have a significant difficulty understanding this system. The new fee system that will be created by this legislation is set out on one page and is easy for everyone to understand. This legislation continues to receive bipartisan support and I hope that more Senators will join our effort to bring some common sense to how ski areas calculate their rental fees on the national forests. This legislation will reduce some of the management problems of the Forest Service. This simplification of the ski area fee system will eliminate the need for the Forest Service to apply and audit the complex rental fee system that they now have in their manual. The new fee system in this proposed legislation will reduce the fee system to a simple formula based on gross revenue of the ski area permittee and from clearly defined sources. Therefore there will be a significant reduction in the bookkeeping and administrative tasks for both the Forest Service and the ski areas. I hope that hearing can be held soon on this legislation so that the new ski area fee system can be put in place as soon as possible. Simplification of this fee system is consistent with reinvention and downsizing the Federal Government.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review the Secretary of Energy's strategic alignment and downsizing proposal and other alternatives to the existing structure of the Department of Energy. The hearing will take place Wednesday, June 21, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 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 call Karen Hunsicker, (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to review existing oil production at Prudhoe Bay, AK, and opportunities for new production on the coastal plain of Arctic Alaska. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room 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 Andrew Lundquist at (202) 244-6170. committee on energy and natural resources