Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation regarding the State of Alaska's sovereign right to manage its fish and game resources. It is a sad day that I come to the floor of the United States Senate to inform my colleagues that for the first time since Alaska became a state it no longer has sole authority to manage its fisheries on federal lands. For everyone of my colleagues their respective states right to manage fish and game is absolute--every state but Alaska manages all its own fish and game. As of October 1, in Alaska, this is not the case, and therefore, action must be taken to try and provide the opportunity for the state to regain this authority back as swiftly as possible. Some background is in order here. When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980, Title VIII required the State of Alaska to provide a rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal ``public lands.'' If the State fails to provide the required preference by State statute, the law provided that the federal government would step in to manage the subsistence uses of fish and game resources on federal lands. The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982. The law was slightly revised in 1986, and remained on the books until it was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as unconstitutional because of the Alaska Constitution's common use of fish and game clause. It is easy to see how there would be a conflict between a federal law that requires the state to provide a preference for rural Alaskans for fish and game resources and a state constitution that provides for equal access. When the state statutes were struck down, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, for Forest Service lands, took over management of fish and game resources on federal public lands in Alaska. For the most part the early focus was on game management and little was done to impact Alaska's fisheries. That all changed in 1995 when a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie John v. United States extended the law far beyond its original scope to apply not just to ``federal lands'' but to navigable waters owned by the State of Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too. The theory espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' includes navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights. If implemented, the courts decision would mean all fisheries in Alaska could effectively be managed by the federal government. In April of 1996, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture published an ``Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' which identified about half of the state as subject to federal authority to regulate fishing activities. These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal lands that may have an impact on subsistence uses. There is no precedent in any other State in the Union for this kind of overreaching into State management prerogatives. For that reason Congress acted in 1996 to place a moratorium on the federal government from implementing those regulations and assuming control of Alaska's fisheries. This moratorium was provided mainly to allow the State time to make appropriate changes to the constitution and relevant statutes in order to comply with the federal law. The moratorium was extended three times by Congress and just recently expired October 1, 1999. The Governor, and the majority of the State legislators have worked to try and resolve this issue by adopting an amendment to the State constitution that would allow them to pass State statutes to come into compliance with the federal law and provide a subsistence priority. Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's Constitution is not easily amended and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes needed to place the issue before the Alaska voters. In fact, in the most recent special session a majority of the legislators voted to do just this. Unfortunately they were just two votes shy in the State Senate of the 2/3 majority needed to place the necessary amendment before the voters. With the failure of the legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot prior to October 1, 1999, we now find ourselves in a situation where the federal government has assumed control of subsistence fisheries in Alaska. Therefore, absent a lawsuit or major change to federal law, the only way the State can now regain management of the subsistence fisheries is if the Secretary were to certify that the citizens of Alaska voted on, and approved, a constitutional amendment and the State Legislature had approved appropriate State statutes to conform with ANILCA. Under the most optimistic circumstances, the absolute earliest this could occur would be after the general election in November of 2000--and more likely it would not occur until 2001 or 2002. This just cannot be allowed to continue without some effort to return management to Alaska as soon as possible. The proposal I am introducing today would minimize the duration of federal control if the State legislature passes a constitutional amendment that would allow them to adopt laws to come into compliance with the federal law. This would continue to make sure the focus of a resolve remains on State action and not in the ill-placed hopes of some action by Congress. Specifically, the proposal would do the following: Provide that the State can regain management authority as soon as the Secretary certifies the State legislature has approved a constitutional amendment that would allow the State to comply with ANILCA. As soon as the Secretary certifies the amendment, any unexpended funds that were provided to the Secretary as a result of the legislature's failure to act by October 1, 1999 are turned over to the State. In order to continue to retain management the State must place the amendment on the ballot at the earliest date possible under State law. The Secretary could manage subsistence again if the amendment is not adopted by the voters or if it is adopted but the State fails to adopt the needed state statutes at the end of the first legislative session after passage of the constitutional amendment. At any time that the Secretary is managing subsistence fisheries in Alaska, he must comply with section 1308 of ANILCA which requires local hire. Mr. President, I along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence uses of fish and game should have a priority over other uses in the State. We have provided for such uses in the past, I have hunted and fished under those regulations and I respected and supported them and continue to do so now. I believe the State can again provide for such uses without significant interruption to the sport or commercial fisherman. I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska. They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And, they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of those resources. They should bear their share of the responsibility for formulating fish and game laws as well as enforcing them. It is my intention to ensure that at anytime the Secretary is managing any of Alaska's wildlife resources that he maximize the expertise of Alaska's Native people. I also hope the State would provide Alaska's rural residents a greater role as it seeks to resolve the subsistence dilemma once and for all. But until that happens, I cannot stand by and watch the federal government move into the State and assume control of the Alaska fish and game resources for an extended period of time. That is why I am providing for the earliest opportunity for the State to regain management. I've lived under federal management during Alaska's territorial days and it does not work. In 1959 Alaskan's caught just 25.1 million salmon. Under State management we caught 218 million salmon in 1995. Federal control would again be a disaster for the resource and those that depend on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation regarding the State of Alaska's sovereign right to manage its fish and game resources. It is a sad day that I come to the floor of the United States Senate to inform my colleagues that for the first time since Alaska became a state it no longer has sole authority to manage its fisheries on federal lands. For everyone of my colleagues their respective states right to manage fish and game is absolute--every state but Alaska manages all its own fish and game. As of October 1, in Alaska, this is not the case, and therefore, action must be taken to try and provide the opportunity for the state to regain this authority back as swiftly as possible. Some background is in order here. When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980, Title VIII required the State of Alaska to provide a rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal ``public lands.'' If the State fails to provide the required preference by State statute, the law provided that the federal government would step in to manage the subsistence uses of fish and game resources on federal lands. The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982. The law was slightly revised in 1986, and remained on the books until it was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as unconstitutional because of the Alaska Constitution's common use of fish and game clause. It is easy to see how there would be a conflict between a federal law that requires the state to provide a preference for rural Alaskans for fish and game resources and a state constitution that provides for equal access. When the state statutes were struck down, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, for Forest Service lands, took over management of fish and game resources on federal public lands in Alaska. For the most part the early focus was on game management and little was done to impact Alaska's fisheries. That all changed in 1995 when a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie John v. United States extended the law far beyond its original scope to apply not just to ``federal lands'' but to navigable waters owned by the State of Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too. The theory espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' includes navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights. If implemented, the courts decision would mean all fisheries in Alaska could effectively be managed by the federal government. In April of 1996, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture published an ``Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' which identified about half of the state as subject to federal authority to regulate fishing activities. These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal lands that may have an impact on subsistence uses. There is no precedent in any other State in the Union for this kind of overreaching into State management prerogatives. For that reason Congress acted in 1996 to place a moratorium on the federal government from implementing those regulations and assuming control of Alaska's fisheries. This moratorium was provided mainly to allow the State time to make appropriate changes to the constitution and relevant statutes in order to comply with the federal law. The moratorium was extended three times by Congress and just recently expired October 1, 1999. The Governor, and the majority of the State legislators have worked to try and resolve this issue by adopting an amendment to the State constitution that would allow them to pass State statutes to come into compliance with the federal law and provide a subsistence priority. Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's Constitution is not easily amended and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes needed to place the issue before the Alaska voters. In fact, in the most recent special session a majority of the legislators voted to do just this. Unfortunately they were just two votes shy in the State Senate of the 2/3 majority needed to place the necessary amendment before the voters. With the failure of the legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot prior to October 1, 1999, we now find ourselves in a situation where the federal government has assumed control of subsistence fisheries in Alaska. Therefore, absent a lawsuit or major change to federal law, the only way the State can now regain management of the subsistence fisheries is if the Secretary were to certify that the citizens of Alaska voted on, and approved, a constitutional amendment and the State Legislature had approved appropriate State statutes to conform with ANILCA. Under the most optimistic circumstances, the absolute earliest this could occur would be after the general election in November of 2000--and more likely it would not occur until 2001 or 2002. This just cannot be allowed to continue without some effort to return management to Alaska as soon as possible. The proposal I am introducing today would minimize the duration of federal control if the State legislature passes a constitutional amendment that would allow them to adopt laws to come into compliance with the federal law. This would continue to make sure the focus of a resolve remains on State action and not in the ill-placed hopes of some action by Congress. Specifically, the proposal would do the following: Provide that the State can regain management authority as soon as the Secretary certifies the State legislature has approved a constitutional amendment that would allow the State to comply with ANILCA. As soon as the Secretary certifies the amendment, any unexpended funds that were provided to the Secretary as a result of the legislature's failure to act by October 1, 1999 are turned over to the State. In order to continue to retain management the State must place the amendment on the ballot at the earliest date possible under State law. The Secretary could manage subsistence again if the amendment is not adopted by the voters or if it is adopted but the State fails to adopt the needed state statutes at the end of the first legislative session after passage of the constitutional amendment. At any time that the Secretary is managing subsistence fisheries in Alaska, he must comply with section 1308 of ANILCA which requires local hire. Mr. President, I along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence uses of fish and game should have a priority over other uses in the State. We have provided for such uses in the past, I have hunted and fished under those regulations and I respected and supported them and continue to do so now. I believe the State can again provide for such uses without significant interruption to the sport or commercial fisherman. I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska. They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And, they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of those resources. They should bear their share of the responsibility for formulating fish and game laws as well as enforcing them. It is my intention to ensure that at anytime the Secretary is managing any of Alaska's wildlife resources that he maximize the expertise of Alaska's Native people. I also hope the State would provide Alaska's rural residents a greater role as it seeks to resolve the subsistence dilemma once and for all. But until that happens, I cannot stand by and watch the federal government move into the State and assume control of the Alaska fish and game resources for an extended period of time. That is why I am providing for the earliest opportunity for the State to regain management. I've lived under federal management during Alaska's territorial days and it does not work. In 1959 Alaskan's caught just 25.1 million salmon. Under State management we caught 218 million salmon in 1995. Federal control would again be a disaster for the resource and those that depend on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when I first came to this body in the Congress that convened in January of 1981, I was the 100th Senator. There is no question about that. There is a certain degree of humility associated with that prized and coveted position. As a consequence of the reality that we came in with 16 other Republican Senators in what was somewhat of a revolution associated with President Reagan, some suggested we came in on his coattails. Those of us who prided ourselves on our accomplishment were not ready to attribute totally that responsibility to President Reagan, but nonetheless we were fortunate to be here. In the determination of how this place works, as a freshman Senator, one quickly has an opportunity to participate in the selection of committees. Being the 100th Senator, you take what is left and what you get. I found myself having perhaps made the choice, but clearly with the realization that while my first choice was the Finance Committee, my realistic choice was the Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time, Senator Chafee had taken over the chairmanship of that. One of the interesting reflections is not too many of the Republicans, in spite of their seniority, knew what chairmanships were all about because it had been a long dry spell in the Senate --several decades. In any event, I had an opportunity to serve with the late Senator John Chafee. As a junior member of that committee, I was quickly immersed in the technical aspects of such issues as emissions, NOX, CO2, clean water, clean air, the role of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a host of other eventualities that suggested that clearly there was an institutional memory associated with many of these issues. I found, much to my relief, that the late Senator Chafee was a patient, caring, and intensely dedicated Member of this body. I know many Members have discussed his military role, his individual and personal sacrifice on behalf of our Nation in serving. Having dedicated his life to public service, I think it is a reflection of the type of American and unique Senator he was. During that time on his committee, I was privileged to participate in significant events that were charged to his responsibility. Looking back on those instances, they were really opportunities to get to know and understand and appreciate the contribution Senator John Chafee made to the Senate. Later, I had an opportunity to serve with him on the Republican health care task force. Even later, finally, after some 14 years in this body, I did get my first choice of committees, the Senate Finance Committee. John Chafee was on that committee as a senior member. John took over an obligation to coordinate the Republican health task force. John studied in depth the details of health care. He probably knew them better than anyone in this body. He cared very deeply about bettering the lives of those he met. I remember the morning meetings when he went into great depth on the health care issue and how we could meet our obligations to provide reasonable health care for the Nation. It was a disputed area of concern relative to a certain amount of partisanship, which occasionally raises its head around here. Nevertheless, John was above that; he was dedicated and committed to trying to accomplish something meaningful in that area. He never gave up, as he didn't on many of the issues about which he cared so deeply. So as we look at John's desk and the flowers that adorn it, it is with fond memories that we think of a fine American and an outstanding Senator with whom we were privileged to serve for a number of years--in my own case, for some 19 years. I treasure that time with John Chafee. I shall miss his contribution to this body. We had certain disagreements from time to time on issues, as Senators do in this body, but I always respected where he stood. I always knew where he was coming from. He was a gentleman whose word was his bond. Coincidentally, recently I made a telephone call to a friend who has been ill for some time. He was known to many in this body. The gentlemen's name is Duffy Wall. He was a friend to many Members of this body. Duffy Wall passed away yesterday, as well, at about 4:15 in the morning. I talked to his wife Sharon, who was kind enough to phone me and advise me that Duffy had passed on. It was kind of memorable that, in her reflection, she said, ``You know, Frank, Duffy was a great friend of John Chafee's.'' She believed that Duffy wanted to go with Senator Chafee. So wherever the two are today, obviously, they have affection and great friendship. As Senators, we suffer the loss of our dear friend John Chafee. I thought it fitting to add that there was another dear friend of ours and John Chafee's who also passed away yesterday morning. Mr. President, I extend to Mrs. Chafee and her family my sincere sympathy. I also extend to Sharon and the Wall family our sympathy for the loss of Duffy Wall. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-173 was filed to accompany S. 986 the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-175 was filed to accompany S. 1211, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to solve a problem unique to Alaska. The city of Craig is located in the far southeastern part of Alaska on Price of Wales Island, the third largest island in the country. Craig is unlike any other small town or village in Alaska. It has no land base upon which to maintain its local services, and no ability to utilize many federal programs which are dependent upon a large Alaska Native population for eligibility. Nevertheless, the community has grown from a mostly Native population of 250 in 1971 to over 2,500 residents, most of whom are not Alaska Natives. Despite this, the town is surrounded by land selections from two different Alaska village corporations. In fact, 93 percent of the land within the Craig city limits is owned by these village corporations. Under federal law passed in 1987, none of the village land is subject to taxation so long as the land is not developed. The city of Craig has only 300 acres of land owned privately by individuals within its city limits to serve as it municipal tax base. It can annex no other land because the entire land base outside its municipal boundaries is owned by the federal government as part of the Tongass National Forest or other Alaska Native corporation. Craig's demands for municipal services increase every year as costs go up and population increases. According to the State of Alaska, Craig is the fastest growing first class city in the state. Since its large non-Native majority population make the town and its residents largely ineligible for federal programs which service virtually all other ANSCA villages, it has requested a small conveyance of 4,532 acres of federal land located not far from the town. That land entitlement would permit the city to develop a land base upon which it could support its increasing demand for municipal services. The land base which is included in this bill has been carefully chosen. It is less than 20 miles from the city and abuts the existing road system. It is the first available land from the city limits not owned by an Alaska native corporation. The land will complete a sound management system by providing municipal ownership of land adjacent to both existing private and state owned land. It will be a good use of this land which is nowhere near any environmentally sensitive lands such as wilderness areas. This part of Prince of Wales Island has roads, communities and other developed sites near it. There will be no land use conflicts created by this conveyance. Mr. President, my bill provides a direct grant of 4,532 acres to the city. While I looked at a land exchange, the city has no land to trade. The city received no municipal entitlement because the Forest Service never agreed to any land selection by the State of Alaska in this part of Prince of Wales Island. The only substantial land near Craig besides the actual 300 acres on which Craig sits is owned by the federal government in the national forest or by Alaska Native corporations. I intend to hold a hearing on this bill early in the next session, and begin the process to move the bill through the Senate to final passage in the Congress.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to solve a problem unique to Alaska. The city of Craig is located in the far southeastern part of Alaska on Price of Wales Island, the third largest island in the country. Craig is unlike any other small town or village in Alaska. It has no land base upon which to maintain its local services, and no ability to utilize many federal programs which are dependent upon a large Alaska Native population for eligibility. Nevertheless, the community has grown from a mostly Native population of 250 in 1971 to over 2,500 residents, most of whom are not Alaska Natives. Despite this, the town is surrounded by land selections from two different Alaska village corporations. In fact, 93 percent of the land within the Craig city limits is owned by these village corporations. Under federal law passed in 1987, none of the village land is subject to taxation so long as the land is not developed. The city of Craig has only 300 acres of land owned privately by individuals within its city limits to serve as it municipal tax base. It can annex no other land because the entire land base outside its municipal boundaries is owned by the federal government as part of the Tongass National Forest or other Alaska Native corporation. Craig's demands for municipal services increase every year as costs go up and population increases. According to the State of Alaska, Craig is the fastest growing first class city in the state. Since its large non-Native majority population make the town and its residents largely ineligible for federal programs which service virtually all other ANSCA villages, it has requested a small conveyance of 4,532 acres of federal land located not far from the town. That land entitlement would permit the city to develop a land base upon which it could support its increasing demand for municipal services. The land base which is included in this bill has been carefully chosen. It is less than 20 miles from the city and abuts the existing road system. It is the first available land from the city limits not owned by an Alaska native corporation. The land will complete a sound management system by providing municipal ownership of land adjacent to both existing private and state owned land. It will be a good use of this land which is nowhere near any environmentally sensitive lands such as wilderness areas. This part of Prince of Wales Island has roads, communities and other developed sites near it. There will be no land use conflicts created by this conveyance. Mr. President, my bill provides a direct grant of 4,532 acres to the city. While I looked at a land exchange, the city has no land to trade. The city received no municipal entitlement because the Forest Service never agreed to any land selection by the State of Alaska in this part of Prince of Wales Island. The only substantial land near Craig besides the actual 300 acres on which Craig sits is owned by the federal government in the national forest or by Alaska Native corporations. I intend to hold a hearing on this bill early in the next session, and begin the process to move the bill through the Senate to final passage in the Congress.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-177 was filed to accompany S. 1377, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The oversight hearing will take place Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the interpretation and implementation plans of Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, C, and D, Redefinition to Include Waters Subject to Subsistence Priority; Final Rule. Only the administration will present testimony. Those who wish to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation only. For information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224- 6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Texas, as well as the Senators from New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana who have all been steadfast in their desire and commitment to ensuring a royalty valuation process that is fair to both the American taxpayer and to domestic producers. As was spelled out in the report accompanying this conference agreement, the GAO, at a minimum, must thoroughly examine and answer several central issues and answer several key questions. Among those questions the GAO must fully answer are: 1. Does the OCSLA and the MLLA require that a producer pay royalty on the value added by post-production downstream activities? 2. Does the Interior Department proposed rule allow royalty payors to obtain timely valuation methodology determinations on which they can rely similar to the practice of Internal Revenue Service letter rulings? 3. Does the proposed rule provide that the ``gross proceeds'' method utilized in valuation of arms-length transactions can not be later set aside for an alternative methodology (resulting in penalties and interest) simply because another entity was able to obtain a higher value for the sale of production in the open marketplace?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I rise today to congratulate Senator Gorton on his good work on the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill. I know the negotiations which led to this conference report were difficult but I believe Senator Gorton and the other Senate conferees did an excellent job under these trying circumstances. I hope that President Clinton recognizes this and signs this appropriations bill into law. Today, I want to highlight one particular program which has been the subject of recent focus both in the Congress and in the Clinton Administration--the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF Act authorizes the expenditure of monies from the LWCF for two purposes only: the acquisition of Federal land by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Forest Service; and formula grants to states for park and recreation projects. The LWCF Act creates a balance--between the State and local communities and the Federal government; between urban and rural communities; between the western and eastern states--for the development of outdoor recreation resources. Unfortunately, over the last four years the balance between the state and Federal-sides of the LWCF has been eliminated. With the action of the Clinton Administration and the Congress to shut-down the state-side LWCF matching grant program in fiscal year 1996, the LWCF has become a Federal-only land acquisition program. As I have expressed before, I believe the loss of this balance is a tragic mistake and serves to increase the already significant pressure on the Federal government to meet the recreation demands of the American public. I have worked tirelessly over the last 3 years to restore the state- side LWCF matching grant program. This year those efforts have reaped results. Interior conferees provided $20 million for the state-side matching grant program. While I wish more money could have been provided, with tough budget targets, it was not easy to find $20 million in such a lean bill. It is a start. I also would like to thank Senator Gorton for ensuring that no limitations are placed on the expenditure of this money. It is important that States and local governments have the flexibility to determine how best to meet the recreation needs of their citizens. There may be a need for changes to the state-wide LWCF matching grant program. However, it is not appropriate to make these changes on an appropriations bill. The President's budget proposal sought to fundamentally restructure the state-side matching grant program authorized by the LWCF Act. The LWCF state-side program is a formula grant program which provides monies to States and local communities for the planning, acquisition, and development of parks and recreation facilities. The President proposed to replace this program with a competitive grant program to the States for the purchase of land and open space planning. This proposal would have changed the focus of the state-side program and undercut the Federalism inherent in the existing program. The Federal government should not dictate a one-size fits all mandate for the administration of this program. State-side LWCF matching grants, which address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor recreation, have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation projects throughout the United States. The state-side of the LWCF has played a vital role in providing recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans. The state-side program has worked because it has provided States and local communities--not the Federal government--with the flexibility to determine how best to meet the recreational needs of its residents. This $20 million will begin the process of saving this important program. The Interior conference report also provides more than $230 million for land acquisition by the four Federal land management agencies including $40 million for the acquisition of Baca Ranch in New Mexico. A few months ago the President announced an agreement to purchase this property for $101 million. I have not taken a position on the merits of the Baca Ranch acquisition but have an interest in this matter as chairman of the authorizing committee. No money can be appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of Federal land, including Baca Ranch, in the absence of an authorization. The Federal-side LWCF program provides monies for the Federal land management agencies to acquire lands otherwise authorized for acquisition. The LWCF Act does not provide an independent basis for Federal land acquisition. Rather, the LWCF Act establishes a funding mechanism for the acquisition of Federal lands which have been separately authorized. Section 7 of the statute specifies, with limited exceptions, that LWCF monies cannot be used for a Federal land purchase ``unless such acquisition is otherwise authorized by law.'' The Interior conference report recognizes this limitation by making the acquisition of the Baca Ranch contingent on the enactment of authorizing legislation. No matter what the fate of the Interior appropriations bill this contingency must be included. It is bad public policy to disregard the terms of the LWCF Act and expend this significant amount of money for the purchase of additional Federal property absent a thorough, and open, public review. This review can be best done in the authorizing committee. I want to thank Senator Gorton, who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for recognizing the need for specific authorizing legislation and including this contingency. The Interior conference report also requires that the General Accounting Office review and report on the Baca Ranch appraisal. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act requires an appraisal of the fair market value of private property the Federal government desires to acquire, whether through negotiations or condemnation. An appraisal has been done on the Baca Ranch. However, the appraisal was conducted not by the Federal government but rather the seller. While I have no reason to doubt the validity of the appraisal, before Congress spends this significant amount of money to purchase the Baca Ranch, Congress owes it to the American taxpayer to ensure that the $101 million sale price represents the actual fair market value of the property. The General Accounting Office is the appropriate entity to conduct this review and report to the appropriators and the authorizers. As many of us remember from two years ago, the conditions imposed on the Baca Ranch purchase are consistent with the requirements the Senate imposed on the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine purchases. Unfortunately, these conditions were eliminated in conference and both acquisitions were authorized on the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill. That is wrong. Clearly by agreeing to placing these limitations on the Baca Ranch acquisition, the House has realized that authorizing, the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions in the appropriations bill was bad public policy. It is the role of the authorizing committee--not the appropriators--to make sure that any addition to the Federal estate is warranted. There has been talk about the next step in the process. There are rumors that the President will not sign this conference report because he is disappointed that his Lands Legacy proposal was not totally funded. I hope that is not true but if it is I find this reasoning nonsensical. The Lands Legacy proposal is nothing but budget gimmicky. It seeks to charge against the $900 million LWCF ceiling the increased funding of a variety of programs not authorized to derived monies from the LWCF. These programs, which may or may not warrant increased Federal funding, already have independent authorizations. By engaging in this accounting game, the President artificially reduces the amounts available for programs authorized by the LWCF Act, including the state- side matching grant program. If the President seeks to fund these programs from the LWCF, he needs to introduce appropriate authorizing legislation and work with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to accomplish this goal. Finally--and most disturbing to me as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--are indications that the Clinton Administration wants to permanently authorize the use of revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf for the Lands Legacy proposal in either the Interior appropriations bill or an omnibus appropriations bill. I support the use of OCS revenues as a permanent funding source for a variety of important conservation programs, in fact I introduced S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, to accomplish this goal. However, no matter how strong my support is for this goal, providing this authorization on any appropriations bill is wrong. This proposition is extremely controversial. In the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have held hearing after hearing on S. 25 and other OCS revenue sharing proposals. Since completion of those hearings, committee members have struggled to reach a compromise. We have struggled because, while every committee member cares about the conservation of this nation's natural resources, we each have a different vision as to how best to conserve and protect these resources. But no matter how difficult this challenge, we will continue to strive to reach an agreement that is acceptable not only to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but also to the Senate. What the Clinton administration is contemplating would be a unrivaled usurpation of the authorizing committees. If the most significant piece of conservation legislation introduced in the last 30 years is enacted on an appropriations bill without any public input or participation, all of us who are authorizers should turn in our gavels.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 has been scheduled for Thursday, October 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the issues related to land withdrawals and potential National Monument designations using the Antiquities Act, or Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The hearing will address a number of issues, including public notice and participation, the role of Congress, and the application of other laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Those 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 Mike Menge (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senate will soon exercise its constitutional duty of ``advice and consent'' for international treaties. This is a solemn task. And the treaty before us, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or ``CTBT,'' relates to an issue of utmost importance, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As I have evaluated this treaty, I have kept one question first and foremost in my mind: Will ratification of this treaty by the United States serve to protect the national security of the United States? And after careful consideration, my position is that the CTBT weakens the national security of the United States, and I will therefore oppose ratification. Although I support the lofty goals of the Test Ban Treaty--preventing the spread of nuclear weapons--I think only the good guys will play by the rules. Test ban advocates argue that setting a good example will lead others to play by the rules. The United States has not tested a bomb since 1992, but India and Pakistan went ahead with testing bombs, despite U.S. sanctions and condemnation. Test Ban advocates also argue that the threat of sanctions will keep countries in line. As my colleagues will recall, North Korea violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--in fact, are still violating the NPT--and the Clinton Administration has rewarded the DPRK with aid, and more recently, with the removal of sanctions. I suspect the same pattern if rogue nations like North Korea even ratify the CTBT. But even more fundamentally, I believe this zero-yield treaty of unlimited duration fundamentally threatens the United States' nuclear deterrent by preventing nuclear testing essential to maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Our nuclear weapons are the most sophisticated designs in the world, yet over time, the nuclear materials and high explosives triggers deteriorate, and we lack the experience in predicting the effects of these changes. According to expert testimony, one-third of all weapons designs introduced into the nuclear weapons stockpile since 1985 have required and received post-deployment nuclear tests to resolve problems. In three-fourths of these cases, the problems were discovered only because of on-going nuclear tests. In each case, the weapons were thought to be reliable and thoroughly tested. How confident can we be in the reliability of our nuclear stockpile if we are unable to test these weapons to determine the degradation effects of aging? If we cannot be confident in our own weapons' effectiveness, what do you suppose other nations will conclude? The use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is only effective when other parties believe in their capability as well. Although the Stockpile Stewardship Program should be pursued, we must remember that the Program is in its infancy. Deciding in 1999 to rely on an untested program that will be operational in 2010 is reckless. In the future, I hope that nuclear tests can be replaced by computer simulations and laboratory-based experiments. But I am not willing to bet my grandchildren's security on it. In light of hearings this past year before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Chinese espionage allegations, I also am not comfortable placing the results of our nuclear testing in the memory banks of the National Labs' computers which are vulnerable to espionage or sabotage. Finally, I would like to address the problem of verifying other nations' compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Recent reports from the intelligence community indicate that we are unable to monitor low- level nuclear tests precisely enough to distinguish between a conventional explosion, a low-level nuclear test, or even natural seismic activity. The United States cannot now, and may not in the foreseeable future, be able to confidently detect and identify militarily significant nuclear tests of one kiloton or less. That is roughly 500 times the size of the blast which destroyed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Twice last month Russia carried out what might have been nuclear explosions at its Novaya Zemlya testing site in the Arctic. It was reported that U.S. surveillance satellites have repeatedly observed the kind of activity that usually precedes and follows a low-level nuclear test. Yet, data from the CIA's seismic sensors and other monitoring equipment were reportedly insufficient to reach a firm conclusion as to the true nature of the explosions. If it is not possible to confirm tests such as these, how are we going to verify that countries such as Russia and China are complying with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Mr. President, this Treaty is not in the national interest and I urge my colleagues to reject its ratification.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that on Wednesday, October 13, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a joint oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's implementation of provisions of the Department of Defense Authorization Act which create the National Nuclear Security Administration. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a Full Committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, October 14, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1683, a bill to make technical changes to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes; S. 1686, to provide for the conveyances of land interests to Chugach Alaska Corporation to fulfill the intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; S. 1702, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to allow shareholder common stock to be transferred to adopted Alaska Native Children and their descendants, and for other purposes; H.R. 2841, to amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for greater fiscal autonomy consistent with other United States jurisdictions, and for other purposes; and H.R. 2368, the Bikini Resettlement and Relocation Act of 1999. There will be testimony from the Administration, and other interested parties. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that would make technical changes to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971 stimulated by the need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's North Slope. This landmark piece of legislation is a breathing, living, document that often needs to be attended for Alaska Natives to receive its full benefits. This body has amended the Act many times including this Congress. This bill has nine provisions. One provision would allow common stock to be willed to adopted-out descendants. Another provision would clarify the liability for contaminated lands in Alaska. The clarification of contaminated land would declare that no person acquiring interest in land under this Act shall be liable for the costs of removal or remedial action, any damages, or any third party liability arising out or as a result of any contamination on that land at the time the land was acquired. In 1917, the Norton Bay Reservation was established on 350,000 acres of land located on the north side of Norton Bay southeast of Nome, Alaska, for the benefit of Alaska Natives who now reside in the village of Elim, Alaska. The purpose of the establishment of the reservation included providing a land, economic, subsistence, and resources base for the people of that area. In 1929, through an Executive Order, 50,000 acres of land were deleted from the reservation with little consultation and certainly without the informed consent of the people who were to be most affected by such a deletion. After passage of ANCSA, only the remaining 300,000 acres of the original reservation were conveyed to the Elim Native Corporation. This loss of land from the original reservation has become over the years a festering wound to the people of Elim. It now needs to be healed through the restoration or replacement of the deleted fifty thousand acres of land to the Native Village Corporation authorized by ANCSA to hold such land. Section 5 of the bill amends the Act further to allow equal access to Alaska Native veterans who served in the military or other armed services during the Vietnam War. I want to spend a moment speaking about this provision in particular, Mr. President, because I feel a great injustice has occurred and the current Administration has turned its back to these dedicated American veterans. Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska Natives were allowed to apply for lands which they traditionally used as fish camps, berry picking camps or hunting camps. However, many of our Alaska Natives answered the call to duty and served in the services during the Vietnam War and were unable to apply for their native allotment. This provision allows them to apply for their native allotments and would expand the dates to include the full years of the Vietnam War. The original dates recommended by the Administration only allowed the dates January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971. Our Alaska Native veterans should not be penalized for serving during the entire dates of the Vietnam conflict. This provision corrects that inequity by expanding the dates to reflect all the years of the Vietnam War--August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. Mr. President, Alaska Natives have faithfully answered the call of duty when asked to serve in the armed services. In fact, American Indians and Alaska Natives generally have the highest record of answering the call to duty. Where their needs are concerned I believe we should be inclusive, not exclusive. What this Administration has done to deny them their rights is shameful. Unfortunately, their treatment of Alaska Native Veterans is reflective of their treatment of Alaska Natives in general. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, the history of our Nation reflects many examples of injustices to Native Americans. As hearings will confirm, this issue calls out to be sensibly remedied and can be with relative ease as outlined in this section of the bill. I plan on holding a hearing on this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the legislative hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m., on October 26, 1999, before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony on S. 882, a bill to strengthen provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 with respect to potential climate change has been cancelled. For further information, please call Kristin Phillips, Staff Assistant or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. This morning I rise to introduce legislation to implement a settlement agreement between the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the United States Forest Service. This legislation will fulfill a long overdue commitment of the Federal government made to certain Alaska Natives. I am terribly troubled and disappointed that Congress must once again step in to secure promises to Alaska Natives that at best have been unnecessarily delayed by this Administration and at worst have been trampled by them. This legislation will accomplish three goals: It will direct the Secretary of Agriculture to, not later than 90 days after enactment, grant CAC the access rights they were granted under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. It will return to CAC cemetery and historical sites they are entitled to under section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It will require the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate the development, maintenance, and revision of land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System in Alaska with the plans of Alaska Native Corporations for the utilization of their lands which are intermingled with, adjacent to, or dependent for access upon National Forest System lands. Background Pursuant to section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Alaska, and the CAC, were directed to study land ownership in and around the Chugach Region in Alaska. The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to provide for a fair and just settlement of the Chugach people and realizing the intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by CAC. The second purpose was to identify lands that, to the maximum extent possible, are of like kind and character to those that were traditionally used and occupied by the Chugach people and, to the maximum extent possible, those that provide access to the coast and are economically viable. On September 17, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement now known as the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc. Settlement Agreement that set forth a fair and just settlement for the Chugach people pursuant to the study directed by Congress. Among the many provisions of this agreement the United States was required to convey to CAC not more than 73,308 acres of land in the vicinity of Carbon Mountain. The land eventually conveyed contained significant amounts of natural resources that were inaccessible by road. A second major provision of the Settlement Agreement granted CAC rights-of-way across Chugach National Forest to their land and required the United States to also grant an easement for the purpose of constructing and using roads and other facilities necessary for development of that tract of land on terms and conditions to be determined in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. It is obvious that without such an easement the land conveyed to CAC could not be utilized or developed in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in ANILCA and ANCSA. More than seventeen years after the Settlement Agreement was signed the much needed easement still has not been granted and CAC remains unable to make economic use of their lands. It seems absurd to me that Congress passed a Settlement Act for the Benefit of Alaska Natives; then the federal government entered into a Settlement Agreement to implement that Act where the CAC was concerned; and today, we find ourselves once again in a position of having to force the government to comply with these agreements. I have spoken directly to the Chugach Forest Supervisor, the Regional Forester, and to the Chief of the Forest Service about this issue. Just last month I facilitated a meeting between the Forest Service and CAC to work out final details. While the parties thought they had an agreement in principle it fell apart once it reached Washington, D.C. Therefore, I find it necessary to once again have Congress rectify inaction on behalf of the Forest Service. It is my intent to hold a hearing on this issue in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to make technical amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This legislation is a Rural Alaska Bill of Rights. This legislation is the direct result of no less than six hearings I have held on this issue since becoming chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. During these hearings I was continuously assured by the administration that many of the frustrations Alaskans face because of the interpretation of ANILCA could be dealt with administratively. Unfortunately, many of the problems remain unresolved today. Some background on this issue is appropriate. Nineteen years ago Congress enacted ANILCA placing more than 100 million acres of land out of 365 into a series of vast parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness units. Much of the concern about the act was the impact these Federal units, and related management restrictions, would have on traditional activities and lifestyles of the Alaskan people. To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and lifestyles would continue, and that Alaskans would not be subjected to a ``Permit Lifestyle,'' as the senior Senator from Alaska has often said. It is for these reasons that ANILCA is often called ``compromise legislation'' and indeed it was--part of the compromise was that lands would be placed in CSU's and the other part was that Alaskans would be granted certain rights with regard to access and use in these units. These rights were not only granted to the individuals that live in Alaska but were designed to allow the State itself to play a major role in the planning and use of these areas. However, the Federal Government has not lived up to its end of the bargain--many of the Federal managers seem to have lost sight of these important representations to the people of Alaska, specifically on issues such as access across these areas and use in them. Federal managers no longer recognize the crucial distinction between managing units surrounded by millions of people in the Lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units encompassing just a handful of individuals and communities in Alaska. The result is the creation of the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which we were promised would never happen. The delegation and other Members of this body warned this could be the case when the legislation passed. As one Member of this body noted in the Senate report on this bill: This Piece of Legislation, if enacted will prove to be the most important legislation ever affecting Alaska . . . While we in Congress may be reading the provisions one way . . . regulatory tools are all laid out in the bill to give rise to future bureaucratic nightmare for the people of Alaska . . . Frankly, I am expecting the worst . . . the use of massive conservation system unit designations to block exploration, development, and recreation of these lands and on adjacent non-federal lands. How prophetic! The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has held extensive hearings in Alaska on the implementation of ANILCA in Anchorage, Wrangell and Fairbanks. In these hearings we have heard from nearly 100 witnesses-- representing every possible interest group. Four clear themes have emerged from those hearings: Federal agencies have failed to honor the promises made to Alaskans when ANILCA was passed into law; Agencies are not providing prior and existing right holders with reasonable use and access in the exercise of their property right; Agency personnel manage Alaska wilderness areas and conservation units the same way that similar units are being managed in the Lower 48--contrary to the intent of Congress; and Agencies, while stating their willingness to address complaints, fail to act in a reasonable and timely fashion when it comes to dealing with specific issues. Some of the specific issues identified include such absurdities as: Indivdiuals and corporations are asked to pay hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to do an EIS for access to their own properties when none is required by law. Millions of acres of public lands are closed to recreationists without ever having identified a resource threat. When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs. At field hearings the administration asked for time to address these problems--we gave them time--and little has happened. We have not ``jumped'' to a legislative solution, rather we have acknowledged that oversight has failed to produce meaningful administrative change. Does it make sense that: When land managers are assigned to Alaska they are not required to have any formal ANILCA training? When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it that Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs. People are told they will have to pay ridiculous sums of money to access their inholdings? The answer to all these questions is clearly no. These are some of the problems that have to be resolved and are included in this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to make technical amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This legislation is a Rural Alaska Bill of Rights. This legislation is the direct result of no less than six hearings I have held on this issue since becoming chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. During these hearings I was continuously assured by the administration that many of the frustrations Alaskans face because of the interpretation of ANILCA could be dealt with administratively. Unfortunately, many of the problems remain unresolved today. Some background on this issue is appropriate. Nineteen years ago Congress enacted ANILCA placing more than 100 million acres of land out of 365 into a series of vast parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness units. Much of the concern about the act was the impact these Federal units, and related management restrictions, would have on traditional activities and lifestyles of the Alaskan people. To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and lifestyles would continue, and that Alaskans would not be subjected to a ``Permit Lifestyle,'' as the senior Senator from Alaska has often said. It is for these reasons that ANILCA is often called ``compromise legislation'' and indeed it was--part of the compromise was that lands would be placed in CSU's and the other part was that Alaskans would be granted certain rights with regard to access and use in these units. These rights were not only granted to the individuals that live in Alaska but were designed to allow the State itself to play a major role in the planning and use of these areas. However, the Federal Government has not lived up to its end of the bargain--many of the Federal managers seem to have lost sight of these important representations to the people of Alaska, specifically on issues such as access across these areas and use in them. Federal managers no longer recognize the crucial distinction between managing units surrounded by millions of people in the Lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units encompassing just a handful of individuals and communities in Alaska. The result is the creation of the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which we were promised would never happen. The delegation and other Members of this body warned this could be the case when the legislation passed. As one Member of this body noted in the Senate report on this bill: This Piece of Legislation, if enacted will prove to be the most important legislation ever affecting Alaska . . . While we in Congress may be reading the provisions one way . . . regulatory tools are all laid out in the bill to give rise to future bureaucratic nightmare for the people of Alaska . . . Frankly, I am expecting the worst . . . the use of massive conservation system unit designations to block exploration, development, and recreation of these lands and on adjacent non-federal lands. How prophetic! The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has held extensive hearings in Alaska on the implementation of ANILCA in Anchorage, Wrangell and Fairbanks. In these hearings we have heard from nearly 100 witnesses-- representing every possible interest group. Four clear themes have emerged from those hearings: Federal agencies have failed to honor the promises made to Alaskans when ANILCA was passed into law; Agencies are not providing prior and existing right holders with reasonable use and access in the exercise of their property right; Agency personnel manage Alaska wilderness areas and conservation units the same way that similar units are being managed in the Lower 48--contrary to the intent of Congress; and Agencies, while stating their willingness to address complaints, fail to act in a reasonable and timely fashion when it comes to dealing with specific issues. Some of the specific issues identified include such absurdities as: Indivdiuals and corporations are asked to pay hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to do an EIS for access to their own properties when none is required by law. Millions of acres of public lands are closed to recreationists without ever having identified a resource threat. When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs. At field hearings the administration asked for time to address these problems--we gave them time--and little has happened. We have not ``jumped'' to a legislative solution, rather we have acknowledged that oversight has failed to produce meaningful administrative change. Does it make sense that: When land managers are assigned to Alaska they are not required to have any formal ANILCA training? When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it that Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs. People are told they will have to pay ridiculous sums of money to access their inholdings? The answer to all these questions is clearly no. These are some of the problems that have to be resolved and are included in this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Secretary of the Interior today, under the authority of current law, has taken over the management of fisheries in my State of Alaska. Our State legislature has been trying to resolve this problem, along with the Governor and our delegation, for some time. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve it within the timeframe, so the Feds have officially taken over beginning today. I have directed a letter to the Secretary of Interior putting him on notice that, as chairman of the committee of oversight, chairman of the Energy Committee, I will be conducting a series of oversight hearings on the implementation of his regulations to ensure there is a cooperative effort and involvement of a public process with the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, and the people of Alaska, as he promulgates his regulations, to ensure we are not taken advantage of by an overzealous effort by the Department of Interior to mandate procedures only in the State of Alaska. We are the only State in the Union where the Federal Government has taken over the management of fish and game. Many Alaskans are wondering just what statehood is all about if, indeed, we are not given the authority to manage our fish and game. I will save that for another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend and colleague from Hawaii with whom I have a great rapport. I very much appreciate his statement and the meaningful application of both Hawaii and my State of Alaska, as we look at the potential threat from some of the rogue nations of the world.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is a letter in your mailbox from the Internal Revenue Service. Your pulse quickens. Beads of perspiration break out on your brow as you tear open the envelope to see what the most feared agency in Washington has in store for you. At least that's how it used to be. Now the Environmental Protection Agency appears determined to replace the IRS as the government agency you really don't want to hear from. Consider the following true stories from my office case files: A small land owner in Ketchikan recently opened a letter from the EPA to learn that he had been assessed a $40,000 fine for a wetlands violation. He knew he had problems with the EPA, but he had been meeting with EPA officials and had been encouraged that an acceptable mitigation plan might be negotiated. The $40,000 fine hit him like a bolt of lightning our of a clear blue sky. Meanwhile, in Anchorage the commanding general of the United States Army in Alaska received a letter from the EPA. The General knew he had a problem with the powerplant at Fort Wainwright that was not in full compliance with the Clear Air Act, but he and his staff had been working diligently to bring the plant into compliance. With the help of the Alaska Congressional Delegation, he had received a $15.9 million appropriation for new pollution control measures. He had budgeted another $22 million for additional upgrades next year. The Army had, of course, informed EPA of these efforts to bring the plant into compliance, and the EPA seemed satisfied. But the letter the General now held in his hand said that EPA was assessing the U.S. Army with a $16 million fine--a fine greater than the combined value of all EPA fines ever assessed against the U.S. Army nationwide. Another bolt of lightning out of a clear blue sky. These stories suggest that the EPA hasn't learned a fundamental lesson understood by every decent cop--good law enforcement requires discretion. When you're pulled over by a trooper for going a few miles per hour over the speed limit and are calmly discussing the matter with the officer, you have every right to expect that you will not be beaten senseless with a nightstick. And when a small businessman, residential landowner, or U.S. Army general finds himself engaged with the EPA over an alleged violation and is making an effort to find a resolution, he should not be slammed with unprecedented, punitive fines. We need laws to protect the environment, but the interpretation and enforcement of law must be blended with common sense and judgment. Take wetlands protection, for instance. Some wetlands perform critical roles in protecting water supplies and providing important wildlife habitat. Other wetlands are lower value muskeg. The letter of the law may not make the distinction, but human beings with the responsibility of enforcing the law should understand the difference. These ``bolt from the blue'' letters that Alaskans are getting in their mailbox are postmarked Seattle. The EPA regional office ``in charge'' of Alaska is in Seattle. What the EPA folks in Seattle know of Alaska they get from their brief visits, or from their small staff in Anchorage. They aren't our neighbors. They aren't Alaskans. I want to change that. At the risk of enticing the mad dog from an adjacent neighborhood to our own backyard, I am renewing my efforts to force EPA to create a separate region for Alaska. That way, the EPA officials writing these letters will at least have a chance to better understand the environment in which we live. They would live in our neighborhoods, and send their kids to school with ours. If you're going to get fined, they'll have to look us in the eye. There would be no more scary certified letters from distant bureaucrats in Seattle. In the meantime, I'm inviting the Regional Administrator of the EPA to come and stand with me on Gravina Island, across from Ketchikan, where 13 feet of rain falls each year. As the rain from a driving rainstorm fills his wingtips and rivulets of water cascade down the hill into the Tongass Narrows, I'll ask him to point out where the wetlands end and the uplands begin. I'll also ask him to describe the irreplaceable environmental value of the muskeg that the EPA wants us to keep undisturbed. If I'm not satisfied with his answers I'll advise him to start looking at real estate in Alaska, and suggest he hold a garage sale in preparation for a move out of Seattle. Meanwhile, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the majority leader, but I understand Senator Akaka has been waiting longer than I, so I will defer to Senator Akaka following the leadership pronouncements.