Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer bipartisan legislation that would help ensure that our Nation maintains its position as a world leader in the forest products industry. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Breaux, Gorton, Cochran, Tim Hutchinson, Collins, Lincoln, Shelby, Snowe, Murray, Sessions, Gordon Smith, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rod Grams, and Mary Landrieu. This industry is vital to the United States' economy. It ranks in the top ten of the country's manufacturing industries, representing 7.8 of the manufacturing work force. It employs 1.5 million workers, with a payroll of $40.8 billion. I ask my colleagues to attempt to imagine a single minute of their day that does involve the utilization of a forest product--from the paper this speech is written on, to the desk and chair in my office, to the lumber in my house, to the box my computer arrives in. Clearly, the health of the world economy is dependent on a vibrant forest products industry. At the same time, the industry is facing serious international competitive threats. New capacity growth is now taking place in other countries, where forestry, labor and environmental practices may not be as responsible as those in the U.S. Additionally, a recent study using the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimating model shows that the U.S. forest products industry has the second highest tax burdens in the world--55 percent. The Reforestation Tax Act recognizes the unique nature of timber and the overwhelming risks that accompany investment in this essential natural asset, and attempts to place the industry on a more competitive footing with our competitors. In short, it would reduce the capital gains paid on timber for both individuals and corporations and expand the current reforestation credit. Because it often takes decades for a tree to grow to a marketable size, it is important that we look carefully at the long-term return on investment and the treatment of the costs associated with owning and planting of timber. The first part of the Reforestation Tax Act would provide a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based on the number of years the asset is held (3% per year). The maximum reduction allowed would be 50 percent. Thus, if the taxpayer held the timber for 17 years, the effective tax rate for corporate holdings would be 17.5% and the rate for most individuals would be 10%. The second part of the bill would encourage replanting by lifting the existing cap on the reforestation tax credit and amortization provisions of the tax code. Currently, the first $10,000 of reforestation expenses are eligible for a 10 percent tax credit and can be amortized over 7 years. No additional expenses are eligible for either the credit or the deduction, meaning that most reforestation expenses are not recoverable until the timber is harvested. The legislation removes the $10,000 cap and allows all reforestation expenses to qualify for the tax credit and to be amortized over a 5- year period. This change in the law will provide a strong incentive for increased reforestation by eliminating the arbitrary cap on such expenses. These tax changes will provide a strong incentive for landowners of all sizes to not only plant and grow trees, but also to reforest their land after harvest. This is key to maintaining a long-term sustainable supply of fiber and to keeping land in a forested state. Besides ensuring fairness, the Reforestation Tax Act will encourage sound forestry practices that keep our environment healthy for the future. Timberlands held by corporations help reduce the demand for timber from public lands. Moreover, by sequestering carbon, managed forests help to offset emissions that contribute to the ``greenhouse effect.'' Unfortunately, the current high tax burden on forest assets runs counter to our nation's commitment to preserve and invest in the environment. This bill would encourage reforestation--or reinvestment in the environment--by extending tax credits for all reforestation expenses and shortening the amortization period for reforestation costs and by making investment in timber viable. As we consider policies to counteract global warming and improve water quality, we need to ensure that our tax policy is aligned with and encourages sound forestry practices. Mr. President, this legislation is supported by labor and business-- large and small. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a letter signed by over 75 CEOs from the forest products industry and a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection, even though my amendment is the pending business--reserving my right to have 5 minutes on my pending amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 5 minutes on the amendment, which is the pending amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly accept my good friend's explanation. I hope I will have another opportunity to bring the issue up and garner his support on its merits. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that my amendment on Glacier Bay is the pending amendment before the body.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have observed that as well. I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will make one clarifying statement relative to the vote that was taken and a reference made by my senior colleague to the germaneness of my amendment. I would like the Record to note that the moratorium that I proposed simply amended last year's appropriations bill which terminated fishing in Glacier Bay. If the fisheries could be closed and the field of participants could be narrowed in an appropriation, then it was certainly not out of place to use the same process for the Glacier Bay amendment, which failed under the tabling motion. I think it was a legitimate appropriation amendment. It set parameters for the expenditure of funds to be appropriated. That is certainly a time- honored, time-tested device. I recognize all my colleagues were interested in saving their own individual bills, those who are interested in steel, those who are interested in oil guarantees; and, obviously, I was interested in saving fishing in Glacier Bay for native people. But, hopefully, there will be another day. I will continue to work to convince my colleagues of the merits of my position. I particularly want to thank and recognize the explanation offered by my senior colleague, Senator Stevens, who had indicated to me sometime ago he would move to table any amendments on this pending matter. That was certainly addressed as well by Senator Byrd. I appreciate and respect their opinion. We will still be fighting for the native people associated with fishing in Glacier Bay.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not think they want to do that, with 200 inches of rain.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is pretty hard to do in that climate, but I am no expert on chickens.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. They have traditionally gathered sea gull eggs in the spring of the year. They depend on fishing throughout the year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, point of inquiry. I don't mean to object. When does the Senator intend to have a vote on the tabling motion?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will make one more point--I am sure there are others who want to be heard--relative to an inconsistency. That is, again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows migratory bird taking in Alaska in the spring, and they have seen fit to do that, recognizing the subsistence needs of those native people, and egg gathering as well. But the U.S. Park Service, just within the last 2 weeks, has indicated they will not allow sea gull egg gathering in the park. We have two different agencies with two different jurisdictions, I grant you that. But it is definitely an inconsistency. Again, for those who are wondering what this issue is doing in the middle of steel and oil, I simply appeal to the floor managers to recognize the action that was taken when it was sent over to the House. Unlike steel and unlike oil, which did not have a vote on this floor, this issue had a vote. We had a good vote. As a consequence of that, it belongs in the package that is going back. Some may argue the intricacies of procedure, but a deal is a deal, and I made a commitment to my colleagues that I would bring this up again, and I intend to bring it up again and again because there is an injustice here. If we are able to prevail on a tabling motion, why, then we run the risk of what may happen to it in the House. I urge the floor managers to take this amendment. It is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays. I do not know what the procedure is, but it may be that the leaders want to delay voting on this matter until such time as they determine it is appropriate. I appeal to my colleagues to take the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is pretty much the case; that is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In my amendment I propose this joint study take place, and it is quite legitimate to ask, Where is the money going to come from? For some time now the Park Service has been generating revenue from cruise ship receipts from a recreation fee demonstration program. They have approximately $2.8 million, of which $435,000 is unencumbered at this time. It is my suggestion this be used for the Park Service's joint evaluation, along with the State of Alaska, to study the renewability of the fisheries resources in Glacier Bay. Somebody might ask, Why should a Glacier Bay moratorium be attached to this bill--an appropriations bill? I hope the appropriators recognize this is a legitimate appropriations amendment. It is setting parameters for the expenditure of funds being appropriated. Further, the moratorium is a time-honored and time-tested device. This moratorium simply amends last year's appropriation bill which terminated the fishing in Glacier Bay. If fisheries can be closed on an appropriations bill and the field of participants can be narrowed in an appropriations bill, then it is not out of place to use the same process for a follow- up measure, and that is what we have done. This is a legitimate appropriation amendment setting parameters for the expenditure of funds being appropriated. This belongs in this package because it went over to the House and Senate conferees as part of the supplemental package, along with steel and oil. It was a part of those issues that were considered. But as we look at the issue of equity here, there is no question this amendment is an amendment substantially different from the previous amendment inasmuch as it gives a moratorium of 18 months in which to evaluate, in a joint study, the renewability of the fisheries resource. As evidenced by the concern of the conferees in the House, Senator Stevens and I--I was given the opportunity in that conference to make a personal presentation. But that was a different amendment. That was simply to allow fishing to continue until such time as the court determined who had jurisdiction. This amendment sets to rest the concerns relative to the renewability of that resource by authorizing this joint study. It also recognizes, in a sense, there is no real trustworthy information on the impact of fishing or subsistence use in Glacier Bay on the ecosystem. Opponents have argued from time to time there may be some consequences, but they have offered no real proof. On the other side, it is impossible to prove the negative that fishing has no lasting impact. Before fishermen are permanently removed or restricted, which will have irreversible consequences for the fishermen, the processing companies and the communities affected, I think it is appropriate to actually test the hypothesis that fishing is detrimental in some way. That is why we have altered our amendment to require this 18-month study. My worst fear, as I have indicated, about the Park Service harassment of the Alaska Native people, was realized this last week when they seized several dozen sea gull eggs from a Native resident of Hoonah, one particular resident. This was unwarranted harassment by the Park Service. I think it represents an insensitive, arrogant attitude and is reminiscent of the Indian policies of the 1800s, where we were simply driving individuals off the land they had traditionally had access to. Only passage of my amendment will end this harassment. Again, this is only a few hundred people, but they have no other appeal. They do not want to live off welfare. They have no other place to go. There is no reason why they should be excluded from fishing in this area, as we recognize the Park Service allows fishing in the 16 other national parks. I have had letters from local residents repeatedly assuring me that previously they had been under the assumption the Park Service had no intention to eliminate the traditional use, including fish and subsistence gathering. Why do they enforce such an action in Glacier Bay and not enforce it in the 16 other areas where they allow it by statute? This fishery consists of a small number of small vessels. They do a little salmon, crab, halibut, bottom fishing. It is important to the people, as I have indicated, of Elfin Cove, 34 people, Hoonah, 228 people, who fish. There have been provisions that Senator Stevens has been able to prevail on, allowing Federal funding for fishermen as a consequence of them losing the right to fish. The letters I have ask me why the Park Service is mandating they can no longer fish. Why isn't the Government more sensitive to their particular needs? Why is the Government singling them out when they have no place else to go? These are hard questions to answer. This is a situation of justice. These little people are crying out, and they are crying out in the only voice they have, and that is the voice of the Congress of the United States. That is basically where we are. It is my understanding there may be an effort to table this legislation. I personally cannot understand why the amendment would not be accepted and sent over with the rest of the package. Again, I appeal to fairness and equity and recognize, unlike the steel issue and the oil issue, this has absolutely no cost. This is simply an 18-month study on the merits of the resource--that is simply all it is--so these people can continue their rightful pursuit of their traditional use of fish and game.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, finally, I believe that as an authorizer I have been caught, if you will, in this continued dilemma of the appropriators. I remind you that we have not had hearings on the issue of steel, nor hearings on the issue of oil, as far as this guarantee package is concerned. It reminds me of an issue that occurred last year with respect to the appropriations process. The Clinton administration decided to acquire Headwaters in Northern California for $315 million and the New World Mine Site in Montana at a cost of $65 million. That is $380 million. It did not go through my committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. These decisions last year were made with no congressional involvement. The administration sought to bypass the authorizing committee entirely and have the appropriators essentially just write the check for the purpose. We are seeing more and more of this. As an authorizer, I think we have a job to do, and we are either going to do our job or we might as well give it to the appropriators. As chairman of the authorizing committee, I want the opportunity for the committee to carefully review the merits of this acquisition. Instead, $380 million went right out. As a consequence, we are seeing similar things today with regard to the merits of the loan guarantee on oil and steel. Ultimately, my arguments failed last year. The authorizations and funding were included in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill, much to the administration's delight. There were never any hearings. There was never any open debate for any type of public review. My little deal represents a few hundred Native people in Alaska, appealing, if you will, for 18 months to study the impact of their modest fishing and subsistence gathering, and they are depending upon the Senate in this regard because they have no other place to turn. Give them money if you want, but they don't want handouts. They are a proud people; they want the right to continue to do what they have done. I encourage my colleagues to recognize what is happening here. I hope some day we go to a 2-year budget process. I appreciate the consideration of all my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to my good friend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, less than 3 months ago this body adopted my amendment allowing commercial fishing and subsistence gathering, which consists primarily of gathering sea gull eggs in Glacier Bay. That issue came before this body, and passed 59 to 40. It went to conference, along with the issue of the steel and oil and gas guarantees that are under discussion before this body. I am here on behalf of the little people. I can't stand here and compete on the broad issues of steel dumping or the impact the decline of the price of oil has had on our stripper wells; or the economies of those areas dependent on steel, West Virginia and New Mexico; or oil and gas, as in Oklahoma. I stand here on behalf of a few of the native people of my State, the Huna Tlingit Indians, who have lived for centuries with access to an area known as Glacier Bay, which is one of our premier national parks. Clearly, this issue is not in proportion with the importance of steel dumping, or the decline in the price of oil. I come before this body representing this small group of indigenous American Alaskan Indians who have been dependent on a subsistence lifestyle for thousands of years. Glacier Bay is a large area in the northern end of the archipelago of southeastern Alaska. It is a magnificent area. Visitors in the summertime arrive on cruise ships. It is a great way for a visitor to enjoy this magnificent, scenic site. However, it is a very short season, roughly Memorial Day to Labor Day. The rest of the time, the area has been utilized by very small, individual fishing vessels that are bound by the resource management of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In conference, there was a concern expressed by various House Members as to whether the fisheries resource in Glacier Bay could be maintained and the impact commercial fishing would have on that resource. As a consequence, I have changed my amendment. My previous amendment simply allowed commercial fishing and subsistence gathering to remain in Glacier Bay until the court determined whether the State had the right to manage these waters within the State of Alaska. I have now changed the amendment to propose a moratorium for 18 months. During that time, there would be a joint study between the State Department of Fish and Game and the Park Service to study the impact of this small amount of commercial fishing and subsistence gathering on Glacier Bay, and to make a determination whether there was any detrimental effect. If there was, obviously, it would cease. It is interesting to note that the matter before the Senate is associated with a matter of substantial cost, because we are talking about dumping steel, we are talking about addressing relief, we are talking about oil and gas, we are talking about some type of relief for the stripper wells. It is my understanding that steel, oil, and gas amendments might amount to as much as $300 million. I point out to my colleagues, there is zero cost associated with my amendment--no cost whatever. There is justice to residents of these communities of Alaska. Let me describe the communities. Gustavus has 346 residents and is adjacent to Glacier Bay; 55 of those residents are actively engaged in fishing. Elfin Cove, outside the bay, has 54 people; 47 are engaged in fishing. Huna, which is a Tlingit Indian village directly across from Glacier Bay, has 900 people; 228 are in the fisheries. Pelican City has 187 residents; there are 86 in the fisheries. These communities have no alternative. They can't go anyplace else. What is the justification for the attitude of the Park Service? There has not been one public hearing held--not one. They did not advertise for witnesses to determine the impact. They simply made an administrative decision and said we are closing it. Let me show another chart demonstrating where commercial fishing is allowed by statutory law in National Parks: Assateague, in Virginia; Biscayne, in Florida; Buck Reef, in the Virgin Islands; Canaveral National Seashore, in Florida; Cape Hatteras, in North Carolina; Cape Krusenstern, in Alaska; Channel Islands, CA; Fire Island, NY; Gulf Islands, MS; Isle Royale, in Michigan; Jean Lafitte National Park, LA, to name several. But they have made a decision to close the fishing in my State of Alaska. It is interesting, further, to note some of the other activities they allow in the park, because it reflects the attitude of the Park Service and the manner in which they initiate an action. The Park Service saw fit some 3 months ago to initiate what was basically a raid on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay. They used Park Service personnel, they boarded the boats that were fishing there, they had sidearms, and they simply said they were going to close this area. The area was not, in fact, closed. Those fishermen had a right to be there at that time. That was a pretty heavy tactic to use, but they saw fit to use it. Our Governor indicated his wish, as did our State and our legislature, that commercial fishing be allowed to continue in Glacier Bay. To add insult to injury, the people of Glacier Bay have been dependent on the gathering of sea gull eggs since time immemorial. One wonders why they would need sea gull eggs. Frankly, it is very difficult to raise chickens in Alaska. There is a lot of rain. This is a typical village in Glacier Bay. This is an 1889 photo. That village is no longer there, but this is the kind of village they used to have. You see there, they are drying the fish and so forth. The Huna villages today are not like that by any means--but the point is these people still live in a subsistence lifestyle. What I want to say here is just the other day the Park Service decided to prohibit, if you will, what it had ignored previously and that was the gathering of sea gull eggs for harvest in Glacier Bay. They apprehended a Huna native for gathering sea gull eggs. I do not know how long they kept the sea gull eggs, but a couple of days later they gave them back to the Huna Indian Association. What is the consistency of this? I do not know that there is any, and it points out the Park Service is aggressively hostile to something that other agencies have seen fit to recognize as unique to the character of the subsistence lifestyle of the native people of Alaska. It should be remembered that Canada and the United States reached an agreement several years ago allowing native people to take birds and eggs during the spring. That agreement was recognized by an amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty. It has been nearly 2 years since the Senate approved the amendment to the treaty. What this amendment did was recognize the need of the native people to take birds and eggs in the spring, because in the fall those birds are gone. The reason is very simple; cold weather has come and the birds have left. The State Department has not yet exchanged the instrument of ratification with Canada. This is the final formal exchange of documents necessary to put the new treaty into effect. Canada is eager to complete the process because the new treaty language is needed to comply with changes in its Constitution. I'm told the delay is due to the bureaucratic failure of the Department of the Interior to implement new regulations. Some of the State Department officials think that is needed before final documents are exchanged. I, personally, see no reason for the delay. The point I want to make is an obvious one. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized the necessity of the native people of Alaska, being dependent on subsistence, to take birds and eggs in spring, including sea gull eggs. But the Park Service--another branch of the Federal Government--has chosen to enforce a prohibition against taking sea gull eggs. What is the justification for that? I do not know, unless it is a very aggressive Park Service. But, clearly, if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sees fit to allow a modest taking of eggs and migratory birds for subsistence purposes, you would think the U.S. Park Service would recognize and honor and appreciate the tradition of the Native Alaskans and allow this to take place. Still, that is not the case. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a press clipping from the Juneau Empire covering the story on the apprehension of the individual who was accosted by the Park Service for gathering, for subsistence purposes, sea gull eggs.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not sure of the procedure. But I would like to offer an amendment at this time. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending McCain amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is pretty much the case. They say fishing is a commercial activity, but if you look at this tour boat entering into the bay with 1,200 passengers, that obviously is a pretty significant commercial activity. There was a cruise vessel that had an accident in Glacier Bay the other day. It hit a rock. As far as I know, it is still on the rock. It leaked a little fuel--a few gallons. They are working on it. They are going to get it off. There is not going to be damage to the ecology or the environment. Nevertheless, that is a commercial activity.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence will hold a joint hearing to receive testimony from the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board regarding its report to the President: Science at Its Best; Security at Its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the U.S. Department of Energy. The hearing will be held in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and will begin at 9:30 a.m. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate on June 29 and July 1, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on S. 161, the Power Marketing Administration Reform Act of 1999, S. 282, the Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act, S. 516, the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999, and S. 1047, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act. The hearings will be held in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, and will begin at 9:30 a.m. For additional information you may write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.