Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, 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 S. 1064 to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to more effectively manage visitor service and fishing activity in Glacier Bay National Park and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the committee staff at (202) 224-5161. committee on energy and natural resources, subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate and the public I am announcing that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold an oversight hearing to receive testimony on the impacts of a new climate treaty on U.S. labor, electricity supply, manufacturing, and the general economy. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those interested in testifying or submitting material for the hearing record should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 attn: David Garman at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a Senate resolution to commemorate Representative Hu of the Republic of China for his outstanding service as the head of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office [TECRO] here in Washington, DC. President Lee Teng-hui has called Dr. Hu back to Taiwan to serve as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This new appointment is a tremendous honor, and I am sure that he will serve his government as ably as Foreign Minister as he has done in Washington, and in his other previous posts. Serving Taiwan so well here in Washington, DC, has been no easy task. Dr. Hu must balance the needs of Taiwan with the difficult dynamics associated with the issues surrounding the Republic of China. Maintaining stability and peace in Southeast Asia while promoting democracy and strengthening our ties with our allies should be a top priority for both our governments. I have spoken often on the floor of the United States Senate regarding numerous issues including our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan's bid to enter the World Trade Organization, President Lee's visit to Cornell in 1996, and military exercises by the People's Republic of China in the waters around the island of Taiwan on the eve of their historic Presidential elections. In all cases, Dr. Hu has provided valuable insights regarding these matters to me. Throughout his career, Dr. Hu has distinguished himself among his countrymen. From his days as the ROC delegation leader at the U.N. World Youth Assembly in 1970 to his current post as the representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office here in Washington, DC, Dr. Hu has made a name for himself as an expert on foreign affairs. Obviously, President Lee recognizes Dr. Hu's abilities and has asked him to take the lead in foreign affairs. I hope Dr. Hu's replacement will be as helpful and knowledgeable about Taiwan issues. Finally, I would like to wish both Dr. Hu, his wife Shirley, and their two children good luck and express to him my heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, the resolution follow the debate on education we are having here today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me first commend my good friend from Georgia for his efforts to bring attention to the significance of the current education situation in the United States, and in particular, for emphasizing some of the shortcomings in our educational system and what we can do to change them. I am very pleased to join him in this effort. Mr. President, I would like to talk about issues concerning education and the attitude of constituents with regard to what they see as insensitivity by the Federal Government. They look upon education as a responsibility that should be shared, with the primary concern resting with the parents, the educator, and then moving into the community as a whole and the school boards, as opposed to a centralized dictate from faceless and nameless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, dictating an educational system which suggests, ``one size fits all''. When I go back to my State of Alaska, I consistently hear about the state of education--not only in my State but as it applies in our country today. I think it is fair to say that the American people are extremely concerned that, despite annually spending hundreds of billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local level, our education system to a large degree is failing. The simple fact is that 78 percent--I am astounded at this--of all 2- and 4-year colleges offer remedial courses in math, reading, and writing; 78 percent. We would assume that our high school students have these skills when they get to the university. But that is not the case. Seventy-eight percent of all 2- and 4-year colleges now offer remedial courses in math, reading, and writing. What does that suggest? It is pretty obvious that many high school students are being shortchanged in their academic preparations for adulthood. Is that a responsibility of the parents, the educators, the school board, or the system? Well, I would have to say, it is pretty much the system. As my friend from Georgia recently stated on this floor, the educational savings account offers relief. The recently enacted balanced budget bill contained nearly $40 billion in tax incentives to help parents and students defray college education costs. In addition, the new law provides individuals a $2,000-per-year lifetime learning tax credit that can be used by an individual throughout his or her life, to enhance professional skills or complete graduate or undergraduate degrees. I strongly support these tax incentives because in the globally competitive 21st century our Nation's economic success--our very future--will depend on a highly educated and high-skilled labor force. It is so disturbing today as we look at some of the areas, particularly the inner-city areas of this country, where, unfortunately, many young people come from homes in which they spent little time with either parent, and oftentimes with a relative trying to do the best he or she could in raising those children as a single parent. Some of these children are involved at a very young age in simply transporting narcotics, a trade made easier because law enforcement agencies might not initiate any significant sentencing on these young people. Some of them become addicted as teenagers and young adults and thus depart on this trail which leads to dire consequences. Others may be incarcerated from time to time as teenagers. The fact is when they are looking for a job, their skills are very limited. Many of them can't read and can't write. They have a very bleak future. Oftentimes that future leads to crime, drugs, and ultimately, a burden on society. It is just not the inner-city areas where we have this exposure. We have it in other areas of the country also. Obvioulsy, we need to alleviate this situation. To do so, we should assist families instead of offering a Federal solution which more often than not will not work. So I go into this area to elaborate a little bit on the dilemma facing society today. Some of the solutions that have been proposed, and the tax incentive for higher education that was supported by the President along with the majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, do not contain restrictions that condition the incentives on students attending a public university. So families at the college level can take advantage of incentives whether the children attend State school or private universities. But I think it is ironic that while the Congress and the President work so well together on promoting higher education incentives, the President, as we know, had threatened to veto the entire tax bill because a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself and the Senator from Georgia, sought to give parents with children in grades kindergarten through 12 basically similar tax choices. Why is it that it is all right to provide incentives for attending private universities but similar incentives are deemed inappropriate while students are attending kindergarten through 12? The White House has not offered much of an explanation. As important as a university education is this day and age, the best assurances that a child will do well in college, let alone be admitted to college, is the quality of education that student receives between the ages of approximately 5 through 18. When are study habits developed? When are reading, writing, and math skills developed? Everyone in this Chamber knows that children do not suddenly develop these disciplines when they enter college. The foundations for educational development begin at the early stages of kindergarten, preschool, and evolve as the student moves up in grades through junior high and high school. As we look at other societies, particularly Japan, I have often been struck by the commitment of parents. Many times the mother will study with the child. As a consequence, a family unit takes a significant interest in the learning process. When those youngsters who are in the Japanese system want to go on to school, they must take an exam. There is a great deal of family excitement around the test as the student studies for the exam and the family experiences a great deal of anticipation as to whether or not the child will pass the exam. But it is a system, if you will, that is supported by strong parental association. Sixty Senators voted in June to allow parents to establish educational savings accounts, proceeds of which could be used to offset the cost of private schools or home schools in the K through 12 grades. This would have given parents of young children a very modest tax subsidy if they choose to send their children to private school. Contributions to such accounts would not have been tax deductible. The only benefit of these accounts would have been that earnings could be withdrawn tax free. Although modest in scope, these accounts could have given real choices to low- and middle-income families who believe their children's best chance for the future lies in gaining an education in a private school. Income limits ensure that the benefits of these educational savings incentives would have been focused on middle-income families. Wealthy families most often do not need to use these educational accounts because they can easily afford the cost of private K through 12 tuition and because the tax base in wealthy communities often provides the best possible public education in the Nation. But middle- and low-income families don't have the same choices that the wealthy have when it comes to education because they don't have the adequate resources to pay private tuition. Allowing these families the choice of using funds from educational savings accounts for grades K through 12 would enable families with modest incomes to send their children to the schools where they believe that the child will get the best preparation for college. What is wrong with that? Mr. President, if the education savings accounts can be justified for college tuition, shouldn't they also be allowed for the educational expense that gives the child the opportunity to apply to college? Mr. President, Congress and the President will again have the opportunity to debate this aspect of educational choice in front of the American public. I am pleased to be a cosponsor with my good friend, Senator Coverdell, who is with me on the floor today, of his bill, PASS A+ Act--and I think that is an appropriate name, PASS A+ Act--which would allow parents to make contributions to education savings accounts that can be used to finance K through 12 education. I hope we can pass this legislation before the end of the year. I hope that President Clinton will reconsider his opposition to helping families finance the cost of sending their children to the primary and secondary schools of their choice. Mr. President, while I am a strong supporter of giving families a choice of where they send their children to school, I believe a vibrant and dynamic public school educational system is a strong bulwark of a free society, and I totally support it in this Nation. That is why I supported an amendment to the Labor-HHS bill offered by Senator Slade Gorton that will award all funds appropriated to the Department of Education for K through 12 programs directly to local school districts. Let the local school districts bear the responsibility associated with the education process and let them be responsive to the parents of those children entrusted to the local boards of education for performance. That is the concept, the very basis of the accountability concept. It is pretty hard to hold nameless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, under a dictate one-size-fits-all. I think Senator Gorton's amendment puts the responsibility down at the local area, with the local school boards, by giving them, if you will, the necessary funding. His amendment I think reflects my fundamental belief that education policies and procedures are best determined by those who are the closest to the student. That means shifting decisionmaking to parents, teachers, and local school boards and away from Washington bureaucrats. By simply block granting education dollars to local school boards, each of the thousands of communities in this country will have the flexibility to improve their education system at the local level, putting the responsibility on the people. And by consolidating Federal education funds into a block grant we can assure that almost every school district will receive more funds for actual education rather than having the funds lost in a bureaucratic administration mire that exists here in Washington. Under the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, more than $11 billion would be distributed under the block grant approach. Currently, the costs of administering the programs that would be block granted represent nearly 15 percent of the $11 billion. The block grant approach would free up the administrative dollars, meaning nearly $1.5 billion more--$1.5 billion more--could be used for students instead of filling out forms to be sent back to Washington, DC. Mr. President, there are 788 Federal education programs that spend nearly $100 billion a year. How many of these are necessary? These programs are administered by 40 departments and agencies of the Federal Government. These agencies, I assure you, are not supportive of our proposal because they would not have anything to do. Well, it is time to do a top-to-bottom review of how we could streamline the delivery of education dollars to local communities, and I think Senator Gorton's amendment is the first step. It is my hope the President will support this approach through educational funding that puts children and teachers ahead of bureaucrats and program managers in Washington. So I think it is time for Washington to catch up with the American people on how to improve the educational opportunities of our children. Mr. President, I wonder if I could defer and make a short introduction of a resolution that would follow as opposed to interrupting the presentation by my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Washington.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. With that assurance, I would withdraw my second-degree amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that some of the additional funds Congress has added may be used by the Department of Energy to fund an $84 million cost-shared private research project for the development of a process for commercialization of a ceramic membrane used to convert natural gas to synthetic crude which can then be transported via conventional oil transportation systems?

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it has been submitted for clearance. Would the Senator care to suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the discussion we have had, it is my understanding that we have been able to address many of the concerns associated with the discussion on the $1.6 billion from oil leases from offshore Alaska. So it is my intention to withdraw my amendment. Further, it is my understanding that Senator Gorton agrees with me that the additional $800 million should be captured through legislation in the authorizing committee. I understand the floor manager would support that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is also my understanding that the House has added an additional $2 million above the administration request; and that the Senate has agreed to add $1.5m to the administration request.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have not heard back on the Presidio. There was a technical amendment pending on the Presidio. I am not aware whether or not that has been agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that the administration request for gas utilization was $4.8 million dollars.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And one more on stampede.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise today to speak about Title V of H.R. 2107--the Interior Appropriations Bill. Title V provides an additional $700 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), pursuant to the Balanced Budget Agreement, for priority land acquisitions and exchanges. While I had sought to have more money appropriated to the state-side LWCF matching grant program, I commend Senator Gorton for appropriating this $700 million in a manner consistent with the terms and spirit of the LWCF Act. Over 30 years ago, in a remarkable bipartisan effort, Congress and the President created the LWCF. The LWCF provides funds for the purchase of federal land by the land management agencies--the federal- side LWCF program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal, state, and local governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities--the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The LWCF is funded primarily from off-shore oil and gas leasing revenues which now exceed $3 billion annually, and has been authorized through the year 2015 at an annual ceiling of $900 million. However, LWCF monies must be annually appropriated. And, despite the increase in offshore oil and gas revenues, the LWCF has not fared well in this decade. Expenditures from the LWCF have fluctuated widely over its life but have generally ranged from $200 to $300 million per year. In the 1990s, total appropriations to both the federal and state sides of LWCF steadily declined from a high of $341 million during the Bush Administration to $149 million in FY 1997. Most significantly, all of the FY 1997 appropriation was for the exclusive purpose of federal land acquisition. In 1995, Congress and the President agreed to shut-down the state-side LWCF program. For FY 1998, the President requested $165 million for federal land acquisitions and only $1 million for monitoring previously funded state-side projects. The President did not request any funds for new state-side projects. After submitting his budget to Congress, the President appears to have seen the value of the LWCF. In the Balanced Budget Agreement, Congress and the President agreed to provide an additional $700 million for priority land acquisitions and exchanges from the LWCF. President Clinton wants all of this additional $700 million spent on Federal land acquisitions. He has not requested that any of this additional LWCF appropriation be used to fund the state-side LWCF matching grant program. Priority Federal Land Acquisitions As Senator Domenici stated on the Senate floor, the Balanced Budget Agreement, and the accompanying Concurrent Budget Resolution, provide no specifics as to how this additional $700 million is to be spent. Neither the Balanced Budget Agreement nor the Concurrent Budget Resolution mention, by name, any land acquisitions. Rather, Congressional leaders intended for this money to be appropriated through the normal legislative process. That is what Senator Gorton is trying to do in the Interior Appropriations Bill. The Clinton Administration has identified two priority Federal land acquisitions: the 7500 acre Headwaters Forest property in northern California and the 4000 acre New World Mine property in Montana. Last year before the election, the Clinton Administration proposed, with great fanfare, to acquire both of these properties through land exchanges. However, because of the Administration's reluctance to work with Congress to consummate these land exchanges, a number of problems arose. The President then decided to acquire these properties through an outright cash purchase, using $315 million of the additional LWCF monies provided in the Balanced Budget Agreement. The Senate Appropriations Committee, unlike its House counterpart, has agreed to fund these acquisitions. However, it has made this appropriation contingent on the enactment of separate authorizing legislation. As Chairman of the authorizing Committee--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--I congratulate the Senate appropriators for respecting the role of legislative committees. Title V of H.R. 2107 honors this historical division of responsibilities among authorizing and appropriations committees and the processes of the Senate, and the Congress. It also acknowledges that Congress needs to, and should, examine the details of the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. The decisions to acquire these properties were made with no public and little Congressional involvement. As a result, a significant number of unanswered questions surround both acquisitions. Examination of the acquisitions is best done by the authorizing committee. As an initial matter, Congress needs to authorize the use of LWCF monies. The LWCF Act provides a funding mechanism for the acquisition of Federal lands. It does not provide an independent basis for Federal land acquisitions. The LWCF Act specifies, with limited exceptions, that LWCF monies cannot be used for a Federal land purchase ``unless such acquisition is otherwise authorized by law.'' From the information available to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the exceptions to this prohibition do not apply to either the Headwaters Forest or the New World Mine acquisition. The Clinton Administration disagrees, contending that site-specific authorization for the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions is unnecessary because existing statutory authorities allow the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest Service to use LWCF monies. Yet, the Administration fails to analyze with any specificity exactly how the other authorities apply to the two acquisitions and override the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. For example, the Clinton Administration opines that the Forest Service has the authority to purchase the New World Mine property under the Weeks Act. However, the Weeks Act was enacted for the purpose of acquiring eastern forested land. At the same time, the LWCF Act limits the Forest Service's use of LWCF monies for acquisitions ``primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is recreation the primary value of the New World Mine property? Or, is the primary purpose of the acquisition to protect the character of Yellowstone National Park? What about the fact that the LWCF Act limits the Forest Service's use of LWCF monies west of the 100th meridian? Will the New World Mine acquisition, at greater than 4000 acres, run afoul of this limitation? Similar unanswered questions surround the Headwaters Forest acquisition. The Clinton Administration states that the Headwaters Forest would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. However, BLM is required to use LWCF monies for land acquisitions which are consistent with the applicable land use plan and ``necessary for the property management of public lands which are primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest even addressed in the applicable land use plan? Is it the Clinton Administration's position that the primary value of the Headwaters Forest is outdoor recreation? If so, how will the public access this new recreation resource? Or, because the Headwaters Forest has been identified as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act, is the Administration relying on the ESA as authorization for the acquisition? Does it then make sense for the property to be managed by the BLM? Is it the Administration's position that the ESA authorizes the acquisition of any and all private property containing endangered or threatened species and overrides the limitations in the LWCF Act? All of these questions need to be answered before the Congress accepts the Clinton Administration's assertion that existing laws authorize the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine and override the prohibitions in the LWCF Act. The Committee of jurisdiction is in the best position to conduct such an examination. Moreover, even if the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine can be acquired by the President without the enactment of separate authorizing legislation, Congressional authorization of the agreements is needed to avoid other statutory requirements normally applicable to Federal land purchases. Because the purchase prices for both the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine were the result of negotiation and dependent, in part, on other terms, the actual fair market value of the properties is unknown. With respect to the New World Mine, a 1995 National Park Service report estimates the fair market value of the property is less than $50 million. The Clinton Administration has agreed to purchase the property for $65 million. As to the Headwaters Forest, there is enormous discrepancy as to the property's value. The current owner contends the property has a value in excess of $700 million. A 1993 Forest Service appraisal values the property at $500 million. However, a 1996 analysis of the property conducted for the Department of Justice concludes that the property has a value between $20 million, applying current environmental restrictions, and $250 million, without any environmental restrictions. The Headwaters Forest property will be acquired for $380 million in cash and property. Moreover, the Clinton Administration apparently wants to ensure that the fair market value of the properties is never determined. On June 9, 1997, President Clinton submitted an amendment to his FY 1998 Interior Appropriations budget request to reflect the $700 million in LWCF monies included in the Balanced Budget Agreement. The recommended statutory language specifically references the negotiated purchase prices for the two acquisitions. The accompanying budget justification states ``by ratifying the specific lands to be acquired and the purchase prices contained in those negotiated agreements, these provisions would also obviate the need for the United States to undertake additional and costly appraisals under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act.'' 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. One of the primary purposes of this Act is to guarantee that any Federal land purchase is a good deal for the American taxpayer. It is bad precedent for Congress to bless the Administration's blatant disregard of this law. Congress needs to examine, and determine for itself, the fair market value of these properties and, whether or not the purchases are a good deal for the American taxpayer. This examination is properly done in the context of authorizing legislation. The magnitude of these acquisitions make the disregard of this law even more troubling. As noted in the Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying H.R. 2107, the $315 million spent to acquire the two properties is more than the total amount appropriated from the LWCF for land acquisitions over the past two years. Those appropriations have been used to acquire dozens of properties--the vast majority of which cost less than $1 million. None of them have been excluded from the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act. The Clinton Administration needs to explain to Congress why the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions warrant an exemption from the law. Congressional authorization is further needed because the Clinton Administration has committed the Federal government to more than the purchase of property. The New World Mine agreement requires that $22.5 million of the $65 million purchase price be used to finance the clean-up of the property which is contaminated from historic mining activities in the area. However, LWCF monies are not authorized for environmental clean-ups. While the Clinton Administration contends sufficient authorization exists for it to use LWCF monies to acquire the New World Mine property, nowhere does it argue that it may use $22.5 million of this LWCF appropriation for financing a private party's CERCLA-type cleanup. Whatever the contours of the debate over the proper uses and purposes of the LWCF Act, it is clear Congress never intended for the LWCF to be used as an environmental contamination insurance account. Yet, such an impermissible use is precisely what the Administration now proposes. Congress clearly needs to review and authorize such a use of LWCF monies. At the same time, the Agreement to purchase the Headwaters Forest requires that the Federal government and the property seller agree to a habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act for timber harvesting activities which will occur on the remaining 200,000 acres owned by the company. In fact, because of difficulties in negotiating an acceptable habitat conservation plan for this property, the timber company sued the Federal government. However, if the Federal government and company agree to a habitat conservation plan, and the Federal government purchases the property, the company's case against the Federal government will be dismissed. To date, no such agreement has been reached. I question, however, whether it is good public policy to settle litigation in this manner. I have touched upon some of the issues raised by the two acquisitions. I have not talked about the Clinton Administration's failure to acquire the properties through land exchanges, as originally proposed. Questions also exist about how, and at what cost, the Federal government will manage the properties upon acquisition. We have held no hearings on the New World Mine acquisition. We have held no hearings on the Headwaters Forest acquisition. Congress had no input into the decision to acquire them. In fact, most of us know little about the two proposals. We owe it to the American taxpayer to review these acquisitions--a review best done by the authorizing Committee. state-side LWCF matching grant program I also want to comment on the appropriation contained in H.R. 2107 for the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The state-side LWCF program has played a vital role in providing recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans. State-side LWCF grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation projects in all fifty states, including campgrounds, trails, and open space. The availability of outdoor recreation facilities is critical to the well-being of Americans. People who participate in outdoor recreation activities, are happier and healthier. Recreation is an important component of our economy. Moreover, while trips to our National Parks create experiences and memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day- out, people recreate close to home. In Fiscal Year 1995, the last year for which the state-side LWCF grant program was funded, there were nearly 3800 applications for state-side grants. Unfortunately, there was only enough money to fund 500 projects. In the intervening three years, the local and state demand for those resources has only increased. That is why state-side LWCF grants are so important. State-side LWCF grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for state-side LWCF grants, they provide vital seed-money which local communities use to forge partnerships with private entities. Unlike the Clinton Administration, the Interior Appropriations Committee has recognized the value of the state-side LWCF matching grant program. It appropriated $100 million to the program over the next four years and noted, in its report, that ``resource protection is not solely the responsibility nor the domain of the Federal Government, and that States can in many cases extract greater value from moneys'' appropriated from the LWCF. I congratulate Senator Gorton on this appropriation and am optimistic that this provision will remain in Conference. I have attached to my statement, for inclusion in the Record, two recent resolutions. The first, from the National Governors' Association, calls on the Federal government to revive the Land and Water Conservation Fund state-side matching grant program. This bill does that. The second letter, from the National Recreation and Park Association, urges the Senate to support the $100 million appropriation contained in the Interior Appropriations Bill. I ask unanimous consent that these items be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee I have taken a keen interest in the development of this technology. In fact at a committee hearing in July of this year we discussed some of these developing technologies. One thing that is becoming clear when you talk about natural gas conversion to liquids is that there is ``more than one way to skin a cat.'' In other words there seem to be a number of companies around the globe that are developing this technology with their own particular nitch. I would not, at this time try to predict which particular process is going to emerge as the best, nor would I attempt to predict when this technology will be used on a commercial basis. By some industry accounts this technology is here now. By others it is years off. Would the chairman agree that it makes sense then to possibly look at other methods being used to develop this technology.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the subcommittee chairman, the distinguished Senator from Washington would also support this?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It has great significance relative to the manner in which this body conducts itself.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask my learned colleague if he thinks that the constitutional matters are strictly in the realm of technical matters and are of no consequence, which is what the Senator from Arkansas inferred? This is a constitutional point of order, is it not?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yet, the Senator from Arkansas says it is a ``technical'' matter and of no consequence.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is not the fault of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We both follow the rules of the Senate. My question to the Senator is, does the Senator from Arkansas regard this issue as a technical matter when it is a constitutional provision?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Objection.