Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And one more on stampede.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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.

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

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. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleague the Senator from New Mexico with regard to the amendment that he has offered. What this amendment would do is avoid the ultimate budget gimmick, which is selling $60 a barrel oil for $18 and calling it ``income'' for the American taxpayer. These oil sales would result in $173 million actual loss to the American taxpayer. We have sold 28 million barrels of oil. What have we sold it for? To contribute to balancing the budget. Think of the inconsistency here. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975. We created it because at that time we were dependent on imported oil for about 36 or 37 percent of our oil consumption. Today we are facing a 52 percent dependence on imported oil. In light of our current situation, selling down the SPR simply makes no sense whatever. In 1975, when we were 32 percent dependent, we formulated the SPR with the idea we had to have a reserve oil supply in case of national emergency, and suddenly when we are 52 percent dependent, we start to sell the reserve? The oil from Elk Hills was supposed to go to the SPR, but we have waived the requirement for the last 10 years, and the oil was sold to balance the budget. Now we are selling Elk Hills, and it is only right that some of the money go to the purpose of stopping the drain on SPR. This amendment does not cost the taxpayers any money. What we are trying to do is try to avoid a huge loss. This amendment works within the budget rules and avoids a terrible policy result--both from the energy and budgetary standpoint--buying high and selling low. But the Government seems to do it all the time. We are like the man in the old joke who was buying high and selling low and who claimed that he ``would make it up on volume.'' So, today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing this amendment to provide a short-term source of funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Soon, the Department of Energy will complete the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, as directed by Congress. We are optimistic that the sale will raise more money than previously estimated. This amendment would place proceeds in excess of $2 billion from that sale in a fund that would be used to pay for the SPR. This amendment was proposed by the DOE and should, at a minimum, avoid an oil sale in the next fiscal year. I think it is appropriate that extra proceeds from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, after contributing to deficit reduction, be used to stop the drain on our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment will not permanently resolve the problems with providing funding for SPR, but it should temporarily stop the bleeding. In the face of our oil dependency, and the continuing drain on SPR, I can't resist noting that there are still some in this body that oppose the production of domestic oil resources. So as it stands now, this body does not appear to support the domestic storage or production of oil. Some may not like the reality that this Nation will continue to need petroleum. Petroleum moves our transportation system. We have no other alternative, at least none in the foreseeable future. However, reality doesn't cease to be a reality because we ignore it. We are talking about people's lives, jobs, their livelihood. I certainly understand the difficult task that the Appropriations Committee faces as it attempts to fund all of the important programs under its jurisdiction. However, I must insist that, in the future, we resist the temptation to drain the SPR to meet these priorities, if indeed the SPR has an objective at all, which is to serve as the country's energy security during a time of crisis. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment today. I also strongly urge my colleagues to join with us to permanently end the draining of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fulfill our shortsighted, short-term desires. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to bring an important element of the Alaskan national park experience to a wider range of visitors than has previously been the case. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, west of Juneau, can be reached only by boat or plane. Park headquarters at Bartlett Cove is 65 miles from Juneau. It is an additional 40 miles from Bartlett Cove to the park's signature tidewater glaciers. Glacier Bay proper is highly regulated by the National Park Service. Currently, only two cruise ships are allowed to proceed, from the outside, into Glacier Bay per day. This amendment is not about cruise ships, nor will it adversely impact the forty miles from Bartlett Cove to the tidewater glaciers. In fact, this amendment has nothing to do with going into the bay beyond Bartlett Cove at the entrance to the Park. Bartlett Cove, within Glacier Bay National Park, contains the Glacier Bay Lodge and Visitor Center, campground, Ranger Station, employee housing, maintenance facilities, etc. In short, it is the only developed area within the 3.3 million acre park. The Cove also includes the docking facilities for NPS craft and the daily concession-operated tour boat. Overnight facilities are extremely limited, so day-use concession trips are one of the only ways, short of taking a cruise ship from Vancouver, to visit the park. According to a recent ``Consumer Report's'' article, Glacier Bay is the highest rated park in America. The article does, unfortunately, mention the words ``if you can get to it''. Currently, daily or overnight guests who leave Juneau by ferry for Glacier Bay National Park must disembark at the Gustavus docking facility and then get into a bus and drive for 45 minutes to an hour, to get to the NPS unpaved portion of the road which then leads to the docking facility so that you can again board a tour boat to go out and see the tidewater glaciers. On the way back to Juneau from the glaciers, visitors travel by tour boat, then by the bus back through Gustavus, and finally by boat, back to Juneau. Mr. President, this amendment is about: Convenient visitor access, access for the handicapped, access for the elderly; and, safety. Somewhere along the line, in its effort to control the waters of Glacier Bay, the Bureaucracy forgot the concept that we are here to serve the all of the public * * * all of the people who would like to be National Park visitors * * * including the elderly, including those with handicaps and those whose age or physical condition necessitate easier forms of access to their national park. It may be a surprise to some, but, some park visitors cannot leap tall facilities in a single bound. Some visitors, because of a disabling condition cannot get from the deck of a boat to a deteriorating dock facility 18 feet overhead. Some visitors, even the most able among us, cannot be expected to jump from a boat on to an unprotected dock in high and windy seas just off of Icy Passage. Unfortunately, in Alaska, and specifically Glacier Bay National Park, we have forgotten about the park visitor's convenience and safety. The dock facility at Gustavus is inconvenient, it is less than handicapped accessible, it can certainly be considered unsafe in certain wind and sea conditions. This amendment will only allow the Auk Nu Marine--Glacier Bay Ferry to deliver park visitors, safely, to the protected harbor at Bartlett Cove within the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park so that they can conveniently board the tour boat, or go to the lodge * * * period. The amendment does nothing else. This amendment does not preclude the Superintendent from imposing speed limits and/or taking any other such actions to protect the wildlife and the other natural resources or waters of Glacier Bay National Park. The amendment is not an attempt to subvert the current permit system, it is not as complicated as how do you know when it's time to tune your bagpipes. The amendment is simple and straight forward. This amendment only involves safe and user-friendly access to the developed park facilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the managers of the bill have accepted an amendment I have offered concerning the organization and funding for the Alaska Region of the U.S. Forest Service. I appreciate the consideration of the managers on this matter. As many of my colleagues know, the Forest Service has recently completed the Tongass land management plan after a 10-year and $13 million effort. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has conducted an extended oversight process on the development of this plan and on the prospects for successful implementation upon completion. Hearings held in July, August, and this month have raised significant questions about whether the Forest Service is organized, staffed, and funded to assure full implementation of the Tongass land management plan. As a consequence of concerns raised during the early hearings in this series, the subcommittee chairman agreed to include language in the committee bill directing a reorganization of the Alaska Region. In subsequent hearings, we have collected additional information that suggests that, rather than moving to immediately reorganize the Alaska Region, it might be better to provide the Agency some direction on: First, the allocation of funds within the Alaska Region; and second, the development of a transition plan for implementation of the Tongass land management plan. I believe that through the information collection in the oversight process conducted by the Commission on Energy and Natural Resources we have developed a more perfected proposal than the one included in the committee bill. Therefore, I am offering, as an amendment to the committee bill, new language which directs that: Funds appropriated by this Act for Region 10 of the Forest Service to implement the Revised TLMP shall be spent and obligated at the Forest Supervisor and Ranger District levels. No funds appropriated under this or any other Act for the purpose of operations conducted at the Region 10 Headquarters, including funding of centralized field costs or funding of persons employed at the Regional Office, shall be obligated or expanded in excess of $17.5 million from the total funds appropriated for Region 10. The managers have also agreed to the following explanatory language in their statement explaining changes made to the committee bill: The Tongass Land Management Plan reduces the Allowable Sale Quantity of the Alaska region. It is presumed that the Forest Service will tailor its workforce and organization appropriately. The Committee notes that expenditures on Regional Office operations and centralized field costs at the Region Headquarters has risen to 30 percent from 18 percent of annual appropriated funds since 1993. The Committee recognizes that the reduced timber volume offered under this plan will create economic hardships for local communities and that imbalanced distribution of remaining federal jobs and spending in the region may compound those hardships. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Regional Forester to conduct a regional work load study and to develop a workforce plan that ensures high levels of customer service throughout the region, preserves the Regional Headquarters in Alaska, evaluates the need to consolidate and/or relocated offices, including relocating the Regional Office to Ketchikan, and provides for implementation by January 1, 2000. Further, the Committee expects the workforce plan to reflect the full participation of affected Southeast Alaska communities, and to include a community by community assessment of economic impacts and the rationale used by the Regional Forester to distribute federal jobs under the workforce plan. The Committee expects that the workforce plan will emphasize retention of personnel experience in Southeast Alaska's multiple use mission, will make maximum use of local hiring authority, and will be submitted to committees of jurisdiction in both the House and the Senate by March 1, 1998 for review and further guidance, if warranted. Any expenditures at the Regional Office in excess of $17.5 million from the funds provided to the Region shall be preceded by a 60-day notification of the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I believe that this language will provide direction to the Forest Service to allocate funds in a fashion that will come closer to assuring full implementation of the Tongass land management plan. This approach will materially improve Forest Service operations in Alaska. During our oversight process, we discovered that over the last 6 years the Agency has increased the amount of funds consumed in the Regional Office from an average of 18 percent of annual Regional appropriations to something closer to 30 percent. This has diminished the Agency's field capability. Now, with the TLMP complete it should be the Forest Service's intention to focus more of the funding and effort at the field level. Should the conferees be agreeable to adopting the language that we are including in the Senate bill, I would hope that conference report language could be included which directs the Forest Service to tailor its work force and organization appropriately. I would hope that the conferees note that expenditures on regional office operations and centralized field costs at the regional headquarters have risen to 30 percent from 18 percent of annual appropriated funds since 1993. I trust that everyone recognizes that the reduced timber volume offered under the new TLMP plan will create economic hardships for local communities and that imbalanced distribution of remaining Federal jobs and spending in the region may compound those hardships. Accordingly, I would hope that the conference report would direct the regional Forester to conduct a regional work load study and to develop a work force plan that ensures high levels of customer service throughout the region, preserves the regional headquarters in Alaska, evaluates the need to consolidate and/or relocate offices, including relocating the regional office to Ketchikan, and provides for implementation by January 1, 2000. Further, the workforce plan should reflect the full participation of affected southeast Alaska communities, and include a community-by- community assessment of economic impacts and the rationale used by the regional forester to distribute Federal jobs under the work force plan. I hope that any work force plan will emphasize retention of personnel experienced in southeast Alaska's multiple use mission, will make maximum use of local hiring authority, and will be submitted to committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate by March 1, 1998, for review and further guidance, if warranted. Under my amendment, any expenditures at the regional office in excess of $17.5 million from the funds provided to the region would have to be preceded by a 60-day notification of the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I believe this language properly reflects the results of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources oversight efforts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think there has been a little misunderstanding on the concept of road purchaser credits and the allegation that somehow this is corporate welfare. Logic will dictate that if we don't have purchaser credits for the construction of roads, those who are going to log in the forests, the Federal forests of this country, are simply going to bid less for the timber because they have to offset the costs of getting the timber out. They basically have to build the roads themselves. When the Government in this case builds the roads, as it has through the purchaser credit program, the Government has been benefiting by getting higher bids for its timber. Take this away and the Government will simply get less. That is the reality. That is the economics. It is not a matter of corporate welfare. It's a matter that the Federal Government owns the forest and has traditionally dictated the terms and conditions that the roads will be built on, so they are built to their standards. And the benefit of those roads to the States, for recreational purposes, is obvious. I rise to speak against the amendment of the junior Senator from Nevada. Not only does the amendment eliminate the purchaser road credit program, but it transfers $10 million out of road construction. I must strongly oppose the provisions. I think the amendment is bad policy. It would have a catastrophic impact on the management of the national forests. I urge my colleagues to defeat it. The Forest Service in my State has finally completed a land management plan for the Tongass. It took 10 years and $13 million to do it. I am, frankly, less than enthusiastic about the plan, and most of my colleagues are aware of my distress. It reduces timber sales by half. The two largest manufacturing employers in the pulp business in my State have closed their doors in the last 2 years. They have gone out of business. We have closed their doors. We have lost thousands of jobs in the last 2 years, and these have had a dramatic effect on our small communities in the southeast. Nevertheless, I have decided to set my lack of enthusiasm aside and focus my oversight responsibilities on implementation. At the September 10 hearing, I asked the Forest Service if it could achieve even the severely reduced allowable timber sale quantity in the Tongass if the Bryan plan were adopted. The answer was: If we don't have the money to support the roads program, we will not be able to deliver the economic sale program. They further stated that the Tongass depends heavily on the construction of new roads to deliver timber to the communities in southeastern Alaska. One might say, ``Why don't you go to the private sector?'' We don't have private timber. The Federal Government and the Forest Service own southeastern Alaska. There are cities and people there: Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Skagway, on and on and on. The theory was, through multiple use, those interests would be protected with a balanced timber industry. Therefore, according to the Forest Service, the Bryan amendment would render null and void the goals of the Tongass plan. It is kind of interesting, in a letter sent to the Senate only one day before the testimony, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman supported the Bryan amendment because roads pose the ``greatest environmental problems on the forests.'' You can't have it two ways. The roads provide recreation in the forest, they provide environmental benefits by providing access to stop fires, and I could go on and on and on. It is fairly inconsistent with the administration support for implementation of the Forest Service's final Tongass land management plan, but I have grown accustomed to the flip-flops of the administration on these issues. But Secretary Glickman isn't holding a position long enough to make it warm. Finally, the Bryan amendment is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate sales on the national forests. At least we have seen some of the groups like the Sierra Club come out in opposition to any harvesting of the national forest. That is basically what this administration is attempting to do, and this is how they are attempting to do it. The amendment isn't about subsidies, the amendment isn't about saving money, the amendment does nothing more than carry out the agenda of the extremists. I will conclude by pointing to this chart, Mr. President, which simply shows where the money has gone and the decline in road miles. In 1985, we had 8,000; in 1998, 2,652. It shows reconstruction taking up the major portions. We maintain the roads that we have previously built. There is very little for new construction, roughly 18 percent. So there is the picture, Mr. President. It says it better than I could relative to what is happening with this program with the necessity of maintaining it and maintaining the forest products industry as we know it today and the appropriate role of the national forest in providing a renewable resource in the timber that grows so profusely, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. I thank the Chair, and I thank the floor managers. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering would amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to permit the Virgin Islands to issue parity bonds rather than priority bonds as now required under the organic legislation. The amendment would also permit the Virgin Islands to issue short-term revenue bonds in anticipation of the receipt of taxes and other revenues. These are authorities generally available to the States. The Governor requested this authority. The Delegate supported the legislation. The administration testified in support of the provisions and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources unanimously adopted the provisions as part of S. 210, which has passed the Senate. Inclusion of this language on this measure may facilitate providing the Government of the Virgin Islands with this authority and I thank the managers of this legislation for their cooperation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing on the Federal agency energy management provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel to the committee, at (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy's efforts to amend and reauthorize the Visa Waiver Pilot Program [VWPP]. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been highly successful program, freeing up embassy staff, promoting tourism and trade, and fostering closer ties between our country and her allies. Chairman Abraham has made a number of important changes to the VWPP which I believe will make this program even more successful. The changes include tightening controls so that there will not be abuse of the program, and adjusting the admission criteria to include deserving countries. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong advocate of including South Korea in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. I believe no other country, not currently included in the pilot program, represents as close an ally as South Korea. As our fifth largest export market, home to 37,000 of our troops, and with an economy larger than all but 5 of the current visa waiver countries, this democratic country deserves the right to participate in this program. With a 1996 unemployment rate of 2 percent, lower than all but one of the VWPP countries, the burgeoning middle class in South Korea should be able to travel to the United States without the cumbersome restraints associated with citizens traveling from high-risk countries. The Abraham legislation is a positive step, but it is unclear if South Korea will be eligible for the VWPP in the short term because of the bill's continued reliance on refusal rates as the defining criteria for admission. However, under this legislation Korea stands a much better chance of becoming eligible than under current law. For this reason and the fact that Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy have strengthened the safeguards in the VWPP, I am supporting this legislation. This bill expands along the concept of promoting tourism and trade and fostering closer ties between our country and our allies by increasing the refusal rates needed to become eligible for inclusion into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The bill also addresses many of the concerns raised by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Justice Department by including additional safeguards to ensure that the program is not abused and becomes a vehicle for illegal immigration. For instance, in order for a visa waiver country to be redesignated as a visa waiver country, under this legislation the Attorney General must make precise estimates, based upon data collected from an automated entry-exit control system, of the overstay rates of each country. If the Attorney General cannot make an estimate for a country, that country will lose its privilege to travel to the United States visa free. In the past, Congress could not adequately monitor the effectiveness of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. With the requirements for overstay rates, Congress will have analytical evidence that countries are not abusing this privilege and that the Visa Waiver Pilot Program works. Coupled with the additional safeguards, including the requirement for machine readable and highly fraud resistant passports for countries entering the program, the entry-exit control system, already being implemented by INS, will ensure that the VWPP continues to be successful. I would like to see further changes. For example, changing the reliance on arbitrary refusal rates decided in many cases by overworked staff in our embassies and consulate offices abroad. Examples where embassy staff have mistakingly denied visas, abound. They include: President Kim Young Sam's sister rejected the first time she applied for a tourist visa. The daughter of the chairman of the multibillion-dollar company, Hyundai, was rejected for a student visa based on insufficient financial resources. The son of the president of IBM Korea was rejected because the consular office did not believe the son would be a good student. He had already been accepted in the school in the United States. For South Korea, where our United States Embassy processes more nonimmigrant visa applications than any other country in the world, the use of the refusal rate automatically puts South Korea at a disadvantage. This needs to be corrected. Perhaps with the establishment of a working entry-exit control system required in this bill, the overstay rate coupled with other objective criteria can be used to determine eligibility. I would like to commend Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy for taking such an active role regarding Korea and the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The Subcommittee on Immigration on the Judiciary Committee has worked closely with my staff to try to accommodate my concerns. I look forward to working closely with both Senators in the future regarding this issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the nominations hearing previously scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, September 18, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. will now take place at 9 a.m. in room SE-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Flint at (202) 224-5070. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy's efforts to amend and reauthorize the Visa Waiver Pilot Program [VWPP]. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been highly successful program, freeing up embassy staff, promoting tourism and trade, and fostering closer ties between our country and her allies. Chairman Abraham has made a number of important changes to the VWPP which I believe will make this program even more successful. The changes include tightening controls so that there will not be abuse of the program, and adjusting the admission criteria to include deserving countries. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong advocate of including South Korea in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. I believe no other country, not currently included in the pilot program, represents as close an ally as South Korea. As our fifth largest export market, home to 37,000 of our troops, and with an economy larger than all but 5 of the current visa waiver countries, this democratic country deserves the right to participate in this program. With a 1996 unemployment rate of 2 percent, lower than all but one of the VWPP countries, the burgeoning middle class in South Korea should be able to travel to the United States without the cumbersome restraints associated with citizens traveling from high-risk countries. The Abraham legislation is a positive step, but it is unclear if South Korea will be eligible for the VWPP in the short term because of the bill's continued reliance on refusal rates as the defining criteria for admission. However, under this legislation Korea stands a much better chance of becoming eligible than under current law. For this reason and the fact that Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy have strengthened the safeguards in the VWPP, I am supporting this legislation. This bill expands along the concept of promoting tourism and trade and fostering closer ties between our country and our allies by increasing the refusal rates needed to become eligible for inclusion into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The bill also addresses many of the concerns raised by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Justice Department by including additional safeguards to ensure that the program is not abused and becomes a vehicle for illegal immigration. For instance, in order for a visa waiver country to be redesignated as a visa waiver country, under this legislation the Attorney General must make precise estimates, based upon data collected from an automated entry-exit control system, of the overstay rates of each country. If the Attorney General cannot make an estimate for a country, that country will lose its privilege to travel to the United States visa free. In the past, Congress could not adequately monitor the effectiveness of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. With the requirements for overstay rates, Congress will have analytical evidence that countries are not abusing this privilege and that the Visa Waiver Pilot Program works. Coupled with the additional safeguards, including the requirement for machine readable and highly fraud resistant passports for countries entering the program, the entry-exit control system, already being implemented by INS, will ensure that the VWPP continues to be successful. I would like to see further changes. For example, changing the reliance on arbitrary refusal rates decided in many cases by overworked staff in our embassies and consulate offices abroad. Examples where embassy staff have mistakingly denied visas, abound. They include: President Kim Young Sam's sister rejected the first time she applied for a tourist visa. The daughter of the chairman of the multibillion-dollar company, Hyundai, was rejected for a student visa based on insufficient financial resources. The son of the president of IBM Korea was rejected because the consular office did not believe the son would be a good student. He had already been accepted in the school in the United States. For South Korea, where our United States Embassy processes more nonimmigrant visa applications than any other country in the world, the use of the refusal rate automatically puts South Korea at a disadvantage. This needs to be corrected. Perhaps with the establishment of a working entry-exit control system required in this bill, the overstay rate coupled with other objective criteria can be used to determine eligibility. I would like to commend Senator Abraham and Senator Kennedy for taking such an active role regarding Korea and the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The Subcommittee on Immigration on the Judiciary Committee has worked closely with my staff to try to accommodate my concerns. I look forward to working closely with both Senators in the future regarding this issue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, later during the Senate's consideration of this bill, the Interior appropriations bill, there will be, it is my understanding, a rider offered by Senator Bryan of Nevada. That rider would reduce the Forest Service road construction by $10 million, roughly 20 percent. It would eliminate the Forest Service's Purchaser Credit Road Construction Program and modify the formula for receipt- sharing for Forest Service receipts with the counties. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I intend to rise in opposition to the amendment and vote against it. I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. But I wanted to share a brief perspective with my colleagues from the standpoint of the chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over these matters. The Bryan amendment will follow hard on the heels of a similar amendment which was offered in the House by Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Porter in July. That amendment precipitated, as a consequence, a very intense debate in which numerous sets of facts were presented to the House and some statements were made that were not necessarily factual. Not surprisingly, the material that was brought into the debate, to a large degree, was in conflict. I have often believed that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that we ought to try to express our opinions using a commonly held set of facts. Oftentimes in this Chamber rhetoric will prevail over sound science simply because of the inability of the scientists to be heard and the scientists' willingness to stand behind their recommendations with their professional reputations. Mr. President, both the Speaker and my House counterpart, the Congressman for Alaska, Congressman Young, as chairman of the House Resources Committee, agree with this proposition. As a consequence, today Congressman Young has sent me a letter, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.