Frank Murkowski

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, September 17, 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. 1158, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Huna Totem Corp. public land exchange, and for other purposes, and S. 1159, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Kake Tribal Corp. public interest land exchange, and for other purposes. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and obtain his understanding regarding how the periodic reevaluation will affect those secondary uses that are authorized for less than 10 years.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been consulted on these two issues, and that they have concurred with your explanation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to obtain his understanding regarding how the periodic reevaluation will affect those secondary uses that are authorized for longer than 10 years.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today on behalf of the Huna Totem Corp. and the residents of Hoonah, AK. This bill would require the Huna Totem Corp. to convey ownership of approximately 1,999 acres of land needed as a municipal watershed to the U.S. Forest Service. This will ensure that the residents of Hoonah, AK, have a reliable source of clean water. In exchange for these lands the Huna Totem Corp. will be allowed to select other lands readily accessible to Hoonah in order to fulfill their ANCSA entitlement. This legislation also requires the exchange of lands to be of equal value and provides for additional compensation if needed. Lastly, the legislation requires that any potential timber harvested from land acquired by Huna Totem Corp not be available for export. Mr. President, the city of Hoonah is located in southeast Alaska on the northeast part of Chichagoff Island. Hoonah has been the home of the Huna people since the last advance of the great ice masses into Glacier Bay, forcing the Huna people to look for new homes. Since the Huna people had traditionally used the Hoonah area each summer as a subsistence harvesting area, it was natural for them to settle in the area now called Hoonah. The community has a population of approximately 918 residents and is located 40 miles from Juneau; Alaska's capital city. Within the city of Hoonah is located the Huna Totem Corp., an Alaska Native Corp. formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. Huna Totem is the largest Tlingit Indian Village Corp. in southeast Alaska. Under the terms of ANCSA each village corporation had to select lands within the core township or townships in which all or part of the Native village is located. In 1975, Huna Totem filed its ANCSA land selections within the 2 mile radius of the city of Hoonah as mandated by ANCSA. Since the community of Hoonah is located along the shoreline at the base of Hoonah Head Mountain, the surrounding lands are steep hillsides, cliffs, or are designated watershed for the municipal water sources. Most of the acres, approximately 1,999, of this land are not conducive to logging or development due to the topography and watershed limitations. Therefore in order for the Huna Totem Corp. to receive full economic benefit of the lands promised to them under ANCSA, and for the city of Hoonah to protect its watershed, alternative lands must be sought for Huna Totem to seek revenue from. The legislation I am offering today would achieve these goals. By authorizing a land exchange between the Huna Totem Corp. and the U.S. Forest Service the residents of Hoonah will be assured a safe supply of drinking water. Additionally, Huna Totem Corp. will be able to fully recognize the benefits promised under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Kake Tribal Land Exchange Act. This legislation would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which authorized the transfer of 23,040 acres of land from the U.S. Government to Kake Tribal Corp. The land was transferred to Kake to recognize an immediate need for a fair and just settlement. Unfortunately, Kake has not received the full beneficial use of its 23,040 acres because the city's watershed--over 2,400 acres--rest within Kake Tribal's lands. In order to protect the city's watershed and still receive beneficial use of their 23,040 acres we are proposing land exchange. This will assist the people of Kake, AK, as they move toward a safer, cleaner, and healthier future. Under this proposal, Kake Tribal would exchange the watershed for other acres in southeast Alaska--thereby allowing Kake to receive its full entitlement under ANCSA. This legislation is of great importance to the residents of the community of Kake, AK. This legislation will ensure protection of the Gunnuk Creek watershed which is the main water supply for the city of Kake as well as protect critical habitat for the Gunnuk Creek hatchery. The legislation has received wide support in Alaska from diverse groups such as: the city of Kake, AK, the organized village of Kake, the Kake nonprofit fishery, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Sealaska Corp. Additionally, the Governor of Alaska has written to me in support of this exchange. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced last year and held hearings on in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. During these hearings the Forest Service objected to the bill for four reasons, all of which have been addressed in the legislation I now introduce. The first issue was the potential selection of Berners Bay/Slate Lake Parcel. Kake has made it clear as evident in the maps that they have no intention of selecting that area. Second, was the potential that Kake would select established log transfer facilities. Again it is clear from the maps that these areas will not be selected. Third, was regarding subsurface issues with Sealaska which are not addressed in this current version of the bill. And finally, the USFS objected to this exchange because they did not want to manage the watershed. Since the hearing the city of Kake has said they want to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service to manage the watershed themselves. Additionally, Mr. President there is a provision in this bill that assures Kake Tribal will receive appropriate compensation for the watershed lands to be exchanged. This is important because this legislation would require Kake Tribal to process any timber derived from the newly acquired lands in State, potentially reducing the value of lands received. Therefore, in order to provide for a fair compensation, under the terms of this legislation Kake Tribal could be eligible for additional compensation should the value of the newly acquired lands be deemed less than their original lands. Likewise, the United States could also benefit from this provision should a determination be made that the lands they are receiving are less valuable then those they are conveying. I introduce this legislation with the confidence that it is the best interest of not only the citizens of Kake but with the knowledge that it is in the best interest of all Alaskans and Americans to protect drinking water for our communities. Lastly, this legislation will help fulfill out commitment to the Natives of Alaska that they will be treated fairly and justly under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today on behalf of the Huna Totem Corp. and the residents of Hoonah, AK. This bill would require the Huna Totem Corp. to convey ownership of approximately 1,999 acres of land needed as a municipal watershed to the U.S. Forest Service. This will ensure that the residents of Hoonah, AK, have a reliable source of clean water. In exchange for these lands the Huna Totem Corp. will be allowed to select other lands readily accessible to Hoonah in order to fulfill their ANCSA entitlement. This legislation also requires the exchange of lands to be of equal value and provides for additional compensation if needed. Lastly, the legislation requires that any potential timber harvested from land acquired by Huna Totem Corp not be available for export. Mr. President, the city of Hoonah is located in southeast Alaska on the northeast part of Chichagoff Island. Hoonah has been the home of the Huna people since the last advance of the great ice masses into Glacier Bay, forcing the Huna people to look for new homes. Since the Huna people had traditionally used the Hoonah area each summer as a subsistence harvesting area, it was natural for them to settle in the area now called Hoonah. The community has a population of approximately 918 residents and is located 40 miles from Juneau; Alaska's capital city. Within the city of Hoonah is located the Huna Totem Corp., an Alaska Native Corp. formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. Huna Totem is the largest Tlingit Indian Village Corp. in southeast Alaska. Under the terms of ANCSA each village corporation had to select lands within the core township or townships in which all or part of the Native village is located. In 1975, Huna Totem filed its ANCSA land selections within the 2 mile radius of the city of Hoonah as mandated by ANCSA. Since the community of Hoonah is located along the shoreline at the base of Hoonah Head Mountain, the surrounding lands are steep hillsides, cliffs, or are designated watershed for the municipal water sources. Most of the acres, approximately 1,999, of this land are not conducive to logging or development due to the topography and watershed limitations. Therefore in order for the Huna Totem Corp. to receive full economic benefit of the lands promised to them under ANCSA, and for the city of Hoonah to protect its watershed, alternative lands must be sought for Huna Totem to seek revenue from. The legislation I am offering today would achieve these goals. By authorizing a land exchange between the Huna Totem Corp. and the U.S. Forest Service the residents of Hoonah will be assured a safe supply of drinking water. Additionally, Huna Totem Corp. will be able to fully recognize the benefits promised under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this resolution honoring the memory of a woman who may be the 20th century world's greatest role model and humanitarian, Mother Teresa. Words cannot express the contribution she has made to humankind. By her selfless acts over the past five decades administering to the poorest of the poor, she has set an example for how we all should try to live. The world would be a far better place if all people followed the light of her shining example. I have heard the word ``Saint'' used in the same breath as the name Mother Teresa. It is hard to imagine any other person who has lived in this century to whom that appellation would better apply. Hers was truly a life of selflessness, where the totality of her identity comes through service to God. I have, in my life, met many people who have been major actors on the world stage--Presidents, Prime Ministers and other leading officials at home and abroad. This year, I had the opportunity to meet and briefly talk with this very frail nun in our Capitol. This was an honor that I will cherish throughout my life. It is not often that I have had the chance to be with someone whose very presence is so intensely humbling. That was the case with Mother Teresa. She truly was representative of the best in the human spirit and will be remembered for centuries to come. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nominations of Ernest J. Moniz to be Under Secretary, Department of Energy; Michael Telson to be chief financial officer, Department of Energy; Mary Anne Sullivan to be general counsel, Department of Energy; Dan Reicher to be Assistant Secretary for Energy, Efficiency, and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy; Robert Gee to be Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy; and John Angell to be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Energy. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 18, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Camille Flint at (202) 224-5070. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public the postponement of a hearing scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing was to take place Tuesday, September 16, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing was oversight of Federal outdoor recreation policy. The hearing will be rescheduled for a later date. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-3329.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, September 10, 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 from the Forest Service on their organizational structure, staffing, and budget for the Alaska Region. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, September 16, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is oversight of Federal outdoor recreation policy. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-3329.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 11, 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. 660, a bill to provide for the continuation of higher education through the conveyance of certain lands in the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes and S. 1092, a bill to provide for a transfer of land interests in order to facilitate surface transportation between the cities of Cold Bay, AK, and King Cove, AK, and for other purposes. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a significant achievement for the literary arts in Alaska and for the University of Alaska system, in general, and the University of Alaska Anchorage, in specific. Last month, on June 8, 1997, the spring and summer 1997 edition of the Alaska Quarterly Review was recognized in the Washington Post book review section, Book World, as ``one of the nation's best literary magazines.'' That is high praise indeed coming from the Eastern press, and justified, if not long overdue recognition, of the literary prowess of the publication. In the 15 years since its inception at the Anchorage campus of the University of Alaska in 1982, the Alaska Quarterly Review (AQR) has served as an instrument to give voice to Alaska writers and poets, while also publishing the best of material from non-Alaskan authors. While the AQR is firmly rooted in Alaska, it maintains a national perspective--bridging the distance between the literary centers and Alaska, while also sharing an Alaskan perspective. This balanced presentation of views has earned AQR local, regional and national/ international recognition over the years. It is nice that recognition now also has come from a publication in the Nation's Capital. ``Congratulations for publishing one of the best among the literary magazines,'' said Carl Houck Smith, vice president and editor of W.W. Norton, in comments made in May 1994. ``AQR is highly recommended and deserves applause,'' said Bill Katz in the Library Journal. ``It is an impressive publication, comprising as diverse and rewarding an aggregation of work as a reader is likely to find in any literary journal,'' added Patrick Parks in the Literary Magazine Review. ``The Magazine has a wonderful sense of place about it, and it conveys Alaska without being parochial. It's not pushing a particular agenda. There's no coterie of writers made up of the editor's friends. The work is original and fresh,'' says contributing editor Stuart Dybek in explaining the publication's success. The review, for example, won the 1996 Alaska Governor's Award for the Arts--Alaska's highest award in the arts. Recent works in the review have been selected for or won: 1997 Prize Stories: The O. Henry Awards (Anchor Books/ Doubleday). 1996 Prize Stories: The O. Henry Awards (Anchor Books/ Doubleday). 1996 Best American Poetry (Scribner) 1995 Best American Essays (Houghton Mifflin) 1995 Andres Berger Award (Northwest Writers Inc.) The Pushcart Prize (1995-96 Pushcart Prize XX and 1996-97 Pushcart Prize XXI: The Best of the Small Presses). UAA's 1995 Chancellor's Group Award for Excellence in research and creative activity. 1994 Special Recognition Award from the Alaska Center for the Book. And numerous mentions in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Small Press Review, Best American Essays, Novel and Short Story Writers Market, and in a host of other publications. I rise today to honor the publication, not just because of its many awards, but because many Alaskans do not understand or appreciate the breadth and scope of the publication and how important it has become as a gateway for Alaskan authors to winning recognition from a wider literary audience. And also how it has helped to improve the literary quality of the works of Alaskan writers. I hope by these words, Alaskans will recognize how fortunate the 49th State is to have such a quality publication being edited and published from Anchorage. I want to thank the University of Alaska Board of Regents and the leadership of the University of Alaska Anchorage for supporting the publication. Alaska's university system has been facing difficult economic times because of falling Alaska State revenues. It has taken a tremendous commitment to academic excellence to continue the funding necessary to permit the review to be a quality publication and artistic success. The University deserves great credit for its efforts at promoting the publications in these difficult financial times. It is because of the need for more revenues for the University to permit it to reach the highest level of greatness possible that I have introduced legislation to help the University finally gain the land-grant entitlement it should have received at its founding. I hope that this Congress will look favorably on my bill, S. 660. The University of Alaska Land grant bill, to help the University gain the economic means to support such important endeavors. But more on that in the future, following committee review of the legislation, likely this fall. I also want to thank and publicly recognize the work of Ronald Spatz, the executive editor and founding editor of the review for all of his efforts on its behalf. Mr. Spatz, currently professor and chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage's Department of Creative Writing and Literary Arts and director of UAA's honors program, has been a member of the faculty since 1980. A professor, who has been recognized with commendations for ``Outstanding Leadership'' by the University's Board of Regents and the President of the statewide system, Mr. Spatz is the former chair of the University of Alaska Statewide Assembly, president of the UAA Assembly and the vice president of the Faculty Senate. He is the winner of two university-wide teaching awards: The Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Teaching and the Distinguished Teacher of the Year Award presented by the UAA Alumni Association. Mr. Spatz, a film maker and writer, besides editor, has produced, directed, photographed and edited a range of short subject and expressionist documentary films for children and adults. Several of the films are in national distribution; his film, ``For the Love of Ben,'' was broadcast nationally on public television and his stories and articles have appeared in a host of publications. He has received a total of more than 35 individual and project grants for his works. For the future, due to a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, which has provided three major awards (grants) to the publication, AQR this fall will be issuing a special anthology. ``Intimate Voice, Ordinary Lives: Stories of Fact and Fiction.'' Mr. President, Alaska, in fact all of America, is far richer artistically because of the review's presence over the past 15 years. It truly is a window for Americans to view society in Alaska at the close of the 20th century, and a worthy stage for the serious works of all writers. I commend it and its contributors for its many achievements, and I know all members of the U.S. Senate join me in wishing it continued literary success.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today our negotiators are gathering in Bonn, Germany to continue negotiations toward a new climate treaty, so it is appropriate to address the Senate on this issue. My comments today will focus on the issue of science, scientific certainty, and scientific honesty. During the Senate's debate on Friday there were some general and specific comments made about climate science that were simply wrong, and I'd like to begin by addressing some of the general misunderstandings that may exist. First, some of our colleagues seem to have it in their minds that there is scientific certainty and consensus over the issue of whether or not human activities are causing global warming. This is simply not true. While it is true that Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth said that ``the science is settled,'' it is clear that there is not a broad scientific consensus that human activities are causing global warming. Don't take my own word for it: The prestigious journal Science, in its issue of May 16th, says that climate experts are a long way from proclaiming that human activities are heating up the earth. Even Benjamin Santer, lead author of chapter 8 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report admits as much. Here is what Dr. Santer says: We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal. Indeed, the search for the ``human fingerprint'' is far from over with many scientists saying that a clear resolution is at least a decade away. Even the Chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Bert Bolin, says that the science is not settled. When told that Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth had said the science was settled, Dr. Bolin replied: ``I've spoken to [Tim Wirth], I know he doesn't mean it.'' Mr. President, the science is not settled. We continue to spend over $2 billion on the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program for the simple reason that the science is not settled. We know human activities result in carbon emissions. We also know that land-based records indicate that some warming has occurred. We do not know that one has caused the other. Let me now turn to some specific statements that were made during the debate last Friday that simply don't agree with the latest scientific literature: My good friend, Senator Kerry, said (on page S8118 of the Congressional Record) that the ``global average temperature has changed by less than a degree Celsius up or down for 10,000 years--[and that] the projected warming is expected to exceed any climate change that has occurred during the history of civilization.'' Unfortunately, the facts simply don't match up with Senator Kerry's statement. According to data from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, temperatures were up to 3 deg.C higher than present values some 2500-3000 years ago. (Reference: L. Keigwin, Science, volume 274, p. 1504-1508, 1996.) In addition, independent studies using a different set of data indicate abrupt worldwide changes in temperature about 8000 years ago. (Reference: Stager and Mayewski, Science, volume 276, p. 1834, 1997.) Another statement made by Senator Kerry (on page S8137 of the Congressional Record) claims that ``. . . we are living in the midst of the most significant increase that we have seen in 130 years, and the evidence of the prognosis of our best scientists is that it is going to continue at a rate that is greater than anything we have known since humankind, since civilization has existed, civilization within the last 8,000 to 10,000 years on this planet.'' Well, the facts are somewhat different. The most significant temperature increase in the last 130 years occurred between 1900 and 1940, and is generally believed to be a natural warming, a recovery from the Little Ice Age. In pointing these facts out, it is not my contention that Senator Kerry is trying to mislead anyone. He is merely repeating some of the information that has been provided to him by his staff or others, and I know he believes them to be correct. But they are not correct. I believe this makes my point that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this issue, in addition to the lack of scientific certainty I alluded to earlier. I'd like to briefly turn my attention to a few statements made by others outside the Senate about the science of Climate Change. When I opened the newspaper on Saturday I was amused to see the level of ``spin control'' that some were attempting with respect to the Senate's actions of Friday. Indeed, on page A11 of Saturday's Washington Post, in an article by Helen Dewar, I read that Phillip Clapp, the President of the Environmental Information Center, said the Byrd resolution ``endorses the science on global warming . . .'' Well, I hope the public and the press will follow the wise counsel of Senator Byrd and allow the resolution to speak for itself. Indeed, the resolution does not say anything about endorsing the science of global warming. If it had, it would not have passed the Senate at all . . . much less than by a vote of 95-0. Special interest groups will, I suppose, do their best to advance their special interests. But we should demand a certain level of integrity and scientific honesty in our public debate of this issue. This brings me to the final issue that I wish to address today--the issue of scientific honesty and integrity. As pointed out above, there is a great deal of scientific uncertainty about climate change. Well respected, highly qualified scientific experts disagree over this issue. The hearings held before the Energy Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee have all featured solid, respected scientists--some of whom question the link between human activities and a warming planet. Before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which I chair, Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics questioned the link between human activities and climate change. Before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out problems with the General Circulation Models that are the basis for the predictions of warming. My Committee also heard from Dr. V. Ram Ramanathan of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, about the role of water vapor as a confounding factor in these models. In the Environment and Public Works Committee, Dr. John R. Christy of the Earth System Science Laboratory at the University of Alabama in Huntsville discussed the satellite temperature records that conflict with ground-based data. Before the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, directly challenged the links between human activities and observed warming. These are all respected scientists. They are not crackpots, nay- sayers, or as some press accounts have branded them, a ``small and noisy band of skeptics.'' Instead, they are scientists, doing what scientists do. Consistent with the scientific method, they are challenging the findings of other scientists, in an open, intellectually honest manner, using all the data and analysis that they can bring to bear. That is how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, the proponents of the view that we must take extreme actions now to address climate change have been attacking the credibility and the reputations of some scientists who do not share their view. Instead of attacking their science, they attack the scientist. They claim that scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus view of climate change are part of some kind of anti-science conspiracy, funded by big oil and big coal to deliberately mislead the American public. That sounds silly, doesn't it? Yet, on the Diane Rehm radio program which aired locally on WAMU-FM on July 21, a prominent guest made some pretty remarkable assertions. Let me quote from the transcript of this radio interview: . . . it's an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts . . . the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people. A ``conspiracy,'' Mr. President. ``Pseudo scientists.'' ``A deliberate attempt to mislead the American people.'' ``Un-American.'' These are serious charges. Who was the guest who was making these charges of a conspiracy designed to deliberately mislead the American people? Was this guest calling Dr. Lindzen a pseudo scientist? Or Dr. Baliunas? Or any of the others I mentioned? Are they part of this conspiracy? Sadly, a member of the President's Cabinet--the Secretary of the Interior--was responsible for these remarks. Here is a political appointee who appears to be making judgments about the scientific integrity of others. Those were unfortunate remarks, Mr. President. And they are the sort of remarks I hope that the Senate will avoid as we continue the debate on climate change. Let us keep to the high road. Let us appreciate the fact that scientists, and indeed, all Americans, are free to disagree and to challenge the views of others in honest, public debate. There will be disagreements. Just as I challenged the scientific understanding of Senator Kerry on several issues earlier in my remarks, others will surely challenge my understanding of the science at some point in the debate. And in the process, we will all learn. That is the way it should be. But there will be some, Mr. President, who will attack the scientist instead of the science. There will be some who say that you must agree with me, or you must be part of some conspiracy that is trying to mislead the American people. That, to use Secretary Babbitt's words, strikes me as un-American. Let's not fear a healthy scientific debate. Instead, let's depend on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 1 month ago, Hong Kong reverted to the control of the People's Republic of China, ending over 150 years of colonial rule. This was a historic and unprecedented event in Chinese history. I was honored to serve as the chairman of the official Senate delegation that attended the handover ceremonies along with several of our colleagues from the House of Representatives, led by Congressman Chris Cox. I hope that when I return to Hong Kong next year, and the year after, and the year after, I will witness the same optimism that I observed during the transition from British to Chinese rule. The people of Hong Kong should be congratulated for their determination to keep Hong Kong the pearl of the Orient. During our visit, our delegation was fortunate to meet with the new chief executive, C.H. Tung, as well as his Chief Secretary, the highly respected civil servant, Anson Chan. This duo has been referred to as the dream team and the name is well deserved. It is my opinion that if C.H. Tung and Anson Chan work together they will lead Hong Kong to a brighter future. But they will face severe trials. The ``one country, two systems'' approach of the late Chairman Deng is untested, and I predict that there will be hurdles to its implementation, especially in the area of personal and political autonomy. The purpose of the Senate Delegation to Hong Kong was to demonstrate our continued commitment to support the people of Hong Kong and to protect United States interests. And Congress will continue to monitor events in Hong Kong. The key events that I think will determine whether this experiment will work are the following: Whether the elections C.H. Tung has called for May of 1998 are free and fair and allow broad participation. Whether the Court of Final Appeal functions as the final word, or whether the PRC People's Congress uses the fig leaf of ``national security'' to step in and usurp Hong Kong's legal system. How the PRC Government handles Martin Lee, and other democrats. Thus far, democratic protests have continued without intervention. What happens to the first paper to publish a Pro-Taiwan or Pro-Tibet editorial. Whether Chief Secretary Anson Chan stays in her post after 1998, and whether there is an exodus of other civil servants. But I also urge restraint by my colleagues. We should not assume the worst for Hong Kong. Specifically, we should not alter trade laws that assume that Hong Kong cannot enforce her borders and her laws. If Hong Kong cannot live up to her commitments in this regard, then the United States should act, but we should not act prematurely. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to extend my commitment to the people of Hong Kong to support their efforts. I hope on my next trip to Hong Kong I can say that Hong Kong remains the vibrant, successful, energetic engine of Asia.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there are many elements of the tax package that I strongly support including the children's tax credit, the reduction in capital gains, and the first step in estate tax relief. For those reasons, I will vote for the tax package. However, I want to take a moment to discuss with my colleagues what I believe is a fundamental inequity in the structure of the package. What I am referring to is the new air passenger tax formula. The conferees rejected the Senate's approach, which would have maintained the current flat 10-percent tax and instead adopted a dual tax structure that imposes both a flat tax and per-segment, per-passenger tax. This new formula fundamentally discriminates against low-fare carriers, especially those who fly smaller aircraft that make multiple intermediate stops. The new formula will have an especially detrimental effect on flights to and from the lower 48 from Alaska and Hawaii. For several years, Congress has recognized the unique travel circumstances faced by citizens of these two noncontiguous States. In reality, the only way to get to Alaska and Hawaii is by air. And once you arrive in Alaska or Hawaii, air travel is often the only suitable way to get around. Unfortunately, the new passenger tax formula fails to recognize our States' strong reliance on the airplane. Passengers in small communities like Ketchikan could see their air tax bill jump by 30 to 40 percent when the new formula is fully phased in. That is simply unfair to Alaskans, who already must endure close to the highest cost of living of any State. Moreover, the new structure has a hidden timebomb that would explode if we see a spike in inflation. Not only is the head tax indexed for inflation, but the special $6 departure fee that is only imposed on flights to and from Alaska and Hawaii is also indexed. What this means is that every year, flights to Alaska and Hawaii are guaranteed to see a double tax hike, whereas flights within the lower 48 will only see a tax rise on the per-passenger fee. I think that is fundamentally unfair and it is my intention to introduce legislation that will reinstate the current air tax structure for flights to Alaska and Hawaii.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand today to add my strong support for the introduction of this comprehensive package of reforms intended to bring this Nation's mining law into the 21st century. There are few issues before the Senate that are more complex and contentious than mining law reform. Make no mistake, it is an issue within which major ideologies compete. The outcome of these debates will define for years to come the role public lands play in the Nation's ability to maintain a viable strategic mining capability. Across the Nation--from the White House, and from within this very chamber we have been regaled with stirring speeches on the short comings of the 1872 mining law: the unfairness it imposes on the American people. Unfortunately this rhetoric has served only to inflame passions and polarize the American public on this complex issue. It will come as no surprise why, under these circumstances, mining law reform has been such a difficult undertaking within the Congress. There is one additional circumstance which serves to frustrate legitimate efforts to bring mining reform negotiations to a successful culmination. Legitimate reformers within the administration and the Congress have been joined by those who see mining reform as the perfect vehicle for ending mining on public lands. With these forces there is no appeasement. As reform proposals move toward addressing legitimate concerns, the goal line is moved. As you can imagine, this causes a great deal of frustration among those of us engaged in serious reform efforts. Be that as it may, the only unforgivable action this Senator could take would be to abandoned the effort. In the great debate before us I would ask you to look carefully at the issues--if you seek reform which brings a fair return to the public treasury, that protects the environment, and preserves the Nation's ability to produce strategic minerals--then you will find a great deal to support in the legislation we lay before you today. I also take a great deal of pride in the fact that this legislation does not forget about the Nation's smallest mining operations. It will allow them to stay in business and to continue to compete on an even playing field with the larger, better financed operations. And for those of you who might wonder why small miners are important; you need only remember that the great majority of large mining operations across the country started out as a nothing more than a crazy idea inside the head of a prospector simply too stubborn to give up on their dream. On the other hand, if it is your intention to use mining reform as a vehicle to end mining on public lands or punish mining companies for making a profit, then you will find little in my legislation to aid in your cause. There is one resounding note of agreement across the Nation relating to mining reform--it is time to bring this piece of historic legislation into the 21st century. However, in our zeal to bring about this necessary modernization, we must not forget what we are tinkering with. Bad decisions clouded with emotionally charged rhetoric can have devastating effects on a $5 billion industry. An industry whose products form the muscle and sinew of the Nation's entire industrial output. We are taking into our hands the well-being of 50,000 American miners, their families, and their communities. We will be reaching out and directly affecting the future well-being of thousands who derive their primary source of income manufacturing the goods and services which support this critical industry. We owe it to that industry, those people, their communities, and the entire American public to make good decisions. There is simply too much at stake to let our collective emotions get in the way of good decision making. The Nation's first comprehensive mining laws were negotiated under torchlite miner's courts, over copious amounts of whiskey, and down the barrels of cocked six shooters. These laws literally emerged out of the muck and grime of the gold fields of California, the silver fields of Nevada, and countless other mining camps scattered across the American West. The initial law was designed to give every miner the opportunity to compete on an even playing field without fear of having his hard earned gain taken away during the dark of night. The law was also intended to give a young nation a self sufficiency in its mineral needs. The industrial revolution was upon us, and our mills and factories were hungry for the raw mineral feed stocks necessary to keep pace with the growing demand for industrial products. And Mr. President I am here to tell you that we were successful. Due in no small part to the mining industry of this Nation and all the hard working miners, the United States moved to the pre-eminent position that enabled us to win two world wars and set a standard of living that is still the envy of the world. This package of mining reforms contained in this legislation honors the past, recognizes the present, and sets the stage for a bright future. This legislation honors the past by refusing to abandon the basic tenets of the Nation's mining law. A system that allows for the location, development and production of mineral resources off the public lands. Resources necessary to keep this country's mills and factories working at full capacity. We recognize the present through the creation of fair reforms which recognize that over one hundred years have passed since the general mining laws went onto the books. During that time many changes have occurred in this country and the mining industry. We set the stage for the future by placing instruments within the legislation that directs the reclamation of old abandoned mine sites and preventing abuses in the exercise of the rights authorized within the law. Mr. President, we recognize that the time has come to reform the general mining laws. But it must be reform that fixes the things which are wrong without destroying this important industry and the lives and communities dependent on it. The legislation we offer today does that but in such a way that corrects the problems with the law without killing the mining industry. The legislation advances reforms in 4 general areas; royalty, patents, operations, and reclamation. No area within the 1872 mining laws has been so greatly criticized as the failure on the part of that legislation to require royalty to be paid for minerals extracted from public land. The legislation that we introduce today corrects this. It requires that 5 percent of the profit made from a mining operation on federal lands be paid to the federal government. This legislation seeks a percentage of the profit, not the value of the mineral in place. We do this for very specific reasons. Failure to do so will cause the shutdown of many operations and prevent the opening of new mines. It will cause other operators to cast low ore concentrates onto the spoil pile as they seek out only the very highest grade ores. Yes, highly profitable mines do exist and I am sure you are going to hear a lot about them from our opponents. But I can also assure you that there is an equal number that operate on the margin. Mines are like people, no two are alike. Through legislation we seek to create a one-size-fits-all royalty. If that royalty is designed to address highly profitable mines, many marginal mines will go under. That is why we designed our royalty to take a percentage of the profits. If the mine makes money, the public gets a share. This approach recognizes that the public benefits from a strong mining industry beyond the royalty it might collect. A continuous and competitive supply of metals to the Nation's mills and factories, high paying mining jobs, and healthy, viable communities also contribute to the common good. I fail to see how the public good is served through the creation of a royalty system so intrusive that it must be paid for through the loss of jobs, the health of local communities, and the abandonment of lower grade mineral resources. For those of you who would dismiss these predictions need only look north of our borders to British Columbia to see living proof of this prediction. In 1974 they put a royalty on minerals before cost of production was factored in. Five thousand miners lost their jobs, mining diminished to the point where only one new mine went into operation in 1976. The industry was devastated. The royalty was removed in 1978. Years later the industry still has not completely recovered. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it--let us not forget the experience of our neighbors to the north. Patenting or the right to take title to lands containing minerals upon demonstration that the parcel can support a profitable operation is another area targeted for intense criticisms by opponents to existing mining law. There is no doubt that there have been serious abuses of this provision of the 1872 mining law. Unscrupulous individuals have located mineral operations for the soul purpose of gaining title and turning the land into a lodge, resort or ski area. These practices are wrong and should be corrected. But it should not be done in a way that punishes the great majority of miners who patent lands for the sole purpose of mining. Punishing everyone to get at the few is absolutely wrong and down right un-American. The legislation we introduce today cures the problem without punishing the innocent. We would continue to issue patents to operators who are engaged in legitimate mining operations. However, we also include provisions allowing the Secretary to step in and reclaim lands should it be determined that they are no longer being used for mining. This approach protects the legitimate miner while insuring that unscrupulous operators can no longer turn mining operations into other activities. Much criticism has been levied in the past at the 1872 mining laws for what has been called the encouragement of speculative activities on mineralized lands. Because no controls were in place, any person could go out and stake lands purely for speculative purposes. This kept legitimate miners from accessing lands for development and burdened the bureaucracy with mining claims that had no real mineral potential. The legislation we introduce today addresses this practice. It requires that a $25 filing fee be paid at the time the claim is filed, and makes permanent the $100 per year per claim maintenance fee. These fees will discourage speculative claim staking while allowing miners intent on mining access to lands. The 1872 mining law did not address environmental protection. Our revisions weave a tight environmental safety net to protect the federal lands. We include a permit process which requires secretarial approval for all but the most minimal mineral related activities; furthermore, we require that lands disturbed by mining be reclaimed to prevent undue and unnecessary environmental degradation. To correct situations where mine operations are abandoned, this legislation requires all operations be fully bonded to pay for reclamation. We do this in ways that allow individual miners the opportunity to choose the bonding tool that best suits their individual needs while not losing sight of the overall reclamation goal. While bonding assures that no further reclamation responsibilities will fall to the public, what about sites which have been abandoned in the past? I won't be breaking any secrets by telling you that discretionary funding for new projects around here is about as scarce as virtue at a lawyers convention. There is simply too much need with not enough dollars to go around. Does this mean that reclamation is not important? Not at all--- there is no question that the reclamation of these abandoned sites needs to occur. The only question is where the dollars are going to come from and what other priority must fall to the side. This legislation addresses this issue through the establishment of a mine reclamation fund. This fund is capitalized by the funds collected by this legislation. Filing fees, maintenance fees, and royalty collected all goes into the fund to pay for the reclamation work. This fund dovetails with other reclamation funds and fills the gaps. It is not duplicative. The Nation's small miners will find that there are exemptions from the payment of fees for the first 25 claims, royalty relief for yearly profits of less than $50,000, authorizations to use state reclamation bonding pools, and the ability to maintain exclusive long term land use tenure. For those who seek meaningful reform to the nation's general mining laws, this legislation does the job. It fixes past abuses without punishing the innocent. It establishes a partnership with miners to share in the profits of mining without putting people out of work. It works with existing environmental legislation to assure that mining operations are carried out with the least possible disturbance. It makes sure that the public does not have to pay for the inappropriate actions of the few while allowing the many to pursue their activities in a ways that do not jeopardize their financial well being. And, it sets up a process to pay for existing mine reclamation needs without taking money away from ongoing federal programs. This is good legislation, it fixes existing problems without creating new ones. It establishes partnerships between the Federal and State governments and treats the mining community with respect and dignity without turning a blind eye to past indiscretion. I recognize that we have an up-hill battle. Mining reform has been shrouded for far too long in a smokey veil of rhetoric and sensationalism. The complexity of the issue is such that before we can show any meaningful progress we must separate the voices of those who seek meaningful reform from those who are using the debates to prevent mining on public lands. I believe this legislation will do that--it provides a platform for reasonable discussion and negotiation without threatening to end mining on public land. What we propose may not be poetic, but it does have a rock solid substance; it does not lend itself to catchy media blurbs, but it is genuine reform; it does not offer quick fixes; but it does make changes that are needed without punishing the innocent. It may not be pretty and it certainly is not easy to understand but I can promise you one thing--it will work. Both sides of the mining reform debate have come a long way toward achieving meaningful compromise. I am certain that the legislative vehicle we launch today will carry us that last mile and finally bring us the reform that is needed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997. My bill provides a long-term funding source for the State-side matching grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Thank you to Senate appropriators for honoring my request to fund the LWCF matching grants. The 1998 Interior appropriation bill ensures the programs's short-term viability. I wish we could have earmarked more, but I understand the challenges members face and thank them for their accomplishment. Special thanks to Senators Ted Stevens and Slade Gorton. I am confident we can win on the Senate floor, in conference and with the administration because the program is truly worthy. The LWCF matching grants have helped build thousands of miles of trails, protect thousands of acres of open space, and develop parks, campgrounds, and recreation facilities in every State. Every Federal dollar has been matched--we get two for the price of one. Unfortunately, Congress and the administration defunded the program 2 years ago. That's too bad, given what candidate Bill Clinton said: ``I would increase funding for several programs * * * and reinvigorate the Land and Water Conservation Fund to make more funds available for the acquisition of public outdoor open spaces''. He also said, ``I would also make funds available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to help address critical infrastructure needs in state and local facilities.'' The millions of Americans who benefit from the matching grants need more than promises. Thankfully, the Interior appropriations bill saves the program for the short term. I am here today to offer a long-term solution. At a recent hearing before the Senate parks subcommittee, former Park Service Director Roger Kennedy said that as long as there is competition between Federal and State programs for LWCF appropriations, the State matching grants will lose. He suggested a separate source of funds. I am taking his advice to heart, and calling upon Congress to establish a separate and permanent fund for State matching grants. My legislation creates an $800 million permanent endowment to provide LWCF matching grants to the States. Interest from that account will help provide parks, campgrounds, trails, and recreation facilities for millions of Americans. It will also help preserve open spaces for the future. Where does that money come from? On June 19, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government retains title to lands underlying tidal waters off Alaska's North Slope. As the result, the government will receive $1.6 billion in escrowed oil and gas lease revenues. This sum is twice the amount the Congressional Budget Office estimated for the concurrent budget resolution. My bill places this bonus $800 million in a permanent endowment account. This new approach is consistent with the vision of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and a promise made to the American people 30 years ago. Our Government promised us that a portion of proceeds from offshore oil and gas leases would fund outdoor recreation and conservation. My bill makes good on that promise--permanently. It makes sure the State grants are never forgotten again. That sound we hear on the doors to this Chamber is opportunity knocking. We must seize the opportunity and use those funds to renew and reinvigorate the bipartisan vision of the LWCF. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor and support the Community Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to speak today about a man whose life has been dedicated to public service--in particular, service to America's veterans: Chris Yoder. Many of my colleagues know Chris. He has spent his entire career working for veterans. And now, Chris has decided to leave the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs [VA]. However, his life-long commitment to veterans will continue as he moves to the Commission on Service Members and Veterans' Transition Assistance. I have known Chris for many years, and I have come to rely on him for his expertise. He served in Vietnam and after he returned home, he began his career with the Veterans' Administration in 1972. He joined the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1985 when I served as the Committee Chairman. Chris immediately demonstrated a remarkable recall and uncanny knowledge of veterans' issues. In 1991, Chris joined Tony Principi when Tony went to work for the Bush Administration as Deputy Secretary for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In 1993, when I served as Vice Chairman of the Committee, Chris returned. Over the years, I have asked Chris to examine a number of veterans' programs and I have always expected Chris to ask tough questions about these programs. We spend billions of dollars on veterans' health care and benefits, and members of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee constantly struggle to ensure that the money is spent efficiently and in an equitable manner. Is the veterans' health care program based on the most modern medical delivery systems, or are we sticking with an aging infrastructure that is consuming dollars that need to be redirected to meet the real needs of veterans? That's the type of issue that Chris has had to tackle. Last Congress, we passed Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform. If you think the tax code is complicated, you should have seen the VA's health care eligibility criteria before our reforms. It confused veterans, it confused Congress, and it even confused VA doctors and administrators. Chris took it upon himself to play the leading role in crafting a reform proposal that simplified the criteria without sacrificing the quality and access to care for our Nation's veterans. By far, this was the most important veterans' legislation passed in the 104th Congress, and one of the most difficult and complex issues I have witnessed during my 17-year tenure as a U.S. Senator. I do not think anyone can doubt the commitment and dedication Chris has for our veterans, and I know every member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs will miss his dedication and expertise. He is a man with the courage to tackle the difficult questions and the knowledge to find the answers. Chris Yoder will be sorely missed on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. As a friend, I wish him the best of the luck.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the passage of this legislation we are embarking on a new road. We will establish a new park area operated by the private sector rather than the traditional park operated by park service personnel that we are accustomed to visiting. Upon visiting the Oklahoma City National Memorial you will still observe the traditional park ranger in his flat hat, but behind the scenes things will be a little different. The legislation establishes a trust composed of civic leaders who will manage the park in accordance with Park Service standards, rules and regulations. I anticipate these leaders will maintain and operate the facilities at this memorial at the highest standard ever achieved by any NPS unit. I do not believe we will ever have to revisit this issue in the appropriations process. I expect the leaders of the trust will maintain their facilities with proper preventative maintenance programs so America's investment will be more than properly protected without the deferred maintenance programs which currently plague the NPS and the Congress. I expect that the programs and operations at the memorial will be above and beyond anything we have ever experienced in a park unit to date. Is this road risky ? The answer is yes. We are now facing $8.6 billion in unfunded NPS programs. The private sector has the answers, and it may teach us a few lessons on how to avoid the situation that we are currently facing in the National Park Service. The passage of this legislation will begin to show us how to achieve a National Park Service unit that will be a model for the future. In the absence of a report, that will follow shortly, I have included information in my statement for the benefit of my colleagues that explains the background and the provisions of the legislation. background One hundred and sixty-eight Americans lost their lives and many more were injured on April 19, 1995, when a bomb was detonated at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK. This tragedy constitutes the worst terrorist incident in American history. This legislation would create a memorial at the site of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on 5th Street, between Robinson and Harvey Streets, and would also include the sites of the Water Resources Building and the Journal Record Building. Concepts for the Memorial were solicited through a design competition. We received 624 design submissions from 50 States and 23 foreign countries. The design selected was created by Hans-Ekkehard Butzer, Torrey Butzer and Sven Berg, a German-based design team. The design includes 168 chairs in the Murrah Building footprint, a water element designed to reflect a spirit of change, a survivor tree, envisioned to reflect hope, and ``gates of time'' on each end of Fifth Street that focus the visitor's attention on memorial inscriptions and the other elements of the Memorial. Torrey Butzer of the German team states, ``We watched Oklahomans and the world respond to this tragedy from afar. This is our way of giving something to honor the Victims, survivors and the heros. This design will tell the story of all of us changed forever.'' The Memorial established by this Act would serve not only as a monument to those who died and were injured in the bombing on April 19, but as a symbol of the courage and goodwill shown by local citizens and Americans across the country following the incident. The Oklahoma City National Memorial will be designated a unit of the National Park Service. It will be placed under the charge of a wholly-owned government corporation, to be known as the Oklahoma City National Trust (Trust). The Trust will be governed by a nine-member Board of Directors (Board) which will have the authority to appoint an executive director and other key staff. Interim staff are authorized for 2 years to assist in the development of the Memorial. Permanent National Park service staff and the ability to retain staff from other Federal agencies are also provided by this measure on a reimbursable basis. The act authorizes $5 million of Federal funds for construction and maintenance, but stipulates that any Federal expenditures must be matched by non-Federal funds, dollar for dollar. It is expected that matching funding sources will include the Oklahoma State legislature and private donations. legislative history S. 871 was introduced by Senator Nickles and Senator Inhofe on June 12, 1997 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation held a field hearing on the bill in Oklahoma City on July 3, 1997. An additional hearing was held by the Subcommittee in Washington on July 17, 1997. section by section analysis Section 4(a) establishes the Oklahoma City National Memorial (Memorial) and further establishes the Memorial as a unit of the National Park Service. Section 4(b) directs that the lands, facilities and structures of the memorial shall be depicted upon an official map and that the official map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service and Oklahoma City Memorial Trust (Trust). The Section also allows minor boundary adjustments as necessary with publication of such adjustments by drawing or description within the Federal Register. Section 5(a) establishes a wholly-owned government corporation to be known as the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust. Section 5(b)(l) directs that there will exist a Board of Directors (Board) for the Trust consisting of 9 members. The Section directs that the Board shall consist of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) or his designee and 8 additional members appointed by the President, but selected from lists of nominees submitted by the Governor of Oklahoma, the Mayor of Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma delegations from the United States House of Representatives and Senate. This section also directs that the President appoint the Board within 90 days of passage of this Act. Section 5(b)(2) sets the terms of Board members at 4 years and limits consecutive terms to 8 years. The section also stipulates that in the first series of appointments, two members will serve for only 2 years and two initial members will serve a term of 3 years. Section 5(b)(3) directs that 5 members shall constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting Board business. Section 5(b)(4) directs that the Board shall organize itself in a manner it deems most appropriate and that members shall not receive compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel and subsistence associated with Trust duties. Section 5(b)(5) establishes that Board members will not be considered federal employees except for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Ethics in Government Act and provisions of Titles 11 and 18 of the United States Code. Section 5(b)(6) directs the Board to meet at least 3 times per year in Oklahoma City, with at least two of those meetings open to the public. The Section also allows the Board to hold additional meetings and the authority to determine if those meetings are open or closed to the public by majority vote. The Section also authorizes the Board the ability to establish procedures for providing public information and soliciting public comment regarding operations, maintenance and management of the Memorial as well as input on policy, planning and design issues. Section 5(b)(7) authorizes the Trust to appoint and fix compensation and duties of an executive director of the Memorial and other officers it deems necessary without regard to provisions of Title 5 of the United States Code. The Section also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (at the request of the Trust) to provide interim employees as necessary for appointments not to exceed 2 years; to provide uniformed personnel on a reimbursable basis to carry out day to day duties; and at the request of the Trust, the Director of any other federal agency may provide personnel on a reimbursable basis to carry out day to day visitor services programs. Section 5(b)(8) establishes that the Trust shall have all powers necessary and proper to exercise the authorities vested in it. Section 5(b)(9) establishes that the Trust and all properties administered by the Trust shall be exempt from all city, state and local taxes. Section 5(b)(10) establishes that the Trust shall be treated as a wholly-owned government corporation, subject to 31 U.S.C. Government Corporations Act and that Trust financial statements shall be audited annually. The Section also directs the Trust to submit a comprehensive report of operations, activities and accomplishments for the prior fiscal year to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Resources--as well as a report, in general terms, of goals for the current fiscal year. Section 6(a) directs that the Trust shall administer the operation, maintenance, management and interpretation of the Memorial, including, but not limited to leasing, rehabilitation, repair and improvement of Memorial property in accordance with existing Federal law including: provisions of law generally applicable to the National Park Service (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4); 49 Stat. 666; the general objectives set forth in the ``Memorial Mission Statement'', adopted March 26, 1996 and the Oklahoma Memorial Foundation Intergovernmental Letter of Understanding, dated, October 28, 1996. Section 6(b)(1) authorizes the Trust to participate in the development of programs and activities at the Memorial and to negotiate and enter into agreements, leases, and contracts with persons, firms, organizations including Federal, State, and local government entities, as necessary to carry out its authorized activities. Such agreements may be entered into without regard to Section 301, 40 U.S.C. 303(b). Section 6(b)(2) directs the Trust to establish procedures for lease agreements for use and occupancy of Memorial facilities, including a requirement that in entering such agreements, the Trust shall obtain reasonable competition. Section 6(b)(3) prohibits the Trust from disposing of or reconveying title to any real property transferred to the Trust under this Act. Section 6(b)(4) directs that Federal laws and regulations governing procurement shall not apply to the Trust with the exception of those related to Federal contracts governing working conditions and any applicable civil rights provisions which are otherwise applicable. Section 6(b)(5) directs the Trust, in consultation with the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy to establish and promulgate procedures enabling the Trust's procurement of goods and services, including, but not limited to the award of contracts on the basis of price, reasonable buying practices, competition and qualifications. Section 6(c) directs that the Trust shall, within one year of passage of the Act, develop in consultation with the Secretary, a comprehensive program for management of those lands, operations, and facilities associated with the Memorial. Section 6(d) authorizes the Trust to solicit and accept donations for the purposes of carrying out its duties. Section 6(e) authorizes that all proceeds received by the Trust may be retained and used by the Trust without further appropriation for uses in the administration, operation, preservation, restoration, maintenance, repair and improvement of the Memorial, and that the Secretary of the Treasury, at the request of the Trust, shall invest excess monies in public debt securities. Section 6(f) establishes that the trust may sue and be sued to the same extent as the Federal Government and that litigation shall be conducted by the Attorney General, with the provision that the trust may retain private attorneys for advice and council and that the District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma shall have exclusive jurisdiction over suits filed against the Trust. Section 6(g) authorizes the Trust to adopt, amend, repeal and enforce bylaws, rules and regulations governing the way it conducts its business and the way by which its powers may be exercised. The Section also authorizes the Trust, in consultation with the Secretary to adopt and enforce those National Park Service regulations necessary and appropriate to carry out its duties and requires that the Trust shall give notice of its adoption of any such rules or regulations through the Federal Register. Section 6(h) directs the trust to require any contractors or leaseholders to procure insurance, as is reasonable and customary, against any loss connected with properties under lease or contract or from related activities. Section 7 authorizes $5 million for the furtherance of the Act and stipulates that expenditure of any federally appropriated money must be matched, one to one, with non-Federal monies and that donated monies will be construed, for purposes of this Section, as non-Federal matching monies. Section 8 establishes that prior to the construction of the Memorial, the General Services Administration shall exchange, sell, lease, donate or otherwise dispose of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building to the Trust and that such transfer shall not be subject to the Public Building Act of 1959; the Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949 or any other Federal law establishing requirements or procedures for the disposal of Federal property. Section 9 directs that 6 years after the first meeting of the Board, the General Accounting Office will conduct an interim study on the activities of the Trust (and how it is meeting its obligations under this Act), and report the results of that study to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the Senate Committee on Appropriations along with the House Committee on Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. Costs--S. 871 authorizes a one-time $5,000,000 appropiation for the development and construction of the Memorial. Mr. President, this act of terrorism horrified all Americans. It must never be forgotten. May the victims of this tragedy rest in peace, may the survivors be comforted and may such an evil act never be perpetrated upon innocent men, women, and children again.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to benefit one of Alaska's most isolated regions, the Alaska Peninsula. This bill, The Izembek Refuge Land Exchange Act, provides a balanced approach to a difficult problem. In this remote area, there is a small Aleut Native village, King Cove, which is completely isolated from other Alaska cities and towns, and the rest of the world. The only way you can get to King Cove is by air or sea. And in this part of Alaska, the weather is so bad that neither sea or air is very reliable. My bill will permit King Cove to be connected to the rest of the world through a road link to Cold Bay, a regional center, and the location of a good, all weather airport which can provide year round and emergency medical evacuation for the residents of King Cove. Currently, when somebody is injured or gravely ill, treatment is at the mercy of weather and sea conditions. Mr. President, King Cove is a tough place to live and the residents are tough and independent people. Their ancestors migrated to this part of the State thousands of years ago and have made a life out of this area with its rich bounty of fish. But people get sick there just like any place in the country, emergencies happen there more than most other places in America because the lifestyle is so close to the edge. We have had long debates in this body this year about access to health care. Nowhere does this take on a more dramatic meaning than in King Cove. When I say access, I mean access. That means the actual physical ability to get to a hospital in Anchorage or Seattle to get the specialized health care needed in the event of a serious emergency or sickness. Right now, the residents of King Cove do not have this access. Since 1981, 11 air crash fatalities have occurred flying residentS from King Cove to Cold Bay. Numerous other crashes have also occurred, luckily without fatalities. Many of these crashes involved flying injured or sick people out of King Cove in an attempt to get emergency care. Often the trip to care is as dangerous as the infliction itself. For example, in 1981, a medivac plane was forced to leave King Cove for an emergency/life and death rescue mission. There was no alternative to this flight and the plane crashed. Four people died including the pilot and the medivac victim. Six years ago another fatal crash occurred with six people killed. The list goes on. This is a terrible place to have to fly out of if you cannot afford to wait. On medical emergencies, nobody can afford to wait. These residents are predominantly Alaska Natives, Aleuts for the most part. They have a good Alaska Native hospital available to them in Anchorage. In fact, thanks to this body, it is a new hospital with great facilities. But it might as well be on the dark side of the Moon for the residents of King Cove. When they need it, they can't be sure they will be able to get to it. This legislation provides the solution by allowing ground access to an all-weather runway only 30 miles from King Cove in Cold Bay. In fact, thanks to World War II, Cold Bay has the third longest runway in the State. The runway has modern all weather equipment such as instrument landing systems and many other modern landing system improvements. In the past 4 years, the Cold Bay airport has seen only one instance in which air traffic from Anchorage could not land. It is safe to say that air operations can occur here in virtually all weather and can accommodate the King Cove emergency needs at all times. With no road between King Cove and Cold Bay there will be no hope for those seeking help. My bill would provide a land exchange that will permit the road to be built between King Cove and Cold Bay. This is the reasonable solution. Mr. President, there is a need for this road, but there will be concerns raised because most of that road will be sited through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. This is unavoidable. The refuge is located completely astride the route between King Cove and Cold Bay. This is nobody's fault, and I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service has concerns. I also have concerns and my constituents and I are prepared to do what it takes to minimize the impact of this road on the surrounding area and resources. The King Cove Corp. has proposed an exchange for valuable wetlands it owns near the refuge for the road right of way. The bulk of the right of way is already owned by King Cove as an inholding in the refuge. Only 7 miles is not owned by King Cove and this is the Federal land which would be exchanged under my bill. That portion is in the wilderness portion of the refuge, but there is no alternative to this except further danger to my constituents and the inevitable death and destruction to future victims of the next air crash. Mr. President, I stand ready to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make this as constructive process as possible, but make no mistake, it is absolutely critical that this road be built. My constituents deserve a way to save their lives in times of emergency. They cannot be hostage to fear for life and limb.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to benefit one of Alaska's most isolated regions, the Alaska Peninsula. This bill, The Izembek Refuge Land Exchange Act, provides a balanced approach to a difficult problem. In this remote area, there is a small Aleut Native village, King Cove, which is completely isolated from other Alaska cities and towns, and the rest of the world. The only way you can get to King Cove is by air or sea. And in this part of Alaska, the weather is so bad that neither sea or air is very reliable. My bill will permit King Cove to be connected to the rest of the world through a road link to Cold Bay, a regional center, and the location of a good, all weather airport which can provide year round and emergency medical evacuation for the residents of King Cove. Currently, when somebody is injured or gravely ill, treatment is at the mercy of weather and sea conditions. Mr. President, King Cove is a tough place to live and the residents are tough and independent people. Their ancestors migrated to this part of the State thousands of years ago and have made a life out of this area with its rich bounty of fish. But people get sick there just like any place in the country, emergencies happen there more than most other places in America because the lifestyle is so close to the edge. We have had long debates in this body this year about access to health care. Nowhere does this take on a more dramatic meaning than in King Cove. When I say access, I mean access. That means the actual physical ability to get to a hospital in Anchorage or Seattle to get the specialized health care needed in the event of a serious emergency or sickness. Right now, the residents of King Cove do not have this access. Since 1981, 11 air crash fatalities have occurred flying residentS from King Cove to Cold Bay. Numerous other crashes have also occurred, luckily without fatalities. Many of these crashes involved flying injured or sick people out of King Cove in an attempt to get emergency care. Often the trip to care is as dangerous as the infliction itself. For example, in 1981, a medivac plane was forced to leave King Cove for an emergency/life and death rescue mission. There was no alternative to this flight and the plane crashed. Four people died including the pilot and the medivac victim. Six years ago another fatal crash occurred with six people killed. The list goes on. This is a terrible place to have to fly out of if you cannot afford to wait. On medical emergencies, nobody can afford to wait. These residents are predominantly Alaska Natives, Aleuts for the most part. They have a good Alaska Native hospital available to them in Anchorage. In fact, thanks to this body, it is a new hospital with great facilities. But it might as well be on the dark side of the Moon for the residents of King Cove. When they need it, they can't be sure they will be able to get to it. This legislation provides the solution by allowing ground access to an all-weather runway only 30 miles from King Cove in Cold Bay. In fact, thanks to World War II, Cold Bay has the third longest runway in the State. The runway has modern all weather equipment such as instrument landing systems and many other modern landing system improvements. In the past 4 years, the Cold Bay airport has seen only one instance in which air traffic from Anchorage could not land. It is safe to say that air operations can occur here in virtually all weather and can accommodate the King Cove emergency needs at all times. With no road between King Cove and Cold Bay there will be no hope for those seeking help. My bill would provide a land exchange that will permit the road to be built between King Cove and Cold Bay. This is the reasonable solution. Mr. President, there is a need for this road, but there will be concerns raised because most of that road will be sited through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. This is unavoidable. The refuge is located completely astride the route between King Cove and Cold Bay. This is nobody's fault, and I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service has concerns. I also have concerns and my constituents and I are prepared to do what it takes to minimize the impact of this road on the surrounding area and resources. The King Cove Corp. has proposed an exchange for valuable wetlands it owns near the refuge for the road right of way. The bulk of the right of way is already owned by King Cove as an inholding in the refuge. Only 7 miles is not owned by King Cove and this is the Federal land which would be exchanged under my bill. That portion is in the wilderness portion of the refuge, but there is no alternative to this except further danger to my constituents and the inevitable death and destruction to future victims of the next air crash. Mr. President, I stand ready to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make this as constructive process as possible, but make no mistake, it is absolutely critical that this road be built. My constituents deserve a way to save their lives in times of emergency. They cannot be hostage to fear for life and limb.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I am vitally interested in this area because it is our responsibility. I thank my friends, the managers of the bill, and my good friend, Senator Byrd.