Frank Murkowski

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd- Hagel resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on international agreements covering greenhouse gas emissions. I wish to thank and commend my colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Hagel, for their efforts in forging this bipartisan, common sense resolution. I was proud to join them as an original cosponsor. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, has had significant interest and long involvement in the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change because any attempt to address carbon emissions fundamentally affects energy investment, use, and policy. Our committee has held a variety of hearings, seminars, and briefings on this subject for the benefit of members, staff, and the public. Moreover, we have remained closely attuned to the negotiations toward a new climate treaty through close and regular contact with the principal State Department and Department of Energy officials. My predecessor as chairman, Senator Bennett Johnston, also had a keen interest in this subject, and made it a centerpiece of the committee's oversight responsibilities. So this is not a new issue to us. Having said that, I believe Senators Byrd and Hagel have done a superb job with this resolution expressing the Senate's aspirations and concerns with respect to any eventual climate treaty. This resolution will strengthen the hand of our negotiators during upcoming meetings in August, October, and December. Although this is not a binding resolution, it conveys the legitimate concerns of the Senate to other parties in the negotiations. Our negotiators can use this resolution to inform other nations of the elements that must be contained in any new climate treaty that can be ratified by this body. Turning now to the substance of the resolution, I have a letter from President Clinton, dated August 21, 1996, that contains a statement I very much agree with. And I quote: Establishing a sound framework is a critical first step in the negotiating process. We are already conducting additional analyses and technical assessments . . . our ultimate position will fully reflect economic considerations and our commitment to the principle that environmental protection and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. The President is right. Economic considerations are important. We must not proceed down a path that will bring adverse economic consequences, competitive disadvantages, and energy price increases. The importance of economic considerations, as expressed by the President in his letter, are very much in line with this resolution. This resolution simply says that any new climate treaty must not result in serious economic harm to the United States. The Byrd-Hagel resolution also states that any new climate treaty must be global in its approach: New commitments on the part of developed countries to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be accompanied by new commitments on the part of developing countries to do the same. The issue of developing countries and their participation is critically important: According to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy, carbon emissions from China will exceed ours by the year 2015. Their greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow 185 percent above 1990 levels. Emissions from developing nations as a whole will also exceed those from industrialized nations by 2015. Clearly, this is a global issue that requires a global approach. If further science confirms the fact that carbon emission do indeed have dangerous implications for the climate, then all nations must take meaningful steps. The industrial nations simply do not have it in their power to do it alone, even if they wanted to. But here is some good news: We have time to approach this issue in a careful, deliberative manner. We gain nothing by getting ahead of the science. Indeed, we risk a great deal by moving too quickly: According to economic analysis by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, an orderly, long-term strategy of achieving a scientifically-justified carbon emission reduction costs just one-fifth what it would cost to achieve the same reduction over the near-term. In other words, you can get the same result 80 percent cheaper by taking a long-term view, and allowing capital equipment to be retired in an orderly fashion as new energy efficient technologies come on line. Mr. President, there is simply no need to compel working American families to pay five times as much as they need to for the same eventual outcome. Clearly, there is not a need for extreme actions such as carbon taxes, strict command and control regulations, and one-sided treaties that will impose economic harm. Let's take the time to do the job right and enjoy tremendous economic savings. Turning to the broader issue of climate change and climate science, let me say we should all be concerned about increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is an indisputable scientific fact that concentrations of greenhouse gasses are on the rise. Yet significant scientific uncertainties remain. Some scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide concentrations will bring only moderate change, warmer winters, reduced energy demands, and longer growing seasons. Virtually every climate scientist will tell you that the warming signal suggested by some data sets are all within the bounds of natural variability, and that climate change is the rule rather than the exception. Throughout the planet's history, the climate has changed. I will confess to my own personal fascination with the Greenland ice core records that I first became familiar with when the University of Alaska removed an ice core record spanning the entire depth of the Greenland ice cap. These ice cores are high-resolution records of climate which can be analyzed like the rings of a tree--only these records go back 100,000 years or more. The Greenland ice core record tells us that the earth's climate has always changed and shifted, often dramatically and over surprisingly short periods of time. Thus, the investments we've made in the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, approaching $2 billion per year and more, are expensive but worthwhile. Because there is much more scientific work to do. The common refrain that I hear from climate scientists, virtually without exception, is this: The climate system is remarkably complex, and exceedingly difficult to model. Meanwhile, our current climate models are comparatively crude. We lack sufficient data for model inputs, particularly information about the effects of clouds and water vapor. And finally, as we have learned more and refined our computer models, estimates of future warming have fallen, not risen. Clearly, the science is uncertain, and the scientific debate is not over. Nor should it be. And that brings me to what I see as a troubling trend: Some who have argued for immediate and urgent action to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions have claimed that the science arguing for quick action is unassailable, and that the scientists who express doubts are somehow extreme or out of the mainstream. Frankly, talk such as that makes me cringe, because the scientific method itself is based on challenge and peer review. Contrarians should not be shouted down for the sake of political correctness. Whenever scientists are called out of the mainstream or extreme by a political leader or a journalist, you can bet that an attempted subversion of the scientific method is at hand. We should condemn any subversion of the scientific method whenever we see it occur in the climate debate. Too much is at stake. Continued investment in science will only enhance our understanding. We have invested billions in a climate change research program that is only now beginning to yield significant results. We should not stake our economic future on partial information. Since extreme, unilateral actions are unwarranted at this point, we have time to encourage developing nations such as China to participate in meaningful commitments. The resolution before us states that new commitments on the part of developed countries to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be accompanied by new commitments on the part of developing countries to do the same. I believe the Senate would have difficulty ratifying any new climate treaty that imposed legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets and timetables, which are essentially energy quotas, only on the most developed nations. Such an approach would be unfair, economically devastating, and ineffective. To repeat: New energy quotas, imposed only on one set of nations, would be unfair, economically devastating, and ineffective. Let me explain: One-sided energy quotas would be unfair: They would allow some nations to gain tremendous competitive advantages over others by encouraging the movement of jobs, manufacturing and capital from nations that are subject to the energy quotas, to nations that are not. One-sided energy quotas would be economically devastating: They would require carbon taxes or regulation that would cost jobs, harm our economy, and diminish our standard of living. One-sided energy quotas would be ineffective: Because manufacturing, capital, jobs, and even emissions would move from nations that are subject to the energy quotas, to nations that are not, emissions would not diminish, they might even increase. Moreover, because the total greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations will soon exceed those from developed nations, exempting developing nations wouldn't do anything to improve the problem. Greenhouse gases would still increase. We would suffer economic pain without environmental gain. What I am saying here today has been confirmed by some of the administration's own economic analysis. A new study produced by the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory contains some surprising and compelling findings. Let me cite some of them: Increased energy and fuel prices in industrial nations resulting from a new climate treaty that does not contain meaningful commitments for developing nations such as India, China and South Korea would encourage a reallocation of investments away from industrial countries towards the developing countries. To the extent this occurs, emissions would simply be redistributed and could even increase. Some 20 to 30 percent of the energy intensive basic chemical industry could move to developing countries over 15 to 30 years, with 200,000 jobs lost. U.S. steel production could fall 30 percent with accompanying job losses of 100,000. All primary aluminum plants in the United States could close by 2010. Many petroleum refiners in the Northeast and Gulf Coast could close, and imports would displace more domestic production. Mr. President, these are serious economic impacts, and I believe we can all agree that this is precisely what we must avoid. That's what this resolution is about, and that's why I feel it should pass with a broad, bipartisan margin. Some will argue that we cannot be successful in efforts bring developing nations along in the negotiations in time for the December 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan. But I believe we should try. And if we cannot achieve a new treaty that includes developing nations in this timeframe, then perhaps Kyoto can at least produce a roadmap leading to meaningful commitments by all nations. Mr. President, there is no need for a headlong rush toward rash policies. The carbon problem didn't appear overnight. It won't be addressed overnight. We have time to devise and consider balanced approaches that can work. Time will allow new energy and efficiency technologies to mature. Time will provide for global solutions that include the developing nations. Time will allow us to sharpen our science and better understand the true threat of climate change, if it is indeed a dangerous threat. Yes, the climate issue is a serious one. But it's not a reason to panic. This resolution helps our negotiators. It sends an important message that this is a global problem that requires the attention and participation of all nations. I urge the Senate's adoption of the resolution, and I again commend Senators Byrd and Hagel for their leadership and tireless efforts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have one more item, relating to legislation addressing several important aspects of the administration and management of Glacier Bay National Park in my State of Alaska. As many of you know, Glacier Bay National Park, west of Juneau in southeastern Alaska, has been named as the No. 1 national park in our country's National Park System. It is a unique tourist destination. It can only really be reached by cruise ship. The season runs roughly from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the season for the cruise ships that visit southeastern Alaska. For the most part, these are the same ships that traverse the Caribbean in the wintertime, then move to Vancouver, BC, in order to sail to Alaska in the summer. There are probably 30 ships. I believe the number of tourists who visit Alaska by cruise ship is somewhere in the area of 600,000 in that short 90-day period. Because of the popularity of this unique tourist destination, the legislation I have introduced would encourage the continuation of the Park Service's ongoing efforts to work with concession operators to try to improve visitor services, as well as deal fairly and finally with the longstanding dispute over the status of the commercial and subsistence fishing that has gone on in that park from time immemorial. The footprint that any of these activities leaves in this park is pretty insignificant in relationship to other parks, because the park is seen, for the most part, by visitors on a cruise ship. You might get an occasional candy wrapper blown overboard, but the ships are very good at keeping their impact to a minimum. The point is, compared to impressions left in other national parks by visitors, the footprint left by visitors who come to the park on a ship--and never get off--is extremely small. That's part of what makes the park so unique--access by cruise ship. In any event, this bill reflects the progress of several years of discussion with local interests and the Park Service. The efforts, I think, are positive. But we have been hampered from achieving consensus by some groups who seem to be unwilling to compromise for reasons we can only guess at--perhaps they don't want to see other visitors during that short summer season. Insofar as possible, this bill represents an attempt to stake out some reasonable, responsible middle ground that would respect the wishes of all concerned. The issue of commercial fishing is one where, historically, fishermen have plied the waters of Glacier Bay and the outer coast, the Gulf of Alaska area now included in the park, for over 100 years. Local Native villagers, the Huna Tlingit people, have been doing so for thousands of years. At no time have their activities damaged the park or its resources, nor have they harmed the area's wild and scenic qualities in any way. Their presence has provided a colorful backdrop to the mystique of the park, as a matter of fact. This simple fact I don't think can be overemphasized. To put it another way, commercial fishing and local villagers have continually fished in Glacier Bay since long before it became a park or a monument. The fact that we value it so highly today is proof that they have not had an adverse impact on the species in the bay. Unfortunately, some interests do not seem to be concerned about fairness, or the obligation to the Native people of Alaska, and would like to see fishing and gathering banned, no matter how environmentally benign or how critical to the local livelihoods it may be. On subsistence, this bill corrects inconsistencies in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, known as ANILCA. Villagers living near Glacier Bay, whose ancestors have used the bay continually for at least 9,000 years, must be allowed to continue to use the bay's resources to feed their families, to fish for halibut, salmon, crabs, collect clams, seaweeds, berries, and other foods that are part of their traditional culture. Let me emphasize, we are talking about a relative handful of families--most from the local Native village of Hoonah, which has a population of about 900 or so, and a few people from other nearby communities such as Elfin Cove, Gustavus, and Pelican. We are not talking about thousands of people. These Alaskans do not have the convenience of supermarkets or strip malls. They deserve consideration and respect. They deserve to have their historic use recognized and provided for by this Congress. My bill also addresses commercial fishing in the park. For generations, commercial fishermen caught salmon, halibut and crabs in Glacier Bay and have fished the rich grounds of the outside coast as well. And there is no biological reason, none whatsoever, for restricting commercial fishing activity anywhere in the park. The fishery resources are healthy, they are diverse, they are closely monitored by the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and they are very carefully regulated. It should also be noted that, of the park's approximately 3 million acres of marine waters, only about 500,000 are productive enough to warrant real, significant interest. There are few anadromous streams in the park--that's streams where the salmon go up and spawn--because most of the fresh water that comes down comes down from the glaciers and there is simply no place for the salmon to spawn. In any event, the fisheries are restricted both as to method as in the number of participants, and are carefully managed and controlled to assure continued abundance. There is nothing in the bill and there is no desire by the fishing industry to change these controls or increase the level of this sustainable activity. Alaska is a very careful steward of its resources. Commercial fishing does not harm the environment in any way. In spite of what you hear, Alaska fisheries are in very good shape. We have had record runs 8 of the last 11 years. Under Federal management, things got so bad there was one year when we only took 25 million salmon, but when we became a State that began turning around. I think last year we put up 218 million. That's because we don't open our season until we have had adequate escapement, that is, enough fish to go up the streams to spawn so that we are guaranteed renewability of the resource. So, in the grand scheme of things, and recognizing consideration of the Nation's economy, these fisheries are small potatoes. But to the fishermen, the natives who depend upon them, to the families of small remote communities in which they live, these fisheries are of the utmost importance. They are harm free. And those who partake in them deserve this Government's help, not the destruction of their simple lifestyle. This bill authorizes traditional fishing throughout the park for subsistence users as well as historical commercial activities. However, because there are special, sensitive areas inside Glacier Bay itself, it also designates the waters inside the bay as a special reserve, in which a joint team of Federal and State scientists will make recommendations on where fishing should occur and at what level. A further special provision is also included in one area where there is significant potential for conflict between fishermen and certain limited nonmotorized uses, such as kayaking, during the brief 3-month summer period. This area is in the Beardslee Islands, near the entrance of the bay. Under this bill, the only commercial fishing that would be allowed in the Beardslees would be crab fishing, and that only in a very small area, by a very small number of people who historically are dependent on this fishing--less than a dozen people. This would only include people who can show both a significant history of participation and a real dependence on that fishery for their livelihoods. This privilege could be transferred to one successor, when the original fisherman retires, but will cease after that. And at any point the Park Service could eliminate all fishing in the Beardslees with a fair payment to the individual fisherman. The reason for such a special rule in the Beardslees is simply that these fishermen have no other option than fishing in the Beardslees, due to the small size of their vessels and their reliance on this one fishery, and a few other factors. So this bill will not contribute to any increase in fishing. In fact, over time the opposite may occur. It will simply provide for the scientifically sound continuation of an environmentally benign activity. Finally, I think it's important also to note that the continuation of both subsistence and commercial fishing enjoys wide support from local residents of Southeastern Alaska, including environmental groups such as the Southeastern Alaska Conservation Council. I look to my colleagues for support on the merits of the bill. Mr. President, I see no other Senators in the Chamber. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to an extraordinary experience that occurred last weekend, involving several Members of this body who joined my wife and me in visiting our great State of Alaska: Senator Helms and Mrs. Helms, the Senator from North Carolina; Senator Jeffords from Vermont, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Senator Smith from Oregon. We left last Friday after the close of business Thursday night. We covered approximately 7,400 miles in about 64 hours. We visited eight cities and communities. I think we were in the airplane some 23 hours, spent 6 hours on a bus, and at least 10 hours visiting with people on the ground in Alaska. But for that relatively brief time, I think a great deal was learned. The purpose of the trip, relative to aspects of the national energy security of the country, was to observe the oil development on the North Slope of Alaska at Prudhoe Bay, and to follow the pipeline 800 miles down to the terminus at Valdez. We flew on Friday direct from Washington, DC, via Edmonton, Canada to Cordova, AK, in Prince William Sound, where we were met by Mayor Johnson, who gave us an overview of the impact of the Federal Government relations and the aftereffects of the Exxon Valdez oilspill at Bligh Reef. We then got into smaller aircraft and flew around Prince William Sound. We viewed Colombia Glacier and at the area where the Exxon Valdez went aground--we observed the beaches closely. I am pleased to tell my colleagues that there was absolutely no sign of any residue from that terrible accident. We then landed in Valdez, were met by a group of people, and boarded a bus to go around the harbor to the pipeline terminal, which is the largest oil terminal in the United States. A full 25 percent of our total crude oil production is dispatched on U.S.-flagged tankers that move it to Hawaii, to Los Angeles and San Francisco on the west coast, and to other areas. It was remarkable to note that there were hundreds of tourists fishing for salmon, right next to the oil terminal, in small boats. We saw several fish being caught. These weren't shills, these were real people, real tourists out there, Mr. President. We had an opportunity to inspect the terminal. We observed the major storage area. We actually went into one of the storage tanks that was being cleaned. The setting of the terminal--that I remind my colleagues has the capability of supplying this Nation with 25 percent of its total crude oil--is really dramatic. It sits on a shelf across the harbor from Valdez, on solid rock, with a dramatic background of snowcapped peaks. More significant still is, I think, the technology that has been adopted there. They are currently able to recapture any emissions from the loading tankers, that is, the fumes coming from loading the tankers, and put them back into a closed recovery process. So there are virtually no emissions coming out during the loading process. To protect against liquids, each ship has a boom around it while it is loaded to make sure that there is no oil can possibly escape. I think the oil spillage there in the last several years has totaled less than a gallon, to give you some idea of the safety and technology that has been adopted. We next went back to Valdez by boat, met with community leaders and then got back on our airplane and flew to Fairbanks. In Fairbanks we were hosted at a dinner by the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., the Alaska Native corporation representing the North Slope area. Next morning we flew from Barrow to Fairbanks, about an hour-and-a-half flight. Point Barrow is the northernmost community in the United States. You can't go any further north without falling off the top. There we met with a number of Native people, and they were very explicit in explaining to us the significant difference that energy development has made to their lives. One young man indicated that he used to come to school to keep warm, because there was not enough heat in his home. They had to scrounge on the beach for driftwood, driftwood that is not native to the area because Barrow is far north of the tree line, but would float in from the MacKenzie River 100 miles away to the east and wash up on the beach. He said things are different now. He went to a school that was built by the North Slope Borough government and funded by the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. It is one of the finest schools in the United States. It has everything--even indoor recess capability, a good idea in that climate. Really a magnificent facility. We also visited the local hospital and several other things. But the point the resident brought out is that they prospered only as a consequence of having a tax base based on resource development--oil and gas. They were able to send their children to school. And it was not like the past when there were no economic benefits, no support base. I think everyone was very pleased at the presentation because it provided a point of view on energy development that is not often made. We next flew in our airplane to Prudhoe Bay, the beginning of the 800-mile pipeline, to observe the oilfields. Then we went by bus to a site called Endicott. This is a field based on a man-made island about 11 miles offshore, made of gravel. It is the seventh largest producing oilfield in North America, and yet it has a footprint of only 54 acres. That's very significant when you consider the advancements in oil technology between Prudhoe Bay and Endicott, and realize they can develop oil using directional drilling from a very small platform--that is what Endicott means. We then drove back to Prudhoe Bay, got in small aircraft and went east to the Canadian border. There, we were inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--ANWR. We actually flew into the ANWR area to a village that is in the middle of ANWR called Kaktovik. We met with the villagers. They were out fishing. It was a beautiful day. There was virtually no wind. The icecap moved away from the shore, leaving blue waters. We saw maybe 10,000 caribou, and several hundred musk ox on the tundra. The interesting thing is we saw where the proposed wells are going to be developed on the State's side of ANWR, and then we went near a well site that is very close to the edge of ANWR called Sourdough. This is a well on State land adjacent to ANWR and which may be the site of a major oil discovery. The question there is whether this discovery extends into ANWR or is limited just to the State land next to it. Of course, this presents a problem and a question of responsibility for the Secretary of the Interior. Because he has public trust responsibility to determine if there is, in fact, a reservoir of oil on the Federal side. That's important because if the State allows drilling and the State pulls down the oil deposit under its well, a portion of that resource could belong to the Federal Government. We went to a couple of other areas that were interesting. Some in the group asked, ``Where are the pictures of the coastal plain that we see in the environmental magazines that portray the sensitive coastal plain area?'' We took the group back into that area, a dramatically different region that is not in the same area as the coastal plain despite the pictures we see so often. We also observed a number of areas where they plan to drill on the State's side, and flew over the one exploratory well that had been drilled within the ANWR area. There was no evidence, other than you can see a discoloration of the tundra, of that well's existence--no structures of any kind. What that well may or may not contain we still don't know because that information has never been released by the companies that did the drilling. It is somewhat academic at this point, because if there were substantial reserves there, there is no way to take them out because it's all Federal land. Without the ability to transfer the oil through a pipeline it is impractical and unreasonable to proceed until Congress resolves the issue of what to do with the 1002 area. This is a unique area, part of ANWR, but just 1\1/2\ million acres out of the 19-million-acre total. The area of ANWR is basically made up of three parcels. About 8 million acres are in the wilderness, about 9 million acres are in what we call refuges. Only 1\1/2\ million acres are included in the so-called 1002 area, which was reserved for the Congress of the United States to decide whether or not it is in the national interest to open that area for oil and gas exploration. To conclude with a brief description of the trip, I think my colleagues would agree, they saw a great big hunk of American real estate and got a feel for the sensitive areas. They got a feel for the advanced technology that is underway currently for oil and gas exploration and production. We saw foxes. We saw caribou running ahead of our bus on the roads in Prudhoe Bay. Then after that day, we flew back to Fairbanks where we were hosted by the Alaska miners to a dinner. The next morning, the University of Alaska, on Sunday, hosted the Members to a breakfast at 8 o'clock. Then at 9 o'clock, we went out to the Fort Knox gold mine. This is the largest gold mine in Alaska producing from a new technology that gets the very fine gold and is able to recover it. It is operating 7 days a week, 24 hours a day with a shift of about 200 personnel, but the significance is that they brought in a bar of gold, a brick, a little bit bigger than a brick, very heavy. It was worth about $167,000. That is what one brick of gold is worth. We drove back to Fairbanks, got in the airplane at noon on Sunday, and flew back the rest of the day, got in here at midnight, and went to work Monday morning. I simply describe this as evidence, I think, of an opportunity for Members to see Alaska, such as Senator Helms, Senator Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, Senator Smith, the current occupant of the chair, and see for themselves what the issues are relative to the issue of ANWR and other aspects of the national energy security interests which Alaska contributes significantly to and address the dilemma associated with development on public land and talk to Alaskans who we feel are the best stewards of the land. So I encourage my other colleagues to contact the Senators in question--Senators Helms, Jeffords, Inhofe, and Smith of Oregon, because we would like to host others in Alaska and let them see for themselves as they address many of the issues that are going to determine the manner in which Congress authorizes resource development on public lands in our Nation's largest State. With that, I thank my colleague who has been patient, and I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation that I think is most significant. This legislation will particularly appeal to those who are inclined to enjoy the outdoors because it will establish our Nation's first coast-to- coast multiuse hiking trail. Take a moment and think about that. You will be able to hike from coast to coast on a hiking trail. That means off the highways, away from the roads, behind the freeways. A true outdoor experience. Trails are one of America's most popular recreation resources. Millions of Americans hike, they ski, they jog, they bike, they ride horses, they drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, they observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country. A variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike paths, bridle paths, community greenways, historic trails, motorized trails, and long-distance hiking trails. This legislation will establish the American Discovery Trail, or ADT as it is commonly called. The ADT is a continuous coast-to-coast trail to link the Nation's principal north-south trails and east-west historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a nationwide network. Mr. President, by establishing a system of discovery trails, this new category will recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is equally as important as traversing remote wilderness trails, of which we have many in my State of Alaska. Long-distance trails are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by weekenders. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks. As an example, of the estimated 4 million users of the Appalachian Trail, each year it is estimated that only about 100 to 150 walk the entire trail annually. This will be true of the American Discovery Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban locations throughout the country. The ADT, the first of the discovery trails, will connect 6 of the national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the national recreation trails, and hundreds of other local and regional trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create a national system of connected trails is that the existing trails, for the most part, are simply not connectable. With the ADT that will no longer be the case. The ADT is about access. The trails will connect people to larger cities, small towns, urban areas and to mountains, forests, deserts and natural areas, incorporating regional, local, and national trails together. What makes this so exciting is the way it has already brought people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 miles support the effort. Each State the trail passes through already has a volunteer coordination effort, and coordinators who lead an active ADT committee. A strong grassroots effort along with financial support from Backpacker magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Companies and others, have helped make the ADT move from a dream to a reality. Only one very more important step on the trail needs to be taken. Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our national trail system. I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort. The American Discovery Trail begins, or ends, when your two feet go into the Pacific at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in Lake Tahoe in the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Nevada offers historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak. Utah provides national forests and parks along with spectacular red rock country, which leads into Colorado offering Colorado National Monument with its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then there is the Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass and Crested Butte, in the heart of the ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails into Evergreen. I wish I was there myself this afternoon. At Denver, the ADT divides and becomes the northern and southern Midwest routes. The northern Midwest route winds through Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; the southern Midwest route leaves Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky until the trail joins the northern route in Cincinnati. West Virginia is next, then Maryland and the C&O Canal. This leads to Washington, DC, where the trail passes The Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the trail reaches the eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean. Between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, one will experience the most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an opportunity to discovery America from small towns, to rural countryside, to large metropolitan areas. When the President signs the legislation into law, a 10-year effort will have been achieved. The American Discovery Trail will become a reality. The more people who use it, the better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of introducing legislation that I think is most significant. This legislation will particularly appeal to those who are inclined to enjoy the outdoors because it will establish our Nation's first coast-to- coast multiuse hiking trail. Take a moment and think about that. You will be able to hike from coast to coast on a hiking trail. That means off the highways, away from the roads, behind the freeways. A true outdoor experience. Trails are one of America's most popular recreation resources. Millions of Americans hike, they ski, they jog, they bike, they ride horses, they drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, they observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country. A variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike paths, bridle paths, community greenways, historic trails, motorized trails, and long-distance hiking trails. This legislation will establish the American Discovery Trail, or ADT as it is commonly called. The ADT is a continuous coast-to-coast trail to link the Nation's principal north-south trails and east-west historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a nationwide network. Mr. President, by establishing a system of discovery trails, this new category will recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is equally as important as traversing remote wilderness trails, of which we have many in my State of Alaska. Long-distance trails are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by weekenders. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks. As an example, of the estimated 4 million users of the Appalachian Trail, each year it is estimated that only about 100 to 150 walk the entire trail annually. This will be true of the American Discovery Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban locations throughout the country. The ADT, the first of the discovery trails, will connect 6 of the national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the national recreation trails, and hundreds of other local and regional trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create a national system of connected trails is that the existing trails, for the most part, are simply not connectable. With the ADT that will no longer be the case. The ADT is about access. The trails will connect people to larger cities, small towns, urban areas and to mountains, forests, deserts and natural areas, incorporating regional, local, and national trails together. What makes this so exciting is the way it has already brought people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 miles support the effort. Each State the trail passes through already has a volunteer coordination effort, and coordinators who lead an active ADT committee. A strong grassroots effort along with financial support from Backpacker magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Companies and others, have helped make the ADT move from a dream to a reality. Only one very more important step on the trail needs to be taken. Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our national trail system. I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort. The American Discovery Trail begins, or ends, when your two feet go into the Pacific at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in Lake Tahoe in the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Nevada offers historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak. Utah provides national forests and parks along with spectacular red rock country, which leads into Colorado offering Colorado National Monument with its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then there is the Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass and Crested Butte, in the heart of the ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails into Evergreen. I wish I was there myself this afternoon. At Denver, the ADT divides and becomes the northern and southern Midwest routes. The northern Midwest route winds through Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; the southern Midwest route leaves Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky until the trail joins the northern route in Cincinnati. West Virginia is next, then Maryland and the C&O Canal. This leads to Washington, DC, where the trail passes The Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the trail reaches the eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean. Between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, one will experience the most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an opportunity to discovery America from small towns, to rural countryside, to large metropolitan areas. When the President signs the legislation into law, a 10-year effort will have been achieved. The American Discovery Trail will become a reality. The more people who use it, the better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation addressing several important aspects of the administration and management of Glacier Bay National Park, one of the most popular and unique tourist destinations in the country. This bill will encourage the continuation of the Park Service's ongoing efforts to work with concession operators to improve visitor services, as well as deal fairly and finally with a long-standing dispute over the status of commercial and subsistence fishing. On the latter subject, this bill reflects the progress of several years of discussions with local interests and the Park Service. These efforts have been positive, but have been hampered from achieving consensus by some groups' unwillingness to compromise. Insofar as possible, this bill represents an attempt to stake out reasonable and responsible middle ground that respects the wishes of all concerned. Mr. President, commercial fishermen have plied the waters of Glacier Bay and the outer coast of the area now included in the park for over 100 years. local native villagers, the Huna Tlingit people, have done so for thousands of years. At no time have these activities damaged the park or its resources, nor have they harmed the area's wild and scenic qualities in any way. This simple fact cannot be overemphasized. To put it another way-- commercial fishermen and local villagers have continually fished in Glacier Bay since long before it became a park or a monument, and the fact that we value it so highly today is proof that they have not had an adverse impact on the species of the bay. Unfortunately, some interests don't care about fairness, and would like to see fishing and gathering banned no matter how environmentally benign or how critical to local livelihoods. On subsistence, this bill corrects inconsistencies in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] concerning subsistence fishing and gathering in Glacier Bay National Park. Villagers living near Glacier Bay, whose ancestors have used the bay continually for the last 9,000 years, must be allowed to use the bay's resources to feed their families --to fish for halibut, salmon, and crabs, and to collect clams, seaweeds, berries, and other foods that are traditional in their culture. Let me emphasize that we are talking about a relative handful of families from the local Native village of Hoonah, which has a population of less than 900, and a few people from other nearby communities such as Elfin Cove, Gustavus, and Pelican. We are not talking about thousands of people. These Alaskans do not have convenient supermarkets. They deserve respect--they deserve to have their historic use recognized and provided for by this Congress. My bill also addresses commercial fishing in the park. For generations, commercial fishermen have caught salmon, halibut, and crabs in Glacier Bay and have fished the rich grounds of the outside coast. There is no biological reason for restricting commercial fishing activity anywhere in the park. The fishery resources are healthy, diverse, closely monitored, and carefully regulated. It should also be noted that of the park's approximately 3 million acres of marine waters, only about 500,000 are productive enough to warrant significant interest. These fisheries already are restricted as to method and number of participants, and are carefully managed to ensure continued abundance. There is nothing in this bill, and there is no desire by the fishing industry, to change these controls or increase the level of this sustainable activity. Closely monitored by the State of Alaska, which has proven itself a reliable custodian of the fisheries resources, commercial fishing does not harm the environment in any way. Mr. President, in the grand scheme of this Nation's economy, these fisheries are small potatoes. But to the fishermen who depend upon them, to their families, and to the small, remote communities in which they live, these fisheries are of utmost importance. They are harm- free, and those who participate in them deserve their government's help, not the destruction of their simple lifestyle. This bill authorizes fishing throughout the park. However, because there are special sensitivities inside Glacier Bay itself, it also designates the waters inside the bay--as opposed to the outer coast--as a special scientific reserve, for which a joint Federal-State group of scientists will make recommendations on where fishing should or should not occur, and at what level. A further special provision is also included in the one area where there is a significant potential for conflict between fishermen and certain nonmotorized uses such as kayaking. This area is the Beardlee Islands, near the entrance to the bay. Under this bill, the only commercial fishing that would be allowed in the Beardslees would be crab fishing, and that only by the very small number of people--perhaps half a dozen--that can show both a significant history of participation and significant dependence on that fishery for their livelihoods. This privilege could be transferred to one successor when the original fisherman retires, but will cease after that. And at any point, the Park Service could eliminate all fishing in the Beardslees with a fair payment to the individual fishermen. The reason for such a special rule in the Beardslees is simply that these fishermen have no other option than fishing in the Beardslees, due to the size of their vessels, their reliance on this one fishery, and other factors. This bill will not contribute to any increase in fishing pressure; in fact, over time the opposite may occur. It will simply provide for the scientifically sound continuation of an environmentally benign activity. In closing, Mr. President, let me add that the continuation of both subsistence and commercial fishing enjoys wide support from local residents, including environmental groups such as the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and look forward to my colleagues' support for this measure.

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 Thursday, July 31, 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no further questions.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will not further comment, other than to point out that I don't think it is a fair statement to suggest that California judges would have a 50 percent increase in caseload, because that is not reflected.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from California, the amendment which would strike the provisions of the bill to divide the ninth circuit into two separate circuits of more manageable size and certainly more manageable responsibility. The division of the ninth circuit is warranted for three very important reasons: its size and population; its caseload; and its astounding reversal rate by the U.S. Supreme Court. Who holds the ninth circuit court accountable? It is the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's talk about size and population. I have a chart here which shows the magnitude of the area covered by the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit is, by far, the largest of the 13 judicial circuits, encompassing nine States and stretching from the Arctic Circle in my State to the border of Mexico and across the international date line. That is how big it is. We are not against California or Nevada. What we want is a recognition of timely judicial action. Population: The second chart I have shows the number of people served by the ninth circuit. Over 49 million people are served by the ninth circuit, almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest circuit. By the year 2010, not very far away, the Census Bureau estimates that the ninth circuit's population will be more than 63 million, a 43-percent increase in just 13 years. Talk about not doing anything rash. This population is increasing out of control. We better start doing something now. On the issue of accountability, Mr. President, and that is most important, the only factor more disturbing than the geographic magnitude of the circuit is the magnitude of its ever-expanding docket. The ninth circuit has more cases than any other circuit. Last year alone, the ninth circuit had an astounding 8,502 new filings. It is because of its caseload that the entire appellate process in the ninth circuit is the second slowest in the Nation. How do they explain that? As a former chief judge, Judge Wallace of the ninth circuit, stated: It takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal in our court as compared to the national median time. Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger put it more succinctly when he called the ninth circuit an ``unmanageable administrative monstrosity.'' Let's look at this reversal rate which I want to talk to you about, because there is the issue of accountability. Our responsibility of judicial oversight demands action now. Unfortunately, this massive size often results in the decrease in the ability of the judges to keep abreast of legal developments within this jurisdiction. The large number of judges scattered over a large area inevitably results in difficulty in reaching consistent circuit decisions. This judicial inconsistency has led to continual increases in the reversal rate of the ninth circuit decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. During the last Supreme Court session, the Court reversed 19 of the 20 cases that it heard from the ninth circuit. That is an astounding 95 percent reversal rate. How do they explain that? They don't. It is embarrassing, I would think, for the judges. The Supreme Court holds the circuit accountable to the tune of a 95 percent reversal rate. It's about accountability, Mr. President. Here is the relative ninth circuit reversal rate: 95 percent in 1996; 83 percent in 1995; 82 percent in 1994; 73 percent in 1993; 63 percent in 1992. Why does this reversal rate continue to increase? Because the circuit is simply too big. Intracircuit conflicts are the result. Ninth circuit Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain, a sitting judge on the ninth circuit, described the problem as follows: An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a coherent body of law. A circuit judge must feel as though he or she speaks for the whole court and not merely an individual. As more and more judges are added, it becomes harder for the court to remain accountable to lawyers, other judges, and the public at large. Listen to that, ``the public at large.'' As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger is not better. Another sitting judge on the ninth circuit, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, agrees: With so many judges on the ninth circuit and so many cases, there is no way a judge can read all the other judges' opinions. . . It's an impossibility. Now there you have it, Mr. President. Two statements from two sitting judges about what the problem is. Some today argue that the Senate is acting in haste. This is entirely untrue. The concept of dividing the ninth circuit is not new. Numerous proposals to divide the ninth circuit were debated in Congress since before World War II. More recent congressional history includes: A 1973 congressional commission to study realignment with the circuit court, chaired by Senator Hruska, which strongly called for division of the ninth circuit. Congressional hearings have been held in 1974, 1975, 1983, 1989, 1990 and 1995. A split of the ninth circuit has been reported from a Senate committee on three occasions, Mr. President. How long do we have to wait? Dividing the ninth has been studied, debated and analyzed to death. It is time for action. I have one final chart. This is a statement from retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger: I strongly believe that the ninth circuit is far too cumbersome and it should be divided. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who reviews, if you will, the appeals, has this opinion: I have increasing doubts and increasing reservations about the wisdom of retaining the ninth in its historic size, and with its historic jurisdiction. Honorable Diarmuid O'Scannlain, ninth circuit: We (the ninth circuit) cannot grow without limit. . . As the number of opinions increases, we judges risk losing the ability to know what our circuit's law is. . . Judge Kleinfeld currently sitting on the court: The ninth circuit is too large and has too many cases-- making it impossible to keep abreast of ninth circuit decisions. Our own former Member, a Senator from Alabama, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Howell Heflin, who we have the greatest respect for: Congress recognized that a point is reached where the addition of judges decreases the effectiveness of the court, complicates the administration of uniform law, and potentially diminishes the quality of justice within a circuit. That is our own former Senator. Finally, recently retired Senator Mark Hatfield: The increased likelihood of intracircuit conflicts is an important justification for splitting the court. There you have some of the most respected people we know relative to this subject. The Commerce, State, Justice bill splits the circuit in a rational way. The States of California and Nevada, due to their large population, particularly of California, and the rapid population growth of Nevada, will comprise the new ninth circuit. The balance of the States of the circuit will form the new twelfth circuit. The 49 million residents of the ninth circuit are the persons who suffer. Many wait years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forgo the entire appellate process. In brief, the ninth circuit has become a circuit where justice is not swift and justice is not always served. We have known of the problem of the ninth circuit for a long time. It is time to solve the problem. It is time for action now, and it is time for timely justice. I urge my colleagues to reflect on this reality and the responsibility that this Senate has to address it. Let's not forget that reversal rate relative to the chart on my right. I am going to leave that up as I yield the remainder of my time, because this is the real story, Mr. President. Here is the accountability of the court, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the number of cases that they have reversed. It is absolutely embarrassing and, as a consequence, action should be taken by this body now. This is nothing against my good friends from California or the State of California. This just happens to be the reality of the court that we are forced to operate under. To suggest that somehow we don't like the decisions is absolutely silly and unrealistic. These decisions are made on legal merits, as they should be. They have nothing to do relative to the location of the court. This court is simply overworked and is unresponsive to the public, as indicated by the Supreme Court's reversal rate. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could I ask my friend from California a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the Senator from California indicated, Mr. President, that new California judges would have a 50 percent increase in caseload, and the Senator from California indicated that would not be enough judges. I wonder if she meant to say that, in the new ninth circuit, there would be 63 percent new cases and 53 percent judges, and in the twelfth circuit, there would be 37 percent new cases and 42 percent judges, which are the figures that we have from the committee, which hardly reflect a 50 percent increase in the caseload.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Ketchikan, AK, just north of the Canadian border in southeast Alaska, has recently suffered an extreme economic blow due to changes in Federal forest management policies. It is a town of just a few thousand people, and the loss of 406 jobs due to the closure of one of the town's major industries, a pulpmill, severely disrupted the community. The need for economic revitalization in Ketchikan is great, but the available opportunities are limited. One potentially important opportunity is provided by a local shipyard, Ketchikan Ship and Drydock. However, the ability of this yard to contribute to the local economy is limited without a significant upgrade of its ability to handle a variety of vessel sizes. It is my understanding that the subcommittee report on this appropriation recognizes similar situations in other areas by suggesting that the Economic Development Administration consider proposals which meet its procedures and guidelines. Would the distinguished managers of the bill, my friends from New Hampshire and South Carolina, agree that if the EDA receives a proposal for the Ketchikan shipyard which meets its procedures and guidelines, the EDA should consider that proposal and provide a grant if the latter is warranted?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we consider funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to raise the issue of Clean Air Act carbon monoxide violations in my home town of Fairbanks with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee. As the chairman knows, Fairbanks has one of the highest rates of temperature inversions in the world. When such inversions occur, pollutants from any source in the area are trapped at extremely low altitudes. For example, it is not uncommon to see the smoke from house chimneys trapped directly above a house rather than disbursed in the atmosphere as in other cities nationwide. While I would have preferred that the EPA not go forward with a bump- up on the rating of Fairbanks' air from moderate to serious, I recognize that this bill is not the place to accomplish that goal. I would like to point out that in the past 20 years, Fairbanks has reduced its violation days from 160 to as low as 1 last year. It is these last violations that are causing difficulties for communities nationwide. However, Fairbanks may never be able to prevent several violations per year due to its unique and extreme cold weather. It is my hope that the EPA would work with Fairbanks to develop strategies to mitigate the pollution that is so severely magnified by the extreme cold weather of my hometown.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation addressing several important aspects of the administration and management of Glacier Bay National Park, one of the most popular and unique tourist destinations in the country. This bill will encourage the continuation of the Park Service's ongoing efforts to work with concession operators to improve visitor services, as well as deal fairly and finally with a long-standing dispute over the status of commercial and subsistence fishing. On the latter subject, this bill reflects the progress of several years of discussions with local interests and the Park Service. These efforts have been positive, but have been hampered from achieving consensus by some groups' unwillingness to compromise. Insofar as possible, this bill represents an attempt to stake out reasonable and responsible middle ground that respects the wishes of all concerned. Mr. President, commercial fishermen have plied the waters of Glacier Bay and the outer coast of the area now included in the park for over 100 years. local native villagers, the Huna Tlingit people, have done so for thousands of years. At no time have these activities damaged the park or its resources, nor have they harmed the area's wild and scenic qualities in any way. This simple fact cannot be overemphasized. To put it another way-- commercial fishermen and local villagers have continually fished in Glacier Bay since long before it became a park or a monument, and the fact that we value it so highly today is proof that they have not had an adverse impact on the species of the bay. Unfortunately, some interests don't care about fairness, and would like to see fishing and gathering banned no matter how environmentally benign or how critical to local livelihoods. On subsistence, this bill corrects inconsistencies in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] concerning subsistence fishing and gathering in Glacier Bay National Park. Villagers living near Glacier Bay, whose ancestors have used the bay continually for the last 9,000 years, must be allowed to use the bay's resources to feed their families --to fish for halibut, salmon, and crabs, and to collect clams, seaweeds, berries, and other foods that are traditional in their culture. Let me emphasize that we are talking about a relative handful of families from the local Native village of Hoonah, which has a population of less than 900, and a few people from other nearby communities such as Elfin Cove, Gustavus, and Pelican. We are not talking about thousands of people. These Alaskans do not have convenient supermarkets. They deserve respect--they deserve to have their historic use recognized and provided for by this Congress. My bill also addresses commercial fishing in the park. For generations, commercial fishermen have caught salmon, halibut, and crabs in Glacier Bay and have fished the rich grounds of the outside coast. There is no biological reason for restricting commercial fishing activity anywhere in the park. The fishery resources are healthy, diverse, closely monitored, and carefully regulated. It should also be noted that of the park's approximately 3 million acres of marine waters, only about 500,000 are productive enough to warrant significant interest. These fisheries already are restricted as to method and number of participants, and are carefully managed to ensure continued abundance. There is nothing in this bill, and there is no desire by the fishing industry, to change these controls or increase the level of this sustainable activity. Closely monitored by the State of Alaska, which has proven itself a reliable custodian of the fisheries resources, commercial fishing does not harm the environment in any way. Mr. President, in the grand scheme of this Nation's economy, these fisheries are small potatoes. But to the fishermen who depend upon them, to their families, and to the small, remote communities in which they live, these fisheries are of utmost importance. They are harm- free, and those who participate in them deserve their government's help, not the destruction of their simple lifestyle. This bill authorizes fishing throughout the park. However, because there are special sensitivities inside Glacier Bay itself, it also designates the waters inside the bay--as opposed to the outer coast--as a special scientific reserve, for which a joint Federal-State group of scientists will make recommendations on where fishing should or should not occur, and at what level. A further special provision is also included in the one area where there is a significant potential for conflict between fishermen and certain nonmotorized uses such as kayaking. This area is the Beardlee Islands, near the entrance to the bay. Under this bill, the only commercial fishing that would be allowed in the Beardslees would be crab fishing, and that only by the very small number of people--perhaps half a dozen--that can show both a significant history of participation and significant dependence on that fishery for their livelihoods. This privilege could be transferred to one successor when the original fisherman retires, but will cease after that. And at any point, the Park Service could eliminate all fishing in the Beardslees with a fair payment to the individual fishermen. The reason for such a special rule in the Beardslees is simply that these fishermen have no other option than fishing in the Beardslees, due to the size of their vessels, their reliance on this one fishery, and other factors. This bill will not contribute to any increase in fishing pressure; in fact, over time the opposite may occur. It will simply provide for the scientifically sound continuation of an environmentally benign activity. In closing, Mr. President, let me add that the continuation of both subsistence and commercial fishing enjoys wide support from local residents, including environmental groups such as the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and look forward to my colleagues' support for this measure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor and I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 109, which was submitted earlier today by my colleague, Senator Stevens, as well as myself and other Members.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the Government of Canada failed to act responsibly to quickly restore order and the rule of law during the recent blockade of the Alaska State ferry, the motor vessel Malaspina. I am pleased to be joined in this measure by the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the senior Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton. Mr. President, the amendment responds to this illegal blockade, in which a large number of Canadian fishing vessels joined forces to prevent the Malaspina from departing from Prince Rupert, BC, from approximately 8 a.m. Saturday morning until approximately 9 p.m. on Monday. The actions of these Canadian fishermen was a clear violation of international law which provides for the right of free passage, and continued Monday in violation of a Canadian court order against the blockade, issued on Sunday. Obviously, Canadian authorities had a difficult task, but the reality is that they failed to take timely action to disperse this illegal demonstration. Indeed, they delayed even serving their own Canadian court's injunction against the blockaders. This incident caused distress, financial harm, and inconvenience to some 300 passengers, primarily American passengers, on board the vessel, and to the State of Alaska that operates the system, and to companies which had consigned freight shipments to the vessel. While the Canadian fishermen claimed their action was in response to a fishing dispute, the blockade of this vessel went far beyond any fishing dispute into a very dangerous area, and created an international incident. There is little difference, in reality, between this blockade and the interruption of traffic on a major international highway such as New York's Route 81 to Montreal. The Alaska Marine Highway System is part of our U.S. Interstate Highway System. Operating money for the Malaspina and other vessels in the system receive funding through ISTEA, our national highway legislation. Any vehicles that can traverse the interstate highways of Alaska can be accommodated in the MV Malaspina. It carries approximately 105 cars, vans--you name it. So, it is an official part of the U.S. National Highway System. Moreover, Mr. President, this ship was also carrying the U.S. mail. This resolution will put the Senate on record in opposition to this and future illegal attacks on the U.S. transportation network, and specifically the Alaska Marine Highway System. It calls upon the President to do whatever is necessary and whatever is appropriate to ensure that the Government of Canada takes steps to guarantee that illegal actions against American citizens will not be allowed. It also calls on the President to assist American citizens who were harmed by this illegal action to recover damages from those responsible and/or from the Canadian Government. Yesterday I spoke with Canada's Ambassador to the United States. He apologized for the burning of the U.S. flag by one of the fishing vessels--an unfortunate incident. On the other hand, even at that time, more than 2 days after the beginning of the blockade, the Ambassador was not able to confirm to me that his government had the necessary commitment to take appropriate steps that may be necessary in such illegal actions. He indicated that he would attempt to find out what action would be considered if the vessels didn't voluntarily depart the area. I am still awaiting the call, although the issue has since been resolved. Ultimately, it was the fishermen themselves who decided to remove that blockade, not any formal action of the Canadian Government in enforcing, if you will, the Canadian court order. Indeed, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries, who met with the fishermen yesterday, was quoted in the press as saying he would not even ask the fishermen to cease the blockade. I know emotions run high. I very much value our relationship with our Canadian neighbors. But an unlawful act such as this, where United States commerce is affected, United States mails are affected, the orderly transportation of United States citizens is affected, and the Canadian and the British Columbian justice systems fail to take immediate action to terminate the illegalities, was very disappointing to those of us in Alaska and the United States. I know the administration views this matter seriously. I know they have under consideration certain steps that may be necessary to protect U.S. interests. I believe the Senate should show its support for the President in this matter and that is exactly what the resolution does. It specifically encourages using United States assets and personnel to protect United States citizens exercising their right of innocent passage through the territorial seas of Canada from such illegal actions or harassment, until such time as the President determines the Government of Canada has adopted a long-term policy that ensures such protection. That could include escort by the U.S. Coast Guard, if necessary. Second, it says we should consider prohibiting the import of select Canadian products until such time as the President determines that Canada has adopted a long-term policy that protects United States citizens exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial seas of Canada from illegal actions or harassment. Third, it suggests the possibility of directing that no Canadian vessel may anchor or otherwise take shelter in United States waters off Alaska or any other State without formal clearance from United States Customs, except of course in the case of storms or other emergencies. Fourth, it reflects that the President might find it appropriate to say that no fish or shellfish taken in sport fisheries in the Province of British Columbia may enter the United States. Last, it suggests enforcing U.S. laws with respect to all vessels in Dixon Entrance, including the waters where jurisdiction is disputed. It is my hope these actions will not be necessary, and that we will get the necessary assurances from the Canadian Government. Many say this is a fishing issue. Mr. President, the fishing issue is paramount but that can only be resolved through negotiations. It is fair to say of the last negotiation, that the Canadians saw fit to walk out and have not been back since. It is my hope those negotiations will resume soon, but that takes two parties to begin. In any event, I ask my colleagues for support on the Senate resolution. Mr. President, It is my intention, with the permission of the floor manager, to ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assume we could, perhaps, arrange for a rollcall vote around 4 o'clock, or stacked with the other votes that are pending, if that is in agreement with my friend?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment from the Senator from New Mexico to strike section 630 of this legislation. Section 630 addresses substantive issues regarding the energy efficiency requirements for Federal agencies under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That act had many provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of Federal facilities. Two are at issue here. First, there are so-called energy savings performance contracts [ESPC's]. These are a mechanism for use of private sector funds to finance Federal energy efficiency improvements. These are competitively bid. In addition, there are utility programs. EPAct also provided for Federal participation in utility demand management programs that are authorized by the State regulators. The ESPC's haven't been used as much as they could be. The ESPC's required new regulations, which DOE took a long time to issue. The contracting process was complicated and cumbersome. However, DOE is now entering into regional contracts for all Federal facilities, which is expected to speed up the contracting process. In the meantime, Federal agencies have been participating in utility demand management programs to reduce energy use. The language of section 630 is very broad--it prohibits participation in all utility demand management programs. Even more troublesome, it prohibits payment under existing contracts. This, despite the fact that there may be some services that only utilities can provide--an example is a meeting system that provides real-time pricing information. But today, I do not wish to debate whether or not this is the right thing to do. This change in a law that is within the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. The promoters of the amendment have claimed that obtaining energy efficiency measures through sole source contracting--through utility demand management programs--is already against the law. This is not so. Section 152 of EPAct amended section 545 of National Energy Conservation Act to include the following language: (c) Utility Incentive Programs.--(1) Agencies are authorized and encouraged to participate in programs to increase energy efficiency and for water conservation or the management of electricity demand conducted by gas, water, or electric utilities and generally available to customers of such utilities. (2) Each agency may accept any financial incentive, goods, or services generally available from any such utility, to increase energy efficiency or to conserve water or manage electric demand. (3) Each agency is encouraged to enter into negotiations with electric, water, and gas utilities to design cost- effective demand management and conservation incentive programs to address the unique needs of facilities utilized by such agency. According to a letter I have received from the Department of Defense, the ``Department uses a combination of contracting authorities to achieve energy efficiency. It is [the Department's belief that [the Department's] current approach provides better results for the U.S. Government than would be the case'' if section 630 were enacted into law. The Department concludes that ``this provision would have the effect of reducing the amount of work defense installations are able to contract to all sectors of the energy community, and therefore, significantly reducing the savings we achieve. There are many issues raised by the Government's implementation of the provision of EPAct. However, these provisions are the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. The concerns that the Department of Defense, and others, have raised with section 630 show that this is a complex issue that should be the subject of a hearing and deliberate legislative by the authorizing committee. An appropriations bill is not the appropriate forum to address these concerns. I ask my colleagues support for the Bingaman amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter I received from Defense Deputy Under Secretary Goodman be printed in the Record.