Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe we are waiting for clearance from the minority, so I am sure in a moment or two we can conclude the session of the Senate today, and I will proceed to act as acting leader in concluding the closing requests.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until the hour of 12 o'clock midnight tonight for the Finance Committee to file an original bill and written report.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I advise my colleagues that 20 years ago today, a truly historic event occurred in my State of Alaska that had much to do with the shaping of the character of our State probably as much as the majestic and unique parts of our State, whether it be in the mountains or glaciers. On June 20, 1977, at 10:06 a.m. at Prudhoe Bay, AK, the crude oil discovered on the North Slope 9 years earlier began to flow. It began its journey south some 800 miles to the ice-free port of Valdez through the Trans-Alaska pipeline. That first trip, which now takes about 5 days for the oil to move, took over 1 month to complete and marked the culmination of the largest private construction project ever undertaken in the history of North America. Since that time, every citizen has benefited from this marvel of American engineering, but few really understand how significant this feat was and how much it has contributed to our Nation. The pipeline took 3 years of construction. The total cost was about $8 billion. The initial estimate was just under $1 billion. However, in today's dollars, that would equate to about $22 to $25 billion. It was truly a marvel, one of the engineering wonders of the world. It took 2,215 State and Federal permits to proceed. Today, it is estimated to take over 5,000. Approximately 70,000 people were used as a work force; over 3 million tons of materials were shipped to Alaska for construction; 73 million cubic yards of gravel were used; 13 bridges, ranging from 177 feet to 2,295 feet had to be constructed going across the Yukon River; 834 rivers were crossed; three mountain ranges as well. Since that time, Mr. President, that pipeline has been subject to earthquakes, it has been subject to bombing, dynamite has been wrapped around it, it has been shot at so many times too numerous to count--but it has withstood those rigors of Mother Nature as well as mankind. While there was a terrible accident associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez, which was of course due to negligence on behalf of those who were operating that vessel, the Prince William Sound is cleaned up today, and it is continuing its contributions as one of the most productive bodies of water on Earth. From the standpoint of the renewability of the fisheries and marine resources of the area--I do not mean to belittle the significance of that tragedy--but Mother Nature has a way of cleansing, and it was helped by a good deal of funding, commitment and expertise from Alaskans and those outside. But the fact remains, this pipeline continues to contribute a great deal to the economy of this country. Certainly much of the permitting process, and to a large degree the continuity of maintaining quality and environmental concerns, are a responsibility of the Federal Government as well as the State government which watched over the construction and the operation and made sure it was done responsibly. But those groups did not stand in the way of construction. Since the pipeline first flowed on June 20, 1977, the pipeline has produced and provided the United States with over 25 percent of the domestic crude oil produced in the United States and about 10 percent of total U.S. daily consumption of crude oil, to give you some idea of the significance of this particular and unique all-American pipeline. So, as a consequence, as we look at our situation today, this pipeline has contributed significantly to U.S. energy independence and, I might add, energy independence that is in serious jeopardy. Consider this for just a moment, Mr. President. In 1994, domestic flow production dropped to 6.6 million barrels a day, the lowest since 1954. National demand has increased to more than 17.7 million barrels per day, the highest level since the mid-1970's. The United States imported 51 percent of its oil in 1994. Today, we are importing a little over 52 percent, but according to the Department of Energy, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is expected to rise to nearly 70 percent by the year 2000. If not for the trans-Alaska pipeline, we might have already reached 70 percent imported oil. How much higher would our gasoline prices be without that pipeline? How much more likely would we be putting our children and grandchildren in harm's way on foreign soil to protect our domestic interests if we were importing more than 70 percent of our oil? Because, make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the Persian Gulf conflict was about keeping the flow of oil for the benefit of the world. We have always had an environmental concern over the pipeline. It was predicted that this pipeline, going through permafrost, which is frozen ground, and being a hot pipeline carrying warm oil, would cause heat generation and melt the permafrost, and, therefore, the pipeline would continually go further and further down, to fulfill perhaps a self- propelling prophecy that was suggested it would end up in China some day. Didn't we always know as kids, if you went down far enough, you would end up in China? Well, clearly that has not happened, Mr. President. The pipeline operates in permafrost. The hot oil flows through the pipeline, but the pipeline was clearly engineered to withstand that. It was suggested that this pipeline across 800 miles of Alaska would cause the animals, the wildlife associated with it, be it the polar bear, the grizzly bear, the brown bear, the black bear, the caribou, or the moose, to somehow have a fence they could not cross. The facts are, at the pipeline and the buried sections, the animals browse on it in the early spring because the small amount of heat generated causes the grasses to come up first, and it has become a sight and attraction. We see the caribou in their migration standing on top of the buried pipeline because there is more wind there and there are less opportunities for mosquitoes. So to suggest that it has somehow restricted the natural flow of wildlife certainly has not occurred. One can bottom line it and simply say the predictions of the environmental groups who said this was going to be some kind of environmental disaster have not occurred. It has been successful. It has done its job, and continues. To suggest it has not had its share of problems or there have not been mechanical failures and there have not been human failures--of course there have. I have always supported stringent oversight of the pipeline. We have been working with the Joint Pipeline Office and the Department of Transportation, and the effort has been successful. But every now and then we find opponents of development in Alaska who are looking for a cause, the cause of membership or cause of dollars or perhaps they bring up some of the young attorneys from Harvard or Brown to do missionary work in Alaska by representing one or another of the environmental groups. I think we have some 62 in Anchorage now. They need a cause. And one of their favorite topics, when things are slow, is to come out with a report that somehow the pipeline is in peril, somehow the pipeline is not being operated in the most efficient manner from the standpoint of the public interest. First of all, Mr. President, those who own the pipeline, the major owners--ARCO, Exxon--produce petroleum. Their interest is moving oil, moving oil safely, moving oil economically. To do anything less than that would be detrimental to their own interest. The State of Alaska maintains an oversight, the Federal Government maintains an oversight. But nevertheless, we continually see reports that purposely mislead the public about the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Those of us in the Senate know that if you do not have your electric code book up to date--and there are 25,000 or 30,000 separate entries-- you can be classified by an agency as having 25,000 or 30,000 violations. It does not mean that your code book has not been updated during the last year for any number of reasons. So we have had critics of the pipeline from time to time issuing reports intended to portray some of these problems as standard operating procedure for pipeline management rather than an exception. Of course, it generates for those particular organizations contributions and in some cases generates membership. But these claims are in stark contrast to recent oversight reports by responsible State and Federal agencies tasked with the oversight responsibility. In 1995, the U.S. Department of Transportation audited the Office of Pipeline Safety to determine its effectiveness in ensuring the Trans- Alaska pipeline operations minimize risk to life and property. The audit concluded the operation ``is effectively monitoring and inspecting [the pipeline]. Also, when violations were identified, OPS took enforcement actions against Alyeska'' and made corrections. In August of 1995, at the request of Congress, the GAO completed an audit of the pipeline operators and their response to identified deficiencies. The report concluded that ``Alyeska has taken substantive actions that, if carried through to completion, appear to be adequate to correct the problems.'' Last year, the Joint Pipeline Office concluded that Alyeska has implemented its revised quality control for the pipeline sufficiently to allow its full approval. So, Mr. President, these are the responsible agencies and current reports we have on hand. We have no reason to doubt their accuracy. Finally, Mr. President, Alaska truly is a great State, a great big piece of real estate. We have many great assets, including our people and the resources that we have. On this date, I would like to especially recognize the role the Trans-Alaska pipeline has had in shaping our State and the benefits it has provided to this Nation's energy and natural security interests. Finally, Mr. President, on July 18-20, I am going to be leading a number of our colleagues to Alaska to look at the issues related to resource development of Alaska's Arctic, specifically the Trans-Alaska pipeline and other areas where truly the wealth of North America is coming from the Arctic. I remind the Presiding Officer that Alaska just happens to be the only State with any Arctic in it. So as part of that trip, we will take a close look at the marvels of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, what it has meant to this Nation. I look forward to leading this group, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me on this important trip. Finally, in conclusion, on the 20th anniversary of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, I would like to congratulate those workers who operate and have operated this pipeline for the last 20 years against tremendous odds, extraordinary climactic conditions, and have done it in a manner of recognizing that American technology and ingenuity and can-do spirit can just about overcome any adversity and any particular challenge of the time. The successful operation of the Trans-Alaska pipeline for the last 20 years, I think, has proven that indeed the men and women who are associated with the pipeline and the Alyeska crew are certainly up to the task. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 82, H.R. 363.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the Chair a good afternoon.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, Monday the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon. By previous consent, at 12 o'clock the Senate will begin consideration of S. 947, the budget reconciliation bill. As previously announced, all votes ordered with respect to that bill on Monday will be stacked to occur on Tuesday, June 24, at 9:30 a.m. Therefore, rollcall votes will occur beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday or very close thereafter, as the majority leader announced Thursday evening. There is a lot of work to be done prior to the Senate adjourning for the Fourth of July recess. Therefore, Senators' cooperation in scheduling of floor action would be appreciated.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12 noon, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 947, the budget reconciliation bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, June 23d. Further, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests for the morning hour be granted and the Senate then be in a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes with the following exceptions: Senator Daschle, or his designee, 60 minutes, from the hour of 10 to 11 o'clock; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 60 minutes, from the hour of 11 to 12 o'clock.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I just had a conversation with the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, relative to the reasons why I have offered an amendment which would require that the Foreign Relations Committee confirm the coordinator of Taiwan affairs at the State Department. As the Chair is aware, the Taiwan Relations Act requires the Committee on Foreign Relations to oversee the implementation of the TRA and the operations and procedures of the American Institute in Taiwan. And, furthermore, then Secretary of State Vance assured the committee in a letter to then Chairman Frank Church that ``the names of prospective trustees and officers will be forwarded to the Foreign Relations Committee. If the Committee expresses reservations about a prospective trusteer, [the Department of State] will undertake to discuss the matter fully with the Committee before proceeding.'' The Secretary of State assured me that she will put into a formal letter that the State Department will agree to consult with the Foreign Relations Committee prior to appointing any director or chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The letter will, of course, be directed to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. A copy will be given to the minority, as well as to me, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed to refer, specifically, in her letter, to the assurance that Chairman Frank Church received from Secretary of State Vance regarding the intent and interpretation of the committee's role under the Taiwan Relations Act. So as a consequence of that assurance, Mr. President, and with thanks to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think that Secretary Albright has met my concern by assuring the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that, indeed, the State Department will put into writing its agreement to consult with the committee prior to appointing the director or chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. As we all know, and the concern we have is that, previously, the appointments took place before the consultations took place. That will not be the case. I thank Senator Biden for his role in taking the first call from the Secretary and, again, I appreciate Senator Helms' indulgence in providing me with the time to come to the floor, as well as to talk to the Secretary. As a consequence of that, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would increase dramatically cooperation between the Congress and Department of State on issues relating to Taiwan. There have been a lot of problems over the last few years relative to Executive Branch-Congressional dealings with regard to Taiwan. We had a situation back in 1993, I think, when President Lee of Taiwan attempted to overnight in Hawaii on a flight from Taiwan that was traversing the Pacific Ocean to a Central American destination. Unfortunately, that was not handled very well, and I think that it reflected poorly on U.S. hospitality. I recognize the sensitivity of the issue, but, nevertheless, I think most Americans agree that it was poorly handled by the State Department. The administration, at that time, refused to work with the Congress on this issue until 1994, when an amendment which I offered went to a vote and prevailed. More recently, some in this Chamber might remember the controversy created by the selection of the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan, Director James Wood. It is important to note that this directorship is not a formal ambassadorial position. It is our recognition of the uniqueness, if you will, of the existence of Taiwan that the President selects a Representative to Taiwan. Mr. James Wood resigned from his position on January 17, 1997. There were various charges and countercharges with regard to foreign contributions during the election campaign, and the legitimacy of that I will leave to the investigators. However, a February 10 Los Angeles Times story quoted a U.S. investigator as saying the variety of allegations constituted the ``most bold and blatant'' example veteran State Department officials could recall of the abuse of a diplomatic post. I am not going to argue the merits of Mr. Wood. But the Senate knows very little about Mr. Wood or any other official with direct responsibility for Taiwan affairs, because they do not come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for confirmation. In the case of Mr. Wood, it is not for lack of effort on the part of the Senate. My very good friend and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, is very familiar with the lack of consultation between the State Department and Congress over Mr. Wood's appointment. After receiving information from outside sources regarding the qualifications of Mr. Wood for this sensitive post, both Senator Helms and I asked the State Department to allow us to have a meeting with Mr. Wood before his appointment. For reasons that have never been made clear, the State Department did not arrange the meeting prior to the appointment. Instead, Mr. Wood's appointment was announced while, I believe, the chairman was on the floor debating the 1995 version of the very same bill we are debating today, regarding State Department Authorization. It is important to note that our request for consultation was certainly consistent with the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act, which is a very unusual but workable agreement. The TRA requires the Committee on Foreign Relations to oversee the implementation of the act and the operations and procedures of the American Institute in Taiwan. I repeat that. The act itself requires the Committee on Foreign Relations to oversee the implementation of the act and the operations and procedures of the American Institute in Taiwan. Now, ``procedures'' certainly suggests an oversight on the Director. Furthermore, then Secretary of State Vance at that time assured the Foreign Relations Committee in a letter to then Chairman Frank Church that--and I quote--``the names of prospective trustees and officers will be forwarded to the Foreign Relations Committee. If the Committee expresses reservations about a prospective trustee, [the Department of State] will undertake to discuss the matter fully with the Committee before proceeding.'' Well, that is fine. The only problem is, the State Department did not seem to be able to get around to it. So what I am proposing is that the Senate more formally assert, or reassert, I should say, itself into this process by passing my amendment, which would require--it is very important now, Mr. President, we get this--require the coordinator for Taiwan affairs, a position that now exists at the State Department, to simply be subject to Senate confirmation. The administration would maintain the flexibility of the appointment, but we would have the opportunity for confirmation. So let me make it clear. Although I would have liked to propose an amendment that would have made the AIT Chairman and AIT Director subject to Senate confirmation, I have been advised that because of the particular and unusual nature of the American Institute in Taiwan, it would violate the Constitution to make these officers subject to advise and consent. Instead, therefore, I am trying to at least get more accountability from the State Department in our Taiwan policy. It has nothing to do with the sensitivity between Taiwan and PRC. This has to do about Senate perogative to have consent and accountability associated with the process. After all, Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner. It is an important ally. I think we should have someone at the State Department who is more accountable to the Congress as we move forward on important issues like Taiwan's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge you to support my amendment. I would be happy to respond to questions.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from Delaware can advise me since he recently just talked to the Secretary, does he interpret her intention to provide an opportunity for the Committee on Foreign Relations to review the potential director so that there would be some oversight?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Maybe if I put the Senate in a quorum call very briefly while I talk to the Secretary and see what kind of assurance I can get.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I offer the amendment for its consideration at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And I would propose that we lay it aside after it is read.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend for accommodating my schedule. I am most appreciative of him allowing a few moments so that I may offer what I assume is the concluding amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed its reports on S. 430, the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1997 and S. 210, a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam, the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, and the Compact of Free Association Act, and for other purposes, the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office were not available. Those reports have now been received and I ask that copies be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate and the public. The material follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, May 21, 1997. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 430, the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1997. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Marjorie A. Miller (for the state and local impact), and Victoria V. Heid (for federal costs). Sincerely, June E. O'Neil, Director. Enclosure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to chat a little bit about recreation in America today and announce that Great Outdoors Week for 1997 began on Monday of this week. From America's vast forests to her mighty rivers, to her majestic mountains, plains, and valleys, there is the recognition that this Nation is truly blessed with national and natural beauty beyond comparison. As a consequence, it is no wonder that our Nation and our national consciousness are defined in no small part by the great outdoors that we all enjoy. Coming from my State of Alaska--which is, at least as far as I am concerned, America's premier outdoor State--I have lived near and experienced some of nature's greatest handiwork. I have fished, hunted, sailed, hiked, and camped in probably the best places on Earth. So it is with great pleasure that I come before my colleagues to announce Great Outdoors Week for 1997. The recreation community is in Washington this week to host a number of activities to remind those of us inside the beltway that outdoor recreation is a good thing for people, for communities, for the economy, and for conservation. Great Outdoors Week will bring together many people and groups who really care about America's great outdoors. Federal, State, and local officials, recreation enthusiasts, outdoor media, recreation associations, and the recreation industry will all take part in the events scheduled for this week. I met last night with the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association-- the manufacturers and the suppliers of recreation vehicles. There were some 250 to 300 people in the Russell rotunda at a very, very outstanding reception to kick off Great Outdoors Week for 1997. Mr. President, as on outdoorsman and chairman of the Senate committee with responsibility for our Nation's public lands, I am also going to take an active role in the other events scheduled for this week. The work of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources touches the lives of Americans in many ways but few ways more visible than in our oversight of the Nation's great outdoors. Great Outdoors Week really gives us an opportunity to focus on the value of recreation in our lives, and how we can do a better job of encouraging people of all ages to enjoy America's natural and national splendor. The great outdoors is the main focus of our national recreation initiative. The acronym is REC, and it stands for three goals: reinvigorate, enhance, and conserve. To reinvigorate and rebuild our national parks, forests, and other Federal lands that provide diverse recreation opportunities. To enhance the visits Americans make to our public land legacy through improved access, facilities, and services. To conserve America's natural resources that provide recreation opportunities, particularly through wildlife habitat restoration and protection. It also includes areas in our urban centers with strategies to protect open space, rivers, lakes, and to link parks and trails. Last year, we passed the largest parks and conservation public lands bill that has passed this body since the 1940's. Containing 119 pieces of legislation, the bill increased park boundaries, designated historical trails and wild and scenic rivers, protected sensitive lands, and benefited virtually every State in this Nation. It also protected the Presidio in San Francisco, one of the finest recreation areas in our country, by establishing a new management system which takes advantage of private sector expertise, contribution, and finance. It will also create the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission. This is a nine-member panel which will examine the demand for recreation at federally managed lakes and reservoirs and help develop plans with the private sector to maximize recreational opportunities. A report is due next year, and we may write legislation to increase opportunities in this area. Thankfully, after I wrote to the President last week, he told me that he will name the remaining four members of the nine-member commission this week so that they can get down to work. On April 25 of this year, we held a seminar on outdoor recreation trends and benefits. This Wednesday we will hold an oversight hearing on the stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We will hold additional oversight hearings on other aspects of the outdoor recreation capabilities. At least one of them will be a field hearing out West. The committee report, hopefully, will follow. Putting our heads together, we can decide what the Federal Government can and should do to reinvigorate, to enhance, and to conserve America's outdoors. Our national parks--our Nation's crown jewels--are losing some of their luster. We need to ensure that all Americans can enjoy and be proud of our parks system for years to come. We have at least an $8 billion backlog in unfunded projects and programs. Yellowstone needs about $300 million in road repairs. Yosemite needs $178 million in repairs after January's floods. Each year, another 1 percent of the National Parks Service roads fall from fair to poor or failing. We are working to leave a legacy everyone can be proud of--a new, reinvigorated, world-class National Park System. Mr. President, an expanded fee demonstration program, major concession reform, a bonding initiative, and additional private-sector sponsorships are all under consideration in this Congress. Our system of parks includes State and local parks as well. Capital needs of State and local recreation systems for 1995-99 are over $27 billion, according to the National Recreation and Parks Association, but we have a problem. The stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund has been shut down. Over 30 years ago, in a bipartisan effort, Congress and the President created the Land and Water Conservation Fund referred to as the LWCF. It is funded primarily by offshore oil and gas revenues which now exceed $3 billion. My committee has authorized land and water conservation funding to the year 2015 with an annual ceiling of $900 million. The LWCF stateside program promotes a unique partnership among Federal, State, and local governments. It provides matching grants that enable State and local governments to create recreation facilities, parks, and playgrounds. Because they are matching grants, they double the impact. The stateside LWCF program has helped finance 37,500 national parks and recreation projects--campgrounds, trails, playgrounds, recreation centers, and gyms. It has also helped in my State of Alaska. We have had a number of very effective State and local parks which received a stateside LWCF grant. The demand continues to increase. As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1995 over $600 million was requested. But I want to explain very briefly, Mr. President, that the recent balanced budget agreement between that the administration and the congressional budget negotiators provided $700 million over 5 years for the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is the portion of the fund used for land acquisition by the Federal land management agencies. The administration wants $315 million of that to buy Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine. This is not what LWCF was designed to do. The remaining $385 million, according to the administration, would be spent for Federal land purchases. That is hardly a State matching program. This means the stateside matching land and water conservation fund program would still remain unfunded. So what would Americans get for their $700 million? More Federal land acquisitions over the next 5 years chosen by politicians in Washington, DC, rather than the people. State and local recreation projects, the ones closest to the people, get nothing, and that is too bad because those are matching funds and we get twice the bang for the buck. We need to save the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program and I have asked appropriators to provide some money to keep the matching grant program alive. When Congress authorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it had two parts. One part dealt with Federal acquisitions. The other provided matching grants for State and local governments to purchase and develop parks and recreation facilities. The administration is trying to abolish the second half, and Congress should simply not let that happen. In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, Congress and the administration simply zeroed out those funds. Mr. President, let me show you a couple of charts, and I will conclude my remarks. This chart shows the Land and Water Conservation Fund authorizations and appropriations. As one can see, the stateside LWCF appropriations in green have dramatically decreased. Of course, the authorizations have gone way up. What we have here is a dropoff from 1983 to 1995 down to 1996 where there is zero money provided for stateside LWCF matching grants. That is probably the greatest single significance of what the Federal role is. It is in matching, if you will, so that Federal appropriations can come on and the priorities can be addressed in an appropriate manner that represent the will and attitudes of States and local communities. There is just one other chart that I want to show, and that is the receipts. Where does the money come from? It comes from a dedicated fund, the Outer Continental Shelf areas where revenues now exceed more than $3 billion a year. There is very little from recreation fees. There is some from the motor fuel tax and surplus property sales. The funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund comes from offshore revenues, but the Appropriations Committee has seen fit to use those funds for other expenditures. So, Mr. President, during Great Outdoors Week and every other week of the year, I ask that we all remember the value of outdoor recreation to Americans. We are blessed with a great natural bounty. It is our duty to conserve it. As a consequence, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the necessity of having a meaningful stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program which would provide matching grants benefiting the States and allowing the priorities at hand to be met. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.