Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to advise my colleagues that yesterday, unfortunately, we were not in morning business so I could not make this statement, but yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 1897 Organic Act which created the Forest Service. On that day, June 4, 100 years ago, Congress passed the Forest Service Organic Act which allowed the first on-the-ground management of the forest reserves. Prior to this date 100 years ago, forest reserves totalling approximately 17 million acres had been established in 1891 and 1893. In the spring of 1897, another 21 million acres of forest reserves were added to the system. This latter addition was the result of a Presidential Commission on National Forests established in 1896. The commission included notable scientific and conservation leaders at that time. However, the addition of the second round of reserves was sufficiently controversial that Congress moved in early 1897 to attach an amendment to the 1898 general appropriations bill to eliminate the reserves and transfer the 21 million acres back into the public domain for disposal. Outgoing President Grover Cleveland pocket vetoed the bill on his last day in office. This created a situation in which the Government had no money to operate and the new President, William McKinley, quickly called Congress into an extra session on March 15, 1897, to reconsider eliminating the reserves. In this special session of Congress a compromise was framed which took the form of the Forest Service's 1897 Organic Act and which restored the 21 million acres of forest reserves. I think it is rather ironic, Mr. President, as we consider today various and sundry conflicts over salvage riders and the management of various forests, including the Tongass National Forest in my State, that 100 years ago Congress had the same kinds of conflicts. But the national forests that we have today serve as a living testimony to our ability to resolve those conflicts. My understanding is that other Members will join me today, Senator Smith and probably Senator Craig, with regard to further statements on the significance of this particular date, June 4, 100 years ago, 1897, and further elaborate on the circumstances and conditions of the forests and the transition that has occurred in that 100 years. However, I think it noteworthy that there are many changes in the names, many changes in the boundaries of the national forests in the years that have followed that event 100 years ago, but the basic land areas that were set aside in the Western States between 1891 and 1907 are still with us today. From 1907 until today another 44 million acres have been added to our national forests, mostly in the Eastern States. These lands, for the most part, were old, worn out farms, lands that were cut over, but today represent some of the most important forested recreation and timber producing areas that we have in the Eastern United States. The Organic Act of 1897 allowed for the organization and active management of the reserves by forest rangers rather than no management at all, which had been the case from 1891 until that time. The well- known and revered Gifford Pinchot was hired on June 25, 1897, and he recommended the adoption of three basic goals for the management of the forest reserves. The first was permanent tenure of forest land; the second was continuity of management; and the third was the permanent employment of technical trained foresters. Because the tradition within the Department of the Interior was to hire political appointees rather than technically trained foresters, Pinchot was successful in 1905 in securing the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of Agriculture where it is today. I think it is a little bit ironic that today the new Chief of the Forest Service is a political appointee who most recently served in the Department of the Interior. Nevertheless, technically sound management continues within the Forest Service. The major section of the 1897 act was a statement of reason for establishing the forest reserves. The act stated, ``no public forest reservation should be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessity of citizens of the United States.'' Let me repeat that: ``securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessity of citizens of the United States.'' That was the purpose. Mr. President, for the most part of 100 years of management of the reserves, the Forest Service has relied extensively upon the double provisions of water flows and timber. Today, however, with ecosystem management as the Forest Service envisions it, improving and protecting the forests seems to have taken the forefront. I, for one, believe that all three criteria are important to assure that we can continue the balanced, predictable, and sustainable management of our national forests. One interesting difference from the way the world seems to work today is the way the Forest Service was able to complete the implementation regulations for the Organic Act by June 30, 1897. Today it is difficult for the agency to produce regulations in 25 months, let alone get the job done in 25 days, which is what they did in 1897. Pursuant to the provisions of the Organic Act, which established the philosophy of active management of the forest reserves, the first national forest timber sale occurred in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota in 1899. This sale was offered in the spirit of the then recently passed Organic Act because Gifford Pinchot believed that the science of forestry could be applied to manage the forest reserves on a sustainable basis. We will be displaying a photograph as I speak. I think it is noteworthy, Mr. President, to recognize the significance of what this represents, because I have here for my colleagues' attention an enlarged photograph of the first timber sale that occurred in the United States on national forest lands. This is how it looks today, Mr. President. I think you will agree that this photograph shows a healthy, well-managed forest, which 100 years later confirms Pinchot's belief in forestry and the renewability of the resource. Since the time of that first sale, forestry and forest practices have progressed exponentially, reflecting modern knowledge and technologies and a heightened concern for ecology and all of the ecological functions of the forest. This picture is an actual portrayal of the area in question today. This area in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota was cut in 1899. I am going to have an easel put up so that during the remainder of my remarks it can be viewed. Finally, Mr. President, the Organic Act of 1897, although modified many times by the Congress, set the standards for the management of the national forests for an entire century. The vast national forest lands were set aside, and they are still in existence to this day. Controversy about the management of those forest lands, of course, continues, much as it did a century ago. The national forests are still under attack from some quarters. Management is being pressured to change. Special-interest groups are highly polarized. But the fact is that there are national forests, and I think it speaks well that 100 years ago a young country with vast resources would save and manage millions of acres for the people, and that is just what we have done. Were we less forward-thinking people then, as some people seem to believe we are today? If we were, there would be nothing left to argue about. But that is not the case. In conclusion, Mr. President, for the most part, the legacy of the Forest Service for the last 100 years has been responsible stewardship by dedicated professionals within the Forest Service. Finally, as a commemoration of today's anniversary, I am sharing with each of my colleagues a most important book on forest ecology called ``Pacific Spirit: A Forest Reborn.'' This book, which was written by Dr. Patrick Moore, is going to be given to each Member of this body. Dr. Patrick Moore is a forest ecologist and is one of the cofounders of GreenPeace. That is a rather interesting reference. Here is a cofounder of GreenPeace writing a book on forest ecology--``Pacific Spirit: A Forest Reborn.'' It is interesting that Dr. Moore now advises the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, an industry-sponsored organization in Canada. Some Members might think it ironic that I would send my colleagues a work by a former GreenPeace activist and founder of GreenPeace. But Dr. Moore sums up his position in this way: As a lifelong environmentalist, I feel the need to speak out because I cannot agree with claims made to the world by some of my environmentalist colleagues about the total destructive impact of forestry in general and clear-cutting in particular. It is the final irony today, I guess, that it takes a founder of GreenPeace to speak to us on the proposition that clear-cutting has value and is an adequate and recognized means of timber harvesting. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a workshop to review reform of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 24, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building starting at 9:30 am. Those who wish to participate or submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information please contact Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6567. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Baucus of Montana, the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act of 1997. The vast potential of telemedicine technology is clearly under- utilized. I believe that the answer to growing concerns regarding access and affordability of quality health care services in rural America is telemedicine. Let me describe just a few of the difficulties of rural health care in my home State of Alaska and explain why telemedicine is our long-awaited answer. Alaska encompasses 586,412 square miles. It is one-fifth the size of the contiguous United States; 120 times larger than the State of Rhode Island; and larger than the three largest States in the union combined. If a map of Alaska were superimposed on a map of the lower 48 States, Alaska would touch South Carolina, Mexico, California, and the United States-Canadian border. In short, Alaska has 1 million acres of land for every day of the year. Geography is another defining characteristic of Alaska. My State has a climate characterized by significant season fluctuations in temperature and precipitation and a topography characterized by mountains, wetlands, forests, and rugged coastlines. Communities and villages are scattered throughout the vast regions of Alaska. And though Alaska contains 586,412 square miles, it only has 12,200 miles of roads. Vast areas are completely unconnected by roads, with access only available by airplane, boat, snowmachine, or dogsled. Meeting the health care needs of these communities and villages is a daunting task. Residents have difficulty due to geography, lack of providers and poverty. Although excellent medical facilities and tertiary care centers are available in Anchorage, direct connection to these facilities from most of the State is not possible other than by air transportation. Consequently, geographically, 74 percent of the State is in medically underserved areas. Telemedicine is the cost-effective and practical answer to the Alaska dilemma. Currently, there is an exciting project underway known as the Alaska Telemedicine project. This consortium of Alaskan health care providers and telecommunication carriers has been diligently working to unite health care in Alaska. This project has successfully united the Native health corporations, military medical facilities, and public and private hospitals of Alaska. The fragmented nature of health care delivery in Alaska and Alaska satellite-based narrow-band telecommunications infrastructure, along with the geography and climate of Alaska, make Alaska an ideal place for the Alaska Telemedicine project to flourish. In 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA], pursuant to a mandate in 42 U.S.C. 1395(b)(1) which directs HCFA to establish demonstration projects that explore innovative methodologies of Medicare cost-savings, developed a telemedicine Medicare reimbursement project for rural America. Five demonstration sites were established in four States: Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. The purpose of these programs was to investigate Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine in rural locations. Unfortunately, the HCFA study of rural telemedicine contains a glaring omission: The study does not include any sites in rural Western locations. The omission of the rural West, which contains extremely remote and frontier locations will result in a deficient and likely inaccurate study for rural telemedicine. Our legislation will expand the HCFA project to better represent rural America. A site in Alaska and in Montana will be included. Montana, like Alaska, experiences significant difficulties in providing health care services in rural areas. Montana's five independent telemedicine projects that have formed a united alliance will also be included in the HCFA project. Mr. President, the goal of telemedicine Medicare reimbursement is to ensure that the elderly of America who reside in inaccessible rural areas will be allowed to have access to quality health care in the most cost-effective manner--via telecommunication networks. Establishing Medicare reimbursement stabilizes telemedicine technology, and will likely lead to widespread coverage of telehealth services by private insurers. Senator Baucus and my bill, will merely expand the current demonstration project conducted by HCFA. By this expansion, the HCFA study will better represent rural telemedicine in the Nation. I ask that my colleagues support the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Baucus of Montana, the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act of 1997. The vast potential of telemedicine technology is clearly under- utilized. I believe that the answer to growing concerns regarding access and affordability of quality health care services in rural America is telemedicine. Let me describe just a few of the difficulties of rural health care in my home State of Alaska and explain why telemedicine is our long-awaited answer. Alaska encompasses 586,412 square miles. It is one-fifth the size of the contiguous United States; 120 times larger than the State of Rhode Island; and larger than the three largest States in the union combined. If a map of Alaska were superimposed on a map of the lower 48 States, Alaska would touch South Carolina, Mexico, California, and the United States-Canadian border. In short, Alaska has 1 million acres of land for every day of the year. Geography is another defining characteristic of Alaska. My State has a climate characterized by significant season fluctuations in temperature and precipitation and a topography characterized by mountains, wetlands, forests, and rugged coastlines. Communities and villages are scattered throughout the vast regions of Alaska. And though Alaska contains 586,412 square miles, it only has 12,200 miles of roads. Vast areas are completely unconnected by roads, with access only available by airplane, boat, snowmachine, or dogsled. Meeting the health care needs of these communities and villages is a daunting task. Residents have difficulty due to geography, lack of providers and poverty. Although excellent medical facilities and tertiary care centers are available in Anchorage, direct connection to these facilities from most of the State is not possible other than by air transportation. Consequently, geographically, 74 percent of the State is in medically underserved areas. Telemedicine is the cost-effective and practical answer to the Alaska dilemma. Currently, there is an exciting project underway known as the Alaska Telemedicine project. This consortium of Alaskan health care providers and telecommunication carriers has been diligently working to unite health care in Alaska. This project has successfully united the Native health corporations, military medical facilities, and public and private hospitals of Alaska. The fragmented nature of health care delivery in Alaska and Alaska satellite-based narrow-band telecommunications infrastructure, along with the geography and climate of Alaska, make Alaska an ideal place for the Alaska Telemedicine project to flourish. In 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA], pursuant to a mandate in 42 U.S.C. 1395(b)(1) which directs HCFA to establish demonstration projects that explore innovative methodologies of Medicare cost-savings, developed a telemedicine Medicare reimbursement project for rural America. Five demonstration sites were established in four States: Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. The purpose of these programs was to investigate Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine in rural locations. Unfortunately, the HCFA study of rural telemedicine contains a glaring omission: The study does not include any sites in rural Western locations. The omission of the rural West, which contains extremely remote and frontier locations will result in a deficient and likely inaccurate study for rural telemedicine. Our legislation will expand the HCFA project to better represent rural America. A site in Alaska and in Montana will be included. Montana, like Alaska, experiences significant difficulties in providing health care services in rural areas. Montana's five independent telemedicine projects that have formed a united alliance will also be included in the HCFA project. Mr. President, the goal of telemedicine Medicare reimbursement is to ensure that the elderly of America who reside in inaccessible rural areas will be allowed to have access to quality health care in the most cost-effective manner--via telecommunication networks. Establishing Medicare reimbursement stabilizes telemedicine technology, and will likely lead to widespread coverage of telehealth services by private insurers. Senator Baucus and my bill, will merely expand the current demonstration project conducted by HCFA. By this expansion, the HCFA study will better represent rural telemedicine in the Nation. I ask that my colleagues support the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened to some of my senior colleagues reminisce on their relationships with our good and dear friend, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina. As a new Senator coming into this body in 1981, I recall my first meeting with Senator Thurmond. It was in the elevator. I felt a very firm, strong grip on my upper arm. As I turned around, he said, ``How you doing, Son?'' I think, without exception, every time I have been in the elevator with Senator Thurmond I have had that tight squeeze--``How you doing, Son?'' So it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues in honoring our dear friend. May 25, 1997--the longest serving U.S. Senator in our Nation's history, a remarkable individual who has unselfishly dedicated his entire life to the service of others. Being from Alaska, the newest State in the Union, a State that has only been around for about 39 years, I have found Senator Thurmond to be most understanding of our issues with regard to development. He comes from the school that suggests that those who are elected from their State ought to have a pretty good handle on what is in the best interest of their State. I think his logic follows that, if the folks back home think otherwise, well, they are going to get new representation. I have respected him for his support these 17 years that I have been in the Senate. Perhaps one of the most memorable and lasting recollections I have of Senator Thurmond is during the years when I was chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee. You know Senator Thurmond, as it has been stated, landed behind enemy lines in a glider. He was a volunteer. That was the Normandy D-day invasion of the 82d Airborne Division. But he went on to earn 5 battle stars during World War II, 18 military decorations during his distinguished military career. He was made a major general of the U.S. Army Reserves. In working with him during the years on the Senate Veterans' Committee, I found him to be the most significant contributor toward the recognition that we can never do enough to meet our obligation to our veterans, those who did so much and gave so much. But his balance was that while we can never do enough, we have to do a better job with what we have to keep up with the changing needs of the veterans and do more and get more input from the veterans' organizations and accepting the responsibilities associated with our obligation to meet our veterans' needs. He has been honored many times by various veterans groups for his contribution. But I particularly look back to the days when we worked together in meeting our Nation's obligations to our veterans and his contribution in that regard. I think one of the interesting things, in recognizing the contributions Senator Thurmond has made and continues to make, is his humble beginning as a teacher. He has taught us all, but he began his teaching career back in South Carolina in 1923. He wrote the South Carolina school attendance law. He worked hard to increase pay for teachers and longer school terms. I think it is noteworthy that even today he sends congratulatory certificates to every graduating South Carolina high school student. Senator Thurmond continues to teach us today, and he will again in the next century. He has really taught us all in this institution. I am honored to call him a friend. I am pleased to rise today in tribute to this great man, this great American, who has become synonymous with this great institution. Senator Thurmond, we honor you, and we are particularly appreciative of your leadership and teaching which has served us all. Thank you, my friend. I look forward to our continued relationship. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] in introducing this important bill. It is intended to break down a barrier that Congress created 111 years ago, and which has long since ceased to make sense. Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues. Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest, or on the environment, and it will cost the government virtually nothing. There's no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. This bill merely allows U.S. ports to compete in the business of offering homeport services to the cruise ship trade. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate between U.S. ports. However, it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by using a definition of cruise ship designed to exclude any foreign-flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.-flag tour boats, ferries, or riverboats. Finally, it provides a mechanism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers. Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing problem, and it deserves the support of this body. As my colleagues know, this bill is very similar to S. 668, a bill I introduced just a few weeks ago. The major difference is that that bill applies only to cruise ships operating in Alaska, and this one applies nationwide. Other differences include the fact that my original bill sets a 5,000 gross deadweight ton cut-off for vessels seeking to enter the coastwise trade, and this one uses a 4,000 ton limit. This bill also requires foreign vessels operating in the U.S. trade to effect repairs in U.S. shipyards. Both of these differences are positive, in my view. The change in tonnage will encourage U.S. ports to compete for business from some of the smaller vessels in the luxury cruise ship fleet, which continuing to protect existing U.S. tour vessels in the 100-ton class. While there are a few riverboats in the area of 3,000 tons, none of these operate in the open ocean cruise ship trade, and the bill contains other protections specifically for these U.S. vessels. The requirement for U.S. repair will assist in creating and maintaining even more U.S. jobs. From the standpoint of the cruise ships, it simply calls for the continuation of what is already a common practice among vessels that need work while visiting a U.S. port Mr. President, it isn't 1886 anymore, and it is time to change the current law. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Instead of protecting U.S. jobs, the current law is a job losing proposition, as it prohibits U.S. cities from competing. That is absurd. The cash flow generated by the cruise ship trade is enormous. Most passengers bound for my State of Alaska fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead, they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel, general supplies, repair and maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors. According to some estimates, the city of Vancouver receives benefits of well over $200 million per year from the cruise ship trade. Others provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United State's most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting nothing whatsoever in return. Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. Then there is the suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. Mr. President, that is also untrue. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply doesn't cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the services they offer are in no way comparable. The larger vessels offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes, timing, shore excursions, and other opportunities. There is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawai. This is the only ocean-capable U.S. ship that might fit the definition of cruise vessel. I have searched for other U.S. vessels that meet or exceed the tonnage limit in the bill, and the only ones I have found that even approach it are the Delta Queen and the Mississippi Queen, both of which are approximately 3,360 tons, and both of which are 19th century-style riverboats that are entirely unsuitable for any open- ocean itinerary such as the Alaska trade. Further, the bill specifically prohibits any foreign vessel from participating in the intra-coastal trade served by these riverboats. Mr. President, I will not claim that this legislation would immediately lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests. That alone makes it good public policy, and I look forward to my colleagues' agreement and support.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] in introducing this important bill. It is intended to break down a barrier that Congress created 111 years ago, and which has long since ceased to make sense. Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues. Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest, or on the environment, and it will cost the government virtually nothing. There's no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. This bill merely allows U.S. ports to compete in the business of offering homeport services to the cruise ship trade. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate between U.S. ports. However, it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by using a definition of cruise ship designed to exclude any foreign-flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.-flag tour boats, ferries, or riverboats. Finally, it provides a mechanism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers. Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing problem, and it deserves the support of this body. As my colleagues know, this bill is very similar to S. 668, a bill I introduced just a few weeks ago. The major difference is that that bill applies only to cruise ships operating in Alaska, and this one applies nationwide. Other differences include the fact that my original bill sets a 5,000 gross deadweight ton cut-off for vessels seeking to enter the coastwise trade, and this one uses a 4,000 ton limit. This bill also requires foreign vessels operating in the U.S. trade to effect repairs in U.S. shipyards. Both of these differences are positive, in my view. The change in tonnage will encourage U.S. ports to compete for business from some of the smaller vessels in the luxury cruise ship fleet, which continuing to protect existing U.S. tour vessels in the 100-ton class. While there are a few riverboats in the area of 3,000 tons, none of these operate in the open ocean cruise ship trade, and the bill contains other protections specifically for these U.S. vessels. The requirement for U.S. repair will assist in creating and maintaining even more U.S. jobs. From the standpoint of the cruise ships, it simply calls for the continuation of what is already a common practice among vessels that need work while visiting a U.S. port Mr. President, it isn't 1886 anymore, and it is time to change the current law. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Instead of protecting U.S. jobs, the current law is a job losing proposition, as it prohibits U.S. cities from competing. That is absurd. The cash flow generated by the cruise ship trade is enormous. Most passengers bound for my State of Alaska fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead, they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel, general supplies, repair and maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors. According to some estimates, the city of Vancouver receives benefits of well over $200 million per year from the cruise ship trade. Others provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United State's most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting nothing whatsoever in return. Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. Then there is the suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. Mr. President, that is also untrue. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply doesn't cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the services they offer are in no way comparable. The larger vessels offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes, timing, shore excursions, and other opportunities. There is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawai. This is the only ocean-capable U.S. ship that might fit the definition of cruise vessel. I have searched for other U.S. vessels that meet or exceed the tonnage limit in the bill, and the only ones I have found that even approach it are the Delta Queen and the Mississippi Queen, both of which are approximately 3,360 tons, and both of which are 19th century-style riverboats that are entirely unsuitable for any open- ocean itinerary such as the Alaska trade. Further, the bill specifically prohibits any foreign vessel from participating in the intra-coastal trade served by these riverboats. Mr. President, I will not claim that this legislation would immediately lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests. That alone makes it good public policy, and I look forward to my colleagues' agreement and support.

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. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 313

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the additional $700 million appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] included in the balanced budget agreement. While I commend the President and congressional leadership for recognizing the importance of the LWCF, I have concerns that this additional appropriation will not be spent on the priorities for which the LWCF was established. I urge congressional appropriators not to use this additional LWCF money on a handful of large projects, including the acquisition of Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana. Those projects were identified as priority land acquisitions by politicians, not by Federal land managers. Rather, I urge the appropriators to spend this additional LWCF money as the Land and Water Conservation Act directs on the hundreds of priority land acquisitions and local recreation projects identified by Federal land management agencies and the States. As originally envisioned, the administration planned to acquire the Headwaters and the New World Mine through land exchanges. Now, under the terms of the budget agreement, these lands would not be acquired by land exchange but by purchase. Mr. President, this change sets a horrible precedent. It is bad public policy, and the Congress should not be a partner in this land grab, as now proposed. I also fear that these land grabs, which do not involve public participation and which are inconsistent with land management plans, may become the norm as opposed to the exception. Recently, the President announced the creation of the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. He made the same sort of promises from Arizona that he made in Yellowstone when he spoke about the controversy surrounding the New World Mine. The Utah National Monument lands contain 176,000 acres of school trust lands that contain approximately 1.54 billion dollars' worth of coal deposits which, if extracted, would fund the Utah school systems. The President indicated that other Federal lands in Utah would be made available, and the schoolchildren in Utah would not be hurt by the creation of the National Monument. There are apparently no plans to complete land exchanges in Montana or California, and the taxpayers are going to take another hit for Presidential promises. One only has to wonder what we are going to do to make the schoolchildren of Utah whole. If we begin by fully funding the acquisitions at Headwaters and the Mine, how do we ignore Utah when the President decides to just buy them out. This is not how Congress intended for the Land and Water Conservation Act to be used. Over 30 years ago, in a remarkable bipartisan effort, Congress and the President created the LWCF. The LWCF provides funds for the purchase of Federal land by the land management agencies--the Federal- side LWCF program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal, State, and local governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities--the State-side LWCF program. The LWCF is funded primarily from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues which now exceed $3 billion annually, and has been authorized through the year 2015 at an annual ceiling of $900 million. However, LWCF moneys must be annually appropriated. And, despite the increase in offshore oil and gas revenues, the LWCF has not fared well in this decade. Expenditures from the LWCF have fluctuated widely over its life but have generally ranged from $200 to $300 million per year. In the 1990's, total appropriations to both the Federal and State sides of LWCF steadily declined from a high of $341 million during the Bush administration to $149 million in fiscal year 1997. Most significantly, all of the fiscal year 1997 appropriation was for the exclusive purpose of Federal land acquisition. In 1995, Congress and the President agreed to shut down the State- side LWCF program. For fiscal year 1998, the President has requested $165 million for Federal land acquisitions and only $1 million for monitoring previously funded State-side projects. The President did not request any funds for new State-side projects. Mr. President, I believe the additional appropriation provided for in the budget agreement presents a significant opportunity to right those misguided decisions on the use of the LWCF. The State-side of the LWCF has played a vital role in providing recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans. State-side LWCF grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation projects in all 50 States, including campgrounds, trails, and open space. The availability of these outdoor recreation facilities is critical to the well-being of Americans. People who participate in outdoor recreation activities, whatever the activity, are happier and healthier. Recreation is an important component of our economy. Moreover, while trips to our National Parks create experiences and memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day-out, people recreate close to home. In fiscal year 1995, the last year for which the State- side LWCF grant program was funded, there were nearly 3,800 applications for State-side grants. Unfortunately, there was only enough money to fund 500 projects. The demand for those local recreation resources is increasing. That is why stateside LWCF grants are so important. Stateside LWCF grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for stateside LWCF grants, these grants provide vital seed money which local communities use to forge partnerships with private entities. In the absence of the grants, I fear local park and recreation services will fail to meet the ever-growing demands of the American public, and the Federal Government will be asked to fill the void--a role the Federal Government cannot, and should not, play. At the same time, the Federal land management agencies have identified, through their planning processes, the lands they would like to purchase for inclusion in the Federal estate. Again, the purchases would be made with LWCF moneys. The lands often are in holdings in national parks or forests. Or, they may be lands with unique characteristics which the Federal land managers believe should be owned by the Federal Government. Interestingly, neither Headwaters Forest nor the New World Mine meet these criteria. Rather, both the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine, have been labeled as Federal land priorities according to the politicians, not to the professional land managers. The budget agreement, as interpreted by the Clinton administration, would ignore hundreds of prioritized projects and focus on a handful. The $315 million the President would like to spend on Headwaters Forest and New World Mine could be spent on hundreds of park and recreation facilities throughout the Nation. Would the American people rather own 5,000 acres in California and a mine in Montana, or park and recreation facilities Americans can enjoy on a daily basis? Why should Congress bail out the administration because it could not fulfill the terms of deals it made on its own for the acquisition of Headwaters Forest and New World Mine? Once again, when he announced each of those deals, the President promised the lands would be acquired through land exchanges. We stand ready to work with the President on land exchanges to accomplish his priorities in Montana and California. But this should be a process where the President and Congress work together. Instead, those who have been waiting for years for the Government to acquire their lands, as they were promised when we incorporated private lands into national parks and forests, will just have to wait. Moreover, children throughout urban America may not have a park to play in or bike trail to ride on because their money was spent on the old growth redwoods in California and the New World Mine in Montana We have held no hearings on the New World Mine. There have been no hearings on Headwaters. Congress has not been a participant in this process. In fact, most of us know little about the two proposals. On the other hand, we know quite a bit about the stateside of the LWCF. All of our constituents and all of our States have benefited from new greenways, trails, scenic pathways, bicycle trails, parks, recreation facilities, ball parks, open spaces, and the list goes on and on and on. Mr. President, I encourage my friends on the Appropriations Committee to seriously evaluate the President's proposal in light of the priority projects that could otherwise be funded under the LWCF. We have an opportunity to save and enhance a program that has proved to be beneficial to all Americans. Let us weigh the pros and cons, and be mindful of the dangerous precedent we will set if we just swim merrily along with the President into his ocean of land acquisition. Unfortunately, the majority of city kids will never see the Headwaters or the site of the New World Mine. But a majority of city kids will see and be able to experience the results of the LWCF if properly applied. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to inquire of the managers regarding the impact of the resolution now being considered by the Senate. My question relates to the legislative intent of the resolution as it relates to the nuclear waste fund and specifically regarding its impact on S. 104 passed by the Senate on April 15, 1997. What is the impact of the budget resolution on the provisions of S. 104 and the Nuclear Waste Fund?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his response. Unanimous Consent Agreements

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the major complaints of Internet users--the proliferation of unsolicited e-mail advertisements, junk e-mail, or so- called spam. Mr. President, in the span of 5 years, an entirely new method of commerce and communication--electronic mail on the Internet--has spread around the world. Along with the benefits of this revolutionary technology, there are some negative byproducts that can only damage the integrity of this new communications medium. Because of technological advances, Internet e-mail has also become a very inexpensive means of distributing endless e-mails solicitations that not only annoy but can also defraud recipients. Moreover, the growth of junk e-mail can clog e-mail distribution networks and overtax the ability of service providers to distribute legitimate communications. With a minimal equipment investment, any individual or business has the capability to transmit unsolicited advertisements to thousands of people nationwide each hour with the click of a mouse. As technology advances, thousands will turn into millions, and junk e-mail could overwhelm cyberspace. Junk e-mail is known in the trade by the derisive term of ``spam.'' Based upon the content of many of these e-mails, I'd be insulted if I were an employee of Hormel, the creator of the real Spam. Mr. President, not only is junk e-mail an annoyance, but for many Americans, especially citizens living in rural States like Alaska, there is a real out-of-pocket cost they must pay to receive these unsolicited advertisements. When an on-line subscriber in rural Alaska or Montana, logs on to a network server, such as America OnLine, to check to see if there is e-mail, the subscriber often must pay a long distance charge. If there is no e-mail in his on-line mailbox, the subscriber's long distance charge may only cover 1 minute. However, if there are 25 messages in his mailbox, 24 of which are unsolicited e- mail ads, his long distance charges could triple or quadruple. So what the rural on-line user is forced to do is to pay for the privilege of receiving junk e-mail and then having to waste his time hitting his delete button to empty this junk out of his mail box. Mr. President, we ought to do something to end this practice. In 1991, Congress passed the Automated Telephone Consumer Protection Act that contained a provision which banned unsolicited fax transmissions. In the bill I am introducing today, the Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997, I have not chosen to take such a sweeping and unilateral approach because the Internet is about choices, not outright bans. What my bill does is to require the use of the word ``Advertisement'' in the subject line of any unsolicited commercial e-mail, along with the sender's real address, real e-mail address, and telephone number in the body of the message. This requirement will empower Internet users to filter out messages that they do not want to receive. Spam generators who refuse to abide by this requirement could face legal action from private citizens, state attorneys general, and/or the Federal Trade Commission. FTC or state action could result in civil penalties of up to $11,000 per incident and, more importantly, cease and desist orders. Private citizens bringing suit could recover $5,000 plus reasonable attorney's fees. Internet users can also choose not to unilaterally block all unsolicited commercial e-mails. Instead, they can send removal requests to specific mailing lists with further transmissions required to end within 48 hours. Moreover, Internet Service Providers, such as America Online or Microsoft Network, would be required to filter out all e-mails with the word ``Advertisement'' in the subject line when a consumer so requests. Large service providers would have 1 year, from the date of enactment, to implement this requirement. Smaller Internet Service Providers would have 2 years to meet this requirement. Internet Service Providers would also be required to cut off service to those who use their services to send out unsolicited commercial e-mails in violation of the provisions of the act. Mr. President, I want to point out what this bill does not attempt to do. It does not ban unsolicited commercial e-mails as some have suggested. I have not chosen an outright ban because I support the business practices of those who flood inboxes with sales pitches for worthless vitamin products and multilevel marketing schemes. Quite the contrary, I abhor such solicitations. But I do not want to set a precedent in banning commercial speech on the Internet. Although these unsolicited advertisements are annoying, I do not believe that is a basis for an outright ban. A better approach is to simply ignore them by filtering them out. If enough Americans choose to filter out such e-mail messages, I seriously doubt that anyone will bother to send out such e-mails in the future since the cyberspace market will no longer be there. I would also note that this bill does not impact automated mailing lists, e-mails between friends, or e-mails between businesses and their customers when there is a preexisting business relationship. Mr. President, the Internet is about choices, not bans. The Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Message Choice Act of 1997 should restore to consumers and businesses the right to be free from endless e-mail solicitations. It will be up to the consumer to decide if he or she wants to receive such messages. That is the way I believe Americans want it. They don't want government telling them what they can receive, but they want right to decide for themselves. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this is a very new technology and it is not my intention to hinder it's development nor interfere with legitimate commerce transacted on the Internet. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that resolves this problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the major complaints of Internet users--the proliferation of unsolicited e-mail advertisements, junk e-mail, or so- called spam. Mr. President, in the span of 5 years, an entirely new method of commerce and communication--electronic mail on the Internet--has spread around the world. Along with the benefits of this revolutionary technology, there are some negative byproducts that can only damage the integrity of this new communications medium. Because of technological advances, Internet e-mail has also become a very inexpensive means of distributing endless e-mails solicitations that not only annoy but can also defraud recipients. Moreover, the growth of junk e-mail can clog e-mail distribution networks and overtax the ability of service providers to distribute legitimate communications. With a minimal equipment investment, any individual or business has the capability to transmit unsolicited advertisements to thousands of people nationwide each hour with the click of a mouse. As technology advances, thousands will turn into millions, and junk e-mail could overwhelm cyberspace. Junk e-mail is known in the trade by the derisive term of ``spam.'' Based upon the content of many of these e-mails, I'd be insulted if I were an employee of Hormel, the creator of the real Spam. Mr. President, not only is junk e-mail an annoyance, but for many Americans, especially citizens living in rural States like Alaska, there is a real out-of-pocket cost they must pay to receive these unsolicited advertisements. When an on-line subscriber in rural Alaska or Montana, logs on to a network server, such as America OnLine, to check to see if there is e-mail, the subscriber often must pay a long distance charge. If there is no e-mail in his on-line mailbox, the subscriber's long distance charge may only cover 1 minute. However, if there are 25 messages in his mailbox, 24 of which are unsolicited e- mail ads, his long distance charges could triple or quadruple. So what the rural on-line user is forced to do is to pay for the privilege of receiving junk e-mail and then having to waste his time hitting his delete button to empty this junk out of his mail box. Mr. President, we ought to do something to end this practice. In 1991, Congress passed the Automated Telephone Consumer Protection Act that contained a provision which banned unsolicited fax transmissions. In the bill I am introducing today, the Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997, I have not chosen to take such a sweeping and unilateral approach because the Internet is about choices, not outright bans. What my bill does is to require the use of the word ``Advertisement'' in the subject line of any unsolicited commercial e-mail, along with the sender's real address, real e-mail address, and telephone number in the body of the message. This requirement will empower Internet users to filter out messages that they do not want to receive. Spam generators who refuse to abide by this requirement could face legal action from private citizens, state attorneys general, and/or the Federal Trade Commission. FTC or state action could result in civil penalties of up to $11,000 per incident and, more importantly, cease and desist orders. Private citizens bringing suit could recover $5,000 plus reasonable attorney's fees. Internet users can also choose not to unilaterally block all unsolicited commercial e-mails. Instead, they can send removal requests to specific mailing lists with further transmissions required to end within 48 hours. Moreover, Internet Service Providers, such as America Online or Microsoft Network, would be required to filter out all e-mails with the word ``Advertisement'' in the subject line when a consumer so requests. Large service providers would have 1 year, from the date of enactment, to implement this requirement. Smaller Internet Service Providers would have 2 years to meet this requirement. Internet Service Providers would also be required to cut off service to those who use their services to send out unsolicited commercial e-mails in violation of the provisions of the act. Mr. President, I want to point out what this bill does not attempt to do. It does not ban unsolicited commercial e-mails as some have suggested. I have not chosen an outright ban because I support the business practices of those who flood inboxes with sales pitches for worthless vitamin products and multilevel marketing schemes. Quite the contrary, I abhor such solicitations. But I do not want to set a precedent in banning commercial speech on the Internet. Although these unsolicited advertisements are annoying, I do not believe that is a basis for an outright ban. A better approach is to simply ignore them by filtering them out. If enough Americans choose to filter out such e-mail messages, I seriously doubt that anyone will bother to send out such e-mails in the future since the cyberspace market will no longer be there. I would also note that this bill does not impact automated mailing lists, e-mails between friends, or e-mails between businesses and their customers when there is a preexisting business relationship. Mr. President, the Internet is about choices, not bans. The Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Message Choice Act of 1997 should restore to consumers and businesses the right to be free from endless e-mail solicitations. It will be up to the consumer to decide if he or she wants to receive such messages. That is the way I believe Americans want it. They don't want government telling them what they can receive, but they want right to decide for themselves. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this is a very new technology and it is not my intention to hinder it's development nor interfere with legitimate commerce transacted on the Internet. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that resolves this problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, June 11, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is oversight of the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-3329.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in March, the House of Representatives--in a bipartisan manner--overwhelmingly voted 295-136 to end the horrible procedure known as partial birth abortion. That strong endorsement for the ban came in the wake of a confession by a prominent proponent of abortion who admitted that he lied through his teeth when he said that partial birth abortions were very rare and only performed in the most dire of circumstances. On February 27, 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, an association of over 200 abortion providers, recanted his earlier statements that partial birth abortions were used only in extreme medical circumstances. Fitzsimmons admitted that: In actuality, 5,000 partial birth abortions are performed every year as an elective procedure on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. Fitzsimmons justified his lie by saying that he just went out there and spouted the party line. The party line Fitzsimmons referred to, of course, is the party line agreed on among the Washington-based pro- abortion groups. Unfortunately, President Clinton justified his veto of this ban by spouting the same party line lies--that this procedure is medically necessary in certain compelling cases to protect the mother. Mr. President, here is the truth about partial birth abortions: According to reputable medical testimony given before this Congress by partial birth abortion practitioners, partial birth abortions occur as many as 5,000 times a year. They are used predominantly for elective purposes and are seldom necessary to safeguard the mother's health or fertility. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop confirmed that President Clinton was misled by his medical advisors and stated that ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described as partial birth is a medical necessity for the mother.'' Other physicians agree: In a September 19, 1996, Wall Street Journal editorial, three obstetricians declared that ``contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility.'' Here's another truth: Partial birth abortions are violent. The procedure is one in which four-fifths of the child is delivered before the abhorrent process of killing the child begins. Sadly, throughout this procedure, the majority of babies are alive and may actually feel pain during this ordeal. Ms. Brenda Schaffer, a nurse who observed the procedure, made this moving statement before a congressional committee: The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. Mr. President, it's not easy to discuss this topic, but unfortunately, those are the stark and brutal realities of a partial birth abortion. My good friend and colleague Senator Moynihan declared that the practice of partial birth abortions is ``just too close to infanticide.'' Mr. President, the vote today is not an issue of pro-life or pro- choice--it's an issue of putting an end to an inhumane procedure. This infant is within inches from being declared a legal person in every State of the Union. The time has come for this body to legally protect that person. During the last Congress, a ban on partial birth abortion failed because of misinformation. This year, may the truth prevail. As we in Congress and the President finally hear the truth about this procedure--that it cannot be defended medically nor morally. I ask my colleagues to look into their consciences to make the right decision: To ban this painful, unnecessary, and morally offensive procedure of terminating the life of a viable child.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight field hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Saturday, June 21, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in the Saddle Mountain Intermediate School Gymnasium, 500 Riverview Drive, Mattawa, WA. The purpose of this hearing is to review issues and management options associated with the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River and to receive testimony on S. 200, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a portion of the Columbia River as a recreational river. The committee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others wishing to testify may, as time permits, make a brief statement of no more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify should contact Senator Gorton's office in Kennewick at (509) 783-0640 or Senator Murray's office in Spokane at (509) 624-9515. The deadline for signing up to testify is Friday, June 13, 1997. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, while ensuring that all views are represented. Witnesses invited to testify are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them to the hearing, it is not necessary to submit any testimony in advance, Statements may be also be submitted for inclusion in the hearing record. Those wishing to submit written testimony should send two copies of their testimony to the attention of Jim O'Toole, Committee on Energy and Nature Resources, U.S. Senate, 354 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the committee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to express my support for this emergency supplemental appropriations legislation that will provide much needed relief to citizens in 33 States who have lived through some of the most catastrophic weather emergencies we have ever witnessed in this country. And this legislation also provides much needed funding for our brave service men and women who are keeping the peace in Bosnia. We have spent the entire week on this legislation and its successful completion is a tribute to the leadership of the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my distinguished senior colleague and close friend Ted Stevens and his staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, not only will this legislation provide important financial relief to citizens in hundreds of communities, but it will ensure that we will not see a repeat of the shutdown of the Government that occurred in 1995. And it removes the arbitrary policy of the Interior Department which would terminate the 130-year-old policy that allows States to continue to have access across public lands. I want to congratulate Senator Stevens on the passage of this, the first legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee under his chairmanship. I look forward to working with him on many more appropriations bills and am certain that the leadership he has demonstrated on this bill will be repeated several times over in the years to come.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on S. 417, reauthorizing EPCA through 2002; S. 416, administration bill reauthorizing EPCA through 1998; and S. 186, providing priority for purchases of SPR oil for Hawaii; and the energy security of the United States. In addition to these bills the committee will also consider S. 698, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Replenishment Act. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 13, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact Karen Hunsicker, counsel to the committee at (202) 224- 3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant, at (202) 224-0765,

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we have gone on perhaps long enough on this, but there are a few things that need to be said relative to the debate that has just occurred. And while my friend from Arkansas indicated that we had repealed FLPMA, with regard to FLPMA, I think it is important the record reflect that under R.S. 2477 we established and have always maintained the basis for determining the right of public access across public lands. So that has been maintained in the law. I think it is further noteworthy to recognize that the Hodel policy recognized the historic use of a route. If it was historically a footpath, it was recognized as a footpath. If it was a wagon trail, then it was recognized as a wagon trail. If it was a wagon trail that was used in general commerce over an extended period of time, then it justified obviously inclusion under the concept of R.S. 2477. In summation, Mr. President, what is happening here I think is a result of what happened as late as last year in Utah where we had a perfect example of a small group within the administration taking it upon themselves to decide for all Americans how our public lands should be used. As the debate has indicated, those of us from Alaska are particularly sensitive, as we can speak from long personal experience on this topic. All of the experience teaches us that decisions affecting the use and classification of our public lands must be left in the hands of a public process, not one Secretary of the Interior who decides on his own as a consequence of actions within the Department, without a public policy, that he is going to change the procedure unilaterally and redefine what constitutes an adequate method of transportation across public lands, and that is what this Secretary did, unlike Secretary Hodel. Actions from this administration put the public's right to participate in the decisionmaking process, as far as I am concerned, on the endangered species list. Mr. President, allowing this administration, and that is what the proposal from the Secretary of the Interior does, to rewrite public land law use through the enactment of regulations is much the same as putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup. The reason we in Alaska are a little reflective upon this is the history of our State. In 1966, the Secretary of the Interior--we entered into statehood in 1959--Secretary Udall decided on his own to intercede in Alaska and simply stopped processing land selections authorized under the Statehood Act. We entered into the State of the Union with a commitment of 104 million acres. The land was being transferred to the State. He stopped the process. He did not ask anyone, just did it. In January 1969, he withdrew all public lands in Alaska from all forms of appropriation except mining claims--no public input, no congressional action. This was the so-called land freeze, superfreeze. A few other names which would be inappropriate in this Senate Chamber come to mind. It happened again in 1978, deja vu, this time with Jimmy Carter, who stepped in and decided on his own what was best for the management of our public lands, and using the 1906 Antiquities Act he created 17 national monuments. These monuments encompassed slightly more than 56 million acres of land, an area the size of the State of South Carolina. It did not stop there. This was followed in short order by Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. In total that arbitrary action by the Secretary of the Interior withdrew 105 million acres. That is more than the entire State of California. All this land was withdrawn from multiple use without any input from the people of Alaska, any input from the public, any input from Members of Congress. I ask you, can you understand why we are sensitive? With all these actions held over Alaska's head, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later, the people of our State are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. When they say you forget history, why, I say you are doomed by it, doomed to repeat it if you do not remember. So as long as we stand in this Chamber people will not be allowed to forget what happened when the public and the Congress are excluded from the public land management decisions. When my friend from Arkansas says that this does not belong in this legislation, that it does not belong because it is not an emergency, he is absolutely wrong. It is an emergency. This is an action arbitrarily proposed by the Secretary of the Interior now. It is contrary to law, and it has to be stopped. Mr. President, again, the fact is if R.S. 2477 was not in existence on October 21, 1976, it will not and it cannot by definition be created now. We have no problem with that. We want that to be the case. What we do not want is the Secretary to arbitrarily suddenly come to the conclusion that if vehicle travel has not proceeded over these routes prior to October 21, 1976, there is no justification for inclusion. So in closing, Mr. President, I wish that we did not have to address this issue at this time, but it is an emergency for the Western States. It belongs on the first legislative vehicle that we can get the attention of the Congress relative to taking action. I thought we put this to an end in a bipartisan manner last year when we enacted a permanent moratorium on future actions by the Department, but that was not good enough for the Secretary. So behind closed doors this Secretary has sought to disregard the spirit and the intent of our previous action. We have no other alternative, Mr. President, but to pursue this in a manner to continue to have available the viability of historical transportation routes that were in existence across our State, so that we can bring our State together, recognizing the huge amount of Federal withdrawal that is evidenced on this chart by the colored areas that represent all Federal withdrawals as compared to the white areas which simply address the State holdings. So one can readily see the necessity of having the option to establish, if you will, access routes across traditional trails that existed that were dog sled routes, or footpaths, that were used for commerce prior to that 1976 date. We simply have to have the assurance that that will remain as the law of the land and we can continue to allow, after our short 39 years of existence as a State, the development of our State, we can be bound together. That is why it is an emergency and that is why I commend my good friend and senior Senator for putting this in this legislation because there is no question it is an emergency of the highest nature in the State of Alaska and certainly affects the other Western States as well as we have seen the withdrawal of 1.6 million acres under the Antiquities Act in Utah by this administration. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session on the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 2 p.m. to hold a judicial nominations hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on S. 507, the Omnibus Patent Act of 1997.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, May 7, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on government secrecy.