Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will begin consideration of Senate bill 672, the supplemental appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to be offered to this bill today. However, there will be no votes during today's session. The majority leader will notify all Members as early as possible with respect to rollcall votes on these amendments which will occur during Tuesday's session of the Senate. It is the intention of the majority leader that the Senate complete action on this important bill this week. The Senate could also be asked to turn to any other Legislative or Executive Calendar items that can be cleared for action. As always, the majority leader will notify Senators as soon as any agreements are reached on scheduling votes on the supplemental appropriations bill or on other matters. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and wish the occupant a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to rise this afternoon to introduce a very important piece of legislation that I know the occupant of the chair will find interesting. It is called the Public Land Management Participation Act of 1997. This legislation is intended to put the word ``public'' and the populace back into public land management and the word ``environment,'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this act will ensure that all the gains that we made over the past quarter of a century in creating an open, participatory Government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are really protected. For those who thought that those battles were fought and won with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969 and the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, I have some bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 20, 1975, Mr. President, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington State spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we Americans have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on those far-flung public lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. I quote and emphasize, Mr. President, ``They belong to all Americans.'' Amazingly--there exist today legal authorities by which the President, without the public process or congressional approval, can create vast land management units called national monuments, world heritage sites, and biospheric reserves. Special management units which affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed. What people can do on those lands is also affected, what the future will be for surrounding communities. That is a powerful trust to bestow on anyone, even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says, ``Trust us. We are from the Government, and we know what is best for you.'' On that day, standing not in Utah but in the State of Arizona, our President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create 1.7 million acres of national monument in southern Utah. Notice, Mr. President, he did not do this in Utah. He did it in Arizona. One can only assume he might have had some protests if he had done it in Utah. The withdrawal, however, took place in Utah. It created a 1.7 million acre national monument in the southern part of the State. By utilizing this antiquated law, the President was able to avoid--that's right, avoid--Nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws as well. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah last fall is but the latest example of a small cadre of administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is by no means the only one, Mr. President. As the Senator from Alaska, I have had a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter created 17 national monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 million acres of lands. That is an area about the size of South Carolina. He withdrew these lands, with the stroke of his pen--no public process, no hearing, no participation from the State. This was then followed in short order by Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, who withdrew an additional 50 million. A total of 105 million acres, Mr. President. All this land was withdrawn for multiple use without any input from the people of my State, the public, or the Congress of the United States. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head, like the sword of Damocles; we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later, the people of my State are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, the people of Utah and Congress, had not been denied a voice in the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I would not be here if environmental protection procedures had not been ignored. But the people were denied the opportunity to speak. Mr. President, Congress was denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure was simply ignored. The only voice we have heard was the President's. Without bothering to ask us what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than we did what was good for us. Now, this is an administration that prides itself in a public process. There was no public process here, Mr. President. We had been debating for some time the issue of Utah wilderness. It was ongoing, but the President, for political expediency, took it upon himself to invoke the Antiquities Act. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kind of unilateral public land decisions for the American public. Since the passages of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, we have had a system of law underpinning public land use decisions. Embodied with this law is public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present the action to the public, the public debates the issue. The public can then appeal bad decisions, the courts resolve the disputes, and the management unit is then created. Where was this public process, Mr. President, in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of Federal land in southern Utah? The answer is clear: There wasn't any. Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, activities which affect the environment are subject to strict environmental laws. Does anyone believe there was no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? Imagine how the sensitive natural features of the high desert environment would respond to the rhythmic pounding of unlimited hiking boots worn by legions of adoring visitors as they tromp through the area. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? There is not any. The creation of specialized public use designations such as national parks and wilderness areas are debated within the Halls of Congress, right here. These debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? There aren't any, Mr. President. They simply don't exist because, in the heat of an election year, the administration determined that the public process, environmental analyses and congressional deliberations were simply a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in a public process or you do not; you can't have it both ways. If we can no longer trust the administration to involve the public in major land use decisions, then where does it fall? It falls right here to the Congress. Mr. President, the legislation which I offer today will require any future designations of national monuments, world heritage sites, or biospheric reserves to follow the public participation principles laid down under existing law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, just good old-fashioned public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, my legislation will require that the agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by the land use decisions; full public participation in the creation of these units with all appeal rights protected; compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; congressional review and ratification, and Presidential signature. No longer will an administration be able to sidestep public participation and environmental reviews to further political agendas. Nobody--not even the President of the United States --should be above the law. The Public Land Management Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public, the Congress, and the President--no more loopholes. I don't question the need for national monuments, world heritage sites, or biospheric reserves. Sometimes they are needed to protect historic treasures, natural resources, et cetera. But if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has governed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one, regardless of high station or political influence, has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those lands is decided. This legislation reestablishes that bond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Chaplain for the inspirational message, which I think challenges us all to focus in on the priorities.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia recognizing the North Pole. First, let me say a few words about the effort of my good friend from Georgia in bringing to the attention of this body, as well as to the Nation, the importance of the Volunteer Protection Act. The issue before us is vital; it is a matter defending the noble act of personal sacrifice and contribution for the benefit and good of others. So I commend the Senator for his diligence, the time he spent on the floor, and the effort that has been made. And I look forward to supporting the effort for the Volunteer Protection Act which has been introduced by Senator Coverdell of Georgia. Let me just ask my colleagues to bear with me for a moment. As we know, this past week President Clinton and other prominent Americans appeared in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is the city where our American heritage is rooted. What better place to come to for the recognition of voluntarism and what it means to this country, because those who founded our Constitution--our early efforts to formulate the principles of this country--were all volunteers. They were volunteers coming forward and contributing their knowledge, their expertise, their willingness to formulate a nation. So it was certainly appropriate that a summit on voluntarism was held in the city of Philadelphia during the past week. But what did this summit really accomplish? I am told there were balloons, streamers, speeches, and a lot of good photo ops. But, unfortunately, we have to look at the bottom line and ask what was accomplished? How much was accomplished? It brought the issue to the American people. But, specifically, what did we get out of it? Because I think the summit ignored the fact that, in order for the spirit of voluntarism to flourish, you must, first of all, have real reform in our American judicial system. What the Senate is basically doing today, and what we have been trying to do for the past 4 days--for the past 4 days--is not put on a highly publicized summit about voluntarism. We are trying to reform a justice system that deters voluntarism. I am pleased, after several days of procedural delay, we have finally begun debate on this important legislation. Mr. President, recent congressional findings reveal that our legal liability system deters voluntarism. In fact, according to the testimony given before a congressional committee last year, one in six volunteers withholds his or her services due to the fear of exposure to a lawsuit. That is the system that we have unfortunately devised. If that figure is applied to the number of volunteers in nonprofit organizations alone, we might see as many as 100,000 have had to decline to serve because of the fear of being sued. America's litigation explosion forces nonprofit organizations to spend an ever-increasing amount of time and resources preparing for and avoiding lawsuits. The American Society of Association Executives testified before Congress last year that the association's liability insurance premiums increased an average of 155 percent; one in eight nonprofit organizations reported an increase of insurance premiums of 300 percent alone. This has put some of our most revered nonprofit organizations at risk. For example, Dr. Creighton Hale of Little League Baseball reports that the liability rate for a league increased from $75 to $795, in the last 5 years. Because most leagues cannot afford such an expense, many operate without insurance. Some have, unfortunately, been disbanded altogether. The bill before us protects volunteers from liability unless they cause harm through reckless or criminal conduct. This common-sense approach legislation would put an end to tragic liability cases such a 1990 negligence case in which a Chicago jury awarded $12 million to a boy who was injured in a car crash. Who was the negligent party? According to the jury, it was the estate of the volunteer--the estate of the volunteer, who gave his life attempting to save that boy. Here are just a few other examples of recent outrageous litigation which threatens voluntarism. In Oregon, a boy on a Boy Scout outing suffered a serious injury while playing tag football. The court dismissed the original lawsuit filed against the Boy Scouts, due to an insufficient nexus between the Boy Scouts and the youth's injury. The injured boy then decided to sue the volunteers who supervised the game. In one of the largest monetary verdicts in Oregon history, the jury found the two volunteers liable for $7 million. When a 10-year-old boy in New Jersey lost a fly ball in the Sun during Little League practice, the ball dropped and hit the boy in the eye. The boy's coaches were sued for negligence. In Oklahoma City, a member of an amateur softball league was so angered when he was ejected from a game that he drove away in a fit of rage and crashed his car. So what does the ejected player do? He files a suit against the umpire. According to William J. Cople, a Washington lawyer who is pro bono counsel for the Boy Scouts of America, ``Volunteers have simply been swept away in the hysteria of litigation. . . . Suits are brought for almost anything, under any circumstances.'' What good comes from these suits? Well, about all you can say is that they keep a lot lawyers in business. Mr. President, the bill we are debating will help put an end to such unwarranted litigation. This bill creates a system in which plaintiffs sue only for good reason and sue only those who are responsible for the damage. Such common-sense reforms will create an atmosphere which will nurture voluntarism. This legislation will foster the spirit of voluntarism, not just speak about it at a photo op. For centuries, volunteers in America have fed our hungry, sheltered our homeless, instilled values in our youth. Volunteers are vital, as we know, to our survival as a moral nation. It is time we gave volunteers something in return, and that something is this legislation that will protect them from frivolous and outrageous legal attacks that are the result of a judicial system in desperate need of reform. Finally, there is something else I believe we should do to encourage the volunteer spirit in America. This is to allow volunteers to get a more realistic tax deduction for their travel costs associated with charitable activities. Later today, I, along with Senator Cochran, will be introducing the Charitable Equity Mileage Act of 1997. This bill will increase the standard mileage rate of deduction for charitable use of an automobile from 12 cents a mile to 18 cents a mile. I think this bill should be unanimously supported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Further, many of our citizens who volunteer for charitable activities do incur expenses for which they are not reimbursed. For example, when an individual uses his or her automobile to deliver a meal to a home- bound elderly individual or to transport children to Scouting activities, the volunteer usually pays the transportation costs out of his or her own pocket with no expectations of reimbursement. I believe the costs associated with charitable transportation services ought to be deductible at a rate which fairly represents the individual's actual costs. This is especially important for volunteers living in rural communities who have to travel long distances to provide community services. Congress, in 1984, set the standard mileage exemption deduction rate of 12 cents per mile for individuals who use their automobiles in connection with charitable activities. At the time the standard mileage rate for business use of an automobile was 20.5 cents per mile. In the intervening 13 years, the business mileage rate has increased to 30.5 cents per mile, but the charitable rate has remained unchanged at 12 cents per mile because the Treasury Department does not have the authority to adjust the rate. By raising the charitable rate to 18 cents a mile, my legislation, I think, restores the relationship that existed in 1984 between the charitable mileage rate and the business mileage rate. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to increase the charitable mileage rate in the same manner as is currently allowed for business mileage expenses. All of us agree that, with the changing role of the Federal Government, we need to do more to encourage voluntarism in our country. The Volunteer Protection Act will do that, and so will the legislation that I am introducing. Volunteers who provide transport services should be allowed to deduct such costs at a rate which fairly reflects their true out-of-pocket costs, and this is precisely what the bill does. I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I have a letter of support for my bill from the American Legion. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I reintroduced a bill that I introduced some years ago. I think it is a very important measure. It is a measure that will unlock and open a door that Congress has kept barred for over 100 years. By opening this door, we are going to create thousands of new jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, and significant revenue for the Federal and State and local governments. Furthermore, that door can be opened with no adverse impact on any existing U.S. industry, U.S. labor interest, or on the environment. And it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no magic to this. In fact, it is a very simple matter. This bill allows U.S. seaports to compete for the ever-growing cruise ship trade, specifically to my State of Alaska, but all west coast ports, Tacoma, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and so forth, would benefit. Further, it would encourage the development of an all-Alaska cruise business as well. The bill I propose amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate from U.S. ports to Alaska and between Alaska 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 vessel that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.-flag tour boats, ferries, vessels that carry cargo, et cetera. Finally, it provides a mechanism to guarantee that if a U.S. vessel, a cruise vessel, ever enters this trade in the future, steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers. Specifically, it would require that foreign-flag vessels of greater passenger capacity will be required to leave the market upon the entry of any U.S. cruise ship. People say, don't we have U.S. passenger ships? We have one, just one left: the Constitution, that operates off the Hawaiian Islands. The last U.S. passenger ship that was built to cruise ship capability, was the S.S. United States, nearly 40 years ago. We are simply not in the cruise passenger business in the United States anymore, but foreign ships from the Caribbean are. They move to Alaska and the west coast of British Columbia in the summer, where they carry passengers between American ports and foreign ports, but cannot carry passengers between U.S. ports. What we are proposing is we simply allow those vessels on the west coast to carry passengers from west coast U.S. ports such as San Francisco and Tacoma, to Alaska, and on intra-Alaska voyages. This is a straightforward approach to a vexing problem that deserves support by this body. Let us look at the facts. The U.S. ports currently are precluded--let me emphasize this--U.S. ports are precluded from competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act of--when? Of 1886. That act bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way voyages between the U.S. ports. However, it is not 1886 anymore. These days, no one--no one is building any U.S. passenger ship of this type. And no one has built one in over 40 years. The S.S. United States was the last one. Let me again emphasize that it is not 1886 anymore. These days, no one is building any U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-built cruise ships of the type that are in the cruise business and sail out of Caribbean ports in the wintertime and out of Vancouver, British Columbia, to Alaska in the summertime. Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only real effect the Passenger Service Act has been to force all vessels sailing to my State of Alaska to base their operations in a foreign port, namely Vancouver, British Columbia. In essence, Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs, and for hundreds of millions of business dollars. This is absurd. It is worse than absurd. In light of our ever-popular election year promises to keep the economy growing, I suggest it belongs to Letterman's top 10 reasons why Congress oftentimes does not know what it is doing. Can anyone argue with a straight face for the continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable American interest, while actively discouraging economic growth? This is not the first time I have introduced this legislation. When I began the process, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 200,000 per year. By last year, 445,000 people, most of them American citizens, were making that voyage. This year's traffic may exceed 500,000 people. Almost all of those passengers are sailing to and from Vancouver, British Columbia, not because Vancouver is necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it. I have nothing but admiration for my friends in British Columbia and the city of Vancouver. They have done a fine job. But we are simply spiting ourselves and our own U.S. interests and it is time we looked at this issue rationally. The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most of these passengers fly in and out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington State, but because of this law they spend little time there. Instead they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, in a bus to Vancouver, at a Vancouver restaurant, a Vancouver coffee shop, and when their vessel sails it is loaded with food, fuel, general supplies, repair, maintenance needs taken care of--by Canadian vendors. There is nothing wrong with that, but this business could be in the United States. According to some of our estimates, the city of Vancouver receives benefits of well over $200 million a year. Others provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study done 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. If that business had taken place in the United States, in U.S. ports such as Tacoma or San Francisco, it would have been worth additional Federal, State and local tax revenues of approximately $60 million. I note that there is interest now in ports in South Carolina to offer sailings along the eastern seaboard. It is interesting to note also that we have already seen fit to exempt Puerto Rico from the Passenger Service Act, under less onerous restrictions than in this bill, so that foreign vessels are allowed to from the United States to the territory of Puerto Rico. So we have made these exceptions, they can work without destroying the fabric of our life, and there is no justification why this should not also be done for voyages from the west coast to Alaska. In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and increased income flow by developing new cruise routes between Alaska ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that there were two relatively small cruise lines that were very interested in establishing short cruises within southeastern Alaska, and indeed, were interested in basing their vessels in Ketchikan. I am told such a business could have contributed as much as $2 million or more to that small community's economy and created dozens of new jobs, but because of the current policy, the opportunity simply evaporated. Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the most spectacular States of the United States, namely, Alaska, and yet we force them to go to another country, Canada, to do it. We are throwing away both jobs and money and getting nothing in return. Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple, but it is not rational. Although the current law is a job loser, there are those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests. I submit that simply is not the case. For some inexplicable reason, paranoia seems to run deep among those who oppose this bill. They seem to feel that, by amending the Passenger Service Act so that it makes sense for the United States and would create jobs, somehow it is a threat to the Jones Act. That is not true. The vessels covered under the Jones Act haul freight, not passengers, between U.S. ports. They are required to be U.S. built, U.S. crewed, and U.S. documented, and because this protects an existing industry, we support that. But the circumstances for freight vessels do not exist for passenger ships. There is simply no connection whatsoever between the two issues. I have repeatedly made it clear that I have no intention of using this bill to create cracks in the Jones Act. This bill would actually enhance, not impede, opportunities for U.S. workers--shipyard workers and certainly longshoremen, not to mention hotel and restaurant workers, and many others who would have a great deal to gain from this legislation. The bill has been carefully written to prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades. As I have said before, Puerto Rico already enjoys an exemption from the Passenger Service Act. We looked at that exemption--which has worked successfully--and drafted this effort with even more care in mind. Finally, there can be no suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S. tour or excursion vessels built in U.S. yards with U.S. crews. The industry featuring these small vessels is thriving and doing well but simply does not cater to the same clientele and same base as the larger cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats operating in Alaska are much smaller. The smallest foreign flag vessel eligible under this is Carnival Cruise Lines Wind Star, which is about 5,700 gross deadweight tons. It overnights approximately 159 passengers. By contrast, although the largest U.S. vessel in the Alaska trade is rated at 138 passengers, she is less than 100 gross deadweight tons. This means there is a vast difference between these two vessels. The small U.S. vessels should be protected from foreign competition, and our bill does that, but it does so with the realization that not all markets, and not all passengers, are the same. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the two types of vessels, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely to be inclined to the other. The larger passenger vessels offer unmatched luxury, personal service, onboard shopping, entertainment, gaming and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes, the ability to get closer to the extraordinary natural attractions along the way and are able to get into the smaller communities. Now Mr. President, in the spirit of full disclosure, let me acknowledge that there is one operating U.S. vessel that does not fit the mold, as I mentioned earlier. That is the Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawaii. It was a U.S. flag vessel that was built years ago to operate in the United States. It went out of U.S. operation, into foreign flag service, then was refitted. It took action by Congress to allow it to come back into the U.S. trade. This is the only oceangoing-capable U.S. ship that might fit the description of a cruise vessel, but I question its ability to compete, certainly in the market with the newer cruise vessels. And I repeat, it is the only one. I searched for other U.S. vessels that meet or exceed the 5,000-ton limit in the bill, and the only ones I found that even approach it are the Delta Queen and the Mississippi Queen, both of which are approximately 3,300 tons and both of which are somewhat like 19th century riverboats. They can operate on the Mississippi and other large rivers, but are entirely unsuitable for any open-ocean itinerary. I cannot claim this legislation would immediately lead to increased earnings to U.S. ports. There are advantages of operating out of Vancouver--the sailing time to Alaska is shorter, and so forth. But I can say that it would allow U.S. ports--ports like Tacoma and San Francisco--to compete fairly for this lucrative business. Instead of being anchored by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests, as I said at the beginning, this is only a way to open the door so we can look at what we are losing and look at what we can gain. We heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs during the last years, and we all know that such changes are easy to talk about but difficult to accomplish. Here is a bill that opens up the door to thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars, and can do it without 1 red cent of the taxpayers' money. Isn't that worth thinking about? It has been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it is time for a change.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia for his vigilance on this matter, trying to ensure that volunteers in this country are not subject to the extreme liabilities associated with their actions which, obviously, benefit all of society. I commend him for his commitment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might make a statement as in morning business for about 6 or 7 minutes.

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 to receive testimony regarding S. 417, a bill to extend energy conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002, S. 416, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to extend the expiration dates of existing authorities and enhance U.S. participation in the energy emergency program of the International Energy Agency, S. 186, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to purchases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by entities in the insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes, and the energy security of the United States of America. 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 in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the time that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled for a hearing to receive testimony on S. 430, the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1997 has been changed. The hearing will now take place on Monday, May 5, 1997, at 10:30 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 James Beirne, senior counsel to the committee or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant, or write the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. committee on rules and administration

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the past week, we have heard a great deal of discussion regarding voluntarism in America. In Philadelphia, President Clinton has been joined by former President Bush and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, in what has been styled a voluntarism summit. On the floor of the Senate, we have been attempting to move legislation, which I believe should not be controversial, that would protect volunteers from fear of legal actions resulting from their efforts. I would hope that the impasse over this bill could be broken and we could move forward on this important bill. In the spirit of encouraging more volunteer efforts in America, I am today introducing the Charitable Equity Mileage Act of 1997. This bill will increase the standard mileage rate deduction for charitable use of an automobile from 12 cents a mile to 18 cents a mile. I think this bill should be unanimously supported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, many of our citizens who volunteer for charitable activities incur expenses for which they are not reimbursed. For example, when an individual uses his or her automobile to deliver a meal to a homebound elderly individual, or to transport children to Scouting activities, the volunteer usually pays the transportation cost out of pocket with no expectation of reimbursement. I believe the costs associated with charitable transportation services ought to be deductible at a rate which fairly reflects the individual's actual costs. This is especially important for volunteers living in rural States who have to travel long distances to provide community services. Congress in 1984 set the standard mileage expense deduction rate of 12 cents per mile for individuals who use their automobiles in connection with charitable activities. At the time, the standard mileage rate for business use of an automobile was 20.5 cents per mile. In the intervening 13 years, the business mileage rate has increased to 30.5 cents per mile but the charitable mileage rate has remained unchanged at 12 cents per mile because Treasury does not have the authority to adjust the rate. By raising the charitable mileage rate to 18 cents a mile, my legislation restores the ratio that existed in 1984 between the charitable mileage rate and the business mileage rate. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the charitable mileage rate in the same manner as is currently allowed for business mileage expenses. All of us agree that with the changing role of the Federal Government, we need to do more to encourage voluntarism in our country. Volunteers who provide transport services should be allowed to deduct such costs at a rate which fairly reflects their true out-of-pocket costs. That is precisely what this bill does and I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I have a letter of support for my bill from the American Legion and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. I further ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the past week, we have heard a great deal of discussion regarding voluntarism in America. In Philadelphia, President Clinton has been joined by former President Bush and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, in what has been styled a voluntarism summit. On the floor of the Senate, we have been attempting to move legislation, which I believe should not be controversial, that would protect volunteers from fear of legal actions resulting from their efforts. I would hope that the impasse over this bill could be broken and we could move forward on this important bill. In the spirit of encouraging more volunteer efforts in America, I am today introducing the Charitable Equity Mileage Act of 1997. This bill will increase the standard mileage rate deduction for charitable use of an automobile from 12 cents a mile to 18 cents a mile. I think this bill should be unanimously supported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, many of our citizens who volunteer for charitable activities incur expenses for which they are not reimbursed. For example, when an individual uses his or her automobile to deliver a meal to a homebound elderly individual, or to transport children to Scouting activities, the volunteer usually pays the transportation cost out of pocket with no expectation of reimbursement. I believe the costs associated with charitable transportation services ought to be deductible at a rate which fairly reflects the individual's actual costs. This is especially important for volunteers living in rural States who have to travel long distances to provide community services. Congress in 1984 set the standard mileage expense deduction rate of 12 cents per mile for individuals who use their automobiles in connection with charitable activities. At the time, the standard mileage rate for business use of an automobile was 20.5 cents per mile. In the intervening 13 years, the business mileage rate has increased to 30.5 cents per mile but the charitable mileage rate has remained unchanged at 12 cents per mile because Treasury does not have the authority to adjust the rate. By raising the charitable mileage rate to 18 cents a mile, my legislation restores the ratio that existed in 1984 between the charitable mileage rate and the business mileage rate. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the charitable mileage rate in the same manner as is currently allowed for business mileage expenses. All of us agree that with the changing role of the Federal Government, we need to do more to encourage voluntarism in our country. Volunteers who provide transport services should be allowed to deduct such costs at a rate which fairly reflects their true out-of-pocket costs. That is precisely what this bill does and I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I have a letter of support for my bill from the American Legion and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. I further ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to learn we have worked out a compromise with the other side on this very important issue. I commend the Senator for his diligence and commitment to proceed with a solution that is going to be in the best interests of voluntarism. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am reintroducing a very important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress has kept barred for over 100 years. 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. My bill merely allows U.S. ports to compete for the growing cruise ship trade to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all-Alaska cruise business, as well. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate from U.S. ports to Alaska, and between Alaska 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 or ferries. 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. Let's look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels sailing to Alaska to base their operations in a foreign port instead of a U.S. city. Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's Doing.'' How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable American interest, while actively discouraging economic growth. Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 200,000 per year. By last year, 445,000 people--most of them American citizens--were making that voyage. This year's traffic may exceed 500,000 people. Almost all those passengers are sailing to and from Vancouver, British Columbia--not because Vancouver is necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it. The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington State, 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. 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. If that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have been worth additional Federal, State and local tax revenues of approximately $60 million. In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy, and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the opportunity simply evaporated. Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United States 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. I submit, Mr. President, that is not the case. For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who oppose this bill. 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. I have repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to create cracks in the Jones Act. This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S. workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades. Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply doesn't cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats operating in Alaska are all much smaller. The smallest foreign-flag vessel eligible under this limit is Carnival Cruise Line's Windstar, which is a 5,700-ton ship with overnight accomodations for 159 passengers. By contrast, although the largest U.S. vessel in the Alaska trade is rated to carry 138 passengers, she is less than 100 gross deadweight tons. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely to be inclined to the other. The larger vessels offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, etc. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes and the ability to get closer to many of Alaska's extraordinary natural attractions. In the spirit of full disclosure, Mr. President, let me acknowledge that there is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawaii. 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 5,000-ton 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. Mr. President, I cannot 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. It is, as I said at the beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door. We've heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs during the last few years. But we all know, Mr. President, that such changes are easier to talk about than they are to accomplish. Well, Mr. President, here is a bill that opens the door to thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it without one red cent of taxpayer money. It's been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it's time for a change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am reintroducing a very important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress has kept barred for over 100 years. 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. My bill merely allows U.S. ports to compete for the growing cruise ship trade to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all-Alaska cruise business, as well. The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise ships to operate from U.S. ports to Alaska, and between Alaska 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 or ferries. 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. Let's look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels sailing to Alaska to base their operations in a foreign port instead of a U.S. city. Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's Doing.'' How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable American interest, while actively discouraging economic growth. Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 200,000 per year. By last year, 445,000 people--most of them American citizens--were making that voyage. This year's traffic may exceed 500,000 people. Almost all those passengers are sailing to and from Vancouver, British Columbia--not because Vancouver is necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands it. The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington State, 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. 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. If that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have been worth additional Federal, State and local tax revenues of approximately $60 million. In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy, and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the opportunity simply evaporated. Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United States 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. I submit, Mr. President, that is not the case. For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who oppose this bill. 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. I have repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to create cracks in the Jones Act. This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S. workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades. Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply doesn't cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats operating in Alaska are all much smaller. The smallest foreign-flag vessel eligible under this limit is Carnival Cruise Line's Windstar, which is a 5,700-ton ship with overnight accomodations for 159 passengers. By contrast, although the largest U.S. vessel in the Alaska trade is rated to carry 138 passengers, she is less than 100 gross deadweight tons. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the two types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely to be inclined to the other. The larger vessels offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, entertainment, etc. The smaller vessels offer more flexible routes and the ability to get closer to many of Alaska's extraordinary natural attractions. In the spirit of full disclosure, Mr. President, let me acknowledge that there is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawaii. 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 5,000-ton 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. Mr. President, I cannot 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. It is, as I said at the beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door. We've heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating jobs during the last few years. But we all know, Mr. President, that such changes are easier to talk about than they are to accomplish. Well, Mr. President, here is a bill that opens the door to thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it without one red cent of taxpayer money. It's been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it's time for a change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me wish the occupant of the Chair a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak in morning business for not more than 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 660 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska the University of Alaska is the oldest post-secondary school. The university was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world. The expertise of the university has been in many areas, mining, agriculture, arctic and subarctic sciences. Additionally, the university has served as an important cornerstone in the history of our State. For example, the university housed the Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of our statehood act carved out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaskan citizens. Further, Mr. President, the university is proud of the fact that it began life as the Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. President, what makes the University of Alaska unique is the fact that it is the only land-grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless today. As some of my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of financing America's educational system has been from the land- grant system. This was established in 1785 and the practice gives land to schools and universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors. in 1862, Congress passed what was then known as the Morrill Act, which created the land-grant colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher education to more and more of America's young people. These colleges and universities received land from the Federal Government for facility location, and more importantly as a way to provide for sustaining revenues to those educational institutions. Mr. President, the University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any State, with the exception of Delaware that has a land- grant college. Delaware received about 90,000 acres. Even the land- grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the Federal Government than has the University of Alaska. Rhode Island received 120,000 acres. In a State the size of Alaska, about 365 million acres, we should logically have one of the best and most fully funded land-grant colleges in the country. Yet, to date, the University of Alaska only has about 111,000 acres. Unfortunately, without the land promised to Alaska under the land-grant allocation system in earlier legislation, the university is unable to share as one of the premier land-grant colleges in this country. Previous efforts were made in Congress to fix this problem. These efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the Morrill Act, when Alaska's delegate to Congress, Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter of a million acres in the Tanana Valley outside Fairbanks for the support of an agriculture college and school of mines. Following the practice established in the lower 48 States for the other land-grant colleges, Wickersham's bill set aside every section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana Valley for the Alaska Agriculture College and Schools of Mines. Alaska's educational future at that time looked favorable. Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system similar to that set up by the University of Washington in the downtown center of Seattle, WA, where valuable university lands are leased providing funding for the university's maintenance and upkeep as well as some capital projects. However, in Alaska's case, before the land could be transferred to the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines, renamed the University of Alaska in 1935, the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the exact acreage included in the reserve lands. The section reserved for education could not be transferred to the college until they had been delineated. According to records at the time, it was unlikely given the incredibly slow speed of surveying that the land could be completely surveyed before the end of the current century. Surveying is still an extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated terrain. In all, only 19 section 33's, or approximately 11,211 acres, were ever transferred to the University of Alaska. Of this, 2,250 acres were used for the original campus, and the remainder was left to the discretion of the board of regents to support educational programs and facilities. Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit of the university. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres, and to this day comprises the bulk of the university's total 111,211 acres of land--less than one-third of what was originally promised. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the unfulfilled land grants. The university was thus left with little land with which to support itself and is thus unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land-grant college. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem the promises made to the university in 1915 and put the university on an even footing with other land-grant colleges in the United States. It provides the university with the land needed to support itself financially and it offers the chance to grow and continue to act as a responsible steward of the land and educator of young Alaskans. It also provides a concrete timetable under which the university must select its land and the Secretary of Interior must act upon those selections. This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land that the university can select. The university cannot select land located within a conservation system unit, land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA corporation or land used in connection with Federal or military institutions. Accordingly, Mr. President, under my bill, the university must relinquish extremely valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its second-tier State/Federal grant under section 6, of this bill. Therefore, the result of this legislation will mean, specifically, relinquishment of prime university inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula and Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve and Denali Park and Preserve. Mr. President, not only does this bill uphold a decades-old promise to the University of Alaska, it further protects Alaska's unique parks and refuges. Recognize, Mr. President, my bill requires the State to participate in the process, as well, under an option. Specifically, the bill would grant the university 250,000 acres of Federal land. The university would be eligible to receive another 250,000 acres of Federal land on a matching basis with the State, for a total of 500,000 additional acres. This would be at the option of the legislature, the Governor, and the university's board of regents Mr. President, the State matching provision is an important component of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the university was shorted land. However, some believe it is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government to compensate the university with land, while others believe it is solely the responsibility of the State to grant the university land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a compromise, a compromise giving both the State and the Federal Government the opportunity to contribute, as well as provide the Government with valuable inholdings in Federal parks and preserves. With the passage of this bill, Mr. President, the University of Alaska will finally be able to act fully as a land grant college, and will be able to select lands that can provide the university with stable revenue sources, as well as provide responsible stewardship for the lands. This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promises that were made 82 years ago could be fulfilled with this legislation, and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright future for the university and the many Alaskans who receive an education there. I ask unanimous consent, at this time, to have printed in the Record the proposed inholdings that the University has which would be deeded over to the Federal Government under this legislation, a history of the university of Alaska's land grant from the time we were designated as a territory, land grant rankings of all the States, as well as a copy of the bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska the University of Alaska is the oldest post-secondary school. The university was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world. The expertise of the university has been in many areas, mining, agriculture, arctic and subarctic sciences. Additionally, the university has served as an important cornerstone in the history of our State. For example, the university housed the Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of our statehood act carved out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaskan citizens. Further, Mr. President, the university is proud of the fact that it began life as the Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. President, what makes the University of Alaska unique is the fact that it is the only land-grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless today. As some of my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of financing America's educational system has been from the land- grant system. This was established in 1785 and the practice gives land to schools and universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors. in 1862, Congress passed what was then known as the Morrill Act, which created the land-grant colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher education to more and more of America's young people. These colleges and universities received land from the Federal Government for facility location, and more importantly as a way to provide for sustaining revenues to those educational institutions. Mr. President, the University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any State, with the exception of Delaware that has a land- grant college. Delaware received about 90,000 acres. Even the land- grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the Federal Government than has the University of Alaska. Rhode Island received 120,000 acres. In a State the size of Alaska, about 365 million acres, we should logically have one of the best and most fully funded land-grant colleges in the country. Yet, to date, the University of Alaska only has about 111,000 acres. Unfortunately, without the land promised to Alaska under the land-grant allocation system in earlier legislation, the university is unable to share as one of the premier land-grant colleges in this country. Previous efforts were made in Congress to fix this problem. These efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the Morrill Act, when Alaska's delegate to Congress, Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter of a million acres in the Tanana Valley outside Fairbanks for the support of an agriculture college and school of mines. Following the practice established in the lower 48 States for the other land-grant colleges, Wickersham's bill set aside every section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana Valley for the Alaska Agriculture College and Schools of Mines. Alaska's educational future at that time looked favorable. Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system similar to that set up by the University of Washington in the downtown center of Seattle, WA, where valuable university lands are leased providing funding for the university's maintenance and upkeep as well as some capital projects. However, in Alaska's case, before the land could be transferred to the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines, renamed the University of Alaska in 1935, the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the exact acreage included in the reserve lands. The section reserved for education could not be transferred to the college until they had been delineated. According to records at the time, it was unlikely given the incredibly slow speed of surveying that the land could be completely surveyed before the end of the current century. Surveying is still an extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated terrain. In all, only 19 section 33's, or approximately 11,211 acres, were ever transferred to the University of Alaska. Of this, 2,250 acres were used for the original campus, and the remainder was left to the discretion of the board of regents to support educational programs and facilities. Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit of the university. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres, and to this day comprises the bulk of the university's total 111,211 acres of land--less than one-third of what was originally promised. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the unfulfilled land grants. The university was thus left with little land with which to support itself and is thus unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land-grant college. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem the promises made to the university in 1915 and put the university on an even footing with other land-grant colleges in the United States. It provides the university with the land needed to support itself financially and it offers the chance to grow and continue to act as a responsible steward of the land and educator of young Alaskans. It also provides a concrete timetable under which the university must select its land and the Secretary of Interior must act upon those selections. This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land that the university can select. The university cannot select land located within a conservation system unit, land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA corporation or land used in connection with Federal or military institutions. Accordingly, Mr. President, under my bill, the university must relinquish extremely valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its second-tier State/Federal grant under section 6, of this bill. Therefore, the result of this legislation will mean, specifically, relinquishment of prime university inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula and Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve and Denali Park and Preserve. Mr. President, not only does this bill uphold a decades-old promise to the University of Alaska, it further protects Alaska's unique parks and refuges. Recognize, Mr. President, my bill requires the State to participate in the process, as well, under an option. Specifically, the bill would grant the university 250,000 acres of Federal land. The university would be eligible to receive another 250,000 acres of Federal land on a matching basis with the State, for a total of 500,000 additional acres. This would be at the option of the legislature, the Governor, and the university's board of regents Mr. President, the State matching provision is an important component of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the university was shorted land. However, some believe it is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government to compensate the university with land, while others believe it is solely the responsibility of the State to grant the university land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a compromise, a compromise giving both the State and the Federal Government the opportunity to contribute, as well as provide the Government with valuable inholdings in Federal parks and preserves. With the passage of this bill, Mr. President, the University of Alaska will finally be able to act fully as a land grant college, and will be able to select lands that can provide the university with stable revenue sources, as well as provide responsible stewardship for the lands. This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promises that were made 82 years ago could be fulfilled with this legislation, and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright future for the university and the many Alaskans who receive an education there. I ask unanimous consent, at this time, to have printed in the Record the proposed inholdings that the University has which would be deeded over to the Federal Government under this legislation, a history of the university of Alaska's land grant from the time we were designated as a territory, land grant rankings of all the States, as well as a copy of the bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the oversight hearing to receive testimony from the General Accounting Office on their evaluation of the development of the Draft Tongass Land Management Plan scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, 1997 before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will now begin at 10:00 a.m. instead 9:30 a.m. as previously scheduled. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the nomination of Elizabeth Anne Moler to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. The hearing will take place Tuesday, May 6, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information, please call Camille Heninger Flint at (202) 224-5070. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1997. Enactment of this legislation is long overdue. Mr. President, the Public Utility Holding Company Act was enacted in 1935 to curb serious abuses by utilities that hurt consumers. Back then it was needed, but since then much has changed. As a result, PUHCA now does more harm than good. This legislation will eliminate unnecessary regulation. It will also streamline and make more effective the regulation that is still needed. By doing so, it will promote competition in the electric power industry without jeopardizing consumer protections. Over the past six decades, a comprehensive State-Federal regulatory system has been developed to protect consumers. In a nutshell, State public utility commissions regulate transactions that are intrastate in nature, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates those that are interstate in nature. State commissions perform their regulatory activities pursuant to State law, and the FERC performs it pursuant to the Federal Power Act. With the maturity of both State and Federal utility regulation, PUHCA is now at best superflouous, but in some instances it actually interferes with appropriate regulation. For example, the Ohio Power court case held that decisions by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PUHCA preempt FERC's regulatory authority over utilities under the Federal Power Act. This legislation solves that problem by giving the FERC clear and exclusive authority to address matters within its jurisdiction and expertise. It will also enhance the ability of State regulatory agencies to do their jobs. In short, the streamlining of the regulatory system proposed by this legislation will not diminish needed consumer protection, and in several important ways it will actually enhance it. If the regulatory system created by PUHCA were necessary for consumer protection, then the regulatory burdens it imposes might be justified. But as everyone now acknowledges, PUHCA is not needed to protect consumers. As a result, regulatory costs caused by PUHCA are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher rates without any offsetting consumer benefits. Congress has long recognized that PUHCA creates problems. In 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act provided an exemption from PUHCA for certain types of electric power generators. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act gave additional exemptions to certain other types of electric power generators. These were Band-Aid fixes to PUHCA; needed, but not a complete solution. Fundamental reform of PUHCA is needed and is justified. The time is ripe to streamline and modernize the act. It is for these reasons that I am cosponsoring Senator D'Amato's legislation. Mr. President, there may be some who will try to use this legislation as a vehicle to restructure the electric utility industry, including to impose retail wheeling or to federally preempt State public utility commissions. I will strenuously resist any such effort. I have received assurances that Senator D'Amato is of like mind. This is not the place to do this. Retain wheeling and other utility competitive issues are not linked to the issues involved in PUHCA reform. Moreover, retail wheeling and other Federal Power Act matters are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, not the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to which this legislation will be referred. Electric utility issues are very complex, and they are very significant not only to consumers but also to this Nation's competitiveness and economic well-being. These kinds of changes cannot, and will not be made without careful and complete consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of all aspects of the issues and questions they raise. That is why the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is now in the process of reviewing the factors that affect the competitiveness of the electric power industry. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I am today cosponsoring this legislation and I hope that it will soon be on the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1997. Enactment of this legislation is long overdue. Mr. President, the Public Utility Holding Company Act was enacted in 1935 to curb serious abuses by utilities that hurt consumers. Back then it was needed, but since then much has changed. As a result, PUHCA now does more harm than good. This legislation will eliminate unnecessary regulation. It will also streamline and make more effective the regulation that is still needed. By doing so, it will promote competition in the electric power industry without jeopardizing consumer protections. Over the past six decades, a comprehensive State-Federal regulatory system has been developed to protect consumers. In a nutshell, State public utility commissions regulate transactions that are intrastate in nature, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates those that are interstate in nature. State commissions perform their regulatory activities pursuant to State law, and the FERC performs it pursuant to the Federal Power Act. With the maturity of both State and Federal utility regulation, PUHCA is now at best superflouous, but in some instances it actually interferes with appropriate regulation. For example, the Ohio Power court case held that decisions by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PUHCA preempt FERC's regulatory authority over utilities under the Federal Power Act. This legislation solves that problem by giving the FERC clear and exclusive authority to address matters within its jurisdiction and expertise. It will also enhance the ability of State regulatory agencies to do their jobs. In short, the streamlining of the regulatory system proposed by this legislation will not diminish needed consumer protection, and in several important ways it will actually enhance it. If the regulatory system created by PUHCA were necessary for consumer protection, then the regulatory burdens it imposes might be justified. But as everyone now acknowledges, PUHCA is not needed to protect consumers. As a result, regulatory costs caused by PUHCA are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher rates without any offsetting consumer benefits. Congress has long recognized that PUHCA creates problems. In 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act provided an exemption from PUHCA for certain types of electric power generators. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act gave additional exemptions to certain other types of electric power generators. These were Band-Aid fixes to PUHCA; needed, but not a complete solution. Fundamental reform of PUHCA is needed and is justified. The time is ripe to streamline and modernize the act. It is for these reasons that I am cosponsoring Senator D'Amato's legislation. Mr. President, there may be some who will try to use this legislation as a vehicle to restructure the electric utility industry, including to impose retail wheeling or to federally preempt State public utility commissions. I will strenuously resist any such effort. I have received assurances that Senator D'Amato is of like mind. This is not the place to do this. Retain wheeling and other utility competitive issues are not linked to the issues involved in PUHCA reform. Moreover, retail wheeling and other Federal Power Act matters are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, not the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to which this legislation will be referred. Electric utility issues are very complex, and they are very significant not only to consumers but also to this Nation's competitiveness and economic well-being. These kinds of changes cannot, and will not be made without careful and complete consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of all aspects of the issues and questions they raise. That is why the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is now in the process of reviewing the factors that affect the competitiveness of the electric power industry. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I am today cosponsoring this legislation and I hope that it will soon be on the President's desk for his signature.