Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, within the last hour or so I have had several calls in my office from various media, including the New York Times, asking for comments on why the Senator from Alaska would insist on killing the passage of the Sterling Forest --that is that issue that affects both New Jersey and New York, with a purchase of private lands with Federal funds--by insisting that my Tongass provision prevail? And how could I possibly take such an action and stop this process? First of all, I think it is important for the Record to note the circumstances, as I understand them, that occurred in the House among the leadership at approximately 6:30 this morning, or thereabouts, because I think it reflects on the process around here. Some of it does need some airing. At that time, it was the intent of the leadership on the House side to include in the CR, to accommodate Senator Hatfield and his contribution to this body, the so-called Mount Hood Parks package, and other incidental considerations. Then, there was a communication from the White House that there should be an accommodation on another issue as well, and that was the San Francisco Bay cleanup proposal, a proposal that is worthy, a proposal that is in the omnibus parks bill, as well as the Sterling Forest, which is in that bill, which I support. Now, there was no effort in that dialog to suggest that the San Francisco Bay was added anymore than to complement the accommodation on Mount Hood; and to suggest that we were in some way responsible for removing Sterling Forest from that legislative structure is absolutely incorrect and misleading, to say the least. Sterling Forest was subject to a point of order in the House under a blue line, for technical reasons, and that was of no concern to this body. So, I would say to my colleagues, as some begin to point the finger of blame, that while it had been understood that the leadership was going to attempt to accommodate the Sterling Forest, initially, to complement the Mount Hood and Hatfield package, that the Tongass matter did not enter into that consideration under any terms or circumstances. And if the leadership and those attending that meeting saw fit to remove the Sterling Forest from that deliberation, that was entirely their own accord. They may have felt it may have been more politically expedient to add the San Francisco Bay cleanup to the CR, rather than the Sterling Forest. I guess it is fair to say that is beyond my pay grade. But I want the Record to reflect that, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we stand ready to continue a dialog on the 126 sections that are in the parks-Presidio package. We have indicated a willingness to work with the administration, by letter which was sent down there last night. So that we can all understand the current posture, it is my understanding that in the CR, there will be two items now. There will be the Mount Hood and the San Francisco Bay cleanup as a consequence of the leadership action taken in the House. There will not be the Sterling Forest, there will not be the Tongass, there will not be the Utah Snow Basin, nor the other 123 very important items that we reported out of our committee. So, if any of the House Members are suggesting that the chairman has stood in the way of trying to pass this omnibus legislation, the record should reflect otherwise and should reflect specifically that my initial interest was a 15-year extension for the Ketchikan sawmill, which I withdrew after the administration threatened to veto that. That was a pretty significant sacrifice, but nevertheless, it was made. I think that should provide an adequate explanation for those who suggest that somehow we stood in the way of the leadership action, in moving on the CR accompanying the Mount Hood package, that we stood in the way of the Sterling Forest. We did not. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could respond to my good friend from North Dakota relative to his concerns about the process here, particularly on the Presidio-omnibus parks bill, because, I, too, as chairman of the committee on which he serves, feel an extraordinary frustration about what we went through in committee because, as the Members know, we held the hearings, accommodated members as they introduced their bills, and then we attempted to move these bills to the floor. I think it is important to recognize that virtually every single bill in the parks package, 126 sections to accommodate Members, immediately have holds put on them by one Senator from New Jersey. That is just the fact. The record will reflect that reality. His motivation--it is part of the rules; it is appropriately done--was to get the House to move on Sterling Forest. There were objections over there on Sterling Forest. And that is part of the process. They have a right to do that. But as a consequence, we could not move a single bill to the floor for action because there was a hold on them. Here we have this package today of 126 sections in the Presidio parks bill, and that is why we have it, Madam President. It is as a consequence of Members using the rules, if you will, to advance the position of their own bills. But my job as chairman of the committee is to try to advance all those bills that came out of my committee. That is what the Presidio parks package is all about. As a consequence, we are in a situation now where, having been notified by the administration of certain objections to that package, we responded. We responded in a conference mode, and we pulled off what they objected to. They objected to Utah wilderness. They objected to grazing. They objected to the 15-year Tongass extension contractual commitment. They objected to the Minnesota wilderness waters. So we pulled those. And then, they came back 2 days later with provisions in the Presidio conference report which would invoke a Presidential veto, and they listed: Conveyance to the city of Sumner, 1.5 acres to the City of Sumner, OR; 218. Shenandoah National Park; 219. Tulare conveyance; Alpine school district, 30 acres of land to the Alpine School District for a public school facility, passed the House by suspension. They never raised an objection. Coastal barrier, FL, 40 acres of developed property out of 1.2 million acres, supported by a bipartisan Florida delegation and the Governor; conveyance to Del Norte County Unified School District, transfer of small acres to the school district in California for recreation, recess purposes. Now, Madam President, this administration has a responsibility for killing this package. This package is dead once the CR comes over from the House, as the majority whip is well aware. Right now there is a hold on this package, and the hold is by the minority leader on behalf of the administration. Otherwise we can move this conference back to the House while they are still in session and they will move it back here and it is passed. And the Presidio takes place as a reality, the Snow Basin takes place, so we can host the winter Olympics, that becomes a reality, the San Francisco Bay delta cleanup becomes a reality, Sterling Forest becomes a reality. And they are not even responding. Last night we sent a letter down saying we are ready to continue discussions to get this done. It is 2:30, Saturday afternoon, no response. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record, as well as the identification of the 40-some-odd individual items that they indicated they would invoke a Presidential veto over, with an explanation on them, so that everyone who reads the Record can readily understand, if you will.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. They were removed. The 15-year contract extension was removed. Minnesota wilderness waters were removed. And, of course, Utah wilderness and grazing were removed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. For example, this is in Missouri: Ozark wild horses preservation. What we would do would be to protect, prevent the removal, of the wild horse herds of the Ozarks on the national scenic riverway. This passed the House under the suspension without the administration's objection. It passed the Senate Energy Committee. Without this in the package, without this passing, those horses are going to be killed. They are going to be shot. There is no explanation. I cannot imagine the administration, in an election year--I cannot imagine the administration not responding to the needs of the Presidio, or cleaning up the San Francisco Bay area, or getting behind the land exchange for Snow Basin, allowing the Olympics to continue in this plan. But there is no explanation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely, the Senator is correct. As a matter of fact, I have a list here of those that affect Democratic Members, many of whom are retiring, that they want to encourage passage of. My Democratic friends on the committee know that, as we address the hearing process, it is in a bipartisan manner. We work very well together. I have always felt very comfortable with Senator Johnston as the ranking member, and the professional staff of both sides. I think our efforts are recognized, as trying to be responsive to Members regardless of what their party affiliation is. I will share this with my friend from Oklahoma. The largest single beneficiary is the State of California. There are probably about 18 sections in here, including the Presidio, Elsmere Canyon, San Francisco Bay enhancement-- cleanup of the San Francisco Bay area. The Arkansas-Oklahoma land exchange, which affects you and the State of Arkansas as well. Obviously, Senator Bumpers is interested in that. Senator Heflin, who is retiring--Alabama, Selma to Montgomery Historic Trail. These are in the package and these affect our Democratic colleagues. Florida, the Florida coastal barrier amendments, Senator Graham. Georgia, Senator Nunn retiring, Chickamauga-Chattanooga. Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan--Montana, Lost Creek exchange; New Jersey, Sterling Forest; Senator Moynihan in New York, Women's rights boundary adjustment, Sterling Forest; Virginia, Senator Robb, Senator Warner, Cumberland Gap boundary, Richmond Battlefield boundary adjustment, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield establishment. That is why this is so cumbersome, because there are so many sections, 126 sections. West Virginia, West Virginia rivers, Senator Byrd. I am absolutely at a loss. Maybe the administration simply feels that, somehow, they can put a spin on this that this is not important; or somehow the environmental community is not supporting the package in its entirety. There are a few items in here that probably the environmental community would not support. But when you put a package together in a democratic process it is a give and take, and that is why this package is together and not individually brought before the Senate, because holds were put on every single bill that came out of the committee. As the whip knows, as a member of the committee, we could not get anything to the floor because we had holds on every single bill that came out of this committee by the Senator from New Jersey, who saw fit to do that to influence the House. That issue was Sterling Forest, which I have always supported. I do not have any problem with Sterling Forest. It is a good piece of legislation. I want it to happen. Now we are in the process of sacrificing everything, and I think, in these waning hours, it is very important the public understand where the responsibility has to lie. It has to lie at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can ask my colleague a question, relative to what the possible motivation might be? Why will they not allow us as a body, bipartisan, to address this and resolve it by lifting the holds and letting us vote on it? Because the procedure is that it would come before the Senate. There would be, if it were in order, a vote to recommit back. If it prevails, then the Presidio and the entire omnibus package is dead. We are being prevented from voting to make an ultimate determination of the disposition of the package. I tried to find out what possible explanation there might be. With this hold on it we cannot move the conference report back to the House. It is my understanding, procedurally, in the House, someone could move to recommit. That would kill it in the House. But I have been assured by the Members in the House that is very unlikely to occur. It is doubtful it would even come up, but, procedurally, it would come back here, be subject to recommittal, and we would have a vote so we could determine by a democratic process the disposition. But we are being precluded from that at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can just share with my friend, the whip, the Senator from Oklahoma, relative to the roles that seem to be eroding here as authorizers, and as a member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my friend from Oklahoma knows really what is happening here. It is almost like a line-item veto that is being dictated by the administration on this legislation, where we have met with them, taken out what they objected to, then they move the goalposts and come back with 46 more. The constitutional structure of Government suggests the legislative body is involved in a process. Our process is hearings, input and movement on the bill. But they seem to come in and line-item veto or cherry-pick and say, ``No, this is unacceptable.'' If this continues, clearly the legislative responsibility that we have as authorizes is taken away. Of course, I have always had a concern about these items moving on to the appropriations bill, because the appropriators then become the authorizers as well, or they simply control the disposition. It would seem to me that as a consequence of what happened this year in our committee, I refer to the experience and observation of my friend from Oklahoma, where every single bill that you try to move out results in a hold, that we are going to have to take some extreme means next year in the process, if we introduce this package and pass it out of committee, that if Members put holds on it, maybe the Senate is simply going to have to stop, maybe we are going to have to object to any unanimous consent agreement until we can get some kind of a restructuring so we can move bills as we report them out of committee, get them to the floor and get them to a vote. The disposition should be determined by a vote, not one Member holding up 126 bills. So that is my degree of frustration, having the responsibility of chairman of the committee and the authorizing responsibility. To be put in a position where I am subject to negotiations with the administration to spin off bills that we passed and reported out for those that they will take and those they won't take clearly puts them in a position of line-item veto and circumvents the responsibility that we have as authorizers. I know there are a lot of Members out there who have bills that are very important to them who want some kind of exception from the package, but the problem I have is I hold a responsibility equally to Republicans and Democrats within the committee to do the best I can to get their bills collectively passed. When I get in the position of having to pick and choose because of the administration's dictate, it is very, very difficult, and I am not sure I want to proceed in that kind of a manner because it is simply not fair to all the Members. I would like the Record to note that. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is the last chance. The bus has left. If we don't get this done, I am guessing by--well, I am guessing the House is going to probably finish around 6 with the CR.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So we probably don't have much more than an hour or an hour and a half to have a hold that is applicable now, put on by the Democrats at the dictate of the White House, and if we don't get this thing done now, it is going to be too late and there is not going to be a Presidio, there is not going to be a San Francisco Bay cleanup, there is not going to be Sterling Forest, there is not going to be the ski exchange, and we simply have to move now. It is now or never, and I implore my colleagues on the other side to look at the merits of this package in its entirety and let us vote on it. That is why we are here.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for just a moment, because clearly the Utah Olympics and the Snow Basin exchange that is in this are in jeopardy. It simply will not happen, and, of course, the motivating section was the Presidio. That is not included. Sterling Forest, I might add, in New Jersey and New York, is not included. It is my understanding the appropriators chose to put in Mount Hood in honor of Senator Hatfield, as well as very early this morning adding the San Francisco Bay cleanup, which was part of the Presidio omnibus package and now will be moving evidently on a separate track. Unless the administration sees fit to lift their hold, the Presidio, Utah Snow Basin, Sterling Forest, and all those 126 will be lost, and we will have to start again in the next Congress. Evidently, the San Francisco Bay cleanup has gone on the appropriations process, as well as Mount Hood. So that is what we are left with. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me say we stand ready. We spoke with the White House last night about the 46 items they found objectionable and potentially subject to veto, and we are still awaiting word back from the White House on those. So I appreciate the response of the majority leader and the response of the Senator from Kentucky. Again, we stand ready to respond.

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 obviously regret hearing the objection from the other side to dispense with the reading of the Presidio conference report. I am informed by the clerk that this would take awhile. It has been estimated at some 10 hours or thereabouts. Needless to say, the Senate has many very important pieces of legislation that we must enact prior to the end of the fiscal year. This objection is an obvious indication that Members on the other side of the aisle do not intend or do not want to have this significant parks bill have consideration before this body. The objecters have been informed, it is my understanding, if they were to let the Senate turn to the conference report, that I, as leader, was to immediately ask unanimous consent that the conference report be recommitted back to the conference committee in order that the conferees could address several issues raised by the President. Consequently, since the objection was raised, that conference committee unfortunately will be unable to meet and address these concerns. So, obviously, the will of the Members will not have been addressed, they will not have an opportunity to proceed with that. I regret that the Senate Democrats feel a need to block the Senate from enacting this massive omnibus parks bill, the single largest environmental package we have had before us that affects 41 States and includes 126 separate parks and public land matters. Each Member will continue to work with the Democratic leader. Speaking for the leadership, Senator Lott has indicated he will continue to work with the Democratic Members who have objections, but time is running out. So I urge all Members to rethink this objection, allow the conferees to address this very important issue. Further, Mr. President, we are prepared--the Republicans are prepared; as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am prepared; our conferees are prepared--to recommit this bill to conference. We can fix the provision which the leader referred to in his statement which causes that small problem in the House. What it was, was a small tax-related problem. As you know, most all tax issues must originate in the House, so we have taken that out. We have the report here, Mr. President, ready to go, 700 pages, the result of 2 years of work, 126 separate sections are in here, 41 States are represented in here. We have heard from the administration, but they objected to the Utah wilderness. Utah wilderness was not included. They went ahead and initiated an action under the Antiquities Act. That is another story for another time. Grazing was a major issue, more objection from the administration. Grazing is not in here. The Tongass issue in my State to extend a contract for 15 years so we could build a new pulp mill and save 4,000 jobs, 1,000 directly in the pulp mill by extending the contract. That mill will never be built. The existing mill will be shut down. We will lose our jobs. I do not know what those people will do. That was taken out. Up in Minnesota, the Minnesota wilderness lakes bill was objected to by the administration. We took that out. We have had communication with the administration. We have tried to be responsive. They keep changing the goal posts. They move them back. So now we are in a position where, I suppose, the administration has prevailed on some Members on the other side, and we are down in this mire again. Now, we have still, if we can clear those objections, an opportunity to move this. We are ready to go, Mr. President. As I have said, the work is done and our committee has acted. What we have is a rather curious process around here where the authorizing committees, when we get down to the end, seem to have no voice. But the appropriations effort is now to pick a few things out of here, put them on the Appropriations Committee, and abandon the rest. I looked at a list that came in from the White House last night, and it is significant, Mr. President, to see what they want deleted. They want conveyance to the city of Sumpter, which authorizes the Secretary to convey 1.5 acres to the city of Sumpter, OR, for public purposes. They are prepared to veto the whole package. This is supposed to be the people's President. What in the world does he have against a place for kids to play? I just met with a spokesman for the White House. They do not have any idea what is in here. They are simply carrying the bucket. Somebody said, object to that, we do not want it. That is Senator Hatfield's will. Section 218, Shenandoah National Park--Senators Robb and Warner and Congressmen Bliley and Wolf in the House. It is interesting to identify who is who, because there is a certain amount of partisanship that you cannot help but see as a reality. It adjusts a 1923 boundary authorization to meet today's park boundary. The White House staff informs me they would have reached the same conclusion on the boundary adjustment but they needed more ``process.'' Now, when they invoked the Antiquities Act, they did not need more process. They made a land grab in Utah of 1.8 million acres. It does not take anything away from the park. The old map authorized 500,000 acres. If we went to that limit, there would not be enough money in the Treasury to buy all the private farms and homes that would be in the park. The Tular conveyance, CA, big issue in the House, affirms that land sold by the railroad to citizens in Tular, CA, is free from any title problems. That is section 219. They want that out. This was an attempt to bring some stability and certainty to land ownership in the town of Tular. This administration does not seem to care about the town, the folks, or their future. Section 210, the Alpine school district, Senator Kyl and Senator McCain, 30 acres of lands for a public school facility. What in the world is wrong with supporting a school district and aiding in the education of schoolchildren? I thought this was the educational President. We took these up. We have had hearings, 2 years of hearings. We set up a process. This administration, in some of their rabbit-trail clearance process has come up with this lesson and said this is unacceptable. I am saying we have an opportunity to move this, to remove the objections. If we do not, there is another opportunity and we can put the parks package as passed with the objectionable items they threatened to veto that I already outlined, and we will put the whole package in the appropriations bill and let it go. I pleaded with them to do that this morning. Well, they cannot accept all these little things. These are the little things they cannot accept now. Coastal barrier resource system, all Florida issues, transfers 40 acres of development property out of 2.1 million acres of undeveloped resource area. This is what the Florida delegation and the Governor believes, Democratic Governor believes, is in the best interest of their citizens. Since this President knows better than the States and the elected officials what is good for the people, there is certainly no longer a need for State-level elected officials, if that is the case. Section 224, conveyance to the Del Norte County unified school district, a big issue in California and House Members, transfers a small acreage to the school district for educational purposes. I guess it now takes more than a village to raise a child. The title to the new President's book is, ``All You Really Need Is a President To Raise a Child.'' I find this incredible, Mr. President. Here we are, picking the bones, if you will, of this legislation to suggest that Presidio should be lost, San Francisco Bay area should be lost, Sterling Forest should be lost. That is what they are saying. The Alaska peninsula subsurface consolidation, one of mine, authorizes the Secretary to exchange subsurface holdings of a small native corporation on an equal value-- equal value--for lands and interest owned by the Federal Government. This will complete exchanges approved earlier. It was this provision of the bill that caused the tax problem. That was unfortunate. We have taken care of it. From this action I can only conclude that the President thinks it is a good idea to have private inholdings in national parks. We have taken that out. Section 304--Olympic Committee, wake up--Snow Basin land exchange--I do not know whether they have simply written off the State of Utah as they have perhaps Alaska. Senators Hatch and Bennett, Representative Hansen. This allows expedited land exchange to facilitate the 2002 Winter Olympics which would be an economic boom to Utah, economic boom to the West, and an economic boom, of course, to the United States as well--the United States, Utah, the West. This has been in the process for 6 years, and we have received absolutely nothing from the Clinton administration as they try to balance some environmental objection. They want to balance it. I am not sure what the President has against the Olympics or the people of Utah. Maybe he would like to see the United States, I do not know, embarrassed in the eyes of the world by not coming through. As far as Utah, Alaska, Idaho, and a few other States, we are ready to secede from the Union. We would do better ourselves than trying to deal with a legislative process that this administration has dictated. You know, I used to think, Mr. President, because we control the House and the Senate, we could perhaps get a few things done around here. It doesn't seem to be the case. Section 309. Sand Hollow Exchange. Senators Hatch and Bennett. Another Utah. They seem to be pointing at Utah. Equal value exchange to add acreage to Zion National Park and allows additional water to flow through the park. His ``own'' people and the environmental community have pushed this exchange. I don't know what the President has against Utah. All I can conclude is that, perhaps, as a young man, Bill Clinton must have been pushed down by a big kid from Utah during recess. That is the best explanation I have heard. Section 311. Land Exchange, city of Greely, CO, Senators Campbell and Brown. Equal value exchange to secure property needed by the city to secure ownership of a city's water supply. Well, apparently, this administration would like to manage the city of Greely's water supply--having achieved world peace and cured the common cold, they apparently are bored and need something to do. Well, sorry, Greely. Section 312. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve land exchange and boundary adjustment. That is mine, Governor Knowles, Senator Stevens, and Representative Young. This exchange would have led to more than a 2 million acre expansion of the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve in Alaska--in exchange for lands in Naval Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Since when is helping the national parks a bad idea in the Clinton administration? The only conclusion that can be drawn is they don't like it because it is not their idea. I don't know what else. Kenai Natives Association land exchange. This would facilitate an exchange between the Kenai natives and the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow an Alaska Native Corporation to gain the economic use of their land, which would result from the acre-for-acre exchange. There seems to be no rhyme or reason in the White House position. On one hand, they don't want to add 2 million acres to a national park and, on the other hand, they want to double the acreage put into a withdrawal. Now, I know we can debate the merits of some of these. We did it in committee. But we had a committee action, Mr. President. We had a committee vote. We brought the package before this body. You can vote up and down on the package. Some members said, ``Senator Murkowski, why do you have this big package with 126 sections in it?'' The reason we have this big package is obvious: Because Democrats--one specific Democrat from New Jersey had a hold on every single bill out of our committee. There were holds put on by the Senators from Nevada, one or the other. That is their own business. But that is why we could not move these bills in the orderly process associated with the every-day business of this body. So we waited until the end because that is all we could do, put it in the package, present it before the Senate, and that is where we are today. Section 401. Cashe La Poudre Corridor, Senators Campbell and Brown, their number one priority. Establishes corridor to interpret and protect unique and historical waterway. All I can conclude from their refusal to support this action is they don't think that the Cache La Poudre deserves to be protected. I guess the people of Colorado are wrong in wanting to preserve an important piece of their history. Section 405. RS2477, a western issue, Senators Murkowski, Hatch, Bennett, Stevens. Puts a moratorium on the putting new regulations in place without Congressional approval. What in the world is the objection to that? That is the democratic process. This is ``just'' moratorium language. The minority and the BLM negotiated this language with us. We were all in agreement. Out west again. Section 406. To be eliminated is Hanford Reach Preservation, Senator Gorton and Congressman Hastings in the House. Extends a moratorium on construction of any new dams or impoundments in this area. Can we conclude from this action that Clinton wants to start building dams on the river? I don't know. Section 502. Vancouver National Historic Preserve, Senators Gorton and Murray. It changes a historic site into a national park. I don't know whether Senator Murray and Senator Gorton don't know what their constituents want, but I assume they do. Section 602, stricken. Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act. This is Senator Lott, who has been working on it for a long time. Establishes a National Park Service Civil War site in Mississippi. Is there something wrong with honoring the events associated with the Civil War in Mississippi? Or could it be that this is the majority leader's State, Mississippi? Moving a little further north in the south, section 603. Stricken. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Senators Warner and Robb. Establishes boundary in accordance with a new National Park Service management plan, dated August of this year. The administration is concerned about the process. This did not seem to bother them when the President declared a national monument in Utah, which was created with no process. But the administration's excuse here, to establish a boundary in accordance with new National Park Service management plan, dated August of 1996. Is that an administration that is concerned about the process? Come on, give us a break. Where were the administration's explanations when the land grab was made of 1.8 million acres in Utah, over the objections, and without the knowledge of the process even occurring--no public hearings and no notification to the Utah delegation. They didn't do it, Mr. President, as you will recall, in Utah. They went to Arizona and put the desk on the edge of the Grand Canyon--a big show. The press bought it, they are gullible. They bought it hook, line, and sinker. They knew there would have been a few objections. A few school kids would have said, ``Hey, what about our school funding from some of this land?'' There was no public process. I tell you, when you start to try to identify who is responsible for these things, the accountability is awfully hard to find in this administration, but there are a lot of rabbit trails that are easy to find. Section 604. Revolutionary War, Senator Jeffords. That was a study to determine if these sites warrant further protection. Most of the problems we have had with this administration is that they simply leap before they think. I guess the idea of studying the need for something before doing it perhaps is a bit alien in the concepts of the White House. That has been proven time and again. This is very important to Senator Jeffords. It is a study to determine if these sites warrant further protection. Section 607. Shenandoah Valley Battlefield, Senators Warner and Robb again. There is an election in Virginia this year, I believe. This would establish a historical area. It doesn't make a new park. This they want stricken. This is what the delegation wants. That is why we held the hearings. That is why we had the input. That is why we responded. Can they not be trusted, their own delegation, to determine what's right for their own constituents? Evidently not, because the White House wants that stricken. That is part of their veto package. Ski Area Permits, 701. This simplifies a very complex ski area fee collection process, making collection easier, cutting down on the administrative costs, and it provides more funding for the Forest Service and other Federal agencies that are collecting ski area permits. It is supported by the ski industry and supported by the ski operators. As far as we knew there was not any objection to it. This is supported by the National Ski Association and the Western States elected officials. We are elected officials. That is what I do not understand about this process. We are supposed to know something about what the people want. We are supposed to hold hearings. We are supposed to initiate a process. We have done that in these 126 sections of this bill. Now they are saying this is what is wrong. This is what we want out. And we can only speculate that the rationale is based on the conversations we have had. Make no mistake about it. This is a process of long deliberations. This package is part of a process. That is why it is so important it stay together. We have taken again those items out that they want to initiate a veto on, and now they have come back again. Section 703--visitor services--would raise $150 million for parks to help with badly needed repairs of existing park structure. One hundred percent of new fees go back to the park. I do not understand the opposition to this. We had testimony in support of it. It is simply ridiculous. The Park Service needs these funds to maintain operations. This seems like a blatant attempt to tear down the national parks and blame the Congress. The national parks are over $4 billion behind on maintenance. Here is a way to generate some relief. Section 704--Glacier Bay National Park--raises fees to support research and natural resource protection through a head tax on passengers that go into Glacier Bay. And the only way you can get in there is the cruise ships. It is a 90-day season. It starts Memorial Day and ends Labor Day. What is wrong with that? Never let it be said that this administration would let scientific data get between them and a political decision. Section 803--feral burros and horses. This is a Missouri issue; Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Bond. Notice the trend here, Mr. President, as we address the partisanship. This bill would prevent the slaughter of wild horses by the National Park Service. It would prevent it. Take a look at it, you environmentalists out there. Section 803--feral burros and horses; Ashcroft, and Bond. The bill would prevent the slaughter of horses by the National Park Service. It is not bad enough that the White House has declared an open hunting season on people of the West. They want to shoot the horses that they rode into the West on as well, it seems. It is the only conclusion I can come to. Section 806--Katmai National Park Agreements. It means a lot to Congressman Young. It authorizes the U.S. Geological Service to drill scientific core samples. This is volcanic research. In Alaska we have a pretty hot plate. It blows up occasionally. It is about ready to do it here. We have volcanoes. We have earthquakes. This is volcanic research authorization. What is wrong with that? Maybe Mr. Clinton needs to live at the base of an active volcano, and he would appreciate the need for the advanced volcano research. And where do you do it? You do it where you have volcanoes. You don't do it in Vermont or Washington, DC. You do it out on the Alaskan peninsula. That is what this is all about. They object. They want to veto this over that. I hope the American public would just be indignant for picking out these--well, you have to judge for yourselves. Section 811--expenditures of funds outside the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park. That is rather interesting because that again focuses in on the great State of Colorado--Senator Campbell, and Senator Brown. It simply allows the National Park Service to build a visitors center outside the park, mostly with private funds. They don't want that. Section 815--National Park Service administrative reform--provides authorities which the National Park Service has requested for years-- aid parks in protection of resources and provide facilities for employees; provides facilities for National Park Service employees; provides Senate confirmation of the National Park Service Director. In keeping with that theme, not only evidently does this administration--the President--not trust his park employees, now he wants them to live under substandard conditions, which a lot of them are doing. So what we have attempted to do--this isn't the Senator from Alaska doing this. This is a process that occurred in our committee by the introduction of the bill, hearings held, voting it out to the floor, and putting it into the package. That is the process. We had a process, not like the inequities in the Utah land where there was no process. Section 816--Mineral King--a California issue--extends summer cabin leases. I am not familiar with it--totally discretionary by the Secretary. Opposition to this provision I think is simply ridiculous. The Park Service needs these funds to maintain operations. This seems like a blatant attempt to tear down the national parks and blame the Congress, I guess.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, many Senators have come to the floor this week to give tribute to our retiring colleagues as the 104th Congress moves toward adjournment. The end of the congressional session also means that many of our friends in the diplomatic community are moving on to other assignments. I rise today to say farewell and to congratulate Dr. Lyushun Shen, who has served as head of the Republic of China's Congressional Liaison Division in Washington for many years. In recognition of his good work here, Dr. Shen has been named Director of North American Affairs in the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will return to Taipei at the end of this month. This is an extremely important position because he will be responsible for coordinating Taiwan's policies toward the United States, among other things. I am pleased the United States will have a good friend in that position. My staff and I have had many occasions to work with Lyushun during his tenure in Washington. Whether the issue was one where we disagreed, such as back in the days of fishing disputes between Taiwan and Alaska, or where we agreed, such as allowing a private visit by President Lee to his alma mater, Lyushun has served his country with diligence, professionalism, and a fine sense of humor--an important quality in this town. I also had the chance to observe his fishing skills when he attended my wife's charity fishing tournament this past summer, but I think he should stick with diplomacy. I am confident that Lyushun will be as successful in his new role as he has been here. And I know our paths will cross again during my travels to Asia. I am certain that my colleagues join me in wishing Lyushun and his family all the best in the coming years.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation for myself, Senator Craig, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Senator Grams, Senator Nickles, Senator Campbell, Senator Burns, and Senator Stevens to protect public lands from the type of assault visited upon the people of Utah last week, when our President created a new national monument containing 1.7 million acres. That was done without a process, without a process involving public hearings, without a process involving notification of the Utah delegation, and without courtesies extended in advance so the delegation could be responsive to the particular delineations of the area suggested. I think it is further important to point out the announcement of the President's action was not made in the State of Utah but in the State of Arizona. The withdrawal of land, 1.7 million acres, was in the State of Utah. One could curiously ask, for a Presidential proclamation, why go to another State? It was clear that this action was not welcome in Utah. There would have been many school children to protest that action. The legislation I introduce with my colleagues is called the Public Lands Protection Act of 1996. It provides that no extension or establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the Antiquities Act without full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, and an affirmative act of Congress. Yet, by invoking the Antiquities Act, the President chose to ignore NEPA, ignore the Endangered Species Act, and take action almost as though it were simply a Presidential mandate that was necessary. Some of us might suggest it was political expediency suggested by some of the President's advisers that caused him to circumvent the process, the public process. We have had some tough conversations in the Congress. The California Desert Wilderness was an example, of contested legislation and contested hearings. But the process went forward. We got the job done. This action taken in Utah last week defies logic, defies principle, and defies all semblance of courtesy. In effect, the President declared himself to be above the law by unilaterally declaring that the action he took, which unquestionably is a ``major Federal action'' within the meaning of NEPA, did not require an analysis to determine its impact on the environment. By specifically using the authority of the Antiquities Act, a statute enacted in 1906 to enable President Theodore Roosevelt to take action to protect unique features of our public land, the President conveniently sidestepped NEPA and the requirement to consider the environmental consequences of his action. We know President Clinton is no President Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt allowed a tremendous public dialog to take place before he invoked the Antiquities Act. President Carter invoked the Antiquities Act in my State in a massive land withdrawal. But there was a long process. We didn't like it, but we participated. The people of Utah simply had the national monument dictated to them. Further, by creating a national monument in the manner the President chose, he circumvented the Endangered Species Act, a law that the elite environmental lobbyists invoke at every turn to strike fear in the hearts of the American people that public land use for timber harvesting, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and mining is causing irreversible and intolerable damage to threatened and endangered species and their habitat and that such use of the public domain should be eliminated altogether. Finally, Mr. President, the Clinton administration kept the decision concerning the national monument cloaked in secrecy until it was sprung on the citizens of Utah by surprise. There was no consultation with the Governor, no consultation with the congressional delegation, no outreach effort to the citizens, no interactive process with the public land users, and no consideration of any of the benefits of the lands that have now been taken out of productive multiple use. The President didn't want the democratic process, or the hearing process to go forward. It would have gone into the 105th Congress. We would have resolved it. I dare say, President Clinton's action is probably the most arrogant, hypocritical, and blatantly political exercise of Federal power affecting public lands ever, and the media seems to have bought it. President Clinton's and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's war on the West, in this unprecedented action, has almost the feel of Pearl Harbor. The President chose the most politically expedient and least publicly interactive route possible. The fact that he announced his decision, as I stated, in Arizona speaks for itself. My bill and that of my colleagues would bring an end to the use of this old law to abuse Federal power and trample on States' rights. It is not needed anymore. We have the democratic process, we have NEPA, we have the Endangered Species Act, and we have the checks and balances so that a Presidential land grab is not in order. Our bill is very straightforward. It provides that no extension or establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the Antiquities Act without full compliance with NEPA, full compliance with the Endangered Species Act and an expressed act of Congress. What is wrong with that? That is the process. That is the democratic way. This bill, when passed, would mean that there will be a public process and a deliberate, thoughtful analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed action. There will also be consultation under the Endangered Species Act among the affected agencies on the potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their habitat. More important, Mr. President, by requiring an act of Congress before a monument can be extended or established, the American people, the affected citizenry of the State involved, and interested public land users will have an opportunity to voice their opinions during the process. This can occur during the NEPA process, during the endangered species consultation process and during legislative consideration of the act to extend or establish a national monument. No secret decision by the President's handlers and spin doctors and no campaign ploys, such as we have seen with the Utah monument. President Clinton's action in Utah ignored public sentiment. It ignored the wishes of the citizens of Utah, of the public land users, of those who hold valid existing property rights and those who care deeply--deeply--about environmental stewardship. As our committee process continued, had it been allowed to continue, areas would have been identified and put into wilderness that were agreed upon by the State of Utah, the Governor, the legislature and the congressional delegation. My bill would restore the public's voice in these matters and give meaning to the concept of public participation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Record be left open until the end of the session to allow additional sponsors to join me on this measure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from New York will make sure I am added as a cosponsor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation for myself, Senator Craig, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Senator Grams, Senator Nickles, Senator Campbell, Senator Burns, and Senator Stevens to protect public lands from the type of assault visited upon the people of Utah last week, when our President created a new national monument containing 1.7 million acres. That was done without a process, without a process involving public hearings, without a process involving notification of the Utah delegation, and without courtesies extended in advance so the delegation could be responsive to the particular delineations of the area suggested. I think it is further important to point out the announcement of the President's action was not made in the State of Utah but in the State of Arizona. The withdrawal of land, 1.7 million acres, was in the State of Utah. One could curiously ask, for a Presidential proclamation, why go to another State? It was clear that this action was not welcome in Utah. There would have been many school children to protest that action. The legislation I introduce with my colleagues is called the Public Lands Protection Act of 1996. It provides that no extension or establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the Antiquities Act without full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, and an affirmative act of Congress. Yet, by invoking the Antiquities Act, the President chose to ignore NEPA, ignore the Endangered Species Act, and take action almost as though it were simply a Presidential mandate that was necessary. Some of us might suggest it was political expediency suggested by some of the President's advisers that caused him to circumvent the process, the public process. We have had some tough conversations in the Congress. The California Desert Wilderness was an example, of contested legislation and contested hearings. But the process went forward. We got the job done. This action taken in Utah last week defies logic, defies principle, and defies all semblance of courtesy. In effect, the President declared himself to be above the law by unilaterally declaring that the action he took, which unquestionably is a ``major Federal action'' within the meaning of NEPA, did not require an analysis to determine its impact on the environment. By specifically using the authority of the Antiquities Act, a statute enacted in 1906 to enable President Theodore Roosevelt to take action to protect unique features of our public land, the President conveniently sidestepped NEPA and the requirement to consider the environmental consequences of his action. We know President Clinton is no President Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt allowed a tremendous public dialog to take place before he invoked the Antiquities Act. President Carter invoked the Antiquities Act in my State in a massive land withdrawal. But there was a long process. We didn't like it, but we participated. The people of Utah simply had the national monument dictated to them. Further, by creating a national monument in the manner the President chose, he circumvented the Endangered Species Act, a law that the elite environmental lobbyists invoke at every turn to strike fear in the hearts of the American people that public land use for timber harvesting, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and mining is causing irreversible and intolerable damage to threatened and endangered species and their habitat and that such use of the public domain should be eliminated altogether. Finally, Mr. President, the Clinton administration kept the decision concerning the national monument cloaked in secrecy until it was sprung on the citizens of Utah by surprise. There was no consultation with the Governor, no consultation with the congressional delegation, no outreach effort to the citizens, no interactive process with the public land users, and no consideration of any of the benefits of the lands that have now been taken out of productive multiple use. The President didn't want the democratic process, or the hearing process to go forward. It would have gone into the 105th Congress. We would have resolved it. I dare say, President Clinton's action is probably the most arrogant, hypocritical, and blatantly political exercise of Federal power affecting public lands ever, and the media seems to have bought it. President Clinton's and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's war on the West, in this unprecedented action, has almost the feel of Pearl Harbor. The President chose the most politically expedient and least publicly interactive route possible. The fact that he announced his decision, as I stated, in Arizona speaks for itself. My bill and that of my colleagues would bring an end to the use of this old law to abuse Federal power and trample on States' rights. It is not needed anymore. We have the democratic process, we have NEPA, we have the Endangered Species Act, and we have the checks and balances so that a Presidential land grab is not in order. Our bill is very straightforward. It provides that no extension or establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the Antiquities Act without full compliance with NEPA, full compliance with the Endangered Species Act and an expressed act of Congress. What is wrong with that? That is the process. That is the democratic way. This bill, when passed, would mean that there will be a public process and a deliberate, thoughtful analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed action. There will also be consultation under the Endangered Species Act among the affected agencies on the potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their habitat. More important, Mr. President, by requiring an act of Congress before a monument can be extended or established, the American people, the affected citizenry of the State involved, and interested public land users will have an opportunity to voice their opinions during the process. This can occur during the NEPA process, during the endangered species consultation process and during legislative consideration of the act to extend or establish a national monument. No secret decision by the President's handlers and spin doctors and no campaign ploys, such as we have seen with the Utah monument. President Clinton's action in Utah ignored public sentiment. It ignored the wishes of the citizens of Utah, of the public land users, of those who hold valid existing property rights and those who care deeply--deeply--about environmental stewardship. As our committee process continued, had it been allowed to continue, areas would have been identified and put into wilderness that were agreed upon by the State of Utah, the Governor, the legislature and the congressional delegation. My bill would restore the public's voice in these matters and give meaning to the concept of public participation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Record be left open until the end of the session to allow additional sponsors to join me on this measure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from New York will make sure I am added as a cosponsor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2150 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I may be recognized for 1 minute relative to advising my colleagues of the status of the parks omnibus package. It is my understanding that the appropriations subcommittee chairman has indicated it will not include specific items taken from the park omnibus bill and put on the appropriation CR. Now, that is a matter outside the control of the Senator from Alaska as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee. I think that has been clearly stated, and it has been reinforced by the Speaker of the House. What I am encouraging, obviously, is that we proceed with this package. I agree, if it is in the interests of my colleagues to put the package on the appropriations as an entire package, I have no objection to that. Otherwise, the alternative is to proceed as we have, try to address the objections from the other side, and get on with it. For those who think we will cherry pick it out and put specific portions on the appropriations CR and pass it there, that is not going to be an available alternative. We will simply lose for this year and have to start again. I hope that will not happen.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The majority leader is correct. We were ready to have the meeting, and we were advised by the White House representative that they had no authority and were not familiar with the specifics of the bill and they wanted us to submit a bill, items which we would agree to take out. As chairman of that committee I feel a responsibility, bipartisan, both Democrats and Republicans, to try to represent them in a conference mode as opposed to arbitrarily taking out their sections to accommodate the administration. We have, for Senator Heflin, who is retiring, Selma to Montgomery Historic Trail designation, the historic black college funding; for Senator Simon and Senator Moseley-Braun, the Illinois and Michigan canal, Calumet Ecological Park study; for Senator Johnston and Senator Breaux, Civil War Center, Louisiana University, the Laura Hudson Visitor Center; Senators Kennedy and Kerrey, and retiring Congressman Studds, Boston Harbor Islands park establishment, Blackstone heritage area, New Bedford establishment. I cannot understand why, after all this work, there is still objection. I encourage the majority leader to continue to work on, and I stand ready to try to meet the objections of my colleagues. I understand there is a hold now from the administration, and I think it is fair to say we have an obligation, certainly, relative to a process here, and as an authorizer, if the White House is going to line-item veto everything, we might as well go out of business. I encourage the majority leader to continue the effort because we are not very far away, and I stand ready to be here all night if necessary, come in and meet with any group, to try to address this. I thank my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Relative to reviewing the list of 126, it affects Senators from Oregon, Utah, Virginia, California, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Missouri, to name a few, and in some cases, parks in every State. These are States affected by the administration's announcement last night they wanted 46 more out. These are the States that are affected. This is after an extended hearing process. We reported these out, and we have withdrawn those the administration initially listed as objections that they would veto. I have personally met with my conferees by telephone relative to trying to clear this, and as the leader has pointed out, a technical correction in the House has been taken care of. We can pass this. We can move it right now if there is no objection. Otherwise, we will have to wait for another session, the 105th Congress, to start this process that we spent over 2 years on, which benefits virtually every State in the Union with very meaningful projects, including the Presidio and cleaning up the San Francisco Bay area. I urge the leader to continue to work in every manner, because time is running out on the biggest and most important parks public land package in two decades. We are ready to move forward and pass this legislation. If we cannot proceed, it would truly be a shame, because on both sides, Democrats and Republicans will not see--