Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague. Section 1038. Alternative processing. This is an attempt to save the remaining jobs in my State, in southeastern Alaska in a timber area. Why doesn't the President just tell us: I want the remaining jobs to go away. I want the communities to go away, or simply suffer. That is what he is doing. What this would do would be to simply transfer timber that is being used as pulp, as a designation of that timber under an 8-year contract that is binding to be transferred over to sawmill use so that, as we lose our pulp mills, we can continue to have a supply under a contractual commitment to our sawmills. We only have four sawmills, three of which are running. The other one is not because they do not have enough logs. So we have taken our pound of flesh on this package. We have withdrawn what we hoped the administration would support and that was a 15-year contract to allow a $200 million investment to bring our pulp mill up to environmental standard. They would not support that. Section 1039. Village land negotiations. This is another slap in the face of Alaska Native people. This provision just asks the Secretary to talk to five tiny Alaska villages that have waited more than 20 years for a conveyance that they were promised. This is a classic example of the Federal Government using the old bait-and-switch routine on America's native people and having no intention, evidently, of making good on the promises. Section 1040. Unrecognized communities in southeastern Alaska. That merely let five communities in Alaska establish as a group or urban native corporations. It involved no land transfer. It was a Alaska Native equal rights bill that gave these people simply an opportunity or the authority to proceed. No land transfer was associated with it-- another solution in which the Federal Government has turned its back on Alaska Natives. Section 1041. Gross Brothers. They served their country in uniform. They lost their deed. Their country is denying them the land they homesteaded, land they lived on. Section 1043. Credit for reconveyance. This would have allowed Cape Fox Corp. to transfer 320 acres of land near a hydro project back to the Forest Service. They would not have gotten any land in exchange. I do not know why they oppose that. We are giving the land back. Section 1044. Radio site report. A study to determine if radio sites are needed. Section 1045. Retention and maintenance of dams and weirs. Forces the Forest Service to maintain specific dams and weirs in the Immigrant Wilderness. Section 1046. Matching land conveyance, University of Alaska. This authorization is for the Secretary of the Interior to discuss--discuss, not mandate--a land grant with the University of Alaska, which has never received its Federal entitlement, on a matching basis with the State. Once again, this is an education President striking again against education, and I just do not understand the rationale. This is the only statewide university in our State. It is a land grant college. It has no land in the largest State. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to advise my colleagues also that I have maintained that we have put this package in the most responsible form. It is ready to go. If it does not go, if it does not go in the package, it is not going to go. We will have to come back and start the process all over again. We will lose Presidio. We will lose the San Francisco Bay area cleanup. We will lose the issues in New Jersey, Sterling Forest. We will lose 126 sections of hard work that came out of the democratic process simply because, by executive mandate, this administration says they will not accept it. I find that unconscionable. I am very pleased with the action of our leader in introducing this. I hope we can address the concerns of the minority, and I am willing to work with the minority to try to do that in the time remaining. With that, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and my friend for allowing me to continue. I appreciate their graciousness. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have about 3 more minutes. I wonder if I may be allowed to complete this statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to yield. But I want to finish my statement, and then I would be happy to yield for a question. Mineral King--I want to finish that. That is a California issue-- extends summer cabin leases totally discretionary by the Secretary. Again, I can only assume that the President does not trust his Secretary of the Interior or his Park Service folks to do what, obviously, a majority of the committee felt was the right thing. This bill, of course, gives them complete control. Section 818--the Calumet Ecological Park--that is Senator Simon and Senator Moseley-Braun--a study to extend the I and M Canal National Heritage Corridor to incorporate a large portion of Chicago. I am not conversant on that. But it certainly sounds reasonable. Section 819--they want stricken--acquisition of certain property in Santa Cruz. There are goats evidently that are ruining the island. Provisions in this bill would allow the National Park Service to address the removal of the goats from the island and try to restore a more pristine condition. It does not authorize the shooting of the goats, I might add. This portion of the island that is not under Government management I am told looks like certain areas of Afghanistan. The remainder of this island needs to be protected. Section 1021--the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. This is a major issue for one Senator, Senator Campbell. It formally creates a recreation area. Changes monument status to a park. Creates a BLM conservation area. Creates 22,000 acres of wilderness. Has all the four management agencies involved operating under one complex. Extensive hearings; extensive support; no questions about this. But it is on the list for veto. National Park Foundation--I believe Senator Lieberman, and myself-- provides for the opportunity for the private sector to sponsor the National Park Service similar to the sponsorship of the Olympic games. We accepted Senator Bumpers' six amendments which clarify that the sanctity of our National Park Service will be maintained. Clarifies that in no way the corporate entity can overcommercialize the Park Service. The national environmental community is ginning up opposition against this. Well, let them come up with the $4 billion that is necessary to provide adequate maintenance in our parks. They are quick to criticize. But when somebody comes up with a solution, obviously, they criticize but they don't counter with a response. Mount Hood--Senator Hatfield--1028--exchange between private company and Federal Government. Provisions already in the continuing resolution. Section 1029--creation of the Coquille Forest--Senator Hatfield-- equal value exchange creating a tribal forest. Section 1034--Natchez National Historical Park--creates an auxiliary area to the National Park Service unit, and provides $3 million for intermodal transportation system and a visitors center. Is this administration opposed to creating less intrusive modes of transportation to allow more people to be able to enjoy the magnificent national park system, or are they just opposed to Republicans getting something for their home States? I don't know whether this is just a partisan shot. But it sure looks like it. Section 1036--rural electric and telephone facilities--it authorizes the BLM to waive right-of-way rental charges for small rural electric and phone cooperatives. Section 1037. Federal borough recognition, payment in lieu of taxes. This allows the unorganized borough in Alaska to receive PILT payments. They are unorganized, few people living there; 60 percent of the Federal lands in Alaska are in this borough. The administration did not oppose this during the committee action, and the language was worked out in cooperation with them. The administration supported this in committee. This is a slap in the face to my State, the rural Alaskans in my State, who lose out on economic opportunity because of the massive amount of public lands in their backyards. What could possibly be the reason for opposing this other than it is in a State that probably will not vote for the President? Alternative processing, 1038.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent, after consultation with the distinguished Democratic leader, that we may turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany the Presidio bill, and when the Senate turns to the consideration of the conference report, at this time, the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I will try to be a little more rapid. Colorado, section 101: Cache La Poudre corridor, Senator Brown, Senator Campbell. RS2477, Section 405: An Alaskan issue. They want to strike 406, the Hanford Reach protection which is out in the State of Washington. Section 502, which is an historic area, the Vancouver National Historical Reserve: Gorton; Murray. They want to strike that. Civil and Revolutionary War sites: That is section 602. The Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act: I believe Senator Lott. The Richmond National Battlefield Park: Senator Warner, and perhaps Senator Robb. Section 604, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study: Senator Jeffords. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefield: Senator Warner and Senator Robb: Ski area permit for rental charges they want stricken. Visitors' services they want stricken. This is a park fee. Glacier Bay National Park: Section 704 stricken. And then out in the West: Senator Bond, Senator Ashcroft, section 803, referral, burros and horses. And, moving on, another Alaskan issue, 806, Katmai. Senator Campbell, section 811: Expenditure of Funds Outside Authorized Boundaries of the Rocky Mountain National Park, stricken. Section 815: National Park Service Administration Reform; Senator Baucus, and Senator Feinstein, I believe. Mineral King, additional permits, Section 816, stricken. Section 818, Calumet Ecological Park: I believe that is Senator Simon, and Senator Moseley-Braun. Moving over to others: Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Complex, stricken; 1021, Senator Campbell, National Park Foundation, Senator Bumpers and myself, stricken; 1027, 1028, 1029, the Deschutes basin ecosystem, Senator Hatfield; Mount Hood Corridor Land Exchange, Hatfield; creation of a forest; Senator Hatfield; 1034, Natchez National Historical Park, Senator Cochran; and the rest of them are in this section 1035; and a few Alaskan issues of little consequence. Mr. President, the point I want to conclude with is we as authorizers have done our job. There is an effort now to circumvent the legitimate process of the authorizers by momentum of the administration to put this in the appropriations package. I have committed to Senator Gorton. If they want to put the whole thing in, that is one thing. But I am not going to see the effort made by our authorizing committee and our conferees to have this simply cherry picked. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for our existence. If the appropriations process is going to pick up and cherry pick what we have done when we are ready to go, we have our holdings--at least I am sure on our side--addressed because of the way this process would proceed. The way this process would proceed, Mr. President, since we are ready to send it back over to the House by taking off the technical blue slip because of the tax implications, but we have to do that, of course, without objection. We are ready to do that. Our job is done. The only risk to this is in sending it and subjecting it to a vote for recommittal. If the vote fails, the package is dead. But it will not fail. It will not fail in the House. It will not fail here. Give us a chance to vote on the package. Give us a chance to vote on what the authorizers have done here. I implore my colleagues, particularly those who have been around here for a while, to recognize what this attempt is all about. They did not think we could get a consensus on the parks omnibus package. They thought all along they would be able to cherry-pick what they want out of it, but we fooled them. We got our job done. And now they are using the momentum of some in the minority to suggest they are going to go ahead anyway. Well, we will see about that. We are ready to go. Our job is done. And to suggest some expeditious action by including it in the appropriations process at this late stage simply is not the way the Senate is supposed to function. I know that all of us get frustrated from time to time relative to our chairmanships, but this is a travesty of the process if this is a successful effort to cherry-pick those things and put them in the appropriations process when we are ready to go now. We can have it done today. We should be allowed to proceed. So I hope that the leadership would reflect on that at noon when we proceed with the remainder of the calendar and just how we are going to treat these provisions, specifically the omnibus parks legislation, because at noon we will be ready to go subject to an objection. If there is an objection, I hope those objecting will come up with an alternative so that we can meet their objections, because our job is done. Technically, there is no reason why the parks omnibus package should not move ahead as it was intended and designed to do and as reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may have another 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was not aware there was a time limit on morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, that being done, we assumed that the administration may have mild objection to others. But last night we had a proposal from the administration. I want those that are watching in the offices to pay particular attention because I am going to refer to those in the balance of my remarks because, if you look at them, I can't say they are nonpartisan. They are very partisan as to what they now want omitted from the package. So it seems like they have goalposts on wheels because now they want more omitted. Not only do they want more omitted but they do not want this package that the authorizers have completed in both the House and Senate. They don't want this package to be presented in the two bodies. As evidence of that, Mr. President, I read the accompanying letter dated September 25. I think just the last sentence is in order. The letter is from Franklin D. Raines, Director of the Executive Offices of the President. ``This conference report''--which is our authorizing effort--``does not meet the test. We remain willing to work with you to develop a compromise package that could be included in a bill to provide continuing appropriations.'' So what they want to do is they want to cherry pick this 126-section, 41-State report--over 2 years of effort. Some of these things have been before my committee for over 4 years. Our committee acted in a bipartisan manner. We took the issues on the merits. Let me show you what the administration proposed last night, and you can judge for yourselves. Of course, title I, the Presidio, which we all support, is included. But when we get into title II, the Boundary Adjustments and Conveyances, it is rather interesting. Section 216 they want omitted. That is conveyance to the city of Sumpter, OR. That happens to be Senator Hatfield. Section 218, Shenandoah National Park: That is Senator Warner. Senator Jeffords has an interest I believe, and Senator Robb also has an interest. Section 219, Tulare conveyance: The Colorado delegation and perhaps the Utah delegation has an interest. Section 220, the Alpine School District: Senator Hatfield. They want that omitted. Section 223, Coastal Barrier Resource System in Florida: Senator Mack, Senator Graham, and I believe the Governor of Florida, a Democrat, happens to feel very strongly that this should be in there. They want that stricken. There is a Unified School District. I think that is the California issue. Several in Alaska: The Alaska Peninsula Subsurface Consolidation, which is a very, very small consolidation on the Alaskan Peninsula. But here is a big one they want stricken: Snowbasin Land Exchange Act. That is big in Utah. That is big in the Olympics. That is big in Idaho. That is big out west. This is going to allow a land exchange so Utah can hold the winter Olympics. They want it stricken out of here. They don't want it. They don't want that land exchange. There are some, evidently, environmental objections somewhere. It must be a lot stronger than we thought. We held hearings on it. The base of support from the States and the Olympic Committee spoke for itself. Sand Hollow Land Exchange: Another Utah issue they want stricken. Out in Colorado, section 311, 312, 313: Land exchange with the city of Greeley, CO, for the water supply and storage company. And, then there are a couple more: Gates of the Arctic Land Preserve Exchange; the Native's association land exchange. They own our State. There is no question about that. As we try to make adjustments to accommodate our citizens, we go through a process of hearings, get the input, and get the State administration involved.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of interest from many Members in the disposition of the omnibus parks bill. As the Chair is aware, we as a committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, met in conference and reported out the Presidio package several days ago, which contains 126 separate sections covering some 41 States. We sent it over to the House. There was an implication regarding taxes on one particular section. We attempted to clear it over here. We had an objection. That objection has been addressed. It is my understanding that, procedurally, this matter can move from this body, assuming there is no further objection. There is another track that is underway by some Members--mostly from the other body--that suggest that the disposition of the omnibus parks bill should be in the appropriation bill, the CR that is forming. I find that extraordinary because there are authorizers and there are appropriators. My committee, as an authorizing committee, has done its job. The Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by Representative Young, has done its job. We got our packages together. We had further communicated with the White House over a week ago, addressing specifically certain contentious sections and asking for a disposition. There are, initially, four major items in dispute. One was the Utah wilderness issue. The administration saw fit to initiate the invocation of the Antiquities Act to take care of the Utah wilderness. In other words, it was a land grab; the administration simply took 1.8 million acres and didn't notify the Utah delegation--the Governor, the Members of the Senate or the House. It was really a land grab, with no public process, which this administration highlights as part of their philosophy. We had been debating Utah wilderness for an extensive period of time and hadn't resolved it. But the democratic process was going on, people were being heard, different views were being heard. It wasn't so long ago that we had an opportunity to debate the California wilderness bill. There was no antiquities application or land grab there. They let the democratic process move forward. The reason I point this out is because that was a contentious item, Utah wilderness. We withdrew it because of the threat of a veto. Another contentious issue involved a 15-year extension for the only manufacturing plant in my State of Alaska. Without a 15-year extension, it could not make the $200 million investment to change that plant from a conventional pulp plant to a chlorine-free plant. They needed that commitment. The Forest Service would put up the timber so they could amortize the investment. The administration chose to object to that. The problem is, of course, that there is no source of timber, other than Federal timber, because all of southeastern Alaska is part of the Tongass National Forest. The communities are in the forest. The communities were assured at the time the forest was created that there would be enough timber to maintain a modest timber industry. So out of the 17 million acres of the forest, we have digressed down to trying to maintain an industry on about 1.7 million acres. The pathetic part of it is, Mr. President, only roughly half of the timber is suitable for pulp. It is either dead, dying, or immature, in the sense that there is not enough soil to continue to maintain growth to full maturity. It has no other use. The reason this pulp mill was created is so we would have a tax base--this is the only year-round manufacturing plant in the State--and to secure jobs, and we would not have to export the pulp out of the State of Alaska--at that time, it was the territory of Alaska--down to the mills in the State of Washington, or to British Columbia, or Oregon. Well, by the administration's dictate of lack of support for the extension, this mill will close. So the Senator from Alaska has taken his hit. I withdrew that from the omnibus parks package. Then we had the grazing issue. The administration objected to the fee structure of grazing on public land--the traditional Western use of public land. So we withdrew that. Then we moved up to Minnesota and we had the Boundary Waters Area. This was a question of whether you could use small motorized four-wheelers to haul small boats, canoes, and so forth, over a trail between the lake system. It is all right for the young folks to get 10 people out there and push it, but some of the older folks need some motorized assistance. They objected to that. So we took that out. Mr. President, as justification for that I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the OMB outlining the objections be printed in the Record, along with a list.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that I might be able to speak for about 10 minutes in morning business.

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, other physicians agree with the former Surgeon General: Three physicians, who treat pregnant women and their babies on a regular basis, submitted an editorial in a September 19, 1996, Wall Street Journal editorial and declared that ``Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility.'' A partial-birth abortion is not only tragic, it is violent. The procedure is one in which four-fifths of the child is delivered before the abhorrent process of killing the child begins. Sadly, throughout this procedure the majority of babies are alive and able to move and may actually feel pain during this ordeal. Ms. Brenda Schafer, a nurse who observed a partial-birth abortion, made this moving statement before a congressional committee: The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. Mr. President, we have heard much of the brutal reality associated with the process, but let us not forget this reality: the child is within a few moments or a few inches from being protected by law. The suggestion is that this is a fetus; Mr. President, I suggest that this is a baby. It is not a fetus. It is a baby. Mr. President, it's not easy for any here to discuss this topic, but unfortunately, those are the true, stark, and brutal realities of a partial-birth abortion. And Mr. President, I must tell you that as a father of six, I am profoundly affected and disturbed by Ms. Schafer's statement. I, and others who support this act, sympathize with a woman who is in a difficult and extreme circumstance, but no circumstance can justify the killing of an infant who is four-fifths born. My good friend and colleague Senator Moynihan, who is a pro-choice Democrat declared that this practice of partial-birth abortions is just too close to infanticide. That is why I hope that this is the one issue that can unite pro-life and pro-choice individuals. Because, Mr. President, the vote today is not an issue of pro-life or pro-choice--it's an issue of putting an end to an abhorrent and inhumane procedure. Dr. Pamela Smith, in a House hearing on this issue, succinctly stated why Congress must act: ``The baby is literally inches from being declared a legal person by every state in the union. The urgency and seriousness of these matters therefore require appropriate legislative action.'' We are here with an obligation. Mr. President, this matter is urgent. This procedure cannot be defended medically and cannot be defended morally. I profoundly believe that it is a fitting and proper interest of the Government to protect human life--both of the mother and the child--healthy and disable. I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote in favor of overriding President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr MURKOWSKI

Mr MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on December 7, 1995, this body passed S. 939, a bill that would place a national ban on the partial-birth abortion procedures, except in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. On April 10, 1996, President Clinton vetoed that bill. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to override the Presidential veto and put an end to the tragic procedure known as a partial-birth abortion. President Clinton defended his act of vetoing this bill by stating that a partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is medically necessary in certain ``compelling cases'' to protect the mother from ``serious injury to her health'' or to avoid the mother ``losing the ability to ever bear further children.'' President Clinton was misinformed. According to reputable medical testimony and evidence given before this Congress by partial-birth abortion practitioners, partial-birth abortions are: more widespread than its defenders admit; used predominantly for elective purposes; and are never necessary to safeguard the mother's health or fertility. Mr. President, my Alaskan office has received more mail in the last week on this issue than any other issue this year--over 1,900 calls and letters--imploring the Senate's help to end this tragic procedure. Mr. President, I note the extraordinary effort by many of our Members to try to take the emotion out of this procedure, and I was particularly moved by statements made by our colleague from Tennessee, who is a medical physician. In his statement, Senator Frist was specific relative to the reality that this was not a necessary procedure. His statement certainly supports other experts. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that he ``believed that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions.'' Dr. Koop went on to say, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described as * * * partial birth * * * is a medical necessity for the mother.'' In an editorial in today's New York Times, C. Everett Koop, added, With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother * * *. Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial- birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and a normal fetus. Mr. President, I ask that the remainder of Dr. Koop's editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I indicated in my conversation yesterday, we have an opportunity, a rare opportunity, to move the omnibus parks legislation, including some 126 individual titles. The sequence of events that has occurred since our conferees on the Senate side met and sent the package over to the House bears some examination at this time. Let me recount the status of the Presidio omnibus parks legislation. When it went over to the House yesterday, we anticipated that the House would address it today. However, there was an error in the technical submission which resulted in an objection on technical language. As a consequence, in order to rectify that situation, it is necessary that it come back to this body and that the corrections be taken, which, again, are of a technical nature, and it be sent back to the House of Representatives for action, and then it would come over here, and the anticipated procedure would be that an objection would result and a vote to recommit the conference report, which would basically terminate the conference report and the Presidio omnibus parks legislation. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which reported out this package after working some 2 years, and recognizing that it affects the interests in some 41 individual States, and recognizing that we knew there were controversial issues in the package, including the Utah wilderness, which was withdrawn at the request of the administration, the grazing issue which was withdrawn at the request of the administration over a veto threat, the Tongass 15- year extension for the benefit of the Ketchikan pulp contract in my State of Alaska, which would enable a $200 million investment to go into a new facility, chlorine free, state-of-the-art, which was threatened by a Presidential veto, I assume because of objections from environmental groups, that, too, was withdrawn. We had the issue affecting the State of Minnesota known as the boundary wilderness waters. That, too, was withdrawn. So, Mr. President, the point I am making here is that there was a genuine effort to respond to the administration's concern by withdrawing what was assumed to be the controversial issues. Well, Mr. President, last night we were in for another surprise. The Office of Management and Budget came up with a letter indicating that they still were not satisfied. Mr. President, it is the observation of the Senator from Alaska that the White House has a goalpost on wheels. They simply move it around when it is convenient. I am sure there are some legitimate concerns, but they were not expressed in the first letter from the White House relative to their concerns and objections. They include some new areas that we had not been advised were controversial in the last 2 years that we have held hearings. So I would like to go over those so my colleagues will know just where we are. In the receipt of the second proposed veto letter, where it simply says that the Office of Management and Budget would recommend a veto either through the Secretary of Agriculture or to the Office of the President, the letter points out that there are procedures and provisions that are unacceptable to the administration that would warrant veto action. These include, No. 1, unwarranted boundary restrictions to the Shenandoah and Richmond Battlefield National Parks in Virginia. The second was special-interest benefits adversely affecting the management of the Sequoia National Park in California. Three, an unfavorable modification of the Ketchikan pulp contract on the Tongass in my State of Alaska. Four, erosion of the coastal barrier island protections in Florida. Five, mandated changes that would significantly alter and delay completion of the Tongass land management plan. And, six, permanent changes in process for regulating rights-of-way across national parks and other Federal lands. Mr. President, the indication here is that this administration would hold up the omnibus parks package, including the Presidio, that magnificent jewel in the Pacific under the Golden Gate Bridge, that needs attention and needs attention badly. It needs attention now; it cannot wait. It is going to deteriorate. We proposed to set up a trust of outstanding citizens in San Francisco to manage that like the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Corporation has done such an extraordinary job in Washington, DC, in renovating the areas along Pennsylvania Avenue. The administration is implying, suggesting, recommending they are going to hold up this package as a consequence now of these issues after we took the controversial issues away. Mr. President, let there be no mistake about it, the game plan--the game plan--of this administration is evidenced in its letter. That letter does not address the legislative package, which is the omnibus parks bill, as the vehicle. What it recommends is that we initiate further discussions so that the appropriations process can cherry pick, if you will, certain aspects, certain portions out of the omnibus package and put it in the appropriations process. The committee chairman, Senator Gorton of Washington, indicated yesterday, in no uncertain terms, that the omnibus parks package was the only train leaving, the only bus leaving the station. This was it, because he was not going to entertain taking segments out of the omnibus parks package and putting it in the appropriations legislation that they are drafting. Mr. President, we are in a situation now where that bus has left. The Senator from Washington is known for his outspokenness, his commitment, his word. I have communicated with Senator Hatfield of the Appropriations Committee relative to the possibility that is the game plan now, to abandon the Presidio omnibus parks legislation, and selectively pull pieces out of there and put it, Mr. President, in the appropriation package. Now, as we look at these issues specifically which I think need examination, since the White House brought them up, one might say, ``Well, there must be something wrong with these.'' On the surface, it may be something bad. We must be out of our minds to even consider passing such provisions as objected to by the director of the Executive Office of the President. Let me read the last sentence of the letter. The conference report does not meet the test. We remain willing to work with you to develop a compromise package that could be included in a bill to provide continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997. There it is, Mr. President. That is what the administration wants to do. They want to take the omnibus parks bill, the hours my committee has worked--as a matter of fact, the years--126 individual bills that are in that package, they want to cherry pick them out. Do you know what will happen if that is done? Some of the senior Members with long- term seniority in this body are going to try and prevail. They will try and prevail. We know how that works. But it is not something that I will stand and watch silently happen. I am prepared to take whatever means is necessary to keep this package together. If it starts coming apart, to take whatever means is necessary to block it if it is in an appropriations process, because this concept is simply wrong. We have held the hearings. We participated in the public process. Now it is time to legislate on the package. I am not buying the excuse that, ``Well, the Senator from Alaska has put together this huge package. Why did we not pass these individually?'' Because every Member in this body knows why. There has been a hold on every 1 of the 126 individual bills that are in this package for over a year, in some cases a year and a half, nearly 2 years, by some individuals who wanted to use the whole process to force the House to initiate action on bills that were objected to in the House. That is why this package exists. If there is going to be some political heat around here, Mr. President, that political heat goes right down to the White House for breaking up or attempting to break up a well put together package, by withdrawing Utah wilderness, grazing, Tongass, 15-year extension, as well as the Minnesota boundary waters. We have done our part. But, no, they want more. Mr. President, this is a small item in passing. I am losing 1,000 jobs directly, 3,000 to 4,000 jobs indirectly. That means 25 percent of the economy of southeastern Alaska because this administration will not support a 15-year extension. I met the Secretary of the Office of the President on Environmental Quality Council, Ms. McGinty. She did not recommend the extension. She could not give me a reason. I have in front of me a statement from the U.S. Forest Service and their consultants. In the summer of 1996 there were enough trees that died in my State of Alaska in south central and interior Alaska as a result of the infestation of the spruce bark beetle to run that Ketchikan pulp mill at full capacity for 8 years. So, there we have it, Mr. President. No sensitivity to the dead, dying timber, jobs, people out of work, unemployment, no tax base. Mr. President, as we look at where we are today, we wonder if it is not precisely what the Framers of the Constitution of the United States had in mind when they created the three branches of Government. If one goes a little off, the other can bring some balance into the process. I want to share and examine the issues concerning the permanent changes in the process for regulating right of ways across national parks and other Federal lands. The resolution of right of way claims, or RS 2477, which they suggest that they do not find suitable in this legislation, these claims as they are called, have been a complex, contentious process. The committee reported an amended bill that allows the Department to proceed with the development of new regulations while prohibiting their implementation until approved by Congress. That is what we did in committee, put the balance in there, so that, obviously, it would require the implementation by Congress, and the Department could proceed with the regulations while prohibiting the implementation until approved by Congress. In other words, this legislation provided the ability to keep the process going, but Congress wants to act. This does not permanently change the process. It just provides a system of checks and balances. It is fairly difficult to argue with this logic unless, of course, the White House does not want to participate in the check and balance. Mr. President, what is even more phenomenal is the fact that the original bill was significantly amended as requested by this administration. In other words, we have already responded to the administration, but clearly OMB does not know anything about it. The same bill that is in this package, let me repeat, the same bill is the administration's position, and actually relaxes the conditions of the moratorium currently in effect. The bill in this package was unanimously agreed to by all of the committee members. The Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, voted for it, Senator Bradley from New Jersey voted for it, Senator Bumpers voted for it. Mr. President, I doubt that the President of the United States would seriously veto a legislative package of this magnitude over a bill they agreed to-- agreed to it--last May. Now, the threat of a veto on Shenandoah and Richmond Battlefield National Park in Virginia--well, let's cut to the quick. The Richmond Battlefield provision in this package is the same map, same boundaries as depicted on the National Park Service's newly released general management plan, dated August 1996. The reduction in acreage is the administration's initiative. I repeat. This is a plan from the administration. During the course of deliberations, a provision was added. The land could only be purchased from a willing seller. But, at the same time, the restriction to the purchase of lands by donated funds only was expanded to include appropriated funds. In the case of the Shenandoah National Park, the park boundary was reduced from the original 1926 authorization of 521,000 acres to 196,500 acres, currently managed by the National Park Service. The conferees also directed that the Secretary shall complete a boundary study, which would address the future needs of the park in the way of lands acquisition and give the Secretary authority to acquire those lands. The Park Service did not testify or make the case that the entire acreage, as envisioned in 1926, was required to complete the park. In fact, there are many areas within the original acreage that are already developed and no longer possess those qualities for inclusion as units for the National Park System. The provisions in the package were worked out between the Virginia delegation over a period of months--bipartisan, Mr. President. Negotiations were intense when the delegation first addressed the problems at Shenandoah. They were all over the spectrum. Finally, they reached an agreement. The provision protects the park and rectifies the problems experienced by their constituents. In conversation with the White House staff last night, Mr. President, when asked what was the real problem, they allowed that they would probably reach the same conclusion, but the program needed more process. Well, it has been 2 years, Mr. President. Why does the administration object to this? They won't tell us. They just put it down. Mr. President, they want more process. This comes from an administration who, in many cases, ignored any process. In declaring the 1.8 million acres in the State of Utah a national monument, there was no process, no NEPA, no FLPMA--no process. On one hand, they want process, and on the other hand, they make a decision based on political expediency. What happens? The President doesn't go to Utah. The President sits on the edge of the Grand Canyon and makes his pronouncement from the State of Arizona. Why didn't he go to Utah? It is clear. He wasn't welcome in Utah. Because of his land grab under the Antiquities Act, he would have been protested by children who were objecting to the revenue that would be lost to the school fund as a consequence of this designation. The pathetic part of that action--and it was not the action of a work horse, Mr. President, it was the action of a show horse, because that legislation, the Antiquities Act had no business being invoked, and the administration uses the excuse, well, Teddy Roosevelt did it. It was necessary when Teddy Roosevelt was around, but he did it right. There was a lot of discussion over it. The Antiquities Act was applied by President Carter in my State of Alaska, but there was a lot of discussion. There was absolutely no discussion in this case--none whatsoever. Check with the delegation from Utah, check with the Governor, check with the House Members. This came as a surprise. It was a photo opportunity, a crass effort to take advantage, if you will, of a designation land grab which some of the President's advisers suggested. I have even heard Dick Morris was in on the recommendation. So, on one hand, the administration talks about a public process. They want more process in this parks package. But they have no process in declaring 1.8 million acres of the State of Utah a national monument. Mr. President, as late as, I believe, the 103d Congress, we had an extended debate over California desert wilderness. Not everybody was happy, but there was a process, a democratic process, where the people were heard. And we passed that legislation. Everybody wasn't happy. I wasn't particularly happy, but Dianne Feinstein was very happy. But it was a process. That was circumvented here. It was circumvented, and the media can't seem to see through it. They proclaim the merits. Nobody proclaims the loss of participation or the loss of the process by the people of Utah. This is not an issue of the State of Alaska, but there is a principle involved here. This Senator is introducing legislation, along with Senator Craig and others, to take away the President's authority to invoke the Antiquities Act, because it has been abused. There is every reason that we could have continued the dialog in the next session of Congress on the Utah wilderness, to make legitimate designations of wilderness for Utah. But here we have a land grab. So when the President and the White House talks about process, I want to talk about their process. Their process is a land grab. Mr. President, the administration has a problem with the extension of a few summer cabin leases at Sequoia National Park where they are going to develop a campground and other facilities. However, there are no definitive plans or moneys programmed at the current time. They are ready to sacrifice the whole package on this issue. The original bill was heavily amended as a result of a veto threat by the Department. All of the erroneous provisions were removed, to our knowledge, at that time. Under this bill, the Secretary has total discretion to continue to lease it. The language does not direct the Secretary to do anything, but he may if he wants to. What is wrong with that? Full discretion. Last year, we saw Senator Feinstein, my good friend from California, as I indicated, prevail in the establishment of the largest park and wilderness package in quite a while, the California desert. Now, I can't believe my good friend, Senator Feinstein, would support the destruction of the Sequoia National Park, nor would I suspect that Senator Boxer would allow anything inappropriate to take place. Both support this legislation. If the Secretary thinks it is a neat thing to do it, why, we have given him the authority to do it. The administration cites ``unfavorable modifications'' of the Ketchikan pulp contract as a possible veto item. Is this a national issue for which the President would sacrifice a billion-dollar environmental program for the San Francisco Bay area to clean up the San Francisco Bay? I went to school down there, and I know it well. It needs cleaning up. This is a great piece of legislation. He sacrificed that and the establishment of the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, the preservation of the Sterling Forest corridor, which is a federally funded purchase of land in New Jersey and land in New York, and a bipartisan solution for the management of the Presidio. ``Well, this is unfavorable.'' Unfavorable to whom? The administration has made it perfectly clear that they would veto any timber concession that would allow for environmental investment and the continued operation of the only remaining pulp mill in my State, as I have stated. As a result, we pulled this provision and will have only the President to hold accountable for the jobs that we will lose. It is rather interesting, because the President chooses to sacrifice, if you will, some of his own--or at least the administration does. Our Governor has worked very hard--a Democrat--to try to prevail upon the White House. First was ANWR and now the Tongass. Well, unfortunately, they have seen fit to disregard his recommendations. They have seen fit to disregard the recommendations of the congressional delegation from Utah. One can only conclude they have simply written off Alaska and Utah--at least politically. What I left in this is one sentence that, in my State, would give the Forest Service the flexibility to work with the company that still holds an 8-year pulp contract, to simply transfer that over so it could be made available to the sawmills in the State of Alaska. We only have four--two are operating and one co-op, one marginally operation, and one in Wrangell is closed. That is all I am proposing. Yet, they say this is ground for veto threat. After the administration scores a victory for the environmental lobby and closes our last pulp mill--our only year-round manufacturing facility--are we also to be denied the opportunity to try to salvage something? Which is what I propose --and that is allowing the transfer of the existing contract from pulp to sawmill because if the pulp mill continued to operate for the balance of this contract they would have the right to do that to the year 2004 when it would be terminated. No. What we have here is a rhetorical reach for the symbol Tongass to raise fears about this conference report. Well, this does not sell with the Senator from Alaska. The White House takes issue with the Coastal Barrier Resource Act amendments--in Florida--which appear in this package. The corrections remove roughly 40 acres of land in Florida from the 1.272 million acre Coastal Barrier Resource System. It has the support of the Florida delegation. I understand the Governor of Florida, Governor Chiles, has made a concerted effort to try to get the White House to change its mind. He strongly supports these changes. This is a bipartisan issue. The Florida House delegation are cosponsors of this specific legislation. The two Senators from Florida, as I indicated, support it. One wonders what the motivation of the White House is. The answer perhaps is simple. In this case the bill removes developed lands--40 acres--from the 1.2 million acre system that is supposed to contain undeveloped land. So the executive branch is giving little consideration to the legislative branch. The administration also cites ``mandated changes that would significantly alter and delay the completion of the Tongass Land Management Plan'' as a possible veto item. This conclusion represents probably the most gross, misleading of any language in the bill. The provisions they are apparently referring to--though they are so off base it is hard to tell because they know nothing about the subject--is one that directs the Forest Service to make recommendations to the Congress about potential compensation for Alaska Natives unfairly left out of the Alaska Natives Claim Settlement Act. These are natives that unfortunately were left out. They were not included, and this is only the authority--the authorization--to include them; no mandate for land; no designation; just the authority that these people have a right as Alaska Natives and indigenous people to their claim because they were left out and the other natives shared in that claim. This is an equity issue. The provision also directs the Forest Service to incorporate these recommendations into the Tongass Land Management Plan so that Congress can properly evaluate the impact of any recommendation involving land status changes on management of the forest. Any proposed changes would have to be acted upon by Congress and approved by the President. This is a safeguard. What is wrong with that? One of the interesting things that Alaskans can understand is the significance of this so-called TLMP. No one can do anything in Alaska until the TLMP is finished. The purpose was to settle the harvest-- sustainable yield--on 1.7 million acres out of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest. The only problem is that by the time the Forest Service completes it--which was initially going to be August and now is going to be the end of the year--we are not going to have any industry left. So it is not going to be applicable, if you will, in any practical way because it was designed for an area and level of utilization. If we do not have industry, there is no utilization. I would encourage my colleagues from other Western States to recognize what is happening here. This is a carefully contrived effort by extreme environmental groups who want to terminate timber harvesting on all Forest Service national land. What does that mean in any State? Unfortunately, we have no private timber with the exception of Native regional corporations which have been able to select under their indigenous selection opportunity. That is private timber. They can export it at a higher price. There is no State timber in southeastern Alaska. Our people lived in the forests--Ketchikan, Haines, Skagway, Wrangell--before the national forests were established. People were assured they would have an opportunity for a livelihood. And, since we, if you will, designated wilderness in the forests as national monuments and left only a small segment, we are faced with the reality of trying to continue a modest industry when others clearly are trying to terminate it. And it is going to move to other Western States. What are we going to do? I guess we are going to simply import our raw materials from nations who do not have the same sensitivity, forgetting the fact that we are much more environmentally sensitive, and do a better job. And we are dealing with a renewable resource here properly managed. We have 50-year-old second-growth timber; beautiful timber. But in any event, we are faced with this reality associated with the general theme of this administration, whether it is timbering, oil and gas exploration, opening ANWR safely, whether it is grazing, or whether it is mining. There is no substantive support for resource development on public lands. They are selling America short, American technology short, American know-how short, exporting the jobs overseas, and exporting the dollars. And one only has to look at the increasing balance of payments deficit to recognize it's significance. The cost of imported oil is over a third of our trade deficit. What are we doing? We are simply importing more. We tried to put Saddam Hussein in the cage not so long ago. He got out. Saddam Hussein is better off this week than he was 4 weeks ago. What are we doing about it? Where is our energy policy? What are we subjecting ourselves to? Where is our national security interest? We are 51.1 percent dependent on imported oil. During the Arab oil embargo in 1973, we were 37 percent dependent. What do we do? We created SPR, the stretegic petroleum reserve. We created a fall back so we have a supply which we need. This administration has chosen to use it as a piggy bank. We paid some $27 or $28 a barrel for a 90-day supply. We have never achieved the 90-day supply. Now we are selling it at $18 to $19 a barrel to meet budget objectives. There is a huge increase in the President's budget in the year 2000. This is what they are doing. Where are we going, Mr. President? We are sacrificing our national energy security. We are sacrificing it in this way. The Department of Energy has indicated by the year 2000 we will be 66 percent dependent on imported oil. And where does that come from? It come comes from the Mideast. Anybody that suggests that the Mideast is a stable area only has to recognize the troop buildup, and the fact that we were sharpening our missiles a few days ago and firing them a few weeks ago. So sooner or later, Mr. President, we are going to pay the piper. And the reason for going into this rather extended dialog is simply to alert my colleagues of the inevitability that what goes around comes around, and history repeats itself. And it is going to repeat itself relative to our increased dependence on imported oil and the fact that we are losing our leverage with our Arab neighbors as evidenced by our effort to generate their physical support in the last go-round with Saddam Hussein. Finally, Mr. President, as I get back to this analysis of the position of the administration, I conclude by saying, as the administration letter indicates, that mandated changes are required to significantly alter various aspects of this to make changes for the purpose of raising concerns that are not documented in any detail but seem to be raised as an excuse to find an excuse to initiate a veto threat. Politics and rhetoric have overtaken substance and reality. It will be truly sad if the misleading statements and inferences and threats in the administration's recent statement bring down the largest parks bill since 1978, the largest environmental package in the last several decades. The President of the United States currently has on more than one occasion stated he would veto appropriation language that contained riders, so I am concluding from the statement from the Office of Management and Budget, ``We remain willing to work with you in developing a package that would include a bill to provide continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997,'' there is your rider. Now he wants the rider; he thinks that is a good idea. The reason is, one can avoid the legislative process. You just take what you want and trash the rest. I tell you, if that happens, there are going to be a lot of unhappy Members because some of you will have your bill selected and others will not. I believe in the legislative process. That is why I am here. That is why I have accepted the responsibility of working with my members on the committee to bring this parks package before this body. I believe in the legislative process, working collectively, and I am proud of the fact that we have crafted a bipartisan package that serves to enhance our parks and our public lands. I have answered the veto letter. I believe my colleagues see that there is very little substance, and the President is standing tall, perhaps, but standing in the mush. So for those who have followed this debate, I would appeal to you that the parks package may, indeed, be in jeopardy from objections unidentified in detail from the White House--not based on their first series of objections, but based on, apparently, an afterthought. Maybe for some reason unknown to this Senator, there is a political reason at this late date prior to the election for a veto of this package, but I cannot imagine what it is. I think they are misreading it downtown. I do not think they recognize we have stripped it of its objectionable parts, and I encourage those who are out there and are concerned with these issues to notify the President, notify the Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, notify their elected Representatives, Senator and Congressman, because it is getting late, and if this package, this omnibus parks package, is delayed or set aside because of pending business so there is not enough time to take it up, the White House and the President are going to have to bear that responsibility--not the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, not Congressman Don Young from Alaska, not Frank Murkowski, Senator from Alaska, not Ted Stevens, Senator from Alaska, not the members from my Energy and Resources Committee, not the professional staff, not Senator Bennett Johnston, but the White House for obstructing the most significant legislative package that has come before this body, as I have said, in several decades. So I urge those out in California who are interested in the Presidio or interested in the portion of the legislation to clean up the San Francisco Bay or any of the other 126 titles in the other 41 States to get busy, because the countdown has begun. It is not going to go in the appropriations process. I have had that assurance over here. This is the right way to do it. This is the right time to do it. There is absolutely no excuse for further delay. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I encourage those who are responsible for the movement of the process around here to reflect on my words. I compliment all those who have worked so hard to bring this package together, both in the minority and majority: Senator Johnston, Senator Bumpers, Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles. I also thank the California delegation for their tireless efforts to push this legislation. I thank those who have volunteered their time in San Francisco, as well as other areas of California, to push the merits of the creation of the trust in the Presidio package, and I thank the staff on both the minority side and majority side: Tom Williams, Gregg Renkes and many others, who worked night and day to put this package together; my colleague in the House, Representative Young, of course; my senior Senator, Senator Stevens, because oftentimes we, as Alaskans, are typified as those who want to run through the public domain with development schemes of one kind or another. We will take our lumps as we go along the road in trying to communicate the particular posture of our State, which is only 38 years old, and the realization that we are still trying to create land patterns in a State that is 80 percent owned by the Federal Government, at a time when the other States accomplished that 150-200 years ago. They developed their land patterns. They had private ownership within their State. We have public ownership in ours one-fifth the size of the United States. We are a storehouse of natural resources. What we try to communicate is that with science and technology we can do a better job of developing our resources. We look at our timber industry. We have the largest of all our national forests at 17 million acres. We set aside two-thirds of that forest in perpetuity, set aside 5 to 7 million acres of prime timberland. We are trying to maintain a timber industry in the largest of all our forests on about 1.7 million acres in perpetuity and a 100-year regrowth cycle. They cut more firewood in New York than we cut commercially in Alaska in the Nation's largest forest. They cut over 1 billion board feet for their commercial activities, yet there are those who want to close us down, terminate all timbering in our forests. The Sierra Club wants to terminate all timbering in the national forests. But what we are trying to do is maintain a viability based on renewability, do a better job. Our fisheries are at an all time high. We have had record runs 8 of the last 11 years. We have been doing it right. We think others could learn from us. It is a little like rowing uphill. You talk about oil and gas exploration. We know we can open up ANWR safely, given the opportunity. But we have become an environmental cause. We have over 60 environmental agencies that have established themselves in Anchorage, AK. The young attorneys come up and do their missionary work, because these organizations need a cause. The cause is far away. It is a ``good cause,'' idealistic. When we attempt to say, well, just a minute now, we have an opportunity and a right to come into the Union, develop our resources, manage them correctly; they, through extreme rhetoric, suggest that we are desecrating the country. The media picks up on it. And it is simply not true. So we feel a little sensitive when we are criticized with any development scenario. We could open up ANWR safely. We know it. We have the technology. We are selling American ingenuity short. The environmental community has in many cases established a fear mentality in the American public that somehow we cannot develop resources safely. It is evidenced in the debate around here on the grazing issue, on the timbering salvage issue, on oil and gas exploration, on mining--drive them offshore; bring them in from other countries; send those jobs overseas. The deficit balance of payment; what is it all about? Over a third of it is the cost of imported oil. What are we doing today? We are 51.4 percent dependent on imported oil. In 1974, we were about 36 percent dependent. We took action. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now we are selling it off. The Department of Energy says by the year 2000 we will be two-thirds, 66 percent, dependent on imported oil. What does that do with our leverage with the Mideast? The Mideast is in a crisis. One of these days, we are going to pay the price because we have increasingly become more dependent on imported oil. Well, I am using my time to vent my frustration, but what I want to communicate here is we have put aside some of our Alaskan issues relative to the merits of this bill, issues that we feel very strongly about, simply because this is a good bill. It is a compromise bill. And it is time, after 2\1/2\ years, or 4 years, depending on your point of view, or at least the 104th Congress, to move it now. If we do not move it now, it is not going to be moved this session. Those who have the responsibility for it not moving are going to have to stand up and be counted and explain to me and the other conferees specific reasons as to why, because, again, I would challenge the administration, and my colleagues, if you are looking for an excuse to veto it, yeah, you will find an excuse to veto it. But the poison pills have been taken out because Representative Young and I and others working together went through a laborious process to identify those contentious issues that were veto bait. Again, for the benefit of those who do not recall, grazing is out, Utah wilderness is out, Tongass is out, the boundary water canoe area is out. And what we have left is a good package, 126 bills, everything from the Presidio to the New Bedford National Historic Park to honor the whaling industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire titles of those bills, including Sterling Forest and the land transfer for the Winter Olympics, the entire group be printed in the Record so each Member can recognize what is in the package.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, today I am proud to announce that we have an opportunity to pass the most wide ranging national parks and public land legislation in decades; that is, the Presidio omnibus parks bill. This report encompasses 2 years, or thereabouts, of various attempts by Members on both sides to pass bills that affect this area of our national heritage. We had hearings. We had intense negotiations. I think the bills contained in the package really meet our Nation's environmental needs. It is good news for the national parks, and good news for land and resource conservation. This package has over 700 pages. At last count there were 126 bills included. They range from the San Francisco Presidio to the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Sterling Forest protection, Snowbasin land exchange, Black Patriot Memorial extension, Nicodemus National Historic Site, Japanese-American Patriotism Memorial, numerous Civil War sites, Oak Creek Wilderness Scenic Recreation Area, the New Bedford whaling parks, and the Women's Rights National Heritage Park. It is estimated that there are about 37 States that are going to be affected by this package. It is quite reasonable, Madam President, to ask the Senator from Alaska, well, why do we have to have this in a big package? Why did we not move on this over the last 2 years? I will tell you. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have held hearings on these bills. So has the House. But on our side we have had holds on every single bill at one time or another in this package. The way it works around here, as we all know, is some Members feel if they want to get their bill through and they see others moving, they put what we call holds on things. We have had holds, and there is no use pointing the finger at each other because that is not going to get this package passed. I do want to explain because some of the media cannot seem to understand why we have this enormous package. It is simply because of the way this place works. And when a Member wants to proceed with a bill out of our committee and we have voted it out and we cannot bring it up, it is because there is a hold on that bill. So we are down to the end of the 104th Congress. The name of the game is to try to address this package and recognize that we have withdrawn from the package the contentious portions that were identified potentially as veto material. These included some bills that the Senator from Alaska supported and felt very strongly about. One was the Tongass 15-year extension which would have prolonged the life of our only manufacturing plant, our only pulp mill, our only year-around manufacturing plant that wanted to convert from an old technology to a new technology by investing some $150 million to $200 million, but in order to do that they had to have an extension of the contract with the Forest Service to have an adequate timber supply to amortize that investment. Members say, why is Alaska different? Why do you have to have a contractual commitment? The reasons are simple. We have no other source of supply than the U.S. Government through the U.S. Forest Service because we do not have private timber which is exported out of the State. The Forest Service timber, Government timber is prohibited from export, and as a consequence nobody is going to make that kind of investment without an extension of the contract. And their current contract expires in the year 2004. But the administration found that unacceptable and advised us that they would proceed with a veto if it were in the package. So the Senator from Alaska withdrew that. Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which is an issue that some Members feel very strongly about in Minnesota, was also noted by the administration that if it were in there, they would initiate a veto. Other issues that were contentious that were threatened for veto included Utah Wilderness, and that issue is somewhat academic because of the action taken by the President in invoking the antiquities; grazing issue, which many Members in the West felt very strongly about. So they are not in the package. We have taken them out--grazing, Utah wilderness, Tongass, Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Now we are left with a situation where it is very late in the Congress. This legislation is crucial in California not just to the Presidio but to an area that I feel very strongly about, and that is the cleanup of the San Francisco Bay area. I know how strongly the California delegation feels about that. If the administration wants to find an excuse to veto this, obviously they can do it. But they are contemplating, if you will, a veto message per correspondence with the White House, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Executive Office of the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That may save them from threatening to read 2,700 pages of the bill. Mr. President, I have just been given a list of the States that are affected here, and if my colleagues will just give me a couple more minutes, I will conclude my remarks with this, because it is so important that each Member understand what is in this for his or her State. Alabama. Selma to Montgomery Historic Trail designation, historic black college funding. Alaska. Anaktuuk land exchange, Alaska Peninsula land exchange, Alaska PLT, unalaska historic site, Glacier Bay fee, unrecognized communities, Federal borough recognition, village land negotiation, conveyance to Gross brothers, regulation of Alaska fishing, University of Alaska. Arizona. Walnut Cameron exchange, Wupatiki boundary adjustment, Alpine School District conveyance, ski fees. Arkansas. Arkansas-Oklahoma land exchange, Carl Garner Federal lands clean-up. California. Pesidio, Elsmere Canyon protection, San Francisco Bay enhancement, Butte County conveyance, Modoc Forest boundary adjustment, Cleveland National Forest, conveyance, Lagomarsino visitor center, Tular conveyance, Mineral King, Merced irrigation district land exchange, Manzanar historic site exchange, AIDS memorial grove, timber sale exchange, Santa Cruz Poland acquisition, Stanislaus Forest management, Del Norte School conveyance, ski fees. Colorado. Cache La Poudre corridor designation, Rocky Mountain Park visitor center, Grand Lake Cemetery authorization, Yucca House boundary modification, Rockwell ranch, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, St. Vrain exchange, ski fees, Greeley, Colorado land exchange. Florida. Florida coastal barrier amendments. Georgia. Chickamauga-Chattanooga authorization increase, Fort Pulaski. Hawaii. Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission extension. Idaho. Craters of the Moon boundary adjustment, waterman fossil beds boundary adjustment, Cuprum conveyance, Targhee exchange, ski fees. Illinois. Illinois and Michigan Canal, Calumet Ecological Park study. Kansas. Tallgrass prairie National Preserve authorization, Nicodemus Park establishment. Lousiana. Civil War center, Laura Hudson visitor center. Maryland. Lower Eastern Shore hedge study. Massachusetts. Boston Harbor Islands park establishment, Blackstone heritage area, Boston Public Library on Freedom Trail, New Bedford establishment. Michigan. Pictured Rocks boundary adjustment. Mississippi. Corinth visitor center historic black college funding, Natchez visitor center. Missouri. Ozark wild horses preservation. Montana. Lost Creek exchange, ski fees. New Hampshire. Lamprey River, ski fees. New Jersey. Sterling Forest, Great Falls historic district. New Mexico. Bisti/De-Na-Zin wilderness, Taos Pueblo conveyance, Rio Puerco project, Father Aull land transfer, ski fees. New York. Women's rights boundary adjustment, Sterling forest. Ohio. Dayton Aviation Commission. Oklahoma. Arkansas/Oklahoma land exchange. Oregon. Sumpter conveyance, Upper Klamath basin restoration, Deschutes basin restoration, Mount Hood corridor exchange, Coquille Forest establishment, Bull Run watershed protection, Oregon Islands wilderness, Umpaqua River exchange, ski fees. Pennyslvania. Delaware Water Gap fee, Independence Park boundary adjustment. Rhode Island. Blackstone heritage area expansion. South Carolina. Historic black colleges funding. Tennessee. Historic black colleges funding. Texas. Big Thicket exchange. Utah. Snowbasin exchange, Sand Hollow exchange, Zion Park exchange, ski fees. Virginia. Cumberland Gap boundary adjustment, Richmond Battlefield boundary adjustment, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield establishment, Shenandoah NP boundary adjustment, Colonial Parkway boundary adjustment. Washington. Vancouver Reserve establishment, Hanford Reach protection, ski fees. West Virginia. West Virginia Rivers. Wisconsin. Pictured Rocks boundary adjustment. Wyoming. Bighorn County conveyance, Douglas County conveyance, Ranch A conveyance, ski fees. Generic. RS. 2477, Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, MLK Memorial, advisory council historic preservation, Revolutionary War & War 1812, Am. battlefield protection, ski fees, recreation fees, recreation lakes, National Park Foundation, NPS administrative reforms, BLM re-authorization, Japanese-American Patriot Memorial, REA right-of- way. Finally, Mr. President, do not be misled. These bills will not pass, they will not pass as part of an appropriations bill. Some Members may be under the impression that you can just cherry pick this thing and their bills will pass as part of the final appropriations. Do not be misled. This is not going to happen. As chairman, I will not let it happen. I want to put those Members on notice if this conference bill fails, all the bills, all of them, are absolutely dead for this Congress. Finally, I want to recognize the work of Bill Lane, from San Francisco, a long-time acquaintance of mine, former publisher and still associated with Sunset Magazine, who has done so much groundwork on the Presidio effort. I know there are others that deserve recognition, but Bill Lane has been a stalwart, promoting the objective to get the job done, and get it done now, because if you do not, the Presidio will deteriorate to a point where it may be too late. I have gone on longer than the Senator from Alaska usually does, not preaching to my colleagues. I am imploring you to recognize this for what it is. We have all taken a hit. The poison pills have been taken out. If the administration wants to use this as an exchange, OK. Then it becomes, perhaps, a campaign issue. I hope we hear from the administration, their recognition that perhaps there is not everything they like in this, but there is so much in it, and it is so necessary we address these things now, and the recognition of the way this process works--that you cannot move the bills through individually because there are holds on them. You have to move them in a package. We can get this done now, for the good of the States affected, for the good of the Nation, and for the good of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, the time is now. The day is now. We should get on with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. They cite specifically what their veto threat covers, and we have eliminated those, Madam President. Now I am told some Members on the other side are going to insist that the bill be read. That is fine--700 pages. It is going to take 10 hours. Talk about delay tactics. What is the objective of that? I do not know. They say they have not read the bill. We ought to go back to the Members because this stuff has been hanging around for 2\1/2\ years. We have had hearings on it. We have had discussions. The Members who are motivated from the 37 States know what is in the bill. We are talking about further delay which is not necessary. We should act now. It is late in the game. If we do not act now, we are going to lose. Let me tell you what the parliamentary procedure is. I hope this will come up today. It should come up now. We have the time. But if a Member moves to recommit the package, the whole package is dead. It is over. It will not happen. What we have done in this bill, we have created new parks, established five new parks: Shenandoah Valley National Battlefield in Virginia to protect the Civil War battlefields; Tallgrass Prairie Natural Preserve in Kansas to protect one of the last remaining unplowed sections of tallgrass prairie in the country; Nicodemus National Historic site to protect the town established as a community for freed black slaves after the Civil War; New Bedford National Historical Park to honor the whaling industry--not just in Massachusetts because the whaling industry started in Massachusetts and where did they whale? They whaled in Alaska, my State. They went around Pt. Barrow, and that is where they whaled. You go to Pt. Barrow today and you can see the remnants of the contribution of the New Bedford whalers. So this is a joint effort; Boston Harbor Islands to protect unique islands in the Boston Harbor. There is better protection of existing national parks. It provides for boundary modifications, expansion of 20 parks around the country from a 1,000 percent increase in size at the Richmond National Battlefield in Virginia to minor boundary adjustments in Zion National Park in Utah. It protects existing national parks. The legislation provides protection for important historical events and persons by expanding the boundary to further protect the Manzanar National Historic Site in California, adjusting boundaries at Independence Hall, improved management of the route taken by voting rights marchers from Selma to Montgomery as a national historic trail, and reauthorizing funding for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. We established new memorials. This legislation provides for the construction of memorials on The Mall in Washington, DC, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Black Revolutionary War Patriots, and the Japanese American Patriots. We protect rivers from coast to coast. The bill protects important rivers, from the Columbia in Washington to the St. Vrain in Colorado and the Lamprey in New Hampshire. And we protect hallowed ground, where the blood of American soldiers was shed in battle. The bill protects important battlefields from Yorktown, where Americans won independence, through the Civil War battlefields in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia, and establishes the American Battlefield Protection Program. Madam President, it authorizes funding to begin restoration of the San Francisco Bay. This bill authorizes $450 million over 3 years to provide restoration for that jewel of the west coast. This bill is not just about expanding the role of the Federal Government. It also contains significant reforms of existing programs and policies, and makes unneeded Federal lands available for use by other levels of government. We have a reduction of unneeded Federal lands. The legislation transfers unreserved BLM land in the State of Wyoming for schools, removes inappropriate limitations from developed lands across the coast of North Dakota, corrects a 90-year-old survey of public lands in Idaho, provides lands to the Taos Pueblo tribe in New Mexico. The administrative reforms of the national parks are addressed. The bill includes a number of provisions to improve the management of the National Park Service, from encouraging private sector involvement to improving the housing of park rangers, which is sorely needed; Senate confirmation for the park director; the elimination of unnecessary congressional reporting requirements, and numerous other authorities to increase the leverage of Federal funds. Recreation Fee Policy Program: The bill provides for the complete overhaul of the current recreation fee policies, which will provide improved funding for the parks and forests by establishing a permanent program to permit agencies to retain recreation fees without appropriations. The environmental agenda: We have tried to address it within my committee, and the legislation provides two key provisions which represent the vision of how we intend to better protect the environment without the heavy hand of the Federal Government. One of those issues is the significant development of the Presidio trust. I have been out to the Presidio on several occasions. I know how the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, which brought about the tremendous and successful renovation of Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington, DC, has worked for the benefit and the beautification of this city. The Presidio, a former military installation at the foot of the Golden Gate, has been managed by the park service. But, clearly, the park service does not have the expertise or the knowledge to develop that area in compatibility with its unique recreational attractiveness and the traditional association of what that military facility was. As a consequence, we have created a Presidio trust. Instead of the $1.2 billion proposal at one time that was advocated by some for the Federal Government to manage the Presidio, San Francisco, in perpetuity, what we have here is a bipartisan approach. We talked about it this morning in a press conference with the two Senators from California. It turns the real estate management aspects of the Presidio over to a private volunteer nonprofit trust--again, similar to the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. I have met with the volunteers in San Francisco that have worked to put this concept together. I am satisfied that they have the vision and the expertise and the capability to make this work. It will reduce the burden of the Federal Government's role. It will still provide a presence for the National Park Service, and it will add dramatically to the full utilization, with the right balance, by the people on the ground who have the best interests of the Presidio and San Francisco at heart. This is a bill for all Americans, and that is why it is so attractive, and that is why it is so necessary we move at this time. The bill authorizes, as well, a land exchange in Utah. The significance of this is the Olympics, which are going to take place in Utah in the year 2002. This would provide a very simple exchange that would make the downhill event for the 2002 Olympics a reality, which will permit thousands, hundreds of thousands of persons around the world to enjoy it. So, what we have here, as a consequence of action taken last night, where my conferees agreed to sign off on the package and send it over to the House of Representatives, and the House stayed in until midnight last night to accommodate their procedure and sign off on the bill, and now it is over here, the package. So, Mr. President, it is fair to say that now is the time to take it up. I have been advised there had been some concern on the other side. I have yet to be privy to what that concern might be. But, again, we have been waiting 2 years for this material to get this far. If we pass it, it will go over to the House, and I am satisfied the House will move it because we have taken the contentious portions out of it. I do not know what more we can responsibly do, what more and greater obligation I have as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to try to move this, because I know how much it means to each Senator with regard to various parts and portions of the 126 parts that are in this bill. And I am sorry that we were not able to be responsive, as we reported these bills out of committee individually. But, again, I want to make reference to the way this place works, when Members put holds on every bill and we cannot move them on the floor to passage. We are left with this dilemma, which is the 126-bill package. Some people say, why do we have to have it this way? I am sorry we have to have it this way, but it is this way now or nothing, because there is simply no other alternative and there is no more time left. The leadership has indicated we are winding this session up. The end of the fiscal year is coming. It is now or never for the Presidio package, because if it is held up, those people who are holding it up have to bear the responsibility for annihilating, killing the largest single environmental package of parks bills that have come before the Congress in this session and, I am told, for the last decade. I am pretty reasonable. I have been around here for a while. I have tried to accommodate everybody. I have taken my licks on this one. I have lost, in my State, my only year-round industry because I could not get enough support for a 15-year extension of the Ketchikan Pulp Mill, so they could put in a $200 million investment. That is my sacrifice. That probably means more to me than any other single thing. But the obligation I have to move this package is real as well. So, at the dictate of the administration, we have stricken the Tongass out of it. Some might ask, do you have any fallback? Yes, I suspect there is a fallback. Perhaps the Record should note what it is, because without getting too technical, what we asked for was a 15-year extension of a contract that was going to expire in the year 2004. The administration said they would veto the bill if that was in. What we have proposed in this package, I will be very direct with the President, is not to pursue the 15-year contract which would mandate 15 years beyond the year 2004, but to simply take the remaining years on that contract, which are 8 years, and simply transfer that from pulp utilization to our two operating sawmills. That is all we have left in Alaska of any significance. In brief, the contract for the remainder of the term through the year 2004, for the next 8 years, would simply be transferred over from pulp utilization to sawmill utilization. The 15-year extension, as a consequence of the Presidential veto threat, has been withdrawn. I understand that that has been satisfactory to those who have objected. Of course, the Utah wilderness has been withdrawn. Grazing has been withdrawn. The boundary waters canoe area, which was also under Presidential veto threat, has been withdrawn. To those who are scrutinizing this, I wish them well, but that is the package, that is what we are left with. It is now or never, and we better do it now because we simply don't have time, and we will walk out of here in the next few days leaving behind us a truly monumental bill with monumental implications. I might add, the Senator from New Jersey and I have had differences of opinion relative to his role in the bill. I am not going to prolong those differences other than to say Sterling Forest is it. He is a winner. He can leave the U.S. Senate bringing home something that is very meaningful to New Jersey and New York. I could go on into the history of the process over the last 2 years, but I don't know that that would serve any purpose at this time. I could lament the dissatisfaction of my friends from some of the States whose issues we simply had to take out of here in the spirit of compromise relative to trying to get the job done and get a package out that is meaningful, but I hope that those who are listening and reflecting now recognize that they, too, have an obligation. That obligation is either to come forth and support this package now, this compromise package that is so important, that is so significant, that is so meaningful, or accept the responsibility of killing a package that has been over 2\1/2\ years--one Senator reminded me that his particular interest in the bill had been in this over 4 years. So I encourage my colleagues to look through the title portion and recognize the items that are of interest to their State, whether it covers rivers and trails, historic areas, civil rights issues, Civil and Revolutionary War sites, fee generations for their own parks, recommended administration management provisions, boundary adjustments, the Presidio, certainly the California bay environmental enhancement, and recognize that it is now or never. We can get it done now and go out of session with the most meaningful bipartisan legislative package that has come before the U.S. Senate, or we can grouse around, object, send it back for reconsideration and leave with nothing done. But I want the Record to note, as chairman of my committee, I have discharged, along with my conferees and our committee, both Democrats and Republicans, our obligation. We have held the hearings, we reported it out, we moved on it last night through a conference process. The House signed off on it. It is over here now. I do not want to be presumptuous in being critical, but I don't know what we are waiting for, Mr. President. We are ready to go. We can get this done now. The Senator from Alaska is ready to bring it to the body. I have discussed it with the leadership. I am awaiting word. So the rest is up to you, I say to my distinguished colleagues, whether this package is meaningful enough to recognize, just like every package, that sure, there are some things in there somebody doesn't like. But you try to put together 126 bills and have to put it in a package like this because there is no other way that you are allowed to bring them up individually because Members put holds on them. I implore the media that is going to scrutinize this to recognize the reality. The poison pills, so to speak, have been taken out. I am not going to reflect on the fact there are an awful lot of westerners who are unhappy because their concerns are not met in this package. That is going to be for the next session. That is going to be for, perhaps, the election. But we have to do what we have to do, and right now, the thing to do is to move this bill out because the poison pills are out. I ask unanimous consent that my letter and Representative Don Young's letter to the President asking for a position on those items that he would veto be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Washington. I remind him, too, that Washington has some other interests. There is the Vancouver Reserve establishment and the Hanford Reach protection that are associated with the State of Washington exclusively. There are currently 126 individual bills in this package, and the significance of it, as the Senator well knows, is the result of a great deal of individual Members' and staffs' time, commitment, and hearings that have resulted in the last 2 years of effort. Now, some of my friends tell me they have been at their individual bills longer than that. I want to assure my friend from Washington that those items that the administration identified as items, in their opinion, warranting a veto--the Tongass was one, Utah wilderness, grazing, the Minnesota boundary waters--all have been removed. I am sure if the administration wants to find something to veto, why, they will choose to do that, but they should also bear the responsibility of accountability for the very positive aspects of this bill which do represent some 41 States' interests and 126 individual participations in this portion. I thank my friend from Washington for his statement relative to the fact that this is the train. It has left the station. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that, if we do not do it now, it simply will not get done. I thank my friend from Washington. I will conclude my references with the remainder of my statement, Mr. President, relative to a little more enlightenment on the issue. I again refer to the National Park Foundation Act and the aspects of ensuring that we will get the balance necessary to ensure that the parks are not victimized by commercialization associated with this amendment, which would simply relieve some of the appropriation process to ensure that the funds can be contributed by appropriate corporate sponsors related to legitimate activities that are allowed in the parks similar to what I have described relative to movie background and the tradition there has been no consideration given to the parks for that and other types of activities in keeping with the sanctity of the park. I do want to expand on one more item of major importance which I think some would suggest is as important to some extent as the Presidio and that is the California bay delta environmental enhancement legislation which is in there. This provision is backed by virtually everyone and is equal to or certainly on a par with the Everglades initiative in its significance because those of us who are familiar with the bay area recognize what this bay delta environmental enhancement legislation would do to clean up the bay. The authorities in this bill will allow for massive restoration, massive cleanup in San Francisco Bay and the delta region. As I have indicated in the colloquy with my friend from Washington, this legislation touches nearly every State in the Nation, and while we attempted to address the concerns of all of our colleagues, as I have indicated, some of the items fell by the wayside either because we could not agree among our conferees, the House and Senate could not agree, or the administration could not agree. Of course, as I have indicated earlier, President Clinton made it very clear that if certain provisions were included in the package, he would veto the entire effort, no matter how meritorious. As I indicated, we addressed that in the wilderness bill which was abandoned, the grazing bill which was abandoned. Unfortunately, communities in our Western States are not too happy about this. A portion of Minnesota will not have the benefit of motorized portages in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In my State, the Ketchikan contract extension provision was left on the table because the President made it clear that he would veto the entire bill. This meant as many as potentially 4,000 jobs--1,000 direct, 3,000 indirect--would be the result of not including that contract extension. Those are the only year-round manufacturing jobs we have in the State. As a consequence, I feel very badly about this. These are jobs that this administration sacrificed in my State, in my opinion, to appease an environmental lobby, which I think is unfortunate because the environmental lobby has attempted to instill fear instead of reality and logic. There is a very positive reaction which could result from the Ketchikan contract extension leading to advanced technology in other mills. But, for reasons that are quite obvious, the objective is simply to terminate harvesting of all timber in forests. And this administration and the environmental community seem to be hell-bent to achieve that. The administration seems to have continued to oppose any value-added use of the Tongass National Forest. I think it is difficult, and sad, when the Government turns its back on the men and women who have built communities and towns and made them livable for those who come after. I think it is a harsh action. It is one without compassion. And the explanation is, well, if there are people suffering, we will simply write a check; we will provide funds to offset their loss of jobs through various types of assistance. That is not what built America. That is not what built my State. It is not what is going to continue to maintain our area. There are certain limitations on what taxpayers should be expected to do given what people want to do to help themselves. I think it is disappointing the administration has chosen to turn its back on our workers, again, effectively killing our only year-round manufacturing/processing plant in the State. So, we have come full circle in the Tongass. Some of my Alaskan friends will reflect on the time when we were a territory, prior to 1959. They had a couple of sawmills. There was no real available timber at that time. There was no demand at that time. The Forest Service was not structured to any extent at that time. The theory was: How can we develop some jobs, some tax base, an economy in southeastern Alaska? After the war, they began to look north towards the pulp stands. I might add, 50 percent of the standing timber is in the form usable for pulp. It does not meet sawmill requirements. It has virtually no other use than dissolving pulp. The question is, are we going to allow this 50 percent of timber in southeastern Alaska to be exported to the pulp mills in the south 48, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia? The head of the Forest Service, who later became Governor in the State of Alaska, Governor Hickel, initiated a plan to establish four pulp mills in Alaska. Two of those were built. Two years ago, under environmental opposition, the Sitka mill was closed. Today, or in the not too distant future, we are about to see the termination of the one remaining mill, the Ketchikan pulp mill. So we made full circle to where we were when we were a territory. We have no utilization of 50 percent of the timber, other than to export it to mills in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia, exporting our jobs, exporting our tax base. There are a lot of unhappy Alaskans as a consequence of the inability of this administration to consider the merits of extending the contract so the $200 million investment can be made in a new mill. So, the administration eliminated the chances for the pulp mill contract extension because there are certainly not enough votes in a Presidential election year to override a Presidential veto. I think it is truly regrettable that this administration has seen fit to make Tongass management an election issue, to pander to some of the extreme environmental groups who have established themselves in our State. I think we have 62 of them now. If you are not in Alaska, you are not a legitimate environmental group. They send their lawyers up to do missionary work, because everybody has a little different view and vision of Alaska. Their vision is that somehow Alaska should not be subject to any responsible resource development. Whether it be timber, oil and gas, mining, we cannot do it safely, really selling American technology short. They use their presence, then, for their cause or causes, raising money and increasing membership by advanced rhetoric, fear tactics that we cannot do it safely. Mr. President, we are currently 51.4 percent dependent on imported oil. In 1973, we were 36 percent dependent on imported oil. The Department of Energy says by the year 2000, 4 years away, we will be 66 percent dependent on imported oil. We are exporting our jobs, we are exporting our dollars, we are exposing the national energy security interests of this country to the whims of the Mideast that we have become so dependent on. We will pay the piper. The public will blame Government. They will blame the industry. We have been producing 25 percent of the total crude oil for the last 18 years. It is in decline. We can replace it. We have the know-how. But America's environmental community says no. They do not say no with an alternative; they simply say no, because it generates membership and the American people cannot go up and look at it. They cannot go up and look at Endicott, which is now the seventh largest producing field in North America. The footprint is 54 acres. If we could develop, with the technology we have, the ANWR area would be 12,500 acres or less, about the size of the Dulles International Airport if the rest of Virginia were wilderness. Those are the dimensions. That is the technology. We will pay the piper and the environmental groups will not take any of the responsibility. Their cause is fear. They have been very effective. And those of us who have tried to be a little more objective, I guess, have failed. That is where we are, certainly, on this issue, with the loss of our only manufacturing plant. In conclusion, all the controversial items have been removed from this bill. The administration may not like every detail of every provision, but in total it is a very acceptable, very profound, very worthwhile package because it is for our parks and for resource conservation. It addresses the concerns of our national parks and our public lands. I guess it also represents what is wrong with our system, because Member after Member will come to me, as does the media, and say: Why did you have to have this huge package of bills? Why did you not pass them out? You are the chairman of the committee. In deference to all of us, we know how this place works. Virtually every bill we reported out, every one of these 126 bills that are in the package, have had holds placed on them after we moved them out of committee, reported them out of committee. This is a right, under the rules of the Senate, but that is what is wrong with the process. So, after our efforts to untangle this and put it together and take away those items that were poison pills that the administration addressed, we presented the package as a consequence of the conference last night and our ability to have the House accept and send over the package. We had one senior Senator who placed a hold on committee bills because of totally unrelated bills which the full Senate eventually voted, 63 to 37, to pass. The abuse of the hold has contributed to the construction of this package. I guess one bill cannot move without another and another and another. The system needs repair so the Senate can proceed to meritorious legislation in a timely fashion on the merits of each individual bill. I see other Senators waiting. This Senator has been waiting to bring the Presidio package before this body since 1 o'clock. I understand there is some concern on the other side of the aisle. We have not heard an expression of what that concern is. As I have indicated, if they are looking for an excuse to hold it up, veto it, then let's say so. Let's say so. Let's have it out. I am sure they can find one. But if not, as the Senator from Washington said, if you are expecting some of the issues, some of these bills to be taken out of the omnibus parks package and put in the reconciliation package as a consequence of work underway by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, you have just heard the Senator from Washington, the chairman of that subcommittee, indicate that this is the only train moving. He is not going to take bills out of this portion and put them in the Interior appropriations bill and put it on the CR. This is the train that is moving. We are ready to move with it. If you are going to hold up the train, you have to bear the responsibility for 41 States that are affected here--37 to 41, depending. Some of them are double-counted, like New Jersey and New York, because they affect both States, or the 126 individual bills that are in the package. I encourage my colleagues to either come to the floor and indicate why they find it unacceptable, or face up to the opportunity we have now and pass it now. Procedurally, the last point I want to make is, if there is a motion that prevails to recommit, the package is dead. It is over. That is it once and for all. It is gone. We have lost our opportunity. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my colleague with reference to the Presidio in relation to the trust which is authorized in the legislation, it is my understanding the proposal advocated by some for the Government to manage that facility was somewhere in the area of $1.2 billion. The intention of the trust will be to use some of the extraordinarily talented people in San Francisco who are knowledgeable on finance, development, and environmental concerns to come together and operate this similar to the Pennsylvania Avenue effort here in Washington that has been so effective in rejuvenating the downtown area. Obviously, the people of San Francisco are closest to that and the justification for that application working, I am satisfied, having met several people that I assume would be appointed by the President if, indeed, the Presidio package becomes law.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am pleased to yield to the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction on parks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am waiting for one of my colleagues. But in the interim I would like to bring to the attention of the Members the prospects again for addressing the 126 individual bills in the omnibus parks package. This has been the culmination of some 2 years in the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As a consequence of that effort we are on the eve of initiating an action in this body that would result in the passage of this very important legislation which clearly is the most significant environmental package with some 126 bills that has come before this body. As a continuation of my previous remarks, the conference-adopted amendments in sum serve to ensure that this legislation will rectify particularly the accumulation of inadequate funding which now totals some $4 billion necessary to maintain our parks in a manner which is in keeping with the uniqueness and oftentimes the sanctity of those areas. One of the amendments adopted and totally submitted by the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, which addressed concerns of the National Park Foundation Act, is evidence that that amendment would serve to ensure that the legislation would not lead to unwarranted commercialization of the parks, or abuse by corporate sponsors. The theory, Mr. President, here is that this legislation would be implemented in such a way that it followed very much that patterned after the national Olympic committees which authorize certain very select stipulations with regard to certification by the Olympic committees of activities that can occur in association with the Olympics. For example, if a movie is made in one of our national parks, is there any contribution given to that national park to that movie? If there is a picture of an automobile, a new model portrayed in front of Mount Shasta, is there a contribution from Chrysler, Ford or General Motors to that park? This is the innovative approach that we are hoping to prevail in the National Park Foundation Act to help fund our parks, not to commercialize the parks. We are not going to have the park sponsored by ``Joe Blow's Gas Station,'' or something of that nature, I assure you. It is going to be in keeping with the intention of the park.