Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side relative to the business of the Senate?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could interrupt the majority leader at this time to determine whether he wants to propose a unanimous-consent agreement. I reserve the balance of my time and will seek recognition after that, Mr. President. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, July 17, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1920, a bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. I introduce this so that we can return to the original intentions of the act and clarify the blurring of lines that have occurred over the years. Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Over the opposition of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land was set aside in a series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness units. Much of the concern about the act was the impact of these Federal units, and related management restrictions, on traditional activities and lifestyles. To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a permit lifestyle, and that the agencies would be required to recognize the crucial distinction between managing small units surrounded by millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units encompassing a relative handful of individuals and communities in Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the establishment of these units would in fact protect traditional activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy. Early implementation of the act closely reflected these promises. However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to have lost sight of these important representations to the people of Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances, have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of the exact permit lifestyle which we were promised would never happen. I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about every increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new industry has sprung up to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have built up during the past few years. Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to our attention and were discussed last year during oversight hearings held by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides it wants to establish a wilderness management regime and eliminate motorboat use on a river. It proceeds with the plan until protests cause the Regional Solicitor to advise the Service that its plan violates section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built, occupied, and used long before ANILCA are told they must give up their interests in the cabins although section 1303 expressly enables cabin owners to retain their possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts are awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to the requirements of section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek to secure access to their property and are informed that they must file for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the outfitter for his efforts. State fish and game regulations are circumvented by agency review boards that give benefits to guide applicants willing to limit their take of animals consistent with the Federal agencies' desires rather than management rules of the Alaska Game Board. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of Congress. Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 15 years since the passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with the act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to make the Federal manager's job easier. We want to turn to the original intent of Congress in some cases to make sure that intent is being carried out. Next month I plan on holding a hearing on this bill and look forward to gaining the support of my colleagues for passage of this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to bring the attention of this body to a piece of legislation that is pending, S. 1888, the Energy Policy Conservation Act extension. I think my friend from Georgia will find it does have an application to the defense of our Nation, because this bill is very simple, and its immediate passage is extremely important to our Nation's energy security as well as our Nation's national security. The administration strongly supports the passage of this bill and the language is not controversial. However, as chairman of the Energy Committee, we have been trying to clear this for 2 weeks now. We continue to have, unfortunately, objections from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats. But I know it is not the content of S. 1888 that they are objecting to. So let me make the situation very clear. I appeal to my friend from Georgia, the manager of the bill, that the authorization for two vital energy security measures, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency are due to expire at the end of this month. S. 1888 simply extends those two vital authorities through September, until a more comprehensive reauthorization bill can be enacted. So if we do not pass S. 1888 by the time we recess, the President will not have the authority to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if an energy emergency occurs in this country. Further, our Government will not have the authority to participate in International Energy Agency emergency actions in an international energy emergency. It has been evident in the last few days, the significance of our dependence on Mideast oil, and the fact we are willing to have United States troops in Saudi Arabia to ensure that peace is maintained and that energy from that part of the world flows. Currently we are about 51.4 percent dependent on imported oil. It is estimated by the Department of Energy that by the year 2000, roughly 4 years from now, that will increase up to about 66 percent. Here we are with our authority to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in jeopardy. There will be no antitrust exemption available to our private oil companies to allow them to cooperate with the International Energy Agency and our Government to respond to the crisis. Although it appears to be an easy one for some to simply disregard these dangers, I again indicate that recent events have underscored exactly how precarious the Nation's energy security is. As I have indicated, the bombing in Saudi Arabia is further evidence of the instability of the region that we rely on to supply the oil that keeps the Nation moving. As proven during the Persian Gulf war, the stabilizing effect of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown far outstrips the volume of oil sold. The simple fact that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is available can have a calming influence on oil markets. There are those, myself included, who were dismayed to some extent by a recent trend toward use the SPR as a piggy bank to pay for other programs. We will continue to debate the long-term prospects for the SPR in the future. In any case, we have already invested a large amount of taxpayer money in the stockpiles. The oil is there, ready to dampen the effects of an energy emergency on our economy. However, if we do not ensure we have the authority to use the oil when it is needed, we will have thrown tax dollars away. So, as I stand here before you, I implore my colleagues to release the hold and allow this simple extension to take place in the interests of our national security and our national energy security. If we do not ensure that there is authority to use the oil when it is needed, it simply will be to no avail. So, as I stated earlier, the content of this legislation is noncontroversial. I understand the Department of Energy has been strongly urging Members on the other side to remove their objection. It is clear the objection from a few Democratic Members has nothing to do with the substance of this bill. It is intended only to gain leverage on unrelated issues. Some of my fellow Republican Senators have problems with other parts of EPCA that they would like to raise on the larger reauthorization legislation. However, they have acted in concert to agree to allow this bill to proceed without amendment simply because of the strategic significance of it. So I think it is reckless, I think it is irresponsible to knowingly place our Nation's energy security at risk, to try to gain some small political advantage. American service men and women, as we have seen time and time again, have given their lives to ensure our Nation's energy security. We have seen that with the tragic bombing in Saudi Arabia the other day. Make no mistake about it, part of our presence there is to ensure the supply of oil for the Western World would continue uninterrupted. We fought a war over that. We tried to put Saddam Hussein in a cage. So I think it is shameful that today we would hold this legislation hostage to a political will. I encourage my colleagues to allow the immediate passage of S. 1888. I think it certainly is germane to the defense matters we are discussing here on the floor tonight, because you cannot move military or defense capability if you do not have the oil availability. So I encourage my colleagues to address their attention to the fact that, unless we get this authority, SPR will simply be unable to be utilized if there is an emergency. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. I introduce this so that we can return to the original intentions of the act and clarify the blurring of lines that have occurred over the years. Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Over the opposition of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land was set aside in a series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness units. Much of the concern about the act was the impact of these Federal units, and related management restrictions, on traditional activities and lifestyles. To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a permit lifestyle, and that the agencies would be required to recognize the crucial distinction between managing small units surrounded by millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units encompassing a relative handful of individuals and communities in Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the establishment of these units would in fact protect traditional activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy. Early implementation of the act closely reflected these promises. However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to have lost sight of these important representations to the people of Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances, have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of the exact permit lifestyle which we were promised would never happen. I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about every increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new industry has sprung up to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have built up during the past few years. Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to our attention and were discussed last year during oversight hearings held by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides it wants to establish a wilderness management regime and eliminate motorboat use on a river. It proceeds with the plan until protests cause the Regional Solicitor to advise the Service that its plan violates section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built, occupied, and used long before ANILCA are told they must give up their interests in the cabins although section 1303 expressly enables cabin owners to retain their possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts are awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to the requirements of section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek to secure access to their property and are informed that they must file for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the outfitter for his efforts. State fish and game regulations are circumvented by agency review boards that give benefits to guide applicants willing to limit their take of animals consistent with the Federal agencies' desires rather than management rules of the Alaska Game Board. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of Congress. Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 15 years since the passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with the act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to make the Federal manager's job easier. We want to turn to the original intent of Congress in some cases to make sure that intent is being carried out. Next month I plan on holding a hearing on this bill and look forward to gaining the support of my colleagues for passage of this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate my friend from Georgia. I am sure he will be fascinated.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not sure what our state of affairs is, but I wonder if I may speak as in morning business for 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1678, a bill to abolish the Department of Energy, and for other purposes. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, it will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, July 10, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1877, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act, a bill to ensure the proper stewardship of publicly owned assets in the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska, a fair return to the United States for public timber in the Tongass, and a proper balance among multiple-use interests in the Tongass to enhance forest health, sustainable harvest, and the general economic health and growth in southeast Alaska and the United States. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 11 at 9:30 a.m. in SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. It will focus on the FERC wholesale open access transmission rule, Order No. 888. Those who wish to testify or to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation. For further information, please contact Shawn Taylor or Howard Useem at (202) 224-6567.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to ask permission to engage in a colloquy with Senator Craig, regarding his amendment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act withdrew land near Carlsbad, NM, for construction of a disposal facility for transuranic waste produced by the Department of Energy. That act was reported out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and enacted in 1992. In addition to providing for the withdrawal of the land, the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act imposed many substantive and procedural licensing requirements on the WIPP facility. Many of these requirements are redundant or have become moot as a result of changes in the program, and should be eliminated. S. 1402, a bill introduced by Senators Craig and Johnston to amend the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, has been referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Does Senator Craig acknowledge that this amendment addresses matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Although this amendment is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I support the substantive changes made by the amendment and understand that it is important to make these changes in a timely manner. Therefore, I will not object to its inclusion in the Defense authorization legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President: in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has obtained a letter from the Congressional Budget Office containing an estimate of the costs of S. 1605, the Energy Policy and Conservation Amendment Act, as reported from the committee. In addition, pursuant to Public Law 104-4, the letter contains the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office regarding whether S. 1605 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in that act. I respectfully request that the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Congressional Record in its entirety. The opinion follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC., May 9, 1996. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1605, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendment Act. Enactment of S. 1605 would affect direct spending. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 1. Bill number: S. 1605. 2. Bill title: Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendment Act. 3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 24, 1996. 4. Bill purpose: S. 1605 would reauthorize certain activities and programs at the Department of Energy (DOE) through 2001. It would revise and extend the statutory guidelines and requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which outlines federal policies regarding energy emergencies, energy exports, and certain energy conservation initiatives. These amendments would authorize DOE to lease underutilized capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to foreign governments to the extent provided in appropriation acts. Other provisions would remove certain restrictions on joint bidding by major oil companies for leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), modify various reporting and planning requirements, and enable the state of Hawaii to purchase oil from the SPR under certain conditions. S. 1605 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the SPR for 1996 through 2001. It would authorize specific amounts for 1996 for the State Energy Conservation Program (SECP), the Institutional Conservation Program (ICP), the Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Application Program, and programs under Part C of EPCA (including activities supporting the International Energy Agency, the Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade, and the Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade). The bill also would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to implement the conservation grant and alternative fuels programs for 1997 through 2001 and the Part C programs for 1997 through 1999. 5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The following table summarizes the estimated budgetary effects of S. 1605. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts for 1997 through 2001, we estimate that enacting this bill would result in additional discretionary spending totaling between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion over that period. CBO anticipates that enacting this bill would affect direct spending by reducing offsetting receipts from bonus bids for OCS leases, but the impact is likely to be small for each fiscal year. On average, we estimate that bonus bids would fall by about $2 million a year over the 1997-2002 period. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public an addition to the agenda of the Full Committee hearing previously scheduled for Wednesday, June 26 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to receiving testimony on matters regarding the U.S. Territories, the Committee will also receive testimony on S. 1889, a bill to authorize the exchange of certain lands conveyed to the Kenai Native Association pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to make adjustments to the National Wilderness System, and for other purposes. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements with regard to S. 1889, should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kenai Native Association Equity Act. This legislation will correct a significant inequity in Federal law with respect to lands conveyed to the Kenai Natives Association [KNA] under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. This legislation, which will mark the final outcome of a process begun nearly 14 years ago. The legislation directs the completion of a land exchange and acquisition package between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and KNA. The legislation will allow KNA, for the first time, to make economic use of lands conveyed them under ANSCA. The final stage of this process began by directing in Public Law 102-458, a land exchange and acquisition package between the USFWS and KNA. Over the past year, negotiations were completed, resulting in the legislation I am introducing today. Mr. President, unlike other corporations in ANCSA, KNA, as an urban corporation, was not entitled to receive monetary settlement or additional lands than those granted under ANCSA. KNA ultimately selected 19,000 of its 23,040 entitlement within what later became the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. KNA lands are located between operating oilfields within the refuge to the North and urban and suburban developments to the South. At the request of the USFWS, KNA officials chose lands along the boundaries of the refuge so that development would be allowed. Notwithstanding the representation that development would be allowed, the USFWS advised KNA after selections were made that use of the property would be severely restricted by the application of section 22(g) of ANCSA. Section 22(g) requires that all uses of private inholdings within the refuge comply with the laws and regulations applicable to the public lands within a refuge and that those lands be managed consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 22(g) has been an ongoing problem in Alaska as it has significantly limited the economic use of private lands within refuges. Pursuant to agreements between USFWS and KNA, this legislation will allow USFWS to acquire three small parcels of land and KNA's remaining ANCSA entitlement at appraised value. These parcels include: Stephanka Tract, 803 acres on the Kenai River; Moose River Patented Tract, 1,243 acres; Moose River Selected Tract, 753 acres; and Remaining Entitlement, 454 acres. The total habitat acquisition of 2,253 acres will be purchased with Exxon Valdez oilspill funds at a cost of $4,443,000. Therefore, there would be no cost to the Federal Government for the purchase of these lands. Refuge boundaries would be adjusted to remove 15,500 acres of KNA lands from the refuge, thus resolving the 22(g) conflict. This can be done because, although the property is within the refuge--it does not belong to the Federal Government. KNA would also receive the refuge headquarters site in downtown Kenai which consists of a building and a 5-acre parcel. Under the terms of this agreement, the USFWS has proposed, in order to maintain equivalent natural resource protection for Federal resources, that Congress designate the Lake Todatonten area, approximately 37,000 acres, as a BLM Special Management Area [SMA]. The lake is adjacent to the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. The SMA would be subject to subsistence preferences under ANILCA and to valid existing rights. While I support the intent of this provision I do intend on exploring its implications on land use closely during Senate hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Mr. President, I believe the Kenai Native Association has waited long enough to resolve these issues. It is my intention to move this legislation quickly and get it behind us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kenai Native Association Equity Act. This legislation will correct a significant inequity in Federal law with respect to lands conveyed to the Kenai Natives Association [KNA] under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. This legislation, which will mark the final outcome of a process begun nearly 14 years ago. The legislation directs the completion of a land exchange and acquisition package between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and KNA. The legislation will allow KNA, for the first time, to make economic use of lands conveyed them under ANSCA. The final stage of this process began by directing in Public Law 102-458, a land exchange and acquisition package between the USFWS and KNA. Over the past year, negotiations were completed, resulting in the legislation I am introducing today. Mr. President, unlike other corporations in ANCSA, KNA, as an urban corporation, was not entitled to receive monetary settlement or additional lands than those granted under ANCSA. KNA ultimately selected 19,000 of its 23,040 entitlement within what later became the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. KNA lands are located between operating oilfields within the refuge to the North and urban and suburban developments to the South. At the request of the USFWS, KNA officials chose lands along the boundaries of the refuge so that development would be allowed. Notwithstanding the representation that development would be allowed, the USFWS advised KNA after selections were made that use of the property would be severely restricted by the application of section 22(g) of ANCSA. Section 22(g) requires that all uses of private inholdings within the refuge comply with the laws and regulations applicable to the public lands within a refuge and that those lands be managed consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 22(g) has been an ongoing problem in Alaska as it has significantly limited the economic use of private lands within refuges. Pursuant to agreements between USFWS and KNA, this legislation will allow USFWS to acquire three small parcels of land and KNA's remaining ANCSA entitlement at appraised value. These parcels include: Stephanka Tract, 803 acres on the Kenai River; Moose River Patented Tract, 1,243 acres; Moose River Selected Tract, 753 acres; and Remaining Entitlement, 454 acres. The total habitat acquisition of 2,253 acres will be purchased with Exxon Valdez oilspill funds at a cost of $4,443,000. Therefore, there would be no cost to the Federal Government for the purchase of these lands. Refuge boundaries would be adjusted to remove 15,500 acres of KNA lands from the refuge, thus resolving the 22(g) conflict. This can be done because, although the property is within the refuge--it does not belong to the Federal Government. KNA would also receive the refuge headquarters site in downtown Kenai which consists of a building and a 5-acre parcel. Under the terms of this agreement, the USFWS has proposed, in order to maintain equivalent natural resource protection for Federal resources, that Congress designate the Lake Todatonten area, approximately 37,000 acres, as a BLM Special Management Area [SMA]. The lake is adjacent to the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. The SMA would be subject to subsistence preferences under ANILCA and to valid existing rights. While I support the intent of this provision I do intend on exploring its implications on land use closely during Senate hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Mr. President, I believe the Kenai Native Association has waited long enough to resolve these issues. It is my intention to move this legislation quickly and get it behind us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. After receiving these views from the legislature and the Governor, I scheduled two oversight hearings on May 28 and May 29 in Ketchikan and Juneau, respectively. What I heard at these hearings was overwhelming support for the legislature's resolution, the Governor's action, and the extension of the KPC contract. I heard from tourism interests, bankers, and fishermen who supported the contract extension. While not unanimous, the preponderance of testimony offered over the 2 days--and I might add there were demonstrators who marched in Ketchikan, as well as in Juneau. Most of them, I am pleased to say, wanted to extend the contract--a larger portion, of course, in Ketchikan. These people recognize that there is no alternative source of timber available. Last, I am introducing this legislation today because I have finally lost confidence in the ability of the Forest Service to provide a stable and sustainable supply of timber for southeast Alaska. Over the past few years, the agency has fallen further and further behind in keeping a working timber sale pipeline. This problem has worsened despite the efforts of Senator Stevens to provide the agency with additional funding for timber sale preparation. Consequently, more than half of the operating mills in southeast Alaska have closed their doors during the last few years during this administration's watch. KPC is the last remaining pulp mill in the State. We only have the one. This situation is absolutely critical. The Tongass is our Nation's largest national forest. Yet the level of economic activity associated with the production of forest products is very small, and sinking. We have only one pulpmill and a few scattered sawmills left. Employment in the industry has fallen 40 percent since 1990. New Yorkers burn more wood in their fireplaces and stoves than we harvest in southeast Alaska each year. Yet we have the largest of all our national forests. In its May 28 testimony, the Forest Service acknowledged that the contract with Ketchikan Pulp Co. [KPC] has played an important role in the development of Alaska's resources in southeast. Given this admission, one would think that the Forest Service would want to see the mill stay. One would expect the Forest Service to weigh in in favor of a contract extension. But not so. In very disappointing testimony, the agency maintained that the terms of the existing contract provide that all obligations and requirements of the long-term contract must be satisfied on or before June 30, 2004. In response to questions about any future obligations past that date, the agency insisted that it has none--none. This testimony was offered even though the preamble to the contract discusses a commitment to a permanent economic base. On the question of whether Congress should extend the contract, the Forest Service testified that a long-term commitment of resources through a timber contract could further affect the flexibility of management on the Tongass--I do not know what that means, but I have an idea--and, further, that we are committed to completing the revision of the Tongass land management plan before we begin any discussion of future long-term commitments to timber related industries in Southeast. Yet in response to questions, the agency witnesses could not tell me: First, whether such commitments could be made within the latitude provided by the range of alternatives in the draft TLMP; second, whether additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis would be required; or third, whether such commitments would actually be precluded by the selected alternative of the final plan. The testimony was extremely unsettling. It convinced me that either the Forest Service and/or the administration would like to see the KPC mill go away. They have apparently no interest in seeing KPC invest $200 million to pioneer chlorine-free manufacturing technology that could benefit environmental control efforts nationwide. I think this is also tragic. Mr. President, the simple facts are that without the contract extension KPC will be unable to amortize the required capital investments for environmental improvements, and it will go away. The company's new CEO also testified on May 28. He was refreshingly, if not reassuringly, frank. He said: In the very near future, we have to decide whether to continue the large investments required to make KPC viable or whether the losses currently being inflicted by the inappropriate implementation of the contract can be carried any longer. Now, we are going to make that decision relatively soon. This is not an issue for the year 2003. This is a 1996 issue and decision. We will make that decision, first of all, based on just to keep running today we must have the Forest Service meet the intent of the long-term bilateral contract, including the volume and pricing provisions. And, then, secondly, to continue to invest at the rapid rate that we are right now, millions of dollars per quarter, this revised version of the long-term contract must be extended a minimum of 15 years at an offering level of 192 million board feet per year. The people of KPC and the thousands of people who have worked with us have met its--their contractual obligations to develop the economy and provide permanent, year-round employment for Southeast Alaska. We want the government to meet its contractual obligation to provide a sufficient volume of economically viable timber in a timely fashion. Some in southeast Alaska suggest that the region does not need the KPC pulpmill to have a successful and sustainable timber industry. What is needed, in their opinion, is to eliminate the monopoly contract and develop more small, value-added manufacturing facilities. This is wishful thinking. The independent mill witnesses at our hearings indicated that the lack of a stable timber supply will preclude any additional investments in southeast Alaska. The manufacture of pulp is a higher value added process than any of the alternatives suggested by opponents of the pulpmill. The loss of the pulpmill will destabilize the industry and the infrastructure of the region, and have a chilling effect on future industry investments. Available capital will migrate to other regions. Mr. President, I cannot stand idly by and watch the town of Ketchikan die. I will not. I have introduced and ask respectful consideration of, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act. A copy of the bill and a section-by-section analysis was included. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another subject but it is equally important to my State, and that the introduction by myself along with Senator Stevens and Congressman Young of a piece of legislation known as the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act of 1996. I introduced the bill late yesterday, and I did not have an opportunity to speak on it. This particular piece of legislation would provide for timber contract extension. The bill would extend for 15 years the long-term timber sale contract on the Tongass National Forest between the Forest Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Corp. which is a subsidiary of Louisiana Pacific. This extension would provide Ketchikan Pulp with a stable timber supply over a sufficient length of time to amortize the cost of a new environmentally improved pulp mill. Improvements and energy efficiency equipment would be installed at a cost of somewhere between $150 million and $200 million. It is interesting to reflect that when this mill was first built back in the mid-fifties the total cost of the mill was somewhere in the area of $55 million. In any event, Ketchikan Pulp Corp.'s situation is extremely unique because all of its timber comes from the national forest. In my State of Alaska there is no State forest of any consequence in southeastern Alaska, and the only private timber that is available is owned by the Native regional corporations. We also have a unique difference in that we have in the Tongass people who live in the forest in the towns of Ketchikan, Juneau, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, Haines, Skagway are all in the forest, and were in the forest before the forest was created. And the theory was when the Nation's largest national forest was created there would be sufficient timber set aside for the modest industry that was in existence. We have seen some changes in that policy. So I am introducing this bill as a result of, first, the important role that Ketchikan Pulp plays in the social, economic, and environmental vitality of southeastern Alaska; two, the strong bipartisan support within our State for this action; three, the record from the two field hearings which I held last month in southeastern Alaska in Juneau and Ketchikan which overwhelmingly supports the introduction of this legislation; fourth, the realization that the performance of the Forest Service strongly indicates that without some congressional intervention the Ketchikan Pulp mill will not survive without an adequate supply of timber. Let me elaborate on each of these factors because they are important. Let me describe the nature of the southeast forest in the Tongass. Thirty percent of our timber is dead or dying. It is old growth, virgin timber. But as with any living thing there is a process of growing, maturing, and then the death of the trees begin. The theory of utilizing these trees which have reached their maturity and are in the process of dying is the forest process of evolution which is associated with timber development. So what we have is a product that is only suitable for wood fiber, and as a consequence there is a justification for the pulp mill. Without the pulp mill, the lumber mill would be less profitable and the pulp would have to be exported creating virtually no jobs in my State. So let me share with you what the forest told us about the evolution and the importance of the contract with southeastern Alaska as of May 28 at the oversight hearing in Ketchikan: The long-term contracts in Alaska which required the construction and operation of manufacturing facilities such as sawmills and pulp mills facilitated the establishment of a timber industry in Southeast Alaska. Prior to the 1950's, economic conditions in Southeast Alaska were characterized as boom-bust. Federal government employment, mining and salmon processing were the economic mainstays. After World War II, mining was essentially gone, leaving a small local timber industry and commercial fishing in the natural resources sector. Both the timber and commercial fishing industries were subject to market swings from year to year and were seasonal in terms of employment. The United States favored the expansion of the timber industry through several long-term timber sales on the Tongass National Forest to stabilize employment in Southeast Alaska. Making the best use of the timber on the Tongass required having suitable markets for both high and low quality timber and species. The markets were largely export markets in the Pacific Rim and were somewhat limited by the need to use most of the timber for pulp. The Forest Service advocated the use of long-term sales to establish a pulp industry that would bring greater economic diversity to the region and more year- round employment. If successful, more service and trade establishments were expected to follow--creating greater tax bases, which would provide opportunities for improved services, such as schools, water, fire protection, and the like. For all of this to come together, however, the Forest Service had to guarantee a long-term, stable timber supply to attract outside capital investment. I found this testimony compelling, Mr. President. The Forest Service witnesses recounted the decisions of their predecessors back at the time right after the war in the late 1940's. Farsighted people recognized the nature and the importance of the resource and planning for an environmentally and economically secure future. The Forest Service recognized that, as a sole owner of land and timber, it controlled the economic and environmental vitality of the region. What is the situation today? Why has it changed? Today Ketchikan Pulp Corp.'s operations directly or indirectly provide about 25 percent of the total annual employment wages in Ketchikan. Ketchikan Pulp Corp.'s municipal real estate and sales tax generated about $13.6 million in revenues in 1992. More broadly, the southeastern Alaska timber industry is the dominant contributor to real estate development in Ketchikan. More than 25 percent of all the households are timber dependent, and the typical timber employee can purchase more than 90 percent of the existing housing units. Ketchikan Pulp comprises more than 50 percent of the total borough's industrial assessed valuation. I might add, Mr. President, that this is the only year-round manufacturing plant in our State of Alaska. So its importance cannot be understated. We have tourism and fishing that are also important to the economy. But we need all of our basic industries--timber, fishing, and tourism-- in that part of the State to maintain the healthy economy in the region. Quite simply, without some stability of timber supply, the economies of the region generally, and Ketchikan specifically, are in trouble. Perhaps that is why the proposal to extend the KPC contract has received broad, bipartisan support from elected officials throughout the State. Earlier this year, the Alaska Senate voted 18 to 1 to support a resolution urging the Congress to extend the contract. The Alaska House voted 34 to 3 to support the same measure. These are extraordinary margins of support. I will submit the resolution for the Record at this time, and ask it be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, the Governor joined in, offering his support for congressional action to extend the contract. In a May 23 letter to me, Gov. Tony Knowles informed me that the State of Alaska supports a KPC contract extension, contingent on KPC's agreement with the following five principles: to protect the environment, Alaska jobs, and other forest users; and to utilize the Tongass Land Management Planning [TLMP] process and value-added processing techniques. I am pleased to say that these conditions have been agreed to by KPC and are included in the compromise legislation I have introduced today. I will include the Governor's letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Chair a good morning, and my colleague from Georgia. I enjoyed his reflection on health care.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today along with Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, I am introducing the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act of 1996. This bill would extend for 15 additional years the long-term timber sale contract on the Tongass National Forest between the Forest Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Corp. [KPC]. The extension would provide KPC with a stable timber supply over a sufficient length of time to amortize the cost of new environmental improvements and energy efficiency equipment. KPC's situation is unique because all of its timber comes from the Forest Service. There is no State or private timber available to the company. I am introducing this bill as a result of: First, the important role that KPC plays in the social, economic, and environmental vitality of southeast Alaska; second, the strong, bipartisan support within the State for this action; third, the record from field hearings I held last month in southeast Alaska which overwhelmingly supports introduction; and fourth, the performance of the Forest Service which strongly indicates that, without congressional intervention, the KPC mill cannot survive. Let me elaborate on each of these factors. First, let me describe the nature of the forest in southeast Alaska. Thirty percent of the trees are dead or dying. The fiber is suitable only for pulp. Without a pulp mill, lumber mills would be less profitable and the pulp would have to be exported, creating no domestic jobs. Let me also share with my colleagues what the Forest Service told us about the evolution and importance of KPC's long-term contract to southeast Alaska. Here is what the Agency told us at a May 28 oversight hearing in Ketchikan, AK: The long-term contracts in Alaska which required the construction and operation of manufacturing facilities such as sawmills and pulp mills facilitated the establishment of a timber industry in southeast Alaska. Prior to the 1950's, economic conditions in southeast Alaska were characterized as boom-bust. Federal Government employment, mining and salmon processing were the economic mainstays. After World War II, mining was essentially gone, leaving a small local timber industry and commercial fishing in the natural resources sector. Both the timber and commercial fishing industries were subject to market swings from year to year and were seasonal in terms of employment. The United States favored the expansion of the timber industry through several long-term timber sales on the Tongass National Forest to stabilize employment in southeast Alaska. Making the best use of the timber on the Tongass required having suitable markets for both high and low quality timber and species. The markets were largely export markets in the Pacific Rim and were somewhat limited by the need to use most of the timber for pulp. The Forest Service advocated the use of long-term sales to establish a pulp industry that would bring greater economic diversity to the region and more year- round employment. If successful, more service and trade establishments were expected to follow--creating greater tax bases, which would provide opportunities for improved services, such as schools, water, fire protection, and the like. For all of this to come together, however, the Forest Service had to guarantee a long-term, stable timber supply to attract outside capital investment. I found this testimony compelling. The Forest Service witnesses recounted the decisions of their predecessors--far-sighted people recognizing the nature and importance of the resource and planning for an environmentally and economically secure future. The Forest Service recognized that, as the sole owner of land and timber, it controlled the economic and environmental vitality of the region. Well what is the situation today? Today, KPC's operations directly or indirectly provide 25 percent of the total annual employment wages in Ketchikan. KPC's municipal real estate and sales taxes generated $13.6 million in revenues in 1992. More broadly, the southeast Alaska timber industry is the dominant contributor to real estate development in Ketchikan. More than 25 percent of all households are timber dependent, and the typical timber employee can purchase more than 90 percent of the existing housing units. KPC comprises more than 50 percent of the total borough's industrial assessed valuation. Tourism and fishing are also important to the economy of Ketchikan and southeast Alaska. We need all three of our basic industries-- timber, fishing, and tourism--to be healthy if we are to have a healthy economy in the region. But quite simply, without some stability of timber supply, the economies of the region generally, and Ketchikan specifically, are doomed. Perhaps that is why the proposal to extend the KPC contract has received broad, bipartisan support from elected officials throughout the State. Earlier this year, the Alaska Senate voted 18 to 1 to support a resolution urging the Congress to extend the contract. The Alaska House voted 34 to 3 to support the same measure. These are extraordinary margins of support. I will submit the resolution for the record. Then, the Governor joined in, offering his support for congressional action to extend the contract. In a May 23 letter to me, Gov. Tony Knowles informed me that: The State of Alaska supports a KPC contract extension, contingent on KPC's agreement with the following five principles: To protect the environment, Alaska jobs, and other forest users; and to utilize the Tongass Land Management Planning [TLMP] process and value-added processing techniques. I am pleased to say that these conditions have been agreed to by KPC and are included in the compromise legislation I am introducing today. I will include the Governor's letter for the Record. After receiving these views from the legislature and the Governor, I scheduled two oversight hearings on May 28 and May 29 in Ketchikan and Juneau, respectively. What I heard at these hearings was overwhelming support for the legislature's resolution, the Governor's action, and the extension of the KPC contract. I heard from tourism interests, bankers, and fishermen who supported the contract extension. While not unanimous, the preponderance of testimony offered over the 2 days--and all of the demonstrators who marched in Ketchikan, as well as most or them in Juneau--called for congressional action to extend the contract. These people recognize that there is no alternative source of timber available. Last, I am introducing this legislation today because I have finally lost confidence in the ability of the Forest Service to provide a stable and sustainable supply of timber for southeast Alaska. Over the past few years, the agency has fallen further behind in keeping a working timber sale pipeline. This problem has worsened despite the efforts of Senator Stevens to provide the agency with additional funding for timber sale preparation. Consequently, more than half of the operating mills in southeast Alaska have closed their doors during the last few years during this administration's watch. KPC is the last remaining pulp mill in the State. This situation is absolutely tragic. The Tongass is our Nation's largest national forest. Yet the level of economic activity associated with the production of forest products is very small, and sinking. We have only one pulpmill and a few scattered sawmills left. Employment in the industry has fallen 40 percent since 1990. New Yorkers burn more wood in their fireplaces and stoves than we harvest in southeast Alaska each year. In its May 25 testimony, the Forest Service acknowledged that ``the contract with Ketchikan Pulp Co. [KPC] has played an important role in the development of Alaska's resources in southeast.'' Given this admission, one would think that the Forest Service would want to see the mill stay. One would expect the Forest Service to weigh-in in favor of a contract extension. But not so. In very disappointing testimony, the agency maintained that ``the terms of the existing contract provide that all obligations and requirements of the long-term contract must be satisfied on or before June 30, 2004.'' In response to questions about any future obligations past that date, the agency insisted that it has none--none. This testimony was offered even though the preamble to the contract discusses a commitment to a permanent economic base. On the question of whether Congress should extend the contract, the Forest Service testified that ``a long-term commitment of resources through a timber contract could further affect the flexibility of management on the Tongass,'' and that ``we are committed to completing the Revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan before we begin any discussion of future long-term commitments to timber related industries in Southeast.'' Yet, in response to questions, the agency witnesses could not tell me: First, whether such commitments could be made within the latitude provided by the range of alternatives in the draft TLMP; second, whether additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis would be required; or third, whether such commitments would actually be precluded by the selected alternative of the final plan. The testimony was extremely unsettling. It convinced me that either the Forest Service and/or the administration would like to see the KPC mill go away. They have apparently no interest in seeing KPC invest $200 million to pioneer chlorine-free manufacturing technology that could benefit environmental control efforts nationwide. That is also tragic. Mr. President, the simple facts are that--without the contract extension--KPC will be unable to amortize the required capital investments for environmental improvements, and it will go away. The company's new CEO also testified on May 28. He was refreshingly, if not reassuringly, frank. He said: In the very near future, we have to decide whether to continue the large investments required to make KPC viable or whether the losses currently being inflicted by the appropriate implementation of the contract can be carried any longer. Now, we are going to make that decision relatively soon. This is not an issue for the year 2003. This is a 1996 issue and decision. We will make that decision, first of all, based on just to keep running today we must have the Forest Service meet the intent of the long-term bilateral contract, including the volume and pricing provisions. And, then, secondly, to continue to invest at the rapid rate that we are right now, millions of dollars per quarter, this revised version of the long-term contract must be extended a minimum of 15 years at an offering level of 192 million board feet per year. The people of KPC and the thousands of people who have worked with us have met its--their contractual obligations to develop the economy and provide permanent, year-round employment for southeast Alaska. We want the government to meet its contractual obligation to provide a sufficient volume of economically viable timber in a timely fashion. Some in southeast Alaska suggest that the region does not need the KPC pulpmill to have a successful and sustainable timber industry. What is needed they opine, is to eliminate the monopoly contract and develop more small, value-added manufacturing facilities. This is wishful thinking. The independent mill witnesses at our hearings indicated that the lack of a stable timber supply will preclude any additional investments in southeast Alaska. The manufacture of pulp is a higher value added process than any of the alternatives suggested by opponents of the pulpmill. The loss of the pulpmill will destabilize the industry and the infrastructure of the region, and have a chilling effect on future industry investments. Available capital will migrate to other regions. Mr. President, I cannot stand idly by and watch the town of Ketchikan die. I will not. I am introducing, and ask respectful consideration of, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today along with Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, I am introducing the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act of 1996. This bill would extend for 15 additional years the long-term timber sale contract on the Tongass National Forest between the Forest Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Corp. [KPC]. The extension would provide KPC with a stable timber supply over a sufficient length of time to amortize the cost of new environmental improvements and energy efficiency equipment. KPC's situation is unique because all of its timber comes from the Forest Service. There is no State or private timber available to the company. I am introducing this bill as a result of: First, the important role that KPC plays in the social, economic, and environmental vitality of southeast Alaska; second, the strong, bipartisan support within the State for this action; third, the record from field hearings I held last month in southeast Alaska which overwhelmingly supports introduction; and fourth, the performance of the Forest Service which strongly indicates that, without congressional intervention, the KPC mill cannot survive. Let me elaborate on each of these factors. First, let me describe the nature of the forest in southeast Alaska. Thirty percent of the trees are dead or dying. The fiber is suitable only for pulp. Without a pulp mill, lumber mills would be less profitable and the pulp would have to be exported, creating no domestic jobs. Let me also share with my colleagues what the Forest Service told us about the evolution and importance of KPC's long-term contract to southeast Alaska. Here is what the Agency told us at a May 28 oversight hearing in Ketchikan, AK: The long-term contracts in Alaska which required the construction and operation of manufacturing facilities such as sawmills and pulp mills facilitated the establishment of a timber industry in southeast Alaska. Prior to the 1950's, economic conditions in southeast Alaska were characterized as boom-bust. Federal Government employment, mining and salmon processing were the economic mainstays. After World War II, mining was essentially gone, leaving a small local timber industry and commercial fishing in the natural resources sector. Both the timber and commercial fishing industries were subject to market swings from year to year and were seasonal in terms of employment. The United States favored the expansion of the timber industry through several long-term timber sales on the Tongass National Forest to stabilize employment in southeast Alaska. Making the best use of the timber on the Tongass required having suitable markets for both high and low quality timber and species. The markets were largely export markets in the Pacific Rim and were somewhat limited by the need to use most of the timber for pulp. The Forest Service advocated the use of long-term sales to establish a pulp industry that would bring greater economic diversity to the region and more year- round employment. If successful, more service and trade establishments were expected to follow--creating greater tax bases, which would provide opportunities for improved services, such as schools, water, fire protection, and the like. For all of this to come together, however, the Forest Service had to guarantee a long-term, stable timber supply to attract outside capital investment. I found this testimony compelling. The Forest Service witnesses recounted the decisions of their predecessors--far-sighted people recognizing the nature and importance of the resource and planning for an environmentally and economically secure future. The Forest Service recognized that, as the sole owner of land and timber, it controlled the economic and environmental vitality of the region. Well what is the situation today? Today, KPC's operations directly or indirectly provide 25 percent of the total annual employment wages in Ketchikan. KPC's municipal real estate and sales taxes generated $13.6 million in revenues in 1992. More broadly, the southeast Alaska timber industry is the dominant contributor to real estate development in Ketchikan. More than 25 percent of all households are timber dependent, and the typical timber employee can purchase more than 90 percent of the existing housing units. KPC comprises more than 50 percent of the total borough's industrial assessed valuation. Tourism and fishing are also important to the economy of Ketchikan and southeast Alaska. We need all three of our basic industries-- timber, fishing, and tourism--to be healthy if we are to have a healthy economy in the region. But quite simply, without some stability of timber supply, the economies of the region generally, and Ketchikan specifically, are doomed. Perhaps that is why the proposal to extend the KPC contract has received broad, bipartisan support from elected officials throughout the State. Earlier this year, the Alaska Senate voted 18 to 1 to support a resolution urging the Congress to extend the contract. The Alaska House voted 34 to 3 to support the same measure. These are extraordinary margins of support. I will submit the resolution for the record. Then, the Governor joined in, offering his support for congressional action to extend the contract. In a May 23 letter to me, Gov. Tony Knowles informed me that: The State of Alaska supports a KPC contract extension, contingent on KPC's agreement with the following five principles: To protect the environment, Alaska jobs, and other forest users; and to utilize the Tongass Land Management Planning [TLMP] process and value-added processing techniques. I am pleased to say that these conditions have been agreed to by KPC and are included in the compromise legislation I am introducing today. I will include the Governor's letter for the Record. After receiving these views from the legislature and the Governor, I scheduled two oversight hearings on May 28 and May 29 in Ketchikan and Juneau, respectively. What I heard at these hearings was overwhelming support for the legislature's resolution, the Governor's action, and the extension of the KPC contract. I heard from tourism interests, bankers, and fishermen who supported the contract extension. While not unanimous, the preponderance of testimony offered over the 2 days--and all of the demonstrators who marched in Ketchikan, as well as most or them in Juneau--called for congressional action to extend the contract. These people recognize that there is no alternative source of timber available. Last, I am introducing this legislation today because I have finally lost confidence in the ability of the Forest Service to provide a stable and sustainable supply of timber for southeast Alaska. Over the past few years, the agency has fallen further behind in keeping a working timber sale pipeline. This problem has worsened despite the efforts of Senator Stevens to provide the agency with additional funding for timber sale preparation. Consequently, more than half of the operating mills in southeast Alaska have closed their doors during the last few years during this administration's watch. KPC is the last remaining pulp mill in the State. This situation is absolutely tragic. The Tongass is our Nation's largest national forest. Yet the level of economic activity associated with the production of forest products is very small, and sinking. We have only one pulpmill and a few scattered sawmills left. Employment in the industry has fallen 40 percent since 1990. New Yorkers burn more wood in their fireplaces and stoves than we harvest in southeast Alaska each year. In its May 25 testimony, the Forest Service acknowledged that ``the contract with Ketchikan Pulp Co. [KPC] has played an important role in the development of Alaska's resources in southeast.'' Given this admission, one would think that the Forest Service would want to see the mill stay. One would expect the Forest Service to weigh-in in favor of a contract extension. But not so. In very disappointing testimony, the agency maintained that ``the terms of the existing contract provide that all obligations and requirements of the long-term contract must be satisfied on or before June 30, 2004.'' In response to questions about any future obligations past that date, the agency insisted that it has none--none. This testimony was offered even though the preamble to the contract discusses a commitment to a permanent economic base. On the question of whether Congress should extend the contract, the Forest Service testified that ``a long-term commitment of resources through a timber contract could further affect the flexibility of management on the Tongass,'' and that ``we are committed to completing the Revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan before we begin any discussion of future long-term commitments to timber related industries in Southeast.'' Yet, in response to questions, the agency witnesses could not tell me: First, whether such commitments could be made within the latitude provided by the range of alternatives in the draft TLMP; second, whether additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis would be required; or third, whether such commitments would actually be precluded by the selected alternative of the final plan. The testimony was extremely unsettling. It convinced me that either the Forest Service and/or the administration would like to see the KPC mill go away. They have apparently no interest in seeing KPC invest $200 million to pioneer chlorine-free manufacturing technology that could benefit environmental control efforts nationwide. That is also tragic. Mr. President, the simple facts are that--without the contract extension--KPC will be unable to amortize the required capital investments for environmental improvements, and it will go away. The company's new CEO also testified on May 28. He was refreshingly, if not reassuringly, frank. He said: In the very near future, we have to decide whether to continue the large investments required to make KPC viable or whether the losses currently being inflicted by the appropriate implementation of the contract can be carried any longer. Now, we are going to make that decision relatively soon. This is not an issue for the year 2003. This is a 1996 issue and decision. We will make that decision, first of all, based on just to keep running today we must have the Forest Service meet the intent of the long-term bilateral contract, including the volume and pricing provisions. And, then, secondly, to continue to invest at the rapid rate that we are right now, millions of dollars per quarter, this revised version of the long-term contract must be extended a minimum of 15 years at an offering level of 192 million board feet per year. The people of KPC and the thousands of people who have worked with us have met its--their contractual obligations to develop the economy and provide permanent, year-round employment for southeast Alaska. We want the government to meet its contractual obligation to provide a sufficient volume of economically viable timber in a timely fashion. Some in southeast Alaska suggest that the region does not need the KPC pulpmill to have a successful and sustainable timber industry. What is needed they opine, is to eliminate the monopoly contract and develop more small, value-added manufacturing facilities. This is wishful thinking. The independent mill witnesses at our hearings indicated that the lack of a stable timber supply will preclude any additional investments in southeast Alaska. The manufacture of pulp is a higher value added process than any of the alternatives suggested by opponents of the pulpmill. The loss of the pulpmill will destabilize the industry and the infrastructure of the region, and have a chilling effect on future industry investments. Available capital will migrate to other regions. Mr. President, I cannot stand idly by and watch the town of Ketchikan die. I will not. I am introducing, and ask respectful consideration of, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today a giant in the annals of the U.S. Senate, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, the Republican leader, has chosen to leave this great institution to pursue and, I believe to win the Presidency of the United States. The Senate will never be quit the same; for Senator Dole has that rare and admired quality of making things happen, getting things done, and moving this tradition-layered institution forward. All of Bob Dole's adult life had been spent in service to the American public and today he has not ended that service. He is just entering the final phase of his public service--campaigning for the highest office in the land. Mr. President, for the past 16 years, I have been privileged to represent the people of the State of Alaska in the Senate. And throughout my tenure in the Senate, Bob Dole has been a friend to the people of Alaska and a leader who has always been sensitive to the special needs of our young State. Bob has traveled extensively in Alaska. And he understands that unlike States that entered the Union in the 18th and 19th centuries, Alaska, which has only been a State since 1959, is far more dependent than other States on decisions made in Washington. Almost 70 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal Government. Fifty-four million acres of Park Service land is in Alaska--68 percent of all Park Service land in the Nation. Fifty-seven million acres of designated wilderness is located in Alaska. That's over 60 percent of all wilderness lands in the country. And 76 million acres of Fish and Wildlife Service land is in Alaska-- That's 85 percent of all Fish and Wildlife Service land in the United States. The purpose in providing these statistics is to reiterate to my fellow Senators that almost any economic activity that is done in Alaska can only get started if the Federal Government does not stand in the way. Bob Dole has always understood that. Bob Dole also understands that our natural resources can be developed in a responsible manner using our best technology without harming our environment. Bob Dole does not sell America's technology and ingenuity short--he believes that it is better to harvest our abundant resources in an environmentally responsible manner rather than sending our dollars and jobs overseas by importing resources. Mr. President, Bob Dole has served as the Republican leader for more than 11 years-longer than any Republican leader in history. He has had to juggle and balance the interests of States as different as Florida and Alaska in order to get legislation from the drawing boards to President's desk. Throughout all of the time I have known Bob, he has never sacrificed what is important to Alaska's 600,000 citizens in order to get a piece of legislation adopted. In fact, it was Bob Dole's leadership that ensured that for the first time last year, Congress authorized oil exploration in ANWR. And when Bob Dole moves to the White House next year. Alaskans can be assured that the roadblock to our economic development will finally be removed. He knows that America's economic security cannot be assured so long as we are dependent on foreign countries for more than 50 percent of our energy needs. Mr. President, Alaskans will miss Senator Dole's leadership and sensitivity to our State's needs. I will miss him as a person and friend that I have grown accustomed to talking with every day. Bob Dole's destiny will take him to even greater challenges and responsibilities next year. And I know he will always keep Alaska's special needs in mind whenever he makes decisions on economic policy. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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