Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on the conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995, I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to one provision of the act that relates to what, I believe, is an often-overlooked issue. That issue is the fate of more than 8,100 American servicemen from the Korean war. We have always demanded the fullest possible accounting in Vietnam for those listed as missing in action, and the question that I think must be asked is, why not North Korea as well? Of the 8,100 servicemen not accounted for after the Korean war, at least 5,433 of these were lost north of the 38th parallel. In Vietnam, by contrast, the number of unresolved cases is 2,168, and Vietnam has cooperated in 39 joint field activities. The United States Government recently announced plans to contribute $2 million through United Nations agencies to relieve starvation in North Korea. The donation was consistent with other instances where the United States seeks to relieve human suffering, despite disagreements with the government of the receiving country. What is inconsistent with United States policy is our failure to ensure that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea addresses the humanitarian issue of greatest concern to the American people--the resolution of the fate of servicemen missing in action since the end of the Korean war. I think the families of the servicemen see that same inconsistency. I would refer my colleagues to a March 26, 1996, front page story in the Washington Post, ``The Other MIAs, Americans Seek Relatives Lost in Korea.'' In that story, the President of the Korean/Cold War Family Association of the Missing was quoted as saying: ``North Korea wants humanitarian assistance, yet they won't give it themselves. Our families are starving to know what happened to their loved ones. We want an accounting for these men. They deserve an accounting. It's grossly dishonorable to walk away from them.'' I could not say it better. I remind my colleagues that relations between the United States and Vietnam did not even begin to thaw until the Government of Vietnam agreed to joint field operations with the United States military to search for missing servicemen. The pace and scope of normalization was commensurate with Vietnam's cooperation on the MIA issue and other humanitarian concerns. In every discussion between United States Government officials and their Vietnamese counterparts, the MIA issue war paramount. The Vietnamese received very clear signals that progress in normalizing relations with the United States would come only after progress was made on the MIA issue. In contrast to our Vietnam policy, United States policy toward North Korea lacks this focus. The recent announcement regarding food aid did not mention our interest in the MIA issue. The agreed framework between the United States and the DPRK does not talk about cooperation on MIA's--even though the framework commits the United States to give the DPRK free oil and supply two highly advanced light-water reactors; a total package that exceeds $5 billion--$4 billion for the reactors and $500 million for the oil, not counting potential future aid for the grid system to distribute the power that the reactors will produce. The agreed framework also envisions the United States lifting trade restrictions and normalizing relations--regardless of any movement on the MIA issue. The most obvious difference between Vietnam and North Korea is North Korea's nuclear program. The United States has an overriding national security interest in stopping the North Korea nuclear program. Nevertheless, I do not believe we should have ignored the MIA issue. That is why I have introduced legislation (S. 1293) that would prevent establishing full diplomatic relations or lifting the trade embargo until the DPRK has agreed to joint field operations. The conference report before us is consistent with S. 1293. Section 1607 states the sense of the Congress that: the President should not take further steps toward upgrading diplomatic relations with North Korea beyond opening liaison offices or relaxing trade and investment barriers imposed against North Korea without . . . obtaining positive and productive cooperation from North Korea on the recovery of remains of Americans missing in action from the Korean war without consenting to exorbitant demands by North Korea for financial compensation. I urge the Clinton administration to pursue the policy that is laid out in section 1607. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with our dedicated armed services personnel in Hawaii who are responsible for negotiating with the North Koreans on the MIA issue. It was clear from that briefing that joint field operations would have a high probability of considerable success because, unlike Vietnam, the United States has concrete evidence of the sites of mass U.N. burial grounds and prisoner-of-war camp locations. But United States personnel have no access in North Korea to these sites. The only thing preventing our personnel from going in and making these identifications is the North Koreans. The North Koreans have been unilaterally turning over some remains. Unfortunately, the North Koreans, without training in the proper handling of remains, have turned over excavated remains that have not been properly handled, making identification vastly more difficult, if not impossible. Of the 208 sets of remains turned over since 1990, only 5 sets have been identified. Despite United States aid flowing to North Korea, the Koreans have repeatedly attempted to link progress on the remains issue to separate compensation--amounts of money seemingly far in excess of reimbursement costs for recovery, storage, and transportation of remains. The U.S. Government must stand by its policy not to buy remains--this would degrade the honor of those who died in combat. Instead, the United States has offered to reimburse North Korea for reasonable expenses, as we do in Southeast Asia. Talks to try to move the MIA remains repatriation issue forward at this moment appear stalled. While the United States has been careful not to link the nuclear issues with other policy concerns in North Korea, it is not unreasonable for the United States to consider North Korea's behavior on other issues, such as the MIA issue, when considering whether to provide humanitarian aid to the closed nation. For the families of the 5,433 soldiers and airmen still missing more than 40 years after the end of the conflict there is no more humane action that North Korea could take than to let America have sufficient access to try to resolve as many of these cases as possible. We have demanded fullest accountability from the Government of Vietnam on the MIA issue. We should demand the same of the Government of North Korea. congressional review and small business regulatory fairness bill

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues of a fact that in the package there were about 53 individual items. The package was held up almost a year by a Member on the other side who refused to allow the individual issues to come up for action. That is a fact, and the Record will reflect that. Now we are faced with the reality of who is to blame for the failure of the package. I think the Record will reflect the reality that this was well on its way to successful consideration of cloture prior to the decision by the other side to put the minimum wage on it, which changed the complexion and the interpretation of the last vote. Many Members looked upon the last vote in actuality as a reference to support for the minimum wage and that it did not belong there. We all know it. So the responsibility has to be with the minority that chose to allow and support inclusion of the minimum wage on the largest environmental package of this session, the 104th Congress. That is, indeed, unfortunate. Let us be realistic and recognize where the responsibility lay. It lay in holding that package hostage for a year and it lay with the responsibility of putting the minimum wage on it. I thank the Chair and thank the leader. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in response to the minority leader's unanimous-consent request, obviously we are all sensitive to the merits of the Presidio. The California delegation has worked very, very hard on this. But as everyone in this body knows, this was a package that was put together with great commitment and great understanding that, indeed, in order for it to pass the Congress, it had to stay as a package. Everybody knew that when we went in, and to suggest action by the U.S. Senate would be acceptable to the House everyone knows is unrealistic. So we are set with the reality here. It is the intention of myself, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to again pursue the package. It is the largest single environmental package that has come before the 104th Congress. We are all disappointed at the action that was taken by adding on the minimum wage amendment, but that was something seen fit by the minority to do, and we are left with this reality today, which is, indeed, unfortunate. It is my intention to continue to pursue working with the Members who objected to the various aspects of the package, to try to continue to pursue it, in this legislative year. That is the pledge I want to make to the minority and the minority leader as well. I want everybody to understand the rationale behind the objection. This would not have gone in the House as a freestanding Presidio bill. Everybody is aware of it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going to take too long because I know many of my colleagues want to speak on the issues affecting welfare and Medicaid. But I do want to express my disappointment with the Democratic leadership and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have effectively killed a major and important park and conservation measure. As a matter of fact, the parks bill that we debated for some 7 hours the day before yesterday now can no longer be discussed, there is no additional time for debate because the measure now has, out of necessity, been set aside. Let us look realistically at what this action is costing the general public relative to its parks and specific areas of importance, including the Presidio, which was in this parks package. The package included the ability to provide 2 million acres of wilderness to the people of the United States in the State of Utah, and to provide an important watershed to both New York and New Jersey known as Sterling Forest. We had this measure before us. It had been put together as a consequence of a great deal of effort and a great deal of compromise. Some 23 States were affected, with some 53 individual titles or lands affected in those States. It was a package that had been negotiated with the House as well, and it was apparent to all that in order for the package to pass we had to keep all its aspects, including those that were of a controversial nature. One of those, of course, was Utah wilderness. The issue was all or nothing with some of the opponents. They felt that 2 million acres added to the wilderness designation in Utah was inadequate; it should be 5 or 6 million acres. The citizens of Utah--the legislature, the Governor, the entire Utah delegation--felt that 2 million acres was adequate. In any event, this body would have made that determination on a clear and unrestricted vote had not some Members saw fit yesterday to attach the minimum wage amendment to this package--the minimum wage is an important issue, but it simply does not belong on this parks package--and as a consequence the parks package has been set aside. It will come up another day, but I wish to express my disappointment, and I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to try to bring the package together. I am disappointed also in the media because they failed to recognize the importance of this package. But I wish to at least have the Record reflect why we had that package before us. The Senator from California and the Senator from New Jersey, both have indicated that somehow it was the fault of the majority that the package was before the Senate and that it was unfair, some suggested awful, that they were forced to vote on Utah wilderness and other measures if they wanted to see their measures enacted. In other words, they wanted Utah wilderness out of it. Yet they knew that the House would simply not accept the package unless Utah wilderness was in it. Let the Record reflect that it was the objections on the other side of the aisle that have held each and every one of these measures up for some year or thereabouts. This was the right of the individual Senator, but I think it is disingenuous for him and other Senators on the Democratic side to suggest we were holding these measures. We simply recognized the reality and pleaded with the various Senators on holding together because there was something in this for everyone; every State was affected in some manner or form, and we would either all gain something meaningful or we would simply lose the effort. I do not think any of us at that time anticipated that the effort would be lost by attaching a minimum wage amendment to the parks package. I repeatedly tried to get time to break the threatened filibuster but there was no support on the other side of the aisle. Utah wilderness is a recent addition to the Senate Calendar, as is the Presidio. All the other measures have been effectively held up by the Democratic leadership because obviously they did not want to take on the holds from one Senator. The situation was simple. If the Senator from New Jersey had not prevailed in both the House and Senate, then he was going to prevent any public land bills from being enacted. There were a few exceptions to that for which the Senator from Alaska is thankful, but it did not matter how important or critical to the National Park System they may be; in his opinion his measure was more important. That was his right. I respect him for his determination. But I want the Record also to reflect that I have tried my best to accommodate the interests of the Senator from New Jersey on Sterling Forest, but I am certainly not a magician. There are Members of the House who not only do not like the measure of the Senator from New Jersey, but they also have measures that they want. I hoped we could all get together to do something useful, or we could continue the stalemate. That appears to be where we are today. So, there are two sides to every issue. I think we have all tried to work within our respective areas to accommodate the various Senators and to recognize this for what it was, and that was a giant compromise. While working with my friend from New Jersey and the Senators from California on their measures, as well as colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I appreciate the fact that the other side has decided, evidently, for the political opportunism associated with the realization that we have the AFL-CIO come out and publicly endorse the Clinton administration and indicated its willingness to raise some $35 million to defeat Members on this side of the aisle who are running. Evidently, that was the momentum to put the minimum wage on the parks bill. I also appreciate the fact that the people of Utah are the real victims in this, in a sense, because it is their State that is in jeopardy with regard to the amount of wilderness. I commend those Senators here for speaking on behalf of their State in the interests of the majority of the residents of that State. We can either reestablish some sense of comity, or history is going to reflect this very important package of measures for the park system was killed, and the environment is the sufferer. Unfortunately, I do not think the media are going to pick up on the accuracy of this, but someday history will. I guess my unhappiness grew even greater when the two Senators from Massachusetts saw fit to basically drive a stake into the heart of this measure. I, again, went out of my way to include measures dealing with the Boston National Historical Park, Blackstone River Valley, which were items of great interest to the Senators from Massachusetts. I told the House there was no deal on this unless they were prepared to deal with those measures--not the measures just of the Senator from New Jersey, but the measures proposed by the Senators from Massachusetts. Apparently, they care more about the politicized potential of campaign contributions from organized labor than they do about the measures from their own State or other measures included in this package for the benefit of others. It is a political stunt, and it is an expensive political stunt, at the expense of the environment. So we are into it, and the consequences of that lead us to a vote that is going to take place in about 45 minutes on cloture. I, naturally, urge my colleagues to support cloture, but I am realistic enough to recognize this vote is going to be seen as a politically symbolic vote. It is going to have a reference to the minimum wage, which it certainly should not. This is a vote that should be on the merits associated with the parks package. What is the answer? Sterling Forest is going to lose, Presidio is going to lose, Utah wilderness is going to lose, and 47 other special park bills will not move. This is the problem with hostage taking: Either they all get freed or they all will die. I think it is time to get off the plastic pedestal and get down to the business of the Presidio and other measures. I will vote for Sterling Forest, I will vote for Presidio, I will vote for Utah wilderness, I will vote for the other measures in the package because of its overall good for the environment, good for the National Park System, and the good for the Nation. I think it is time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wake up and join me on what is good for the U.S. Senate, and that is to pass this package of compromise legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to continue our earlier discussion a little bit more. I remind this body of the pending business that is before the Senate, and that is a package of parks bills, some 56 titles, and a couple of them are contentious--Utah wilderness and Presidio. And as we look at getting things done around here, it is inconceivable to me that we would not finish what we started. We started yesterday with this parks package. It was scheduled to come up throughout the day. We had about 7\1/2\ hours of debate, good debate yesterday. Today, we were going to take amendments, and the first thing out of the box is the minimum wage. Putting aside the merits of the minimum wage, the question is, Why not finish what we started? The Utah wilderness debate is a legitimate issue for the State of Utah. The Presidio trust establishment is a legitimate issue for the State of California. The concern relative to Utah wilderness is whether or not 2 million acres of additional wilderness is adequate or, as some from the elitist group suggest, it should be 5 to 6 million acres. Currently, Utah has a pretty good chunk of wilderness. They have approximately 800,000 acres that is Forest Service wilderness. The proposed bill that we presented would increase that BLM wilderness classification to 2 million acres, making a total of 2.8 million. That is pretty significant, Mr. President, when you consider just how big a million acres of wilderness actually is. Few people recognize as they wander around in the great outdoors what a million acres of wilderness equates to. A million acres equates to a State the size of Delaware. Two million acres, what we are talking about, is about three times the size of the State of Rhode Island. Two million acres is about half the size of the State of New Jersey. With reference to the Utah wilderness, why they are somewhat reluctant to put in even more acreage is that there has been an extended study done as to what would be adequate in the minds of Utahns, the legislature, the Governor, and so forth. And I think some 15 years have been spent in the study, some $10 million expended to come up with the recommendation of 1.9 million. As I said before, the proposal here is 2 million acres. Now, Utah needs for its economy, for its infrastructure, funds coming from resource development. Some of these areas would be used for the production of resources to support the needs of Utah--the schools and various other long-term commitments to better the residents of that State. Some might wonder why I am speaking coming from the State of Alaska, but we, too, are affected by wilderness designations. We have 56 million acres of wilderness in our State of Alaska, so I know something about the topic. But, as we reflect on what is behind the issue, on one hand, of trying to reach an accord to get the 56 titles through that represent the parks in some 26 States, I encourage all my colleagues to remember the importance of standing behind this package. Because, if the Senate votes out this package, it will be accepted by the House. If the Utah wilderness is stricken, if the Presidio is stricken, why, the House has assured us, they are not even going to take it up. But the significance here is what the Utahns are trying to do to develop their economy and meet their school obligations by utilizing the resources in that State, the resources that, if additional wilderness is set aside beyond the 2 million acres, they are simply not going to be able to achieve their needs. Who are these folks who are proposing it should be 5 to 6 million acres? They are not residents of the State of Utah. They are some of the eastern elitists, who have moved their focus, if you will, from the West as being an area where there is great productivity and return for their investments, as they reside in the East, to easterners who look at the West as a great place to recreate. What we are talking about here is balance. We are trying to get a balance between preserving the wilderness and developing our resources and trying to address our jobs. As I hear my colleagues this morning talk about the minimum wage, I ask them where in the world are the jobs that we formerly had in resource development in this country? We have lost 600,000 jobs since 1980 in the oil and gas industry; 600,000 jobs. These are not minimum-wage jobs. These are high-paying union jobs, blue-collar jobs of the highest skills necessary to produce oil and gas. What have we done? We have relied on imports. We are bringing in, now, 54 percent of our crude oil. Mr. President, 54 percent of our crude oil consumption is imported. So, what we are doing is we are exporting our dollars, we are exporting our jobs, and we have lost 600,000 jobs since 1980. I do not see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying what can we do to stimulate domestic jobs in oil and gas production, where we have huge reservoirs simply ready to be tapped, we have the technology, we have the expertise to do it safely. They do not want to stand up and be counted, because some of the elitist groups might suggest we should not be developing oil and gas on public lands, we should not be generating revenue and taxes for the communities. They move over to the minimum wage, on a parks bill, and suggest that this is the issue for the Senate. This is not the business of the Senate. The business of the Senate is the 56 titles of the parks bill. Look at the timber industry. Timber is a renewable resource. Do you know why the U.S. Forest Service was established? It was established so we could have an ongoing supply of timber. It is up to us to determine whether the management is adequate or inadequate. We have lost 30,000 timber jobs in 10 years. How many communities did that affect? Lots and lots. As a consequence, I just am bewildered at my colleague's immediate jump to a minimum-wage increase with no consideration for the lost jobs in timber, mining, oil, gas, ranching--virtually every resource from public lands that has traditionally employed Americans in high-paying jobs. Where have the jobs gone to in the United States? They have gone to the service industry. They have gone to McDonald's. They have gone to the low pay, as we import the things we need, like our wood fiber. Some of the extreme elitists suggest we do not have to develop that in the United States, we can import it. But many of those countries do not have the same environmental sensitivity that we do in the United States. They are not developing their renewable resources with the same sensitivity that we are. So, I think it is a little inconsistent, as we listen to this debate today, particularly in view of the statement from my friend from Oklahoma that it is a bit coincidental, with the AFL-CIO in town, endorsing the current administration, committing $35 million out of the union members in this country for a political action effort. Where are those people when it comes to the basic, hard-core resource jobs of this country? They are not on this floor. They are not defending the right to use our science and technology to keep this job base that we have had in this country, that has made this country self-sufficient. Mr. President, 54 percent of our crude oil is imported. As I said, the dollars and jobs are going overseas. Over one-half the trade deficit is the cost of imported oil. There is absolutely no excuse for that. We are importing over 8 million barrels a day. The total cost to import that is $1 billion per week. We could have those jobs in the United States if we would recognize, as we look at our regulatory requirements, that they really do not keep pace with the technological advancements. To suggest we cannot open up oil and gas deposits safely with the technology that we have been developing is really selling American engineering and ingenuity short. I see the hour of 12:30 is almost upon us, Mr. President. I again remind my colleagues of the inappropriateness of trying to move a minimum-wage action on a parks bill, a parks bill that addresses some 25 States, 56 titles, and has been worked on for many, many years by many Members here and addresses the needs of many, many States. So, I urge my colleagues to refrain from the debate on the minimum wage to simply take advantage of the political opportunity associated with the presence of the AFL-CIO and their convention in town and their pledge of $35 million to the current administration and get back to the business of the Senate, which is this parks package, debate it, pass it, and move on. I am sure there will be a time and place for the minimum wage, but it is not on this parks bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Oklahoma relative to his concern over what the minimum wage will do if there is an increase. And I believe the increase proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is from $4.25 to $5.15. That is about 45 cents I believe over a 2-year period.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding competitive change in the electric power industry for Thursday, March 28 at 9:30 a.m. will be held in room SH-216, instead of room SR-325, as previously scheduled.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Wednesday, March 27, 1996, will receive testimony regarding S. 186, the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act, in addition to the legislation previously announced. The hearing 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 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765. committee on rules and administration

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that John Piltzecker be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1296.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the legislation under consideration today is probably the largest and, in my opinion, one of the most balanced environmental packages we have addressed in the Senate, at least in this Congress. This major legislative effort does, really, a number of things. It is proenvironment, it is profuture. I think it is fair to say that basically everybody wins. The bill represents a balance between protection of our parks and our public lands and the welfare of families and the economic well-being of the Nation and many local communities. Furthermore, Mr. President, it is a very reasonable attempt to fulfill a multiple-use concept and add to the wilderness some 2 million acres. Now, acreage, in the eyes of many, does not relate to anything, and perhaps I can put it in perspective. The State of Delaware is about 1 million acres. We are proposing to add 2 million acres in Utah. It is fair to say 2 million acres is about three times the size of the State of Rhode Island; 2 million acres of wilderness is about half the size of the State of New Jersey. Let me put this in a further perspective, Mr. President, as we address wilderness and what it means. In the State of New Jersey, there are 10,341 acres of wilderness. With this bill, we would be adding to Utah's 800,000 acres of wilderness another 2 million, making it 2.8 million, approximately. Another State that comes to mind in comparison is Arkansas. There are 127,000 acres of wilderness in the State of Arkansas. By this legislation, we would be adding 2 million in the State of Utah, again making it 2.8 million. My friend from Louisiana has 17,046 acres of wilderness in his state of Louisiana. I am not going to talk too much about my State of Alaska but will just mention in passing, we have 57 million acres of wilderness in the State of Alaska. We are proud of that wilderness. I think it is important in this debate that we keep this in a proportional comparison, because with New Jersey at 10,341, one wonders why there is not a little more wilderness in New Jersey. I will leave that to the Senator from New Jersey to explain. Mr. President, this bill contains over 50 measures affecting our parks, our national forests, and public lands. It is really a bipartisan endeavor. It addresses legislation introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle and represents a broad spectrum of interests from legislation dealing with everything from the Olympic games in Utah to the Sterling Forest in New York, to land exchanges in California, to boundary adjustments in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The legislation contains expanded authorities for the National Park Service which will contribute to more cost-effective management and add additional parklands for the protection and enjoyment of all Americans now and in the future. There are several land exchange proposals that will add environmentally sensitive lands to the Nation's public land inventory, as well as having the effect of rearranging scattered Federal land areas into manageable units that will be protected well into the future. The amendment starts with the Presidio, San Francisco. The title is a result of long hours of negotiation, long hours of bargaining and compromise. I made a visit to this military post on the San Francisco peninsula. The committee has been presented with a major challenge, and I am pleased to report to you that we, I think, have a realistic method to save this valuable historic asset. Let me recognize Representatives from the House, as well as those Members from the California delegation of the Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I know how much this particular legislation means, and we have been working with them to try and reach an accord. Mr. President, under this legislation, and over a period of time, the Federal appropriated dollars that made this park the most expensive operation in the National Park System, I am pleased, will be reduced over a period of time to basically zero. Federal dollars will be replaced with money and expertise from the private sector, and the private sector is willing and able to accomplish that. Mr. President, following the provisions affecting the Presidio, we have some 32 additional titles covering 53 separate measures, and now there have been three more for a total of 56. I trust that the staffs are responding this morning because I am going to go through the various titles and identify the States because, again, I want to emphasize that there is virtually an interest by each State in this package of titles. Here is the list of titles: Yucca House National Monument boundary adjustment (Colorado); Zion National Park boundary adjustment (Utah); Pictured Rocks National lakeshore boundary adjustment (Michigan); Independence National Historic Park boundary adjustment (Pennsylvania); Craters of the Moon National Monument boundary adjustment (Idaho); Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument boundary adjustment (Idaho); Wupatki National Monument boundary adjustment (Arizona); New River Gorge National River (West Virginia); Gauley River National recreation area (West Virginia); Bluestone National Scenic River (West Virginia); Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (Hawaii); Women's Rights National Historical Park (New York); Boston National Historical Park (Massachusetts); Cumberland Gap National Historic Park (Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee); William O. Douglas outdoor classroom (California); Limitation on park buildings (National Park service-wide); Appropriations for transportation of children (National Park service-wide); Federal burros and horses (National Park service-wide); Authorities of the Secretary relating to museums (National Park service-wide); Volunteers in the parks increase (National Park service- wide); Cooperative agreements for research purposes (National Park service-wide); Carl Garner Federal lands cleanup day (Federal lands-wide); Fort Pulaski National Monument (Georgia); Laura C. Hudson visitor center (Louisiana); United States Civil War Center (Louisiana); Title III--Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center (California); Title IV--Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Center (Colorado); Title V--Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act (Mississippi); Title VI--Walnut Canyon National Monument Boundary Modification (Arizona); Title VII--Delaware Water Gap (Pennsylvania, New Jersey); Title VIII--Targhee National Forest Land Exchange (Idaho, Wyoming); Title IX--Dayton Aviation (Ohio); Title X--Cache La Poudre (Colorado); Title XI--Gilpin County, Colorado Land Exchange (Colorado); Title XII--Butte County, CA. Land Conveyance (California); Title XIII--Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Federal lands-wide); Title XIV--Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange (Alaska); Title XV--Alaska Peninsula Subsurface Consolidation (Alaska); Title XVI--Sterling Forest (New York, New Jersey); Title XVII--Taos Pueblo Land Transfer (New Mexico); Title XVIII--Ski Fees (National Forest System-wide); Title XIX--Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail (Alabama); Title XX--Utah Wilderness (Utah); Title XXI--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon (Colorado); Title XXII--Snowbasin Land Exchange Act (Utah); Title XXIII--Colonial National Historical Park (Virginia); Title XXIV--Women's Rights National Historical Park (New York); Title XXV--Franklin D. Roosevelt Family Lands (New York); Title XXVI--Great Falls Historic District (New Jersey); Title XXVII--Rio Puerco Watershed (New Mexico); Title XXVIII--Columbia Basin (Washington); Title XXIX--Grand Lake Cemetery (Colorado); Title XXX--Old Spanish Trail (New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, California); Title XXXI--Blackstone River Valley (Massachusetts, Rhode Island); Title XXXII--Cuprum, Idaho Relief (Idaho); and Title XXXIII--Arkansas and Oklahoma Land Transfer (Arkansas, Oklahoma). So, you see, Mr. President, this has far-reaching effects, and I urge my colleagues to recognize and assess keeping this package together to ensure that it will be passed when it reaches the House. Mr. President, within the noncontroversial issues, as I have indicated, there are a host of minor boundary adjustments and small operational change authorizations requested by the Department of Interior. There are authorizations for historic trail studies, building and naming national park visitor centers, expansion of historical parks, and equal value land exchanges for the Department of Agriculture. We have also addressed survey problems, and we authorize the citizens of Grand Lake, CO, to maintain their own town cemetery. It just happens to lie inside the boundaries of the Rocky Mountain National Park. There are other noncontroversial measures, each benefiting one or more segments of our society. Mr. President, by far, the most controversial component of the package that we are considering is the title dealing with the Utah wilderness. Mr. President, it is suggested that if Winston Churchill were a Member of this body, he would have said, ``Never have so few done so much to confuse so many.'' It is our collective responsibility, I think, to look past the smoke screen that has been framed by extreme elitist types on the Utah wilderness issue. Under the provisions of this bill, the Nation gains some 2 million acres of new wilderness. The lands under consideration meet the legislatively mandated definition of what wilderness should be. These are truly land masses that retain their primeval character and their influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable, just as the act tells us the requirements must be. We have the benefit of extensive studies and efforts poured into defining exactly what lands should and should not be included in the wilderness system for Utah. This whole issue was initiated by an act of Congress under the terms and conditions contained within the Federal Land Planning and Management Act. The effort was carried out by professional subject matter experts working for the Federal Government, not political appointees. In other words, Mr. President, this was done by professionals working for the Federal Government, but independent of the political influences associated with political appointees. That is not the case on the current recommendations that are coming from the other side to increase this wilderness in the area of 5 million acres. Mr. President, the Bureau of Land Management study and final report cost the taxpayers of this country in excess of $10 million. It took more than 15 years to complete. This process, which was carried out in the full light of the public land planning process, included input from some 16,000 written comments, and there were over 75 formal public hearings on this question of Utah wilderness. The study processed was open to every citizen of the United States. It was well-defined criteria, and well documented. Appeals and protests rights were well publicized and used by groups of people on both sides of the issue. At the culmination of this process, those independent professionals recommended the inclusion of 1.9 million acres. This legislation recommends 2 million acres on the nose. Those Federal employees in that open process spoke basically for every citizen in this country who participated in the Utah wilderness process. The process followed the rules that, I remind my colleagues, are extensively articulated in both the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Land Planning and Management Act. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, seems to want to ignore the advice of his own professional managers. Here is the record of decision, Mr. President, the Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report that substantiates the recommendations that it be 2 million acres. So the Secretary has decided to ignore that. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is important to note that throughout the committee deliberations on this issue the Secretary did not offer one constructive comment--not one single comment--nor did he direct his legions to put forth an alternative. He was silent except for his exchanges with the media. So here we have a Secretary that objects to this even after some $10 million and 15 years, and comes up with no suggested alternative. That brings me to the point which I find very, very disturbing. I personally received from the Secretary, not directly but through the news media, a letter. This letter contains the passage that if the Utah wilderness provision contained in this bill prevails he would recommend that the President veto the entire bill. This did not come in the mail, Mr. President. Again, the Secretary offered no other constructive alternative to the wilderness proposal. I do not know. Maybe he wanted to save stamps and figured that the media would deliver his message. Well, they did deliver his message. I put a copy that we finally received into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed. I add that this did not come in the mail.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over 93 percent of the State legislators and county elected officials in Utah did not misread public opinion at home. If we were talking about New Jersey, the Senator's State, and Federal elected Representatives took the identical stance in support of their constituency, my good friend from New Jersey would occupy the Senate floor for the next month defending their rights, and I would admire that, against the intervention of a Senator from another State who represents only a few special interests. So let us keep this in perspective, Mr. President. New Jersey has 10,341 acres of wilderness, Arkansas has 127,000, and Utah, with this provision, will have 2.8 million acres of wilderness. Further, reference has been made by the Senator from New Jersey in a press statement dated March 22 saying that ``20 million acres of Utah lands can never be designated as wilderness in the future.'' He then goes on to say: ``If it becomes law, it would permit the transformation of these lands from wilderness to strip mines, roads and commercial development.'' Come on, Mr. President. These statements are scare tactics. They are untrue. They are unrealistic. Congress, as the Senator from New Jersey knows, can at any time revisit this issue and designate additional wilderness. The field professionals after 15 years of study, review and court cases, found that 20 million acres do not meet the strict definition of wilderness. Under the act, these lands are not wilderness but many do qualify under other designations. The BLM is already using other management schemes on much of this acreage, including designated areas of critical environmental concerns, outstanding natural areas, natural landmarks, research, national areas, wild and scenic rivers, national trails, primitive areas, visual resources, management class 1 areas, and each of these designations offer a host of protected measures. To suggest that the residents of and visitors to Utah will desecrate these lands or to imply that the Federal managers will turn their eyes when this destruction descends upon us is simply a gross exaggeration of facts. One only has to visit Utah, view the lands, look at the national parks and the forests and the State lands that have been set aside to know that they care about their resources. They were protecting these lands long before the elitists arrived on the scene. For those lands which might be developed, and there will be some, there are additional protections. To suggest the enactment of this bill would destroy 20 million acres contributes little fact to this debate and only brings it up to a hysteric level. The list of Federal laws and State laws I previously submitted for the Record still must be complied with. If these lands will not afford protection, why do we have them? Further, much has been made of the holds on this legislation and the consequences associated therewith. I have worked with my good friend from New Jersey from time to time, and we have reached accords from time to time, not necessarily all the time by any means. But I noticed a ``Dear Colleague'' the Senator from New Jersey sent around was joined by some 17 Members of this body, and it stated: Many of us have provisions important to our respective States within the omnibus parks legislation. The letter goes on to say: They need to be uncoupled from the Utah wilderness provision. The majority of these bills were placed on the calendar of the Senate on April 7, 1995, almost a year ago. They have been on the calendar almost a year. The Senator from New Jersey could have let these environmental bills, land bills, make their way to the House and to the President months ago. Unfortunately, for reasons of his own, he chose not to do so. The direct result of those actions is this package. The Senator from New Jersey, by his own actions, is the ghost writer of this bill that we are considering. So as we look at where to finger the delay and why there is a package, I think we should ask the Senator from New Jersey to explain why he would put a hold on virtually every bill of this nature coming through the process starting back to when it was introduced and placed on the calendar in 1995. I have accommodated many times the Senator from New Jersey on interests of his, certainly on the Sterling Forest, a bill, I might add, that is not totally without some controversy, and, in my opinion, there is reason that he should attempt to accommodate others. When this bill passes, Mr. President, Americans will get 2 million acres of new wilderness, and there is nothing in this legislation that will prevent another Congress from adding additional lands in Utah to the wilderness inventory. I think it is appropriate that we take this discussion a little further and find out just who and what and why this onslaught of well- financed propaganda by a small group of elitists in opposition to this bill. This has come up in the forms of expensive full-page ads, calls from telephone banks, multicolored brochures, posters, a raft of letter writing campaigns. There was an editorial from the San Francisco Examiner, one example, suggesting that I am the guy who caused the Presidio bill to be held hostage and added on the riders. I am not the guy, Mr. President. It suggested that this bill is a Christmas tree of special goodies, including, the inference was, opening up ANWR, the Alaska Arctic oil reserve. This bill does not have anything to do with Alaskan oil. It is not even mentioned in the bill and the San Francisco Examiner should know that. But they chose to make an issue and draw a parallel, when none existed. I think that is irresponsible reporting. I am attempting to get these bills moving in the direction of the White House. Without this effort, the Presidio will not pass Congress. It needs to be passed, as do other titles, and they are all important to our colleagues. That is just the hard, cold fact existing on the other side, the House side. There is a small group of elitists, self-anointed saviors of the West, perhaps the Senator from New Jersey is among them, who would prefer to see the entire package of noncontroversial, needed measures simply choked together, because they do not want to see 2 million acres added to the Nation's wilderness inventory. They want 5 million acres, 6 million acres, or nothing. Environmentalism is big business. I am going to show some charts here, to show just how big it is. The campaigns of this big business enterprise, the environmental lobby, are well financed, well staffed. They attach themselves rapidly to any issue that expands more membership, will raise more money for their coffers. They almost consume their causes. I am not suggesting the causes are not meritorious in many cases. But, by the same token, I do want to point out the significance of just how large these organizations have become and why they would dwell on an issue such as Utah wilderness. Here we have environmental organizations, their revenues, their expenses, their assets, and the fund balances. These are the 12 major environmental organizations in the United States. There are more. I am not suggesting this is the entire list. We have the Nature Conservancy--these figures are as of fiscal 1993. I suspect they are higher now. These are the last figures we were able to generate. If you look at the revenue generated--$278 million; expenses, $219 million; assets, basically what they own, $915 million; and fund balances, $855 million. Then you go to the National Wildlife Federation. Let us just look at the fund balances: $13 million; World Wildlife Fund, $39 million; Greenpeace, $23 million; Sierra Club, $14 million; the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, $5.9 million; National Audubon Society, $61 million; Environmental Defense Fund, $5 million; Natural Resources Defense Council, $11 million; Wilderness Society, $4 million; National Parks and Conservation Association, $769,000; Friends of the Earth, they are not doing too well looks like; Izaak Walton League of America, $414,000. If we just look these up we will get an idea of the significance of these groups, in their totality. The revenue, $633 million; expenses, they expend about $556 million. Their assets, what they own, $1.2 billion. That would be among the Fortune 500. Fund balances, over $1 billion. Let us look at some of the salaries paid, because I think, here again, this reflects on the significance that these groups are big business. The Nature Conservancy, John Sawhill, this is, I believe, as of 1994, $185,000. I think the President's salary is somewhere in the area of a little over $200,000. So here we have salaries, the National Wildlife Federation, Jay Hair, $242,000, more than the President of the United States; World Wildlife Fund, $185,000; Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, $106,000; Environmental Defense Fund, $193,000; National Resources Defense Council, $145,000; National Parks and Conservation Association, $185,000. I think these show, in detail, the significance of just how big the environmental communities' efforts and organizations have become. Mr. President, I have another chart here. While staff is getting it, I want to amplify, again, the fact that these organizations need legitimate causes. The question of how extreme, how far is there room for compromise, is a legitimate question here. The State of Utah has proposed adding 2 million acres. But that is not enough, environmentalists want 5 or 6 million. They generate extreme reasons, in my opinion, inflammatory suggestions, suggesting that the residents of the State cannot be trusted, are irresponsible. I just do not buy that. I think we have to recognize their legitimate contribution, and when they are off line and unrealistic, take them to task. It is interesting to note the investments of these organizations. I wish I had a third chart to show, but I am going to have it printed in the Record of investment summaries, the market value of these organizations as they invest in stocks, bonds. And I am also going to have printed in the Record the benefits associated with the officers, directors, the salaries and wages, the pension plans and the other employee benefits which clearly substantiate my claim that this is now big business. I am also going to have printed in the Record the major corporate contributors to these organizations. In some cases that is rather amusing, because we find a direct contrast between the objectives and efforts of some of the organizations and some of the donors who, you would think, would have conflicting points of view. But I will leave that up to them to explain. So, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the major corporate contributors, the officers' income, staff, wages and benefits, executive compensation, environmental organization incomes, and a list of the top 12 organizations, be printed in the Record from the report of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise entitled, ``Getting Rich, the Environmental Movement's Income, Salary, Contributor, and Investment Patterns, With an Analysis of Land Trust Transfers of Private Land to Government Ownership.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I indicated, out of necessity, these organizations have to consume their causes, and Utah wilderness currently is one of their causes. We have seen their efforts in mining reform, just last week in grazing reform, and the week before the forest issue. Now they have turned their efforts to Utah wilderness. I do not mind constructive input. It is invaluable in the development of quality legislation. It is good for everyone, but this type of big business, well-financed campaigns that they establish are really not constructive. It is a case of ``We're going to protect you from yourselves whether it is good for you or not, but we're going to do it at your own expense.'' Mr. President, I think it is time to get real. I would like to chat a little bit about Sterling Forest, because while I support the proposal of my friend from New Jersey, it is not without some exceptions. The purpose of title XVI is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission in order to facilitate the acquisition of the Sterling Forest in New York. I am not sure what the status is, but I am sure my friend from New Jersey will tell us, if this bill goes through, in what status that land will be held. The 17.5 million dollars authorized by this legislation states that funds may be transferred to the commission only to the extent that they are matched with funds contributed by non-Federal sources. So the State of New York and the State of New Jersey are going to have to, obviously, contribute funds. The funds may only be used for the procurement of conservation easements along--this is where it gets interesting, Mr. President-- along the Appalachian Trail. That is National Park Service administered but privately owned which runs through the Sterling Forest but not in the same watershed that they are currently trying to protect. So, it is interesting to pick up that difference. In actuality, scarce Federal appropriated funds are being used to trigger the flow of appropriated funds from New York and New Jersey. While the protection of the States' watershed may be meritorious, there are higher priorities currently within the National Park Service that need to be addressed. Notwithstanding my concerns, the Senator from New Jersey was accommodated, and I support his efforts in this regard because I recognize that he is from that State, he is held responsible by his constituents, and he ought to know what is best for his State and, as a consequence, I am going to support the Sterling Forest, as I have indicated to him. But it is technically not just a home run or a couple of free throws. The Federal funds may only be used for the procurement of conservation easements along the Appalachian Trail, which is Park Service administered but privately owned, which runs through the Sterling Forest but not in the same watershed that they are trying to protect. So, Mr. President, we have a situation before us where this is really not a debate about the merit of adding 2 million acres of new wilderness to the national inventory. This is really a battle between some of the well-financed elitists and the people who live in the State of Utah. Would the world be better off with 2 million acres of wilderness? I believe it would. Would we be better off with an additional 3 million acres that did not meet the definition of wilderness? I think not. Unfortunately, the playing field does not happen to be level. We find ourselves being tied up by a group of elitists. This debate is really a difference of opinion between the well-financed elitist lobby who wants all or nothing and the rest of us who are looking for resource protection and balance and trying to represent the people of the affected States. As I have indicated and the chart shows, this is a well-financed lobby. Environmentalism is big business, as the chart shows, and, as a consequence, it does show that environmental money does go for the purpose of protecting the environment, while at the same time it shows that little goes to achieve balance, compromise or resolution. As I have indicated, the environmental community does need a cause for additional membership, for added dollars. As I have indicated, this week it is Utah wilderness, last week it was grazing, before that timber. Let me reflect, finally, on how the people of Utah, as they look to the future of their State--a relatively large Western State, 52 million acres of land--proposes to increase the wilderness by some 2 million acres, increasing that to a special classification of wilderness which would be BLM wilderness of 2 million acres and Forest Service wilderness of 800,000 acres. The overwhelming base of support, as evidenced by the statements from those in Utah, and the realization that here we are with a package that can meet its objective in adding wilderness to Utah, that can meet its objective with regard to the concerns of my friend from New Jersey, who, at least to this Senator, has established himself as perhaps the self-anointed savior of the West, but, again, I ask, who does he really represent with regard to this issue? Is it the big environmental groups that have no compassion, no understanding, no willingness to negotiate a reasonable settlement that has been identified time and time again as being in the interest of the people? And is this a continued attack on resource development on public land, whether it be grazing, timber, or mining? Is it going to be concessions next? Is this the attitude prevailing from this administration? As we look at resource development in this country, we recognize that we are exporting dollars, we are exporting jobs overseas, and as we depend more and more on imports, our current balance-of-payment deficit is half of the cost of imported oil. Fifty-four percent of our oil is now imported. We are increasing our timber and wood fiber imports. We are losing high-paying, blue-collar jobs. Can we not, through science and technology, continue to develop our resources in a responsible manner? That is what the people of Utah are talking about, relative to the additional acreage that they want to use for their school system, for the education of their children. It seems to me that we should listen to the people of Utah today, Mr. President. They are not extreme. They are not elitists. They are realists. They know what they need for their State. They have recommended 2 million acres of wilderness. It is a responsible compromise. So, Mr. President, as we go through this debate throughout the day, and perhaps a portion tomorrow, I encourage all Members to look at this package, recognize it for what it is, an attempt to accommodate some 17 or 18, close to 20 States, with individual recommendations on land within their States, recognizing the significance of including the Presidio in this package and the realization that the trust that has been formed to manage the Presidio under the scope of this legislation is realistic, it will work, it will take the burden off of the Federal Government. Last, this legislation will meet the needs of the people of Utah. Modifications to Amendment No. 3564

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it would add provisions for the Big Thicket in Texas, the Big Horn County school district in Wyoming, a right-of-way in Wyoming, the Tallgrass provisions in Kansas. I think that takes it up to nearly 60, Mr. President. I do not think further reading is required.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk. I ask that each of the measures be added at the appropriate place, and the titles and section numbers be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my point is an obvious one--that there are plenty of safeguards to ensure that that land will be developed in a responsible manner. The citizens of Utah have proven that they are responsible and good stewards of their land. Irresponsible development does not support, obviously, the school system, and the future of the State of Utah, as is any other State, is the children. They obviously need the benefits of a good educational system and some development. Some of this land will be utilized for that purpose. But to suggest somehow that it is an irresponsible act, the development of the land will be done irresponsibly, defies logic. This bill benefits the local communities in Utah. It provides them with access to resources promised to them when they were first granted the school section concept. I need only to remind my colleagues that those who oppose this addition to the wilderness system are, in my opinion, those who have absolutely no consideration for maintaining a vibrant economy. Look at some areas of the United States where we had difficulties--poverty, lack of jobs. Appalachia comes to mind. We can look to Afghanistan and certain areas of South America, economically depressed portions of the planet, and there is an easy connection to be drawn. It is a reality that people do not have a future. They do not have the opportunity for jobs. There is no tax base. As a consequence, a situation like that needs to be recognized and corrected. That is why in this legislation, the State of Utah has the flexibility to make the determinations on their own as to what is best for their own people and their own State. So, Mr. President, we simply must not divorce the concept of environmental protection from the economic health of our citizens and the communities within which they live. Economic well-being enhances the environment. It certainly does not destroy it. I think you have to have good schools, well-educated young Americans, and good job opportunities. Then we can truly have the means and the knowledge to meet our environmental responsibilities. You do not do it in a vacuum. Again, Mr. President, the Nation gains some 2 million acres of pristine national treasure; the residents of Utah gain schools, education, and a protected environment. In my opinion, there is no better quid pro quo. We are going to have an extended debate here, Mr. President. But there are a couple of other things that I would like to add to the opening statement that I think make reference to the realities that we are faced with. There has been a suggestion by some in the media and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there have been delays in putting this legislation together and that somehow the responsibility should rest with those of us on this side of the aisle. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that the bills in this package have been held in limbo for several months. The end result of this inaction has produced a logjam of legislative proposals that have been collecting sawdust around here. But the reality of this logjam is the fact that Senate passage of one bill will not occur until there is an action on another and then another and so on down the line. The bottom line is everyone gets something or everyone gets nothing. That is where we are with this package today. As I have indicated, there are some 56 areas that are affected here. If we can take this package together and move it, it will pass and be accepted in the House of Representatives and move on to the President. But if we start unwinding, I can assure you that set of facts is not going to prevail. The bottom line is that you cannot send the Presidio to the House minus the provisions concerning Utah. I guess we could sit around here today and tomorrow rearranging the deck chairs all we want, but if the Titanic leaves port without that deck chair the results are predictable. Presidio will die and all of the other titles of the bill will die, too. I am going to be specific because I think it is appropriate relative to the concerns that are going to be expressed today in the extended debate. I wish to talk specifics about the Utah wilderness bill. I know my colleagues from Utah will go on at great length, but my good friend from New Jersey has made a point of indicating his dissatisfaction with the proposed resolve of 2 million acres being added to the wilderness of Utah, and he has made the point in his press releases that our public lands belong to all Americans. I certainly agree with that. But he goes on to say that they should never be given away to a few special interests. Mr. President, I do not consider the people of Utah ``a few special interests.'' While I am a Senator from Alaska, I happen to have a little spot in Utah where occasionally I go skiing, so you might say I have my own vested interest in Utah. I am a taxpayer there. I do not pretend to have the expertise of my colleagues who are going to speak later, but by the same token I think I have equal expertise to that of my friend from Utah. I do not consider the people of Utah a special interest. The residents of Utah are represented by their elected officials. I have a letter which shows that 26 of the 29 State senators support the provisions of this bill. The letter from the house chamber of the Utah State Legislature shows that 64 out of 75 house members support the designation of wilderness in this bill. Finally, I have a letter which shows that all of the elected county officials, all of the officials in 26 out of the 29 counties support the legislation as written. It is interesting to note that in the 27th county, five out of seven commissioners support the bill. The letter contains over 310 signatures of county elected officials. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I just referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I still have not received the original letter from the Secretary. I find these events indicative of some of the attitudes that this administration--or some in this administration--seems to have for the Congress and the people who will benefit by the passage of this legislation. Playing in the media is only self-serving. It does not serve the public. Unfortunately, some of the media seemed to not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and find out just what the facts are. I hope they will search them out with regard to this package that is so important to the lands in the United States. It is true that some of these lands in the State of Utah that they are going to receive in the exchange authorized under this legislation may be developed, but very little. It will not be developed irresponsibly. I think we can trust the people of Utah in that regard. The moneys generated from some of these lands go to Utah schools and institutions. Some opponents of the legislation suggest that the land will be ruined and developed beyond recognition. I know that my colleagues are aware of all of the safeguards that are still in place under both Federal and State laws, and they are almost too numerous to mention, Mr. President. But I think it is important that we recognize just what the significance of these checks and balances are because they are numerous. To suggest that somehow Utah will have the flexibility to irresponsibly develop this land defies logic, Mr. President. I am going to submit for the Record legislative authorities involving the Bureau of Land Management, the General Public Lands Management Act, the general environmental laws. They consist of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, Classification of Multiple Use Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Noise Control Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Oil Pollution Act, National Environmental Education Act, on and on and on. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see no other Senator wishing to be recognized. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate now, I send a cloture motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning my friend from New Jersey reflected a little history of public lands. I listened intently, and while I appreciate his point of view, I suggest there are two points of view relative to the history of public lands and the transition that has occurred in this country. Under the Northwest Ordinance, which, as a matter of fact, predated the Constitution, the prevailing philosophy was simply to dispose of lands either to the States or the territories or to private individuals. And as the several States obtained their inheritance, they for obvious reasons began to lose interest in further Federal transfers. In other words, they had achieved what they wanted. Mr. President, this goes back to the period of about 1788 when this Northwest Ordinance prevailed. So they lost the incentive once they received their land and further Federal transfers simply were not necessary. The State of Arkansas obtained over 11 million acres from the Federal Government, over one-third of its total acreage. Only about 3 percent of New Jersey currently is in Federal ownership. So the history of public lands is a history of those States, mainly the Eastern States, that have already obtained the lands needed for their schools, their roads, their economy, and other purposes. Then we have the Western States and territories that basically remain captive to the Federal Government and the interests of those Eastern States. The definition of ``West,'' as we all know, steadily moved west. It moved from what was West, in 1790, Ohio, to Utah and my State of Alaska in 1990. According to the 1984 BLM public lands statistics, Florida obtained over 24 million acres from 1803 to 1984 out of a total of 34 million acres in that entire State. Arkansas, as I mentioned, obtained over one-third of its entire acreage. Now, there was a time when the State of New Jersey looked at the western lands as a source of raising money for needs in New Jersey--roads and docks, the harbors, other public works in New Jersey--and there was a time when New Jersey wanted the western lands basically to feed its industry. It was a concept that is not unknown to us, Mr. President. The Eastern States had the capital base, and where did they look? They looked to the West to put that capital to work in investments that could generate a handsome return because the money centers at that time were in the East, as they are today for the most part. So the eastern at that time, I think it is fair to say, elitists chose to invest in the West and generate a return, and they could continue to live in the more luxurious lifestyle that existed in the East because the West was considered pretty much a frontier. So States like New Jersey and New York invested in western lands to feed, if you will, the fruits associated with the productivity of the West. Now we have seen a change in that, a rather remarkable change. Let us be realistic and recognize New Jersey and other States now want western lands not necessarily as a return on the investment that was initially generated there, although some of it is fourth and fifth generation wealth, but they look at the West as a playground, a recreation area for themselves and others of that elitist group. If the State of Utah is unable to use its school lands to fund education, that is even better, because then Utah will become even more dependent on the Federal Government and the preferred social agenda of Washington, DC. Make no mistake about it. This is not unique to the State of Utah. Those of us who are westerners question when is enough enough. There has been no change in the policy of some of these eastern seaboard States and many of the other original States from 1790 until now. What has changed is what they want western lands for. There would be a considerable difference if New Jersey as a State were 63 percent owned by the Federal Government, like Utah, but it is not. The State of New Jersey is only 3 percent owned by the Federal Government, so it has the luxury to assume that two-thirds of Utah is, one might interpret, for the private pleasure of the residents of New Jersey. We can get into a long discussion over the various conservation measures mentioned by the Senator from New Jersey, but I think the Senate should remember that the primary purpose of the national forests--a lot of us seem to have forgotten this--the primary purpose of the national forests, when they were withdrawn from public domain, was simply to ensure a steady supply, a renewable supply, of timber. That is almost seen as a joke today, but that was the concept; the forests were to be conserved, used, and managed to provide a steady supply of timber. The Wilderness Act, speaking of history, was originally intended to set aside pristine areas, untrammeled areas where mankind was not evident. Now, in our zealous efforts, we seem to be ready to put almost anything into wilderness--roads, structures. Whatever the objective, a wilderness designation is not to preserve pristine areas but to prevent other uses that some organization or group wants to prevent. So, I hope, as we reflect on history, we do reflect on this dichotomy associated with the traditions of the influence of the Eastern States, which have virtually no public land in those States, which have virtually no wilderness in those States, setting the precedent for the rest of the Nation. I am going to try to leave us with a little understanding of what this business of public land and wilderness land is all about, reflecting on how some States, like mine, enjoy a significant amount of wilderness. My State of Alaska has 365 million total acres. We are 2\1/ 2\ times the size of the State of Texas. I am glad my friends from Texas are not here to be reminded of that. Out of that 365 million acres, we have 57.4 million acres of wilderness. That is quite a bit of wilderness. We are proud of that wilderness. We take good care of that wilderness. But we think enough is enough. If you took the State of Arkansas with 33 million acres of wilderness, you add the State of New Jersey with 4.8 million acres, West Virginia with 15 million acres, Vermont with 5 million acres, you come up with about 57 million acres--equal to what is in my State of Alaska. So there are four States. The difference here is we are not talking about wilderness in Arkansas, New Jersey, West Virginia, or Vermont. We are talking about their total acreage. So I do not want to mislead the Presiding Officer when I say Alaska has 57 million acres of wilderness out of 365 million acres. If you take the entire landmass of the State of Arkansas at 33 million, New Jersey 4.8, West Virginia 15, and Vermont 5, you come up with a combined area of 57.8 million acres for those four States. That equates to what is in my State alone as wilderness. Let us go one step further. Let us look at some of these States and recognize that Arkansas has 33 million acres in its entire State, 120,378 acres in wilderness--not very much. New Jersey has 4.8 million acres in the entire State, 10,341 acres of wilderness. Let us compare that with Utah. Utah has 52 million acres in the State, 890,858 acres of wilderness, and we are proposing to add 2 million to that, that would be 2.9 million acres of wilderness in the State, 891,000 managed by the Forest Service and 2 million under BLM wilderness. I think it is important that we reflect on those comparisons. The States in question with large wilderness acreage, outside of the State of Alaska, include Arizona at 4.5 million acres, California at 5.9 million acres, Colorado at 2.6 million acres, Florida at 1.4 million acres, Idaho at 4 million acres, Minnesota at 805,000, Montana at 3.4 million acres, New Mexico at 1.6 million acres, Oregon at a little over 2 million acres, Washington at 4.2 million acres, and Wyoming at 3 million acres. So, by this action we would be creating in Utah wilderness equal to that existing in Wyoming today. What about some of the other States? Interestingly enough--and I hope my colleagues from Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island are listening, because these six States that have no wilderness. There is no wilderness in Connecticut, no wilderness in Delaware, no wilderness in Iowa, no wilderness in Kansas, no wilderness in Maryland, and no wilderness in Rhode Island. How do you suppose that came about? It came about, as I indicated in my opening remarks, when those States that have been around a long time--when the Northwest Ordinance philosophy prevailed, back in 1788-- acquired their land. That is where it ended. Now these States are saying we do not want any wilderness in our State. We want the wilderness out West. I think everybody ought to have a little wilderness. I think, before I get out of this body, I am going to propose some legislation that every State have a little wilderness. They can designate where it is. Maybe Sterling Forest should be a wilderness. Perhaps the States of New York and New Jersey could designate this transfer of land into a wilderness. It is going to be used as a watershed. Why not make it a wilderness? Another curious consideration is, who owns the States? Alabama is 3 percent owned by the Federal Government, Alaska 68 percent owned by the Federal Government; Arizona, 47 percent; Arkansas, 8 percent; California, 44 percent; Colorado, 36; Connecticut, 1 percent; Delaware, 2 percent; District of Columbia, 26 percent. I am surprised it is not higher. Florida, 9 percent; Georgia, 4 percent owned by the Federal Government; Hawaii, 16 percent. You get to Idaho, 62 percent of Idaho's landmass is owned by the Federal Government; Illinois, 3 percent; Indiana, 2; Iowa, 1; Kansas, 1; Kentucky, 4; Louisiana, 3 percent; Maine, 1 percent; Maryland, 3; Massachusetts, 1; Michigan, 13; Minnesota, 10; Mississippi, 4. These are extraordinary comparisons with the prevalence of Federal ownership being out West. Missouri is 5 percent owned by the Federal Government; Montana, 28; Nebraska, 1; Nevada, 83 percent owned by the Federal Government; New Hampshire, 13; New Jersey, 2 percent; New Mexico, 33; New York, 1--New York 1--North Carolina, 6; North Dakota, 4; Ohio, 1 percent; Oklahoma, 2 percent; Oregon, 52 percent owned by the Federal Government; Pennsylvania, 2 percent; Rhode Island, 1 percent; South Carolina, 5 percent; South Dakota, 6 percent, Tennessee, 4 percent; Texas, the second largest State in the Union, Mr. President, has only 1 percent of its landmass owned by the Federal Government. Clearly, when they came into the Union, they made certain conditions prevail relative to ownership, and the Federal Government today owns 1 percent of the land mass of Texas, compared with Utah, which is 64 percent; Vermont, 6 percent; Virginia, 6 percent; Washington, 29 percent owned; West Virginia, 7; Wisconsin, 10; Wyoming, 49. So there you have it, Mr. President, a comparison of the States. Now we look at the merits of adding 2 million acres to Utah wilderness, as recommended by the delegation from Utah and a vast majority of the Utah Legislature, both the house and senate and the Governor. I think it is also interesting to note that the process that occurred in Utah did not happen by accident. It happened as a result of a number of meetings that were held and the consensus that was developed there over an extended period of time. As the record indicates, some $10 million was spent reaching the point we are at today, evaluating just what would be appropriate for the State of Utah; 15 years went into that study; 16,000 written comments were processed; 75 formal public hearings were held. This was a process that was open to the public throughout the United States, professionals were hired to make the recommendation of 1.9 million, and today we have a proposal of 2 million acres in the Utah wilderness. As I indicated to my friend from New Jersey this morning, the matter of Sterling Forest is also somewhat contentious, as evidenced by the consideration of some of the specifics, which I will share with my colleagues. But nevertheless, I support the Senator from New Jersey in his efforts, because I believe he has to answer to his constituents, and I believe it is fair to say that both the Senators from New Jersey support the Sterling Forest. I respect that process. But I think the Record should note who owns the Sterling Forest. Sterling Forest is currently owned by the Swiss Insurance Group of Zurich. They signed a purchase agreement with the Swiss company for the property in June 1995. What is it valued at? I am told it is valued somewhere between $55 and $65 million. How much would it cost if we were to buy it? The request in the legislation of the Senator from New Jersey is for Federal participation of about $17.5 million. This will be the Federal figure regardless of the total purchase price. The balance of the purchase price is going to be paid by the States of New York and New Jersey and the private sector. I understand about 2,400 acres of Sterling Forest rests in New Jersey. The balance is in New York. There are those who might think Sterling Forest is just that, an ancient growth forest, but Sterling Forest has been logged. What you have there today is second growth. Hardwood logging has taken place. I thought I would ask the question, When was it last logged? The answer was, it is currently being logged, Mr. President, by the Sterling Forest Corp., a subsidiary of the Swiss Insurance Group of Zurich. If the Sterling Forest is acquired, of course, logging is not continued, and that is really the business of the delegation from New Jersey. The primary reason for purchasing Sterling Forest, as I understand, appreciate and support, is to protect the watershed. Hunting would be allowed. So if anybody wants further information with regard to the situation in Sterling Forest, why, I am sure the Senator from New Jersey will be happy to provide it. If not, we have the address and phone number of the Zurich Reinsurance Center in New York, the principals to contact. I do not put this out as a criticism; I simply put it out as a reality that here we have an acquisition taking place in the best interest of clearly the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. There are about 30 square miles, 19,200 acres are in New York and about 2,400, as I have mentioned, in New Jersey. It is also my understanding that what we are purchasing here are certain easements owned and managed by the U.S. Park Service that are in the Appalachian trail area but that triggers, if you will, a process whereby New York and New Jersey will come up with the additional funding, and that would be somewhere in the area of $40 or $45 million to acquire the land. It is also interesting to note Sterling Forest has roads through it and other access, so it is pretty hard to suggest, perhaps, that it be made a wilderness. Nevertheless, I think it is important that as this watershed is addressed, relative to its use as a watershed, that as much of the wilderness characteristics as possible be retained for the benefit of the citizens of New York, as well as the citizens of New Jersey. A lot of people do not really appreciate what 1 million acres equates to in size. We are talking about adding 2 million acres of wilderness in Utah. One million acres is equal to the size of the State of Delaware. If we are talking about 2 million acres, we are looking at three times the size of the State of Rhode Island. Two million acres is about half the size of the State of New Jersey, so it is a big chunk of real estate. Unless you have some idea of acreage or the vastness of wilderness, you have no idea as to the significance of what that large a piece of real estate is. As I indicated in my remarks, for those who come from States that have little or virtually no wilderness or States with little, if any, Federal ownership of their land, it is difficult for those Members to have an appreciation of what it means to designate an additional area the size of 2 million acres. While many of us support adding 2 million acres to wilderness, that is not enough for the advocates here who want 5 to 6 million acres of wilderness. They do not seem to care about the ability of the State of Utah to support its schools, support its economy. All they see is a vision out there that tells them somehow this is not enough. As I have indicated, Mr. President, as you look at the comparisons, what is enough? What is reasonable? What is balanced? The people of Utah, in their own good judgment, after $10 million and 15 years, have indicated, 1.9 million acres. The legislation proposes 2 million acres. Mr. President, as we look at the history of Western public lands, little is said about the economy of the region. What happens to the jobs? We cannot all be employed by the Federal Government. Who pays the taxes? We have resources in the West that have fueled the economy of this Nation for a long time. Where we are lax, Mr. President, is in not recognizing that science and technology has given us the opportunity to develop our resources better, more efficiently, with more compatibility with the environment, the ecology. As we address new and better ways to develop those resources, we seem reluctant to go back and review those of our laws that protect these areas. We did not update our environmental laws. We did not seem eager to look at cost-benefit risk analysis to determine, indeed, if it is practical to develop one resource or another. So what we have here, Mr. President, is a fast-developing technology. The minute you attempt to look at more efficient ways of cutting timber, of mining, grazing, oil and gas development, it is suggested that you are irresponsibly unwinding the advancements that have been made in the environment. Mr. President, the water is cleaner, the air is cleaner, we can do a better job. But we still need to maintain a balance. That balance dictates a healthy economy. Only with a healthy economy can we meet our environmental obligations. So, when I see my good friend, who I know is very dedicated and believes diligently in his point of view, become a self-anointed savior of the West, I have to ask, who is he saving the West from? From other westerners? Or is it really the elitist group, the big business? Let me refer to the charts back here just very briefly with the realization that these well-meaning groups somehow get a little overly ambitious, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska--let us recognize them for what they are. They are big businesses, just like a lot of other big businesses. As I indicated earlier, the environmental organization incomes, the 12 major organizations in this country have assets of $1.2 billion. They have fund balances--that means immediate access to cash--of $1.03 billion. There you have it. The revenues, $633 million; their expenses, $556 million; their assets $1.2 billion --the fund balances at $1 billion. There is nothing wrong with that, but let us keep it in perspective. They have to have a cause. They resolve one issue and they move on to the next so they can generate membership, generate dollars. Let us be honest. They accomplish a lot. But there has to be a balance. That is what is lacking, because if they had their way, the extreme would prevail. They pay, as big business does, compensation. Several of the individuals who represent these organizations--the National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks and Conservation Association--they pay their chief executive officers more than the President of the United States makes. That is neither here nor there, but it points out my contention that it is simply big business. It is just a different type of business. It is worthwhile business, just as are job-developing business is in mining, oil and gas, timber, and grazing. Some of these people are extremists, though, Mr. President. They have to have a cause. The cause here is not wilderness, because 2 million acres of wilderness has been offered. It is more wilderness. It is 5 or 6 million acres of wilderness. Where is the balance? They are generating dollars and membership, using scare tactics that suggest that the people of Utah are irresponsible, that they will go out and haphazardly develop their land or overdevelop it, overgraze it, overmine it. That will not happen, Mr. President. It will not happen in any State of the Union. But those are the scare tactics that they use. They say, ``We must save the West from itself.'' There have been abuses in the West, just like there have in the East, but I defy the membership of these organizations to take a look at the east coast. Go up in the train. Look at the aging of America. Take the train from Washington and look through New Jersey, look through Delaware, look out the window, look at New York, go on to Boston. Just look at the mess that you see in the backyards of America. Where is the energy of these organizations to correct that? It is not there. They want to move out to an area where most people cannot visit, cannot see for themselves, see what the people in these Western States are responsible for. They are doing a good job. They are sensitive. No, they do not want to start near home. They seem to have no concern about the economy, the jobs, the taxes. I find that perplexing, Mr. President. They want to get on their white charger and save the world, but they will not start right in their own backyard. What we are looking at, Mr. President, is trying to balance this process. As I said, there is nothing wrong with Sterling Forest. I support it. I support the process that is underway here as far as reaching a compromise. But we have to recognize reality, Mr. President. We have a trade deficit in this country. Over half of it is the price of imported oil. We have the reserves in this country. We have substantial reserves in my State. We have the technology to do it safely. But the environmental elitists need a cause. They say, ``No, you can't do it. You don't have the science. You don't have the technology.'' So what we are doing is importing it. Fifty-four percent of our oil is imported now. We are bringing it in in foreign tankers. If you ever have an accident, good luck in trying to find a deep pocket like occurred with the Exxon Valdez where you had responsible parties. While the ship was operated irresponsibly, at least the deep pocket was there. Where are the payrolls going to come from? Are we going to ship our dollars overseas? The interesting thing, Mr. President, is that other countries are not quite so sensitive as ours. Their logging practices, their mining practices do not have the same sensitivity. So are we not hastening, if you will, by being hellbent to reduce our own resource development the onset of the very problems that we are trying to avoid. Recognizing that we have the science and technology and experience to offset the imports from countries who allow exploitation without responsible resource development technology, without a response to renewable resources? So, are we really accomplishing a meaningful compromise? In many cases, I think not. We have many issues relative to development, private land issues, endangered species, wetland, Superfund. We talk about cost-benefit risk analysis, the need to review our environmental laws as we look at new technological advances, to better protect our renewable resources. How do we get to a balance, Mr. President? I think we have that balance today in the proposal of 2 million acres of wilderness in the State of Utah. As we wind up this debate, as least probably for today, I urge my colleagues from the following States to recognize the reality of where we are in this legislation. If this package does not stay together, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, West Virginia, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and California will be affected because there are titles for public lands and changes in those States, as well as Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, my State of Alaska, New Mexico--some 56 titles or changes, Mr. President, a pretty significant number. Now, the Senator from New Jersey said in a dear colleague letter that he had joined with 17 of his colleagues. There are many provisions important to our respective States within this omnibus park legislation. Well, we have plenty of them, Mr. President. As I said earlier today, the majority of these bills were placed on the calendar of the Senate April 7, 1995--almost a year ago. The Senator from New Jersey could have let these environmental bills make their way to the House and go on to the President months ago. Unfortunately, he chose not to do so. Mr. President, the direct result of these actions is this package. The Senator from New Jersey, by his own actions, is in reality the ghost writer of this bill that we are considering today. As I said earlier, I accommodated the Senator from New Jersey on Sterling Forest because I think it is in the best interest of his State and his constituents. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Jersey and others do not seem to extend the same degree of confidence and respect to the citizens of Utah. I guess that is where we part. Now, if this bill stays together, Americans are going to get 2 million acres of new wilderness. There is nothing in this legislation that will prevent another Congress, another day, from adding additional wilderness lands in Utah or my State of Alaska. The will of Congress prevails. The reality is this cannot go piecemeal. One bill cannot go without the other. I guess, to quote the three musketeers, one for all and all for one, or none. I urge my colleagues to support this package as it has been presented, because an awful lot of hard work and an awful lot of benefits to an awful lot of States is at jeopardy here. To suggest it is irresponsible and to threaten the State of Utah because this legislation does not propose enough wilderness, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska is not only unrealistic and impractical, it is simply absurd. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to recognize while we have had an extended debate here about a lot of titles that are covered under the bill, the success or failure of this bill is related tremendously to the Utah wilderness. I implore my colleagues who have titles and interest in this bill to recognize that this does represent a compromise, a 2-million acre compromise. As we have seen, the intensive lobbying by a relatively small segment of motivated extremists who say 2 million acres is not enough, does not represent the prevailing attitude in Utah by a long shot, nor the prevailing attitude in the West by a long shot. It represents, perhaps some of the elitist Eastern States who simply have their land and do not have a dog in this fight. This is far too important, Mr. President, to let slide for another Congress--15 years, $10 million expended. We have a solid recommendation and a solid base of support. Mr. President, as we look forward to another day on this matter, we have attempted to accommodate each State that had an interest in public lands legislation. Now we are down to the point of determining whether or not those Members who have an interest will stick together to keep this legislation in its package form. I have been assured that it will pass in the House if it is kept that way. If it is broken up, if Utah wilderness is stricken from the body, the legislation and the packages as we know it today will fail. I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to reflect on the significance of that reality. Cloture Motion

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

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