[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 149 (Thursday, December 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: December 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Bryan and Mr. McCain):
  S. 2567. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the exemption for commercial aviation from the transportation fuels 
tax; to the Committee on Finance.


        the commercial aviation fuel tax exemption extension act

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
on behalf of myself, Senator Bryan, and Senator McCain to extend the 
current tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel which is due to 
expire on October 1, 1995.
  Over the past 4 years, U.S. airlines have lost over $12 billion. 
During that time they have either canceled or deferred orders and 
options for more than 1,000 aircraft. As a result, 125,000 aircraft 
manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. Each aircraft order that is 
canceled translates into job losses of approximately 250 airline 
employees and almost 5,000 manufacturing employees.
  If the 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax goes into effect on October 1, 1995, 
it will cost the airlines more than $527 million annually. It will only 
escalate employee layoffs, aircraft order cancellations, and service 
cutbacks. Recognizing this, the chairman of President Clinton's own 
National Airline Commission has written to the President to urge that 
the exemption be extended.
  Mr. President, I recognize that this is the last day of the 103d 
Congress, and that this legislation will not be enacted prior to 
adjournment. Nonetheless, I am introducing this bill to underscore the 
importance of this issue and to serve notice that I will reintroduce it 
at the beginning of the 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, a majority of Senators have already indicated their 
support for an extension of the jet fuel tax waiver. I ask unanimous 
consent that the following items be printed in full in the Record.

       A copy of a letter to President Clinton signed by 56 
     Senators.
       Letters to the President from Senators Hollings, Faircloth, 
     and Helms and Congressmen Kyl, Inhofe, Santorum, Watt, Quinn, 
     McCurdy, and Byrne.
       A letter to the President signed by the leadership of the 
     House Public Works Committee.
       Letters from Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Texas 
     Governor Ann Richards and Hawaii Governor Jim Waihee.
       A list of organizations supporting extension of the waiver.
       A letter to the President from the Transportation Trades 
     Department of the AFL-CIO.
       A letter to the President from former Virginia Governor 
     Gerald Baliles, chairman of the National Airline Commission.
       A list of airports that support extension of the waiver.

  Mr. President, extension of the fuel tax exemption for the airlines 
is vitally important to the health of the entire aviation industry. 
This industry has suffered through four devastating years and is just 
now beginning to show signs of improvement. The airlines must be 
allowed to recover and cannot afford one more enormous tax increase.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In 1993, when Congress enacted the 
     Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, an 
     overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate 
     believed that the 4.3 cent per gallon tax on transportation 
     fuels should not apply to the financially troubled airline 
     industry. While the Senate passed version of the bill 
     included a full five year exemption for the airline industry, 
     the compromise reached by the conference committee reduced 
     the exemption to two years. The exemption expires on October 
     1, 1995.
       In the meantime, the airline industry continues to 
     struggle. Over the past four years, the industry's losses 
     have totaled a staggering $12.8 billion. Although there have 
     been some signs of recovery, the industry suffered $150 
     million in losses in the first half of 1994. The possibility 
     of the fuel tax applying to the industry could not come at a 
     worse time. The industry is faced with massive fleet 
     replacement restrictions mandated by the government. It is 
     conservatively estimated that it would cost $7-$8 billion a 
     year for the industry to meet noise requirements, as well as 
     replace aging aircraft.
       In its final report last year, the National Airline 
     Commission stated that to return the industry to 
     profitability, Congress must act to ``relieve the airline 
     industry of its unfair tax and user fee burden.'' In 
     addition, the Commission recognized that the airline industry 
     is already under an enormous tax burden. Adding an additional 
     tax at this point will cause even greater losses and layoffs, 
     and is not in the best interests of our nation's travel and 
     tourism industry.
       Given the current state of the airline industry, and the 
     potential adverse impact of new taxes on the industry, we are 
     requesting that the Administration include in its FY 1996 
     budget an extension of the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel 
     through September 30, 1998. Providing this exemption will 
     give this beleaguered industry a chance to resolve other 
     pressing financial issues and find firmer economic ground in 
     its attempt to compete in the global marketplace.
           Sincerely,
         Richard H. Bryan, Paul Simon, Claiborne Pell, Lauch 
           Faircloth, John Glenn, Richard Shelby, Jim Sasser, Don 
           Nickles, Byron Dorgan, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Charles 
           Robb, Ben Nighhorse Campbell, Harris Wofford, John 
           McCain.
         Also, Harlan Mathews, Arlen Specter, Christopher Dodd, 
           Larry Pressler, Kent Conrad, Ted Stevens, Harry Reid, 
           Dan Coats, Orrin Hatch, Paul Sarbanes, John Danforth, 
           David L. Boren, Slade Gorton, Frank H. Murkowski, Sam 
           Nunn, Thad Cochran, John Warner, and Connie Mack.
         Also, Howell Heflin, Alfonse D'Amato, Malcolm Wallop, 
           Strom Thurmond, Daniel K. Akaka, Joseph I. Lieberman, 
           Patty Murray, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Bob Dole, Mark 
           Hatfield, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dennis DeConcini, Jeff 
           Bingaman, William S. Cohen, Herb Kohl, Robert F. 
           Bennett, Tom Harkin, Pete Domenici, Robert C. Smith, 
           Kit Bond, Paul D. Coverdell, Barbara A. Mikulski, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Hank Brown.
                                  ____

                                   Committee on Commerce, Science,
                                               and Transportation,
                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On October 7, 1994, fifty-six of my 
     colleagues wrote to you expressing their desire to extend the 
     current gasoline tax exemption for the airline industry. I 
     want to let you know that I too support the need to extend 
     further the exemption. In 1993, in accordance with the 
     Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, the 
     House and Senate both agreed that a two-year exemption of the 
     4.3 cents per gallon gasoline tax should apply to the 
     commercial airline industry due to its precarious economic 
     situation. The exemption expires on October 1, 1995, and I 
     believe it should be extended.
       When you first took office, you visited Seattle and met 
     with the aircraft manufacturers and airline CEOs to stress 
     the importance of this industry to our economic recovery. 
     While the economic recovery of our nation continues, the 
     imposition of a fuel tax could have a harmful impact on the 
     airlines' chances for economic recovery. Over the last four 
     years the industry has lost more than $12.8 billion. The 
     airlines' ability to provide service, particularly to small 
     communities, is at risk and could be at greater risk should 
     the fuel tax apply to them. I urge you to support an 
     extension of the exemption until September 30, 1998, so that 
     the industry may continue to work on its economic problems.
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                               Ernest F. Hollings,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     Office of the President,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In 1993 when Congress enacted the 
     Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, an 
     overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate 
     believed that the 4.3 cent per gallon tax on transportation 
     fuels should not apply to the financially troubled airline 
     industry. As a result, a compromise was reached to defer the 
     implementation of the tax on the airline industry until 
     October 1, 1995.
       As you recognized when you established the National Airline 
     Commission, the industry--which is critical to the economic 
     development of our country and to our balance of trade 
     payments--continues to struggle. Over the past four years, 
     the industry's losses have totaled a staggering $12.8 
     billion. Although there have been some signs of recovery, the 
     industry suffered $150 million in losses in the first half of 
     1994.
       The prospect of this jet fuel tax applying to this industry 
     effective in October of next year is alarming. If the tax had 
     been in effect this year, it would have added a new tax 
     burden of $527 million per year to the industry--clearly 
     worsening the industry's financial situation. As recognized 
     by your Commission, this industry is already under an 
     enormous tax burden. In addition to federal income taxes and 
     state taxes, the passenger and cargo excise taxes which are 
     equivalent to a 45.82 per gallon fuel tax. In addition, the 
     airlines indirectly pay or collect a 10% ticket tax and 
     numerous other fees. Overall, about 25% of the price of a 
     ticket goes to taxes.
       The possibility of the fuel tax applying to this industry 
     could not come at a worse time. The industry is faced with 
     massive fleet replacement restrictions--mandated by the 
     government. it is conservatively estimated that it would cost 
     $7-$8 billion a year for the industry to meet noise 
     requirements, as well as replace existing aircraft.
       In order to restructure itself and remain competitive, the 
     industry has let thousands of employees go because of 
     financial losses. Since 1992, over 20,000 employees have been 
     furloughed or terminated at our major airlines. At the same 
     time, the industry has deferred billions of dollars of 
     capital investment because of this bleak economic situation. 
     This deferral itself has meant that the industry will employ 
     tens of thousands fewer people this year than expected.
       In its final report last year, the National Airline 
     Commission stated that to return the industry to 
     profitability, Congress must act to ``relieve the airline 
     industry of its unfair tax and user fee burden.'' The airline 
     industry and its 540,000 employees, joined by the aircraft 
     manufacturing industry, ask you to give serious attention to 
     your Commission's recommendation and continue the industry's 
     exemption from the 4.3 cent per gallon transportation fuel 
     tax beyond its October, 1995 expiration date. Otherwise, the 
     industry will be faced with the need to layoff additional 
     employees and continue to shrink. This is not in the interest 
     of our nation's travel and tourism industry which is so 
     critical to this country.
       Given the state of the industry, we are requesting that the 
     Administration extend the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel 
     that expires on September 30, 1995 to September 30, 1998. 
     This would give this beleaguered industry a chance to resolve 
     other pressing financial issues and find firmer economic 
     ground in its attempt to compete in the global marketplace.
           Sincerely,
     Jesse Helms,
     Lauch Faircloth,
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 14, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     President of the United States of America,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1993 included provisions to exempt the financially 
     troubled airline industry from the 4.3 cents per gallon tax 
     on transportation fuels for a period of two years. The 
     exemption expires on October 1, 1995.
       As you know, the airline industry continues to struggle, 
     with industry losses over the last four years totalling more 
     than $12 billion. Although there have been some signs of 
     recovery; losses totalled $150 million in the first half of 
     1994 alone. Those continuing losses come at a time when the 
     industry is facing costly federal mandates to modify its 
     fleet, e.g. to meet noise requirements, and replace aging 
     aircraft--at a cost of between $7 billion and $8 billion. The 
     imposition of the fuel tax at the start of the next fiscal 
     year could not come at a worse time.
       Given the state of the airline industry and the adverse 
     impact new taxes are likely to have on its ability to recover 
     and thrive, I urge you to include in your FY96 budget an 
     extension of the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel through 
     September 30, 1998.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Jon Kyl,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern 
     about the impending expiration of the transportation fuel tax 
     exemption.
       In 1993, when Congress enacted the Administration's $500 
     billion deficit reduction plan, it included a 4.3 cent-per-
     gallon tax on transportation fuels. However, because of the 
     immense financial losses plaguing the airline industry, the 
     tax was deferred until 1993.
       In the past four years, the industry's losses have exceeded 
     $12 billion, while more than 120,000 airline employees have 
     lost their jobs and 125,000 U.S. aircraft manufacturing jobs 
     have been eliminated.
       Moreover, the industry is now facing government-mandated 
     fleet replacements to meet ``Stage 3'' aircraft noise 
     requirements at a cost of roughly $7-8 billion a year to the 
     industry for the foreseeable future.
       In its final report last year, the National Airline 
     Commission recognized the industry must be relieved of its 
     ``unfair tax and user fee burden,'' and recommended 
     ``exempting airline fuel from any proposed transportation 
     fuel tax.'' We ask that you give serious attention to that 
     recommendation and continue the industry's exemption from the 
     jet fuels tax before it expires in 1995.
       Providing the exemption will give the airline industry a 
     chance to regain its financial footing and remain competitive 
     in the international marketplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Inhofe,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1994.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing with regard to the October 
     1, 1995 expiration of the airline industry fuel tax 
     exemption.
       The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) imposed a 
     new 4.3 cents per gallon tax on transportation fuels. The 
     conference agreement for the OMRA '93 bill provided a short-
     term exemption for gasoline and jet fuel used in commercial 
     aviation. That exemption is set to expire next year, however, 
     and the tax will become effective for commercial aviation on 
     October 1st. A floor stocks tax assessment is also scheduled 
     to become effective on that same date.
       In preparing your budget recommendations for fiscal year 
     1996, I hope you would review the current airline industry 
     tax exemption and consider an extension of that exemption in 
     hopes of bolstering the industry's economic recovery. Over 
     the past four years, the airline industry as a whole has 
     suffered losses of $12.8 billion. Since 1990 in particular, 
     U.S. airlines have had workforce reductions of 120,000 and 
     have witnessed corresponding reductions of 125,000 employees 
     in the aircraft manufacturing sector due to cancellation or 
     deferment of approximately 1,000 aircraft orders and options.
       Federal tax policies have contributed directly to the 
     industry's financial problems. Tax collection from the 
     industry over the past four years has resulted in cumulative 
     losses of $12 billion. As jet fuel remains the industry's 
     second largest operating cost for airlines, the pending 
     imposition of the new fuels tax carries a projected annual 
     cost to airlines of $527 million. As the industry struggles 
     to regain its financial footing, this new tax will be a 
     further setback and could exacerbate additional employee 
     layoffs, aircraft order cancellations, and service cutbacks.
       I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Rick Santorum,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern 
     about the scheduled imposition of the fuel tax on the airline 
     industry. This tax on commercial aviation jet fuel was 
     included as part of last year's budget deficit reduction 
     package and is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 
     1995.
       USAir, which is a major employer and has a hub at the 
     Charlotte Airport in my congressional district, has expressed 
     deep concern about the jet fuel tax. USAir is struggling 
     particularly hard to recover from the huge losses suffered by 
     the airline industry during the recession and from other 
     business adversities. The imposition of the fuel tax would 
     have a major, adverse effect on its ability to recover.
       Because of the importance of USAir and the airline industry 
     to the economic health of my congressional district and the 
     Nation as a whole, I ask you to consider including a 
     deferment of the fuel tax for the industry in the 
     Administration's budget for FY 1996. Deferring the tax until 
     the industry is better able to sustain it will greatly assist 
     in the industry's recovery and will contribute to the 
     improving economic health and employment picture of the 
     Nation.
       Thank you for you attention to this request. I look forward 
     to continuing to work with you on important issues in the 
     balance of this Congress and next year.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to you regarding a tax 
     imposed on transportation fuels, which was part of your 
     budget reconciliation plan enacted last year. This additional 
     tax on transportation fuels of 4.3 cents-per-gallon was 
     imposed with a two-year deferment, in the hopes that by 1995 
     the airline industry would be in better financial standing 
     and consequently able to handle the additional tax burden.
       Unfortunately, as I am sure you are aware, the financial 
     situation of the airline industry has only gotten worse. 
     Financial losses, along with the loss of some 60,000 airline 
     jobs and an already-imposed ticket tax of 10% make the 
     airlines unable to handle any further tax burdens. Moreover, 
     the size of the airline industry makes its financial 
     viability essential to our country's economic recovery. For 
     these reasons, I urge you to consider a continued deferment 
     of this fuel tax. I ask that this deferment be imposed 
     indefinitely so that the airline industry can once again gain 
     firm financial standing.
       I'm sure you would agree that the airline industry greatly 
     contributes to the economic stability of our country. If I 
     can assist you further regarding this matter, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
       Thank you very much for your consideration of this issue.
           Very truly yours,
                                                       Jack Quinn,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1994.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern 
     about the impending expiration of transportation fuel tax 
     exemption.
       In 1993, when Congress enacted the Administration's $500 
     billion deficit reduction plan, it included a 4.3 cent-per-
     gallon tax on transportation fuels. However, because of the 
     immense financial losses plaguing the airline industry, the 
     tax was deferred until 1995.
       In the past four years, the industry's losses have exceeded 
     $12 billion, while more than 120,000 airline employees have 
     lost their jobs and 125,000 U.S. aircraft manufacturing jobs 
     have been eliminated.
       Moreover, the industry is now facing government-mandated 
     fleet replacements to meet ``Stage 3'' aircraft noise 
     requirements, at a cost of roughly $7-8 billion a year to the 
     industry for the foreseeable future.
       In its final report last year, the National Airline 
     Commission recognized the industry must be relieved of its 
     ``unfair tax and user fee burden,'' and recommended 
     ``exempting airline fuel from any proposed transportation 
     fuel tax.'' We ask that you give serious attention to that 
     recommendation and include in the Administration's budget 
     next year a continuation of the industry's exemption from the 
     jet fuels tax.
       Providing the exemption will give the airline industry a 
     chance to regain its financial footing and remain competitive 
     in the international marketplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dave McCurdy.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to raise my concerns about 
     the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax that passed last year 
     but was deferred for the airline industry until October 1, 
     1995. With the airline industry continuing to experience 
     financial losses, I ask that you continue your strong 
     commitment to strengthening the airline industry by deferring 
     the imposition of this tax in your budget proposals until the 
     airline industry is in better financial shape.
       This issue is of particular concern to my constituents 
     because of the economic stimulus that one particular carrier, 
     USAir, has in Virginia. USAir is Virginia's largest air 
     carrier employing over 4,947 people and pumping over $2 
     billion into the Virginia economy annually. Their economic 
     viability is intricately linked to the economic health and 
     well-being of many of my constituents, with their payroll 
     exceeding $12,545,924 in the 11th Congressional District.
       As you know, when the 4.3 cents-per-gallon tax passed in 
     August, 1993, as part of the deficit reduction plan, it was 
     deferred for the airline industry until October 1, 1995, with 
     the hope that the industry would be out of the financial 
     woods at that time. A 10% ticket tax was imposed specifically 
     in lieu of a fuel tax, which means that the industry is 
     already contributing $5.129 billion toward deficit reduction.
       Recent reports indicate that the industry continues to 
     experience financial woes. Imposing the gas tax on top of the 
     10% ticket tax at this sensitive time could jeopardize the 
     health and viability of the airline industry and threaten our 
     nation's economic recovery. Therefore, I ask that you 
     continue to defer this tax in your budget proposals until the 
     airline industry is in better financial shape.
       Thank you for your leadership on this matter and your 
     commitment to strengthening the airline industry. I look 
     forward to continuing to work with you on issues affecting 
     the health of the airline industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leslie L. Byrne,
                                               Member of Congress.

                                         Committee on Public Works


                                           and Transportation,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge that the 
     Administration include in its FY 1996 budget an extension 
     (through September 30, 1998) of the airline industry 
     exemption from the domestic jet fuel tax. A continued 
     exemption is justified as a matter of fairness to the airline 
     industry which is already paying more than its share of 
     special taxes. The extended exemption will also enable the 
     industry to continue its recovery from recent catastrophic 
     financial losses, which have undermined the industries' 
     ability to compete in the global marketplace.
       The airline industry is already subject to an overwhelming 
     array of special taxes. Federal taxes imposed exclusively, or 
     primarily, on the airlines include a 10% excise tax on 
     airline tickets, a 6.25% excise tax on cargo shipments, a $6 
     per passenger international departure tax, special taxes to 
     support customs, immigration, and agricultural inspection 
     services, and a $3 passenger facilitation charge at many 
     major airports. These taxes impose costs of $6.7 billion a 
     year on an industry with total revenues of $64 billion a 
     year.
       The heavy taxes have been an important factor in the 
     industry's cumulative losses, which exceeded $12 billion over 
     the past four years. If the industry is profitable in 1994, 
     profits are not expected to exceed $1 billion.
       The industry's poor financial results have to led the 
     elimination of 125, 000 high paying jobs. The impacts have 
     extended beyond the airlines and into this country's most 
     successful export business--aircraft manufacturing. Since 
     1990, U.S. airlines have canceled or deferred orders and 
     options for more than 1,000 new aircraft.
       In recognition of the airlines' financial difficulties and 
     high tax burden, the 1993 deficit reduction package exempted 
     airlines from the new 4.3 cents per gallon tax on jet fuel 
     for two years. Since the condition of the airline industry 
     has not changed significantly, the exemption should be 
     continued. The industry is in no position to pay the 
     additional $527 million a year which this tax would cost. The 
     elastic demand for air travel prevents airlines from raising 
     their fares to cover these added costs. The price sensitive 
     market means any increase in air fares is likely to be offset 
     by a decline in passengers. An additional $527 million tax 
     burden would wipe out much of the industry's estimated profit 
     for 1995, further exacerbating the industry's tenuous 
     financial position.
       Mr. President, as your Administration prepares its fiscal 
     year 1996 budget, we respectfully ask that this budget 
     include an extension of the exemption of airlines from the 
     commercial aviation fuel tax, through September 30, 1998. 
     This action would forcefully demonstrate your 
     Administration's strong commitment to the vital travel and 
     tourism sector of our nation's economy.
           Sincerely yours,
     Bud Shuster,
       Ranking Republican, Committee on Public Works 
     Transportation.
     William F. Clinger, Jr,
       Ranking Republican, Subcommittee on Aviation.
     Norman Y. Mineta,
       Chair, and Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
     James L. Oberstar,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation.
                                  ____

                                                State of Arkansas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                Little Rock, AR, November 1, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On October 1, 1995, the airline 
     industry's exemption from the 4.3 cents per gallon 
     transportation fuels tax will expire. Unfortunately with that 
     date fast approaching, the U.S. airlines are far from being 
     able to absorb an additional $527 million annually. Still 
     recovering from four years of staggering losses totaling over 
     $12 billion and with $150 million loss during the fist half 
     of this year, any new tax could not come at a more fragile 
     time for the industry.
       As your National Airline Commission indicated in its report 
     last year, the airlines are already under heavy tax burden. 
     In addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all 
     businesses, the airlines pay over $5.4 billion annually in 
     passenger and cargo excise taxes--the equivalent of a 45.8 
     cents per gallon fuel tax. Now at a time when the industry 
     also faces fleet replacement costs conservatively estimated 
     at $7 to $8 billion a year to comply with mandated quiet-
     technology requirements, the prospect of a new tax is 
     especially devastating.
       As a former governor, you understand that a healthy U.S. 
     airline industry is critical to the vitality of a state's 
     economy, especially in the way it serves as a catalyst for 
     our booming travel and tourism sector.
       On behalf of the state of Arkansas, I respectfully request 
     that your administration's FY 1996 budget include an 
     extension of the tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel 
     through September 30, 1998.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jim Guy Tucker.
                                  ____

    
    
                                                   State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Austin, TX, October 25, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On October 1, 1995, the airline 
     industry's exemption from the 4.3 cents per gallon 
     transportation fuels tax will expire. Unfortunately, with 
     that date fast approaching, the U.S. airlines are far from 
     being able to absorb an additional $527 million annually. 
     Still recovering from four years of staggering losses 
     totaling over $12 billion and with $150 million loss during 
     the fist half of this year, any new tax could not come at a 
     more fragile time for the industry.
       As your National Airline Commission indicated in its report 
     last year, the airlines are already under a heavy tax burden. 
     In addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all 
     businesses, the airlines pay over $5.4 billion annually in 
     passenger and cargo excise taxes--the equivalent of a 45.8 
     cents per gallon fuel tax. Now, at a time when the industry 
     also faces fleet replacement costs conservatively estimated 
     at $7 to $8 billion a year to comply with mandated quiet-
     technology requirements, the prospect of a new tax is 
     especially devastating.
       As a former governor, you understand that a healthy U.S. 
     airline industry is critical to the vitality of a state's 
     economy, especially in the way it serves as a catalyst for 
     our booming travel and tourism sector. Because the airlines 
     have such a large direct impact on the Texas economy--
     boarding over 48 million passengers annually and employing 
     over 61,000 in this state--it is crucial that government does 
     all it can to assist the industry in its recovery.
       On behalf of the state of Texas, I respectfully request 
     that your administration's FY 1996 budget include an 
     extension of the tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel 
     through September 30, 1998.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ann W. Richards,
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____



                                           Executive Chambers,

                                   Honolulu, HI, November 2, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I urge you to include in your Fiscal 
     Year 1996 budget a two-year extension of the tax exemption 
     presently authorized on commercial aviation fuel. In my view, 
     the airlines are still struggling to become consistently 
     profitable and need assistance in reducing their tax burden.
       The State of Hawaii has provided financial support for 
     airlines serving the State through a subsidy to reduce 
     airport fees and charges. The special fund of the State 
     airport program will provide the subsidy through the 1997 
     fiscal year. Funds came from cash reserves generated by 
     airport concessions and were intended for airport improvement 
     projects.
       With Hawaii's dependence on reliable, regular air service 
     to support our tourism industry and for intra- and inter-
     state transportation for our citizens, we feel it is urgent 
     that our nation's airline industry be assisted until it 
     becomes financially stable. Extending the fuel tax exemption 
     will provide some of the relief they need.
       Your favorable consideration of our request is appreciated.
       With kindest regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Waihee.
                                  ____

                                                    December 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: For two reasons, next year will be an 
     extremely important one for the travel and tourism industry: 
     Your Administration will highlight the significance of our 
     industry to our nation's economy by hosting the White House 
     Conference on Travel and Tourism. Unfortunately, next year 
     will also be the year in which the backbone of our industry, 
     the U.S. airline industry, will lose its exemption from the 
     4.3 cents per gallon tax on transportation fuels. As your 
     Administration works to develop its budget for the coming 
     fiscal year, we respectfully ask that you extend the current 
     exemption on commercial aviation fuel.
       As you are probably aware, the U.S. airline industry has 
     lost a staggering $12.8 billion since 1990. More devastating, 
     however, has been the decimation of airline, aircraft 
     manufacturing and travel and tourism jobs. During this same 
     period, nearly 120,000 U.S. airline employees and 125,000 
     U.S. aircraft manufacturing employees have lost their jobs. 
     While the industry has recently shown small signs of 
     recovery, U.S. airlines collectively suffered $150 million in 
     losses during the first half of 1994. Sadly, on October 1, 
     1995, the airline industry's exemption from the 
     transportation fuels tax will expire. At current consumption 
     levels, this new 4.3 cents per gallon tax will amount to an 
     additional $527 million annual burden on this industry. 
     Almost certainly, this new tax will wipe out any profit the 
     industry had hoped to make in 1995, and further exacerbate 
     the industry's already tenuous financial position. Because 
     the airlines have such a large impact on our economy--
     transporting nearly 500 million passengers each year--they 
     are a major catalyst for the entire U.S. travel and tourism 
     industry, as well as the economy as a whole. Whether the fuel 
     tax results in higher fares or more service cutbacks, the 
     repercussions will be felt throughout our industry by hotel, 
     restaurant, rental car, and all other travel industry 
     employees.
       In its final report to Congress and your Administration 
     last year, the National Airline Commission stated that, to 
     return the industry to profitability, Congress must act to 
     ``relieve the airline industry of its unfair tax and user fee 
     burden.'' The Commission clearly recognized that the U.S. 
     airline industry is already under an enormous tax burden. In 
     addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all 
     businesses, the airline industry is currently paying over 
     $5.4 billion annually in passenger and cargo excise taxes--
     the equivalent of a 45.8 cents per gallon fuel tax. Airlines 
     indirectly pay or collect a 10 percent ticket tax, a $6.00 
     International Departure Tax, a $6.50 Customs User Fee, a 
     $6.00 Immigration User Fee and a $1.45 Agriculture Inspection 
     Fee.
       Mr. President, as your Administration prepares its Fiscal 
     Year 1996 budget, we respectfully ask that this budget 
     include an extension of the tax exemption on commercial 
     aviation fuel. With the White House Conference on Travel and 
     Tourism already underway, this one action would forcefully 
     demonstrate your Administration's strong commitment to this 
     vital sector of our nation's economy.
           Sincerely,
       Aerospace Industries Association, Air Freight Association 
     of America, Air Midwest, Inc., Air Wisconsin Airlines 
     Corporation, African-American Travel and Tourism Association, 
     Alamo Rent-A-Car, Allegheny Commuter Airlines, Inc.
       Allied Tours, AlliedSignal, Inc., American Express Company, 
     American Hotel and Motel Association, American Recreation 
     Coalition, American Society of Travel Agents, Arizona 
     Airways, Inc.
       Association of Retail Travel Agents, Atlantic Southeast 
     Airlines, Inc., Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc., The 
     BFGoodrich Company, The Boeing Company, Greater Boston 
     Convention and Visitors Bureau, Business Express, Inc., 
     California Chamber of Commerce, California Travel Industry 
     Association, Cascadia Airlines.
       Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., Chicago Convention and Tourism 
     Bureau, Citicorp Diners Club, Cleveland Growth Association, 
     Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Hotel 
     and Lodging Association, Colorado Ski Country USA, Comair, 
     Inc., CommutAir, Conquest Airlines Corporation.
       Continental Express, Inc., CUC Travel Services, Inc., 
     Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau, Denver Metro 
     Convention and Visitors Bureau, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 
     University, Empire Airlines, Executive Airlines, Inc., 
     Fairmont Hotels.
       Flagship Airlines, Inc., FloridaGulf Airlines, General 
     Electric Company, Georgia Hospitality and Travel Association, 
     GP-Express Airlines, Inc., Gray Line Air.
       Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., Gulfstream International 
     Airlines, Inc., Greater Hartford Tourism District, The Hertz 
     Corporation, Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Hilton International, 
     Holiday Inn, Honeywell, Inc., Horizon Air Industries, Inc., 
     Hospitality Sales and Marketing Association International.
       Greater Houston Partnership, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, 
     Hyatt Regency Denver, Inter-continental Hotels, International 
     Airline Passengers Association, International Association of 
     Convention and Visitor Bureaus, Jetstream International 
     Airlines, Inc., Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, 
     Liberty Express Airlines, Lone Star Airlines.
       Louisiana Travel Promotion Association, McDonnell Douglas 
     Corporation, Meeting Professionals International, Mesa 
     Airlines, Inc., Mesaba Aviation, Inc., Greater Miami 
     Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Hotel, Motel and 
     Resort Association, Greater Minneapolis Convention and 
     Visitors Bureau, Nantucket Airlines/Cape Air.
       National Air Carrier Association, National Association of 
     RV Parks and Campgrounds, National Council of Area and 
     Regional Tourism Organizations, National Park Hospitality 
     Association, National Restaurant Association, New York State 
     Hospitality and Tourism Association, Pacific Air.
       Paradise Island Airlines, Inc., Passenger Vessel 
     Association, Piedmont Airlines, Inc., Greater Pittsburgh 
     Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Raleigh Convention 
     and Visitors Bureau, Recreational Vehicle Industry 
     Association, Red Lion Hotels & Inns, Regional Airline 
     Association.
       Rockwell Collins Commercial Avionics, Sandals Resorts, San 
     Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau, SkyWay Airlines, 
     SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Society of Travel Agents in 
     Government, Trans States Airlines, Inc., Trans World Express, 
     Inc.
       Travel Council of North Carolina, Travel Industry 
     Association of America, Travel and Tourism Government Affairs 
     Council, United States Tour Operators Association, United 
     Technologies Corporation, Washington Airports Task Force, 
     Wings Airways, Wings West Airlines, Inc., Wyndham Hotels and 
     Resorts.
                                  ____

                                             Transportation Trades


                                                   Department,

                                     Washington, DC, Nov. 3, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Since 1990, the U.S. airlines have lost 
     a combined total of more than $12.8 billion. While the 
     financial suffering has been substantial, what is clearly 
     most distressing is the toll these loses have had on the 
     industry's employees. In the preceding four years, nearly 
     120,000 U.S. airline employees and 125,000 U.S. aircraft 
     manufacturing employees have lost their jobs.
       During this same period, employees of nearly every U.S. 
     airline have sacrificed pay and/or benefits annually 
     totalling in the billions of dollars. Unfortunately, while 
     employees have contributed their fair share to help bring 
     this industry back to sustained profitability, next year the 
     government will impose a new commercial aviation fuel tax 
     which will almost certainly result in additional airline 
     employee layoffs. As representatives of the vast majority of 
     these employees whose jobs have already been lost, we ask 
     that, as your Administration works to develop its budget for 
     the coming fiscal year, you not jeopardize the concessions 
     made by labor and extend the current exemption on commercial 
     aviation fuel through September, 1998.
       In its final report to Congress and your Administration 
     last year, the National Airline Commission stated that, to 
     return the industry to profitability, Congress must act to 
     ``relieve the airline industry of its unfair tax and user fee 
     burden.'' The Commission clearly recognized that U.S. 
     airlines are already under an enormous tax burden, and 
     currently pay taxes and fees totalling the equivalent of a 
     45.8 cents per gallon fuel tax. Although the industry has 
     recently begun to show modest signs of financial improvement, 
     U.S. airlines collectively suffered losses of $150 million 
     during the first half of 1994. When the industry's exemption 
     from the transportation fuels tax expires on October 1, 1995, 
     this new 4.3 cents per gallon tax will amount to an 
     additional $527 million annual burden on this industry--a 
     burden our employees simply cannot bear.
       Mr. President, airline industry employees are some of the 
     most highly-trained, productive and efficient employees of 
     any U.S. industry. We ask that you not jeopardize the fragile 
     economic environment under which our employees work, and 
     extend the current tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel 
     through September, 1998.
           Sincerely,
     J. Randolph Babbitt,
       President, Air Line Pilots Association.
     Dee Maki,
       Association of Flight Attendants.
     William Scheri,
       General Vice President, International Association of 
     Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
     Ron Carey,
       President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
     Barry Krasner,
       National President, National Air Traffic Controllers, 
     Association/MEBA.
     Sonny Hall,
       International President, Transport Workers Union of 
     America.
                                  ____



                                            Hunton & Williams,

                                       Richmond, VA Oct. 18, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Among the bright spots on today's 
     economic landscape is the improved performance of the U.S. 
     airline industry. While problems such as high debt levels 
     ensure continued uncertainty, the fact remains that the 
     trends have been moving in the right direction over the past 
     year.
       As the administration begins to focus on the legislative 
     agenda for the new Congress, you will hear a great deal of 
     discussion about the issue of fuel taxes on the commercial 
     airline industry. As you might remember, the National Airline 
     Commission addressed this issue in its report.
       The Commission recommended that no new tax on commercial 
     airline fuel be imposed.
       In the commentary since the Commisison's report, our tax 
     recommendations have been characterized as special ``tax 
     relief.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. I would 
     like to share with you the Commission's thinking on the fuel 
     tax, and then conclude with a general comment on our overall 
     approach to tax issues.
       The commercial airline industry has never been subjected to 
     a federal fuel tax. Unlike road improvements which are funded 
     through a fuel tax, aviation infrastructure improvements are 
     funded through the airline and cargo ticket tax. Thus, the 
     source of revenue for those purposes already exists.
       The Commission could see no good public policy reason for 
     changing the tax treatment of airline fuel, one of the 
     industry's two highest cost items. In fact, one could hardly 
     call our recommendation ``tax relief'' since we were not 
     recommending the reduction of a tax, but that a new tax not 
     be imposed.
       As Chairman of the Commission, I hope you will support 
     efforts to extend permanently the two-year exemption from the 
     4.3 cent fuel tax contained in the 1993 budget legislation.
       Allow me to conclude with a few general comments about the 
     Commission's tax recommendations.
       The National Airline Commission examined the entire range 
     of tax laws affecting the airline industry, as required by 
     our enabling legislation. The industry, and others, had many 
     ideas for our consideration. In some cases we took action, in 
     others we did not. In those areas in which we did make 
     recommendations, we believed there were important public 
     policy reasons to do so, such as the recommendation that 
     there be no new fuel tax.
       Our recommendations had nothing to do with ``tax relief'' 
     for the industry. We rejected several ideas that would have 
     injected more cash into the industry, and advanced only those 
     we believed made sense in a critical, high tech, industry 
     struggling to compete in the 1990's. If tax relief for its 
     own sake was our goal, we would have focused in other areas. 
     Our only goal was to help make sense of the tax treatment of 
     this industry.
       I have been disappointed that some have sought to portray 
     the Commission's recommendation as some sort of special 
     interest pleading. I wanted you to have a clear sense of our 
     thinking. I would be happy to discuss this issue with you at 
     any time.
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald L. Baliles.
                                  ____


             Airports That Support Extension of the Waiver

       The following is a list of airports that have agreed to 
     either sign on the ATA airports letter or send its own letter 
     to the President:
       AUS--Austin.
       BUR--Burbank.
       CLE--Cleveland.
       CMH--Ohio.
       DCA--Wash. National.
       TPA--Tampa.
       DFW--Dallas Fort Worth.
       DIA--Denver.
       EWR--Newark.
       GRR--Michigan.
       IAD--Dulles.
       JFK--New York.
       LAS--Las Vegas.
       LGA--New York.
       MDW--Chicago.
        OAK--Oakland.
       ORD--Chicago.
       STL--St. Louis.
                                  ____

                                        Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena,


                                            Airport Authority,

                                                 November 2, 1994.
     Ron Ricks
     Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Southwest Airlines Co., 
         Dallas, TX.
       Dear Ron: Yes, I agree with you! In fact, the aviation 
     industry is in no position to bear the burden of financing 
     irrelevant federal programs. It is equally important that 
     airports and airlines together press for increased funding 
     levels in the AIP programs. The money is already there and 
     needs to be appropriated for desperately needed airport 
     infrastructure.
       As I see it, these are issues on which we both can and 
     should stand side by side as a unified voice urging the 
     Administration and Congress to not kill the goose that lays 
     the golden egg-Air Transportation.
       Let me know when and how you want to proceed with sending 
     the letter to the President.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Thomas E. Greer,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WALLOP:
  S. 2568. A bill to enhance the management of public lands, reduce 
Federal expenditures associated with such lands, and empower States 
with respect to the ownership and control over lands that are or have 
been part of the public domain, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


            the public land emancipation and management act

 Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Public 
Land Emancipation and Management Improvement Act [PLEA] which, when 
enacted, will greatly limit the ponderous Federal influence on the 
West.
  In the West today, we are faced with an administration that is 
reaching unprecedented levels of government intervention into every 
aspect of each of our lives using the terms ``environmentalism'' and 
``fair market value'' as spears which they chuck at every perceived 
public resource management problem.
  Increasingly, the role of Federal Government has become one of 
``ruling'' the people rather than one of ``serving'' he people. They 
are the masters; we have become their servants.
  I do not often agree with the Clinton administration, nor its 
spokespersons, but no one has expressed the problem in a more 
articulate manner than the former Western Governor, and now, Secretary 
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.
  Mr. President, listen to excerpts from a speech he gave while 
Governor at an National Governors Association meeting in Denver.
  He said,

       I share the concerns of my fellow governors. My sense of 
     alarm is perhaps a little more extreme. A lot of observers in 
     this country feel that, taken on a historic scale, the states 
     are obsolete, they are headed the way of the passenger pigeon 
     and the Edsel. Even the optimist, I think, would say the 
     states at best are in dire danger of becoming simply 
     administrative agents of Washington * * * it didn't begin 
     that way.

  He goes on to say,

     the proper role between states and the Federal Government * * 
     * was the centerpiece * * * of the most brilliant debate in 
     the history of western institutions.
       * * * That debate * * * has gone neglected. The result is a 
     federal system * * * in total disarray.
       * * * The United States Congress has lost all sense of 
     restraint. It no longer asks the question that Hamilton, 
     Madison and Jefferson considered to be the central question * 
     * * Is this an appropriate function for the Federal system?
       * * * Hamilton and Jefferson would certainly ask * * * how 
     have we allowed their creation--a carefully layered 
     construction of federal, state and local responsibilities, to 
     become scrambled into one great undifferentiated, amorphous 
     omelet by a cook in Washington?

  Mr. President, those words were spoken by a Federal chef who has 
become so supreme at his craft as to make Julia Childs look like a fry-
cook.
  Fourteen years have passed since Bruce Babbitt spoke those words in 
the last year of the Carter administration--another Democratic 
administration that had an ill-conceived agenda for the West. Today, 
the current administration's concept of the ``New West'' has rapidly 
degenerated to a ``war on the West.'' Government officials have been 
transformed from environmental problem solvers to environmental storm 
troopers with the power to punish, to prohibit, and to take. Virtually 
all Federal agencies are making decisions on the use of land and 
resources in unquestioning response to an ill-conceived environmental 
agenda which ignores the human side of the equation and disregards the 
concept of private property rights. Worse still, it ignores Governor 
Babbitt's concern that the Federal Government has lost all sense of 
restraint and the concepts of Jefferson and Madison.
  In a 1994 speech to the Sierra Club's Annual Dinner, Secretary 
Babbitt said:

       We need a new western land ethic for non-wilderness. The 
     old concept of multiple use no longer fits the reality of the 
     new West. It must be a concept of public use. From this day 
     on, we must recognize the new reality that the highest and 
     best, most productive use, of western land will usually be 
     for public purposes--watershed, wildlife and recreation.

  Typically, he made no distinction in this speech between public and 
private land. Unlike his views in 1980 as a Western Governor, he now 
feels that the Federal Government should be omnipotent.
  The Clinton administration's agenda is clear, and only the users of 
the public lands will become endangered in their war on the West. 
Citizens have been threatened with rules and regulations denying access 
to guns, rock collecting, and recreation.
  In order to pay for increased control by big government, we see 
repeated proposals to increase fees. Hunters, outfitters, radio 
broadcast users, commercial air tour operators, ski area operators, 
concessioners, and any other use that requires a Federal permit are 
being asked to shoulder a bigger burden. Not all of these permit 
holders will be able to afford to stay in business after paying the new 
fees on top of existing expenses. In addition, many who have 
traditionally enjoyed a cooperative partnership with the Federal 
Government--including counties and municipalities--are now being asked 
to help pay the costs for more Federal control. Further, they are asked 
to cede back water rights, mineral rights and respass rights for 
renewals of their permits. How ironic. How very contrary to the Clinton 
campaign rhetoric.
  The current furor over grazing fees is not a Federal deficit issue, 
as portrayed by the administration and the media. It is, in fact, a 
personal economic issue for thousands of rural, western families. If 
implemented, this range reform will result in seriously reduced 
revenues ironically to the Federal Government, but more importantly to 
States and counties which will suffer from rules and regulations that 
no one they know ever voted on.
  Recently, the Secretary was forced by the courts to issue patents on 
a Nevada gold mine. He had the nerve to characterize this as a steal 
and give-away of land and minerals. It made for good press to the 
uninformed. But the Secretary failed to state that the Barrick 
Goldstrike Mines in Nevada have developed over 1,700 jobs that did not 
exist before. It means millions of dollars in tax revenue to counties, 
States, and yes, the Federal Government. The Secretary failed to 
mention the billion dollars the company spent on developing 
technologies to extract the mineral. That is $1 billion that did not 
exist in the American economy before this mine was planned. He also 
forgot to mention that the land was worth nothing, to the Federal 
Government, until after the private sector had developed the technology 
to recover the minerals.
  Washington does not know how to mine anything. It never will know how 
to mine minerals and Congress won't ever pay for a billion dollars' 
worth of experimental technology. You know it and I know it. The wealth 
and the jobs that have been created from these lands for America has 
been realized by the private sector's willingness to commit capital and 
technology to a plan it had no way of knowing was going to be 
successful.
  The battle in the war on the West, if won by this administration will 
only serve to send the private mining sector to foreign countries. The 
governments in those lands will not prohibit investors from achieving 
success, boosting their economy, and employing their people. Nor will 
they protect the environment.
  Mr. President, as an example of the arrogance of which I speak, let 
me also remind you that during the grazing debates, we were told by the 
then director of the BLM ``that if Congress refuses to act, we will do 
it administratively.'' That, Mr. President, is arrogance, and this 
administration may never understand that laws in this country are not 
made by residentially appointed bureaucrats, but by the Congress. When 
the administration says to hell with them they are saying to hell with 
us. The hell with America's citizens of the West.
  Mr. President, more recently, Interior Secretary Babbitt seriously 
missed the point in claiming that a Federal judge's recent decision to 
take the gnatcatcher off the Endangered Species list was just the 
result of a procedural error.
  Any observer can see that Judge Stanley Sporkin's detailed analysis 
of this case of administrative arrogance on the part of the 
administration is almost a road map to some of the most serious 
shortcomings of the Endangered Species Act. It highlights the abuses 
that Babbitt has tolerated in his eagerness to show that he can make 
the Endangered Species Act work. How different from the Babbitt of 
1980. How sad that this man does not view his job as Secretary of 
Interior, but still the advocate of the League of Conservative Voters.
  Even more troubling is Babbitt's apparent willingness to defy the 
courts. The Secretary says if Judge Sporkin doesn't immediately 
reinstate protections for the gnatcatcher while the Government appeals 
his ruling, he'll do it himself by declaring an emergency and invoke 
the emergency listing procedures in the law so the Secretary of the 
Interior can just ignore the courts.
  Mr. President, allow me to mention the subject of ecosystem 
management. What the Clinton team apparently likes about this ecosystem 
approach is its sheer vagueness. If we don't understand what 
``ecosystem health'' is we won't be aware when that policy fails. Since 
most of us wouldn't recognize an ecosystem boundary if we fell on it, 
there's no limit to the amount of real estate the agencies can claim 
they need to ``protect the ecosystem.'' All in the name of the new 
West.
  This administration is trying to close down roads and rights-of-way 
which are vital to the transportation, safety, law enforcement, and 
general access of Western States.
  Mr. President, it is time to take the war on the West seriously.
  The Federal Government currently owns more than half of all the land 
in the 12 Western States. Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the 
Clinton administration have made it clear that the Federal Government 
is managing these lands for the benefit of specific political interest 
groups with little regard for the legitimate interests of Western 
citizens and businesses. As a result, citizens of Western States have 
little or no control over vast areas of land that were contemplated as 
a source of their livelihood at the time of their statehood.
  The radical ``new West'' reforms proposed by Secretary Babbitt and 
others are designed primarily to limit or prevent commercial and even 
some recreational uses of many federally managed lands. Where such uses 
are allowed, land users face a daunting maze of Federal regulations, 
redtape and increased fees and arrogance.
  There is little hope on the horizon as storm clouds grow.
  Proposed revisions to timber, mining, and grazing policies coupled 
with aggressive application of environmental laws such as the 
Endangered Species and Clean Water acts have only served to promote 
economic uncertainty, with no resolution in sight. New initiatives to 
revise western water law, hydropower projects, fish and wildlife 
programs, and hunting regulations are just beginning to surface. The 
assault on the West is real. There is a strong feeling in many Western 
States that these policies should not be decided inside the beltway by 
people who have no constituent interest or control. The Federal 
Government has become too powerful, too prescriptive, too pervasive, 
and too arrogant.
  After personally witnessing Washington's increasing indifference--and 
even hostility--toward the interests in the West, I believe there is a 
simple, fair, and straightforward solution to these problems that can 
be accomplished by transferring the ownership of much of this land from 
the Federal Government to the States.
  This legislation, when enacted, will approach but not provide equity 
among the States. The playing field will never be completely level, but 
this will help ensure that Western States have a chance to continue to 
be a vital and productive part of this Nation, just as their eastern 
counterparts have always been able to do. Other than Louisiana, no 
State east of the 100th meridian has more than 14 percent of the lands 
within its boundary tied up by the Federal Government.
  Under this bill, at a State's behest, the Federal Government would be 
prevented from owning more than 20 percent of the land area of any 
State, excluding Indian lands. In those States where the Federal 
ownership currently is higher than 20 percent, the President would be 
required to select up to 20 percent of the land in the State that would 
remain under Federal ownership. The remainder would be transferred to 
the State unless the Governor determines that some portion of it should 
remain under Federal ownership and control.
  Recognizing the special nature of our national parks, these lands 
would automatically be included within the 20 percent and would 
therefore perpetually remain under Federal ownership. However, other 
Western lands owned by the Federal Government would be turned over to 
the States, where locally elected officials would be immediately 
accountable to the citizens who have proven to be wise stwards for over 
a century.
  There will be those opposed to this proposal, some hunting and 
fishing groups will at first panic citing their access as a major 
problem. Yet when they think about the behavior and objectives of this 
administration, I believe they will come to embrace its purpose. The 
rules and regulations that were recently pulled back by the Forest 
Service regarding firearms and law enforcement coupled with Forest 
Service Chief Thomas's idea to impose a $100 Federal hunting license to 
kill one elk because the elk once lived on a National Forest give some 
insight to the fact there is an active movement to eliminate hunting, 
guns, and other recreation on public lands.

       Without fanfare, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
     decided that stocking trout and bass fish is a politically 
     incorrect ecological evil. It plans to prohibit this activity 
     on State and private, as well as Federal, lands.

  I am quoting from an Austin Chase article in the Washington Times, 
Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be included 
in the Record.
  Additionally, today there is legislation, advanced by the 
administration, working its way through Congress which would eliminate 
any multiple use activity on a wildlife refuge, if a bureaucrat 
declares it incompatible. And do not forget this is the administration 
that pushed through the Brady bill and assault weapons ban ostensibly 
to fight the war on crime but in reality the first ominous steps toward 
gun control.
  Others may fear that the States will only dispose of the previously 
Federal lands for profit. Mr. President, let me tell you what just 
happened in my own State with regard to that issue. There was a recent 
effort by the State land board to dispose of certain State trust lands. 
However, the citizens of Wyoming rose up and literally stopped the 
venture in its tracks. It is my view that I trust citizens of a State 
to be responsible, to care, and to better be able to effect policy at 
the level of State and local government than are the unaffected Members 
of Congress and the anonymous bureaucracy in Washington.
  I firmly believe that the States will manage these lands better and 
in a more cost-effective manner than the bloated bureaucracy. For 
example, the Federal Government spends $60 million to collect $400 
million in mineral royalties in Wyoming while the State achieves the 
same result at a much lower cost. The identical cost saving rational 
can easily be applied to other land management programs currently 
conducted by the Federal Government.
  Our fight is for the West. We need first to reestablish multiple-use 
and the rights of Westerners and second we need to establish fairness 
and equity among the States by returning their land to them.
  The West constitutes some of the best of America--the best in 
America, let us see that it is not the last of the best.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I now ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2568

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled, That this Act may be referred to as the ``Public 
     Land Emancipation and Management Improvement Act''.
       Sec. 2. Effective on January 1, 1998, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to any real property owned by the United 
     States that is or has been at any time part of the public 
     domain, including, but not limited to, lands that have been 
     withdrawn or disposed of and reacquired, is vested by 
     operation of law in the State in which such property is 
     located subject only to the limitations set forth in section 
     3 of this Act and any valid existing rights.
       Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, the definition of 
     real property shall exclude:
       (a) any lands or interests therein owned by the United 
     States as of January 1, 1998 within the exterior boundaries 
     of any unit of the National Park System;
       (b) any lands or interests therein which the United States 
     holds title to in trust for the benefit of a federally 
     recognized Indian Tribe, a member thereof, or an individual 
     allottee;
       (c) such lands as the President shall have identified for 
     continued federal retention, except that the total of all 
     lands and interests therein identified pursuant to this 
     subsection, when combined with any other lands or interests 
     therein owned by the United States, excluding only lands 
     included under subsections (b) or (d) of this section, may 
     not exceed twenty percent of the total acreage within any 
     given State; and
       (d) any lands or interests therein which the Governor of 
     the State in which such lands are located does not wish to 
     have transferred pursuant to this Act and which the Governor 
     has identified in writing to the President prior to January 
     1, 1998 as not subject to transfer.
       Sec. 4. Not later than January 1, 1997, the President shall 
     prepare a comprehensive inventory of all real property owned 
     by the Federal Government within each of the several States 
     and transmit such list to the Governor of each State and 
     shall accompany such list with an identification of all real 
     property which meets requirements of subsections 3 (a) or (b) 
     or which have been identified for continued Federal retention 
     under subsection 3(c).
       Sec. 5. In the event that the identification of real 
     property under section 3(c) exceeds 20 percent of the total 
     acreage within a State, the Governor of the State may bring 
     an action to modify the list of lands in any Federal district 
     court within such State. Review shall be limited solely to 
     whether the acreage exceeds 20 percent of the total acreage 
     within the State. If the court concludes that the acreage 
     contained in the listing prepared pursuant to subsection 3(c) 
     does exceed 20 percent, then the court shall exclude such 
     acreage as is necessary to reduce the total to no more than 
     20 percent. The acreage to be excluded shall be based solely 
     on a priority list furnished by the Governor. The list shall 
     be final and shall not be subject to any review or 
     modification.
       Sec. 6. For the purpose of this Act, the term ``State'' 
     shall include the several States of the Union, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Virgin 
     Islands.
       Sec. 7. The Federal Government shall remain strictly liable 
     for the cost of any clean-up associated with hazardous 
     materials or contamination associated with any lands 
     transferred pursuant to this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 2569. A bill to prohibit the United States from entering into any 
international agreement which would prevent full implementation of the 
United Nations moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high 
seas; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, once again I come before this body 
to introduce legislation to help protect our fishery resources. This 
bill would prohibit the United States from entering into any agreement 
that would prevent the full implementation of the United Nations 
moratorium on high seas driftnet fishing.
  In 1989, at the urging of Members of this body, the United States 
introduced the resolution at the United Nations which established a 
global moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing. In 1991 the 
President signed into law strong legislation to enforce that 
moratorium.
  While still not fully complied with in all the world's oceans, the 
moratorium has been effective in the North Pacific. The Coast Guard has 
worked closely with other Federal agencies to detect and pursue fishing 
vessels that try to violate the moratorium in the North Pacific and the 
Bering Sea. We need to bring that same cooperation to the aid of 
fisheries that need protection in other areas of the world. This bill 
would help do that.
  As a result of the efforts by the United States and other concerned 
nations to prevent the use of large-scale driftnet fishing on the high 
seas and to limit fishing on other shared stocks in areas like the 
central Bering Sea and the South Pacific, the nations of the world have 
recently adopted ``an agreement to promote compliance with 
international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels 
on the high seas'', and are discussing a draft agreement on the 
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly 
migratory fish stocks. Both of these agreements should help further 
advance efforts to protect and rebuild the world's fish stocks and 
other living marine resources.
  There is concern that some nations might try to use the straddling 
stocks negotiations as a means to undo the United Nations moratorium on 
large-scale driftnet fishing. This bill simply makes it clear that the 
United States will not support or endorse any effort to prevent the 
full implementation of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale 
driftnet fishing. Nor will we be part of any effort to undermine its 
effectiveness. Under this bill the United States cannot sign any 
agreement that would have that effect.
  As this is the last day of the 103d Congress we will not have a 
chance to pass this bill this year. But I want to put the world on 
notice that our commitment to halting large-scale driftnet fishing has 
not weakened, and I look forward to reintroducing this bill early in 
the 104th Congress.

                          ____________________