[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2855-S2857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT

  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

[[Page S2856]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S2857]]

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leader's time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was.

                          ____________________