[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11272-S11274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE OMNIBUS PARKS BILL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am waiting for one of my colleagues. 
But in the interim I would like to bring to the attention of the 
Members the prospects again for addressing the 126 individual bills in 
the omnibus parks package.
  This has been the culmination of some 2 years in the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As a 
consequence of that effort we are on the eve of initiating an action in 
this body that would result in the passage of this very important 
legislation which clearly is the most significant environmental package 
with some 126 bills that has come before this body.
  As a continuation of my previous remarks, the conference-adopted 
amendments in sum serve to ensure that this legislation will rectify 
particularly the accumulation of inadequate funding which now totals 
some $4 billion necessary to maintain our parks in a manner which is in 
keeping with the uniqueness and oftentimes the sanctity of those areas.
  One of the amendments adopted and totally submitted by the Senator 
from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, which addressed concerns of the 
National Park Foundation Act, is evidence that that amendment would 
serve to ensure that the legislation would not lead to unwarranted 
commercialization of the parks, or abuse by corporate sponsors. The 
theory, Mr. President, here is that this legislation would be 
implemented in such a way that it followed very much that patterned 
after the national Olympic committees which authorize certain very 
select stipulations with regard to certification by the Olympic 
committees of activities that can occur in association with the 
Olympics.
  For example, if a movie is made in one of our national parks, is 
there any contribution given to that national park to that movie? If 
there is a picture of an automobile, a new model portrayed in front of 
Mount Shasta, is there a contribution from Chrysler, Ford or General 
Motors to that park?
  This is the innovative approach that we are hoping to prevail in the 
National Park Foundation Act to help fund our parks, not to 
commercialize the parks. We are not going to have the park sponsored by 
``Joe Blow's Gas Station,'' or something of that nature, I assure you. 
It is going to be in keeping with the intention of the park.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator, while he retains the 
floor, yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am pleased to yield to the chairman of the committee 
of jurisdiction on parks.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to say to my dear friend, the 
distinguished colleague from Alaska, how much I have admired all of the 
work that he has done as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, and especially for his dedication to putting 
together and crafting a bill with a wide-ranging impact on our national 
parks and on other recreational land, and lands that are appropriate 
for preservation. I know how much that he wanted also to pass and have 
included provisions that are very important to him and to the people he 
represents in Alaska, and to other Members of this body.
  I must confess that I felt that his ambitions were as great as they 
were worthy and that they were very likely to cause this body to not be 
able to act on many of these matters. As a consequence at the request 
of a number of Members of both the House and Senate, I have seriously 
considered whether or not it is appropriate to include in the 
Department of the Interior portion of our appropriations bill at least 
some of the important and not so controversial elements of that bill. I 
do have a particular interest--not that of a constituent interest--in 
one part of that. The Presidio portion of that bill is very important 
because the Presidio is by far the most expensive of our national parks 
and takes up a tremendous amount of the appropriations in which I 
supervise and oversee and chair in this body. To get the kind of 
community participation in San Francisco that we have desired to take 
some of the burdens of the local aspects of the Presidio off our hands 
so that we can better fund other national parks is important. So that 
was one element of the bill that we proposed to include.

  I have been as delighted, however, as I was surprised at the ability 
of the Senator from Alaska now to put together a conference committee 
report which is ready to be reported and debated in the Senate. I 
simply say to my

[[Page S11273]]

colleagues they are not going to get the half or quarter loaf that was 
a possibility in the appropriations bill. This was an alternative if 
the conference committee could not work a way out. I am as committed 
and as dedicated to the passage of the entire bill that the Senator 
from Alaska as the chairman of the committee has submitted, I hope, 
almost as much as he is. It is, in the vernacular, the only train 
through town during the rest of this session, and I hope the Senate 
will soon be able to take it up and be able to pass it.
  With that, I yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my colleague with reference to the 
Presidio in relation to the trust which is authorized in the 
legislation, it is my understanding the proposal advocated by some for 
the Government to manage that facility was somewhere in the area of 
$1.2 billion. The intention of the trust will be to use some of the 
extraordinarily talented people in San Francisco who are knowledgeable 
on finance, development, and environmental concerns to come together 
and operate this similar to the Pennsylvania Avenue effort here in 
Washington that has been so effective in rejuvenating the downtown 
area. Obviously, the people of San Francisco are closest to that and 
the justification for that application working, I am satisfied, having 
met several people that I assume would be appointed by the President 
if, indeed, the Presidio package becomes law.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Alaska is entirely correct. The National 
Park Service is not set up to be the manager of the extensive and 
varied kinds of buildings that are found on the Presidio, very 
expensive to keep up, very expensive in requiring a great deal of 
sensitivity to lease or to rent in a way that is consistent with the 
land around and in the Presidio itself. So the trust is clearly the 
right way to go, and that is the leading element of the bill that the 
Senator from Alaska has reported. It is by no means the only one. As I 
understand from his notes, as many as 41 States may have projects that 
are helped by that bill. I hope, as the Senator from Alaska does, that 
the Senate will take it up promptly and will pass it promptly and it 
will be signed by the President. But in any event, that is the only way 
we are going to get from here to there.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Washington. I remind him, too, 
that Washington has some other interests. There is the Vancouver 
Reserve establishment and the Hanford Reach protection that are 
associated with the State of Washington exclusively. There are 
currently 126 individual bills in this package, and the significance of 
it, as the Senator well knows, is the result of a great deal of 
individual Members' and staffs' time, commitment, and hearings that 
have resulted in the last 2 years of effort.
  Now, some of my friends tell me they have been at their individual 
bills longer than that. I want to assure my friend from Washington that 
those items that the administration identified as items, in their 
opinion, warranting a veto--the Tongass was one, Utah wilderness, 
grazing, the Minnesota boundary waters--all have been removed. I am 
sure if the administration wants to find something to veto, why, they 
will choose to do that, but they should also bear the responsibility of 
accountability for the very positive aspects of this bill which do 
represent some 41 States' interests and 126 individual participations 
in this portion.

  I thank my friend from Washington for his statement relative to the 
fact that this is the train. It has left the station. I encourage my 
colleagues to recognize that, if we do not do it now, it simply will 
not get done. I thank my friend from Washington.
  I will conclude my references with the remainder of my statement, Mr. 
President, relative to a little more enlightenment on the issue. I 
again refer to the National Park Foundation Act and the aspects of 
ensuring that we will get the balance necessary to ensure that the 
parks are not victimized by commercialization associated with this 
amendment, which would simply relieve some of the appropriation process 
to ensure that the funds can be contributed by appropriate corporate 
sponsors related to legitimate activities that are allowed in the parks 
similar to what I have described relative to movie background and the 
tradition there has been no consideration given to the parks for that 
and other types of activities in keeping with the sanctity of the park.
  I do want to expand on one more item of major importance which I 
think some would suggest is as important to some extent as the Presidio 
and that is the California bay delta environmental enhancement 
legislation which is in there. This provision is backed by virtually 
everyone and is equal to or certainly on a par with the Everglades 
initiative in its significance because those of us who are familiar 
with the bay area recognize what this bay delta environmental 
enhancement legislation would do to clean up the bay. The authorities 
in this bill will allow for massive restoration, massive cleanup in San 
Francisco Bay and the delta region.
  As I have indicated in the colloquy with my friend from Washington, 
this legislation touches nearly every State in the Nation, and while we 
attempted to address the concerns of all of our colleagues, as I have 
indicated, some of the items fell by the wayside either because we 
could not agree among our conferees, the House and Senate could not 
agree, or the administration could not agree. Of course, as I have 
indicated earlier, President Clinton made it very clear that if certain 
provisions were included in the package, he would veto the entire 
effort, no matter how meritorious.
  As I indicated, we addressed that in the wilderness bill which was 
abandoned, the grazing bill which was abandoned. Unfortunately, 
communities in our Western States are not too happy about this. A 
portion of Minnesota will not have the benefit of motorized portages in 
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In my State, the Ketchikan contract 
extension provision was left on the table because the President made it 
clear that he would veto the entire bill. This meant as many as 
potentially 4,000 jobs--1,000 direct, 3,000 indirect--would be the 
result of not including that contract extension. Those are the only 
year-round manufacturing jobs we have in the State. As a consequence, I 
feel very badly about this. These are jobs that this administration 
sacrificed in my State, in my opinion, to appease an environmental 
lobby, which I think is unfortunate because the environmental lobby has 
attempted to instill fear instead of reality and logic. There is a very 
positive reaction which could result from the Ketchikan contract 
extension leading to advanced technology in other mills. But, for 
reasons that are quite obvious, the objective is simply to terminate 
harvesting of all timber in forests. And this administration and the 
environmental community seem to be hell-bent to achieve that.

  The administration seems to have continued to oppose any value-added 
use of the Tongass National Forest. I think it is difficult, and sad, 
when the Government turns its back on the men and women who have built 
communities and towns and made them livable for those who come after. I 
think it is a harsh action. It is one without compassion. And the 
explanation is, well, if there are people suffering, we will simply 
write a check; we will provide funds to offset their loss of jobs 
through various types of assistance.
  That is not what built America. That is not what built my State. It 
is not what is going to continue to maintain our area. There are 
certain limitations on what taxpayers should be expected to do given 
what people want to do to help themselves. I think it is disappointing 
the administration has chosen to turn its back on our workers, again, 
effectively killing our only year-round manufacturing/processing plant 
in the State.
  So, we have come full circle in the Tongass. Some of my Alaskan 
friends will reflect on the time when we were a territory, prior to 
1959. They had a couple of sawmills. There was no real available timber 
at that time. There was no demand at that time. The Forest Service was 
not structured to any extent at that time. The theory was: How can we 
develop some jobs, some tax base, an economy in southeastern Alaska?
  After the war, they began to look north towards the pulp stands. I 
might add, 50 percent of the standing timber is in the form usable for 
pulp. It does not meet sawmill requirements. It has virtually no other 
use than dissolving pulp. The question is, are we going to allow this 
50 percent of timber in

[[Page S11274]]

southeastern Alaska to be exported to the pulp mills in the south 48, 
Washington, Oregon, British Columbia?
  The head of the Forest Service, who later became Governor in the 
State of Alaska, Governor Hickel, initiated a plan to establish four 
pulp mills in Alaska. Two of those were built. Two years ago, under 
environmental opposition, the Sitka mill was closed. Today, or in the 
not too distant future, we are about to see the termination of the one 
remaining mill, the Ketchikan pulp mill. So we made full circle to 
where we were when we were a territory. We have no utilization of 50 
percent of the timber, other than to export it to mills in the Pacific 
Northwest and British Columbia, exporting our jobs, exporting our tax 
base.
  There are a lot of unhappy Alaskans as a consequence of the inability 
of this administration to consider the merits of extending the contract 
so the $200 million investment can be made in a new mill.
  So, the administration eliminated the chances for the pulp mill 
contract extension because there are certainly not enough votes in a 
Presidential election year to override a Presidential veto. I think it 
is truly regrettable that this administration has seen fit to make 
Tongass management an election issue, to pander to some of the extreme 
environmental groups who have established themselves in our State. I 
think we have 62 of them now. If you are not in Alaska, you are not a 
legitimate environmental group. They send their lawyers up to do 
missionary work, because everybody has a little different view and 
vision of Alaska. Their vision is that somehow Alaska should not be 
subject to any responsible resource development. Whether it be timber, 
oil and gas, mining, we cannot do it safely, really selling American 
technology short. They use their presence, then, for their cause or 
causes, raising money and increasing membership by advanced rhetoric, 
fear tactics that we cannot do it safely.

  Mr. President, we are currently 51.4 percent dependent on imported 
oil. In 1973, we were 36 percent dependent on imported oil. The 
Department of Energy says by the year 2000, 4 years away, we will be 66 
percent dependent on imported oil.
  We are exporting our jobs, we are exporting our dollars, we are 
exposing the national energy security interests of this country to the 
whims of the Mideast that we have become so dependent on. We will pay 
the piper. The public will blame Government. They will blame the 
industry. We have been producing 25 percent of the total crude oil for 
the last 18 years. It is in decline. We can replace it. We have the 
know-how. But America's environmental community says no.
  They do not say no with an alternative; they simply say no, because 
it generates membership and the American people cannot go up and look 
at it. They cannot go up and look at Endicott, which is now the seventh 
largest producing field in North America. The footprint is 54 acres. If 
we could develop, with the technology we have, the ANWR area would be 
12,500 acres or less, about the size of the Dulles International 
Airport if the rest of Virginia were wilderness. Those are the 
dimensions. That is the technology. We will pay the piper and the 
environmental groups will not take any of the responsibility.
  Their cause is fear. They have been very effective. And those of us 
who have tried to be a little more objective, I guess, have failed. 
That is where we are, certainly, on this issue, with the loss of our 
only manufacturing plant.
  In conclusion, all the controversial items have been removed from 
this bill. The administration may not like every detail of every 
provision, but in total it is a very acceptable, very profound, very 
worthwhile package because it is for our parks and for resource 
conservation. It addresses the concerns of our national parks and our 
public lands. I guess it also represents what is wrong with our system, 
because Member after Member will come to me, as does the media, and 
say: Why did you have to have this huge package of bills? Why did you 
not pass them out? You are the chairman of the committee.
  In deference to all of us, we know how this place works. Virtually 
every bill we reported out, every one of these 126 bills that are in 
the package, have had holds placed on them after we moved them out of 
committee, reported them out of committee. This is a right, under the 
rules of the Senate, but that is what is wrong with the process. So, 
after our efforts to untangle this and put it together and take away 
those items that were poison pills that the administration addressed, 
we presented the package as a consequence of the conference last night 
and our ability to have the House accept and send over the package.
  We had one senior Senator who placed a hold on committee bills 
because of totally unrelated bills which the full Senate eventually 
voted, 63 to 37, to pass.
  The abuse of the hold has contributed to the construction of this 
package. I guess one bill cannot move without another and another and 
another. The system needs repair so the Senate can proceed to 
meritorious legislation in a timely fashion on the merits of each 
individual bill.

  I see other Senators waiting. This Senator has been waiting to bring 
the Presidio package before this body since 1 o'clock. I understand 
there is some concern on the other side of the aisle. We have not heard 
an expression of what that concern is. As I have indicated, if they are 
looking for an excuse to hold it up, veto it, then let's say so. Let's 
say so. Let's have it out. I am sure they can find one.
  But if not, as the Senator from Washington said, if you are expecting 
some of the issues, some of these bills to be taken out of the omnibus 
parks package and put in the reconciliation package as a consequence of 
work underway by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, you have 
just heard the Senator from Washington, the chairman of that 
subcommittee, indicate that this is the only train moving. He is not 
going to take bills out of this portion and put them in the Interior 
appropriations bill and put it on the CR.
  This is the train that is moving. We are ready to move with it. If 
you are going to hold up the train, you have to bear the responsibility 
for 41 States that are affected here--37 to 41, depending. Some of them 
are double-counted, like New Jersey and New York, because they affect 
both States, or the 126 individual bills that are in the package.
  I encourage my colleagues to either come to the floor and indicate 
why they find it unacceptable, or face up to the opportunity we have 
now and pass it now. Procedurally, the last point I want to make is, if 
there is a motion that prevails to recommit, the package is dead. It is 
over. That is it once and for all. It is gone. We have lost our 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire what the procedure is at the 
current time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators can speak in morning business.

                          ____________________