[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.
____________________