[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11660-S11666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OMNIBUS PARKS LEGISLATION
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could respond to my good friend from
North Dakota relative to his concerns about the process here,
particularly on the Presidio-omnibus parks bill, because, I, too, as
chairman of the committee on which he serves, feel an extraordinary
frustration about what we went through in committee because, as the
Members know, we held the hearings, accommodated members as they
introduced their bills, and then we attempted to move these bills to
the floor.
I think it is important to recognize that virtually every single bill
in the parks package, 126 sections to accommodate Members, immediately
have holds put on them by one Senator from New Jersey. That is just the
fact. The record will reflect that reality. His motivation--it is part
of the rules; it is appropriately done--was to get the House to move on
Sterling Forest. There were objections over there on Sterling Forest.
And that is part of the process. They have a right to do that. But as a
consequence, we could not move a single bill to the floor for action
because there was a hold on them.
Here we have this package today of 126 sections in the Presidio parks
bill, and that is why we have it, Madam President. It is as a
consequence of Members using the rules, if you will, to advance the
position of their own bills. But my job as chairman of the committee is
to try to advance all those bills
[[Page S11661]]
that came out of my committee. That is what the Presidio parks package
is all about.
As a consequence, we are in a situation now where, having been
notified by the administration of certain objections to that package,
we responded. We responded in a conference mode, and we pulled off what
they objected to. They objected to Utah wilderness. They objected to
grazing. They objected to the 15-year Tongass extension contractual
commitment. They objected to the Minnesota wilderness waters. So we
pulled those. And then, they came back 2 days later with provisions in
the Presidio conference report which would invoke a Presidential veto,
and they listed: Conveyance to the city of Sumner, 1.5 acres to the
City of Sumner, OR; 218. Shenandoah National Park; 219. Tulare
conveyance; Alpine school district, 30 acres of land to the Alpine
School District for a public school facility, passed the House by
suspension. They never raised an objection. Coastal barrier, FL, 40
acres of developed property out of 1.2 million acres, supported by a
bipartisan Florida delegation and the Governor; conveyance to Del Norte
County Unified School District, transfer of small acres to the school
district in California for recreation, recess purposes.
Now, Madam President, this administration has a responsibility for
killing this package. This package is dead once the CR comes over from
the House, as the majority whip is well aware. Right now there is a
hold on this package, and the hold is by the minority leader on behalf
of the administration. Otherwise we can move this conference back to
the House while they are still in session and they will move it back
here and it is passed. And the Presidio takes place as a reality, the
Snow Basin takes place, so we can host the winter Olympics, that
becomes a reality, the San Francisco Bay delta cleanup becomes a
reality, Sterling Forest becomes a reality. And they are not even
responding.
Last night we sent a letter down saying we are ready to continue
discussions to get this done. It is 2:30, Saturday afternoon, no
response.
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record, as well
as the identification of the 40-some-odd individual items that they
indicated they would invoke a Presidential veto over, with an
explanation on them, so that everyone who reads the Record can readily
understand, if you will.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 27, 1996.
Mr. John L. Hilley,
Assistant to the President and Director for Legislative
Affairs,
The White House.
Dear Mr. Hilley: After our discussion earlier today, I
thought it would be constructive if as Chairman of the
Conference on H.R. 1296, I provided you with comments on the
items to which the Administration appears to object by virtue
of the fact they were not included on the list of acceptable
items you provided to me late last night.
As you will see many of the legislative provisions
previously passed the House under suspension with no
Administration objections. Still other provisions passed the
Senate or the House after the Administration testified in
support. Others had passed the House or Senate after bi-
partisan negotiations had attempted to address specific
Administration concerns. Yet other provisions, while
important to individual members, relate to such minor matter
as the study of a four foot radio tower at the site of an
existing tower on a national forest. It is difficult to
comprehend an objection to such a provision in the context of
this conference report. Finally, some provisions to which you
apparently object have the broad bi-partisan support of House
and Senate delegations, often including the Governor of the
relevant state.
I hope this information is helpful to the Administration in
re-considering its position. Tomorrow I will again attempt to
recommit H.R. 1296 to conference for the purpose of allowing
the conferees to meet and consider changes to the conference
report. If the Administration would care to present
information concerning its objections to specific provisions
at such a meeting of the conferees I would be pleased to
arrange this meeting and give the information presented due
consideration. Obviously such a meeting will not be possible
unless H.R. 1296 is recommitted to conference. I believe that
in the short time remaining in the 104th Congress this is a
reasonable path to take to a successful conference report. It
is my sincere hope that for the benefit of the many intensely
interested members both Democrat and Republican, some
retiring at the end of this Congress, this important parks
and public lands legislation will pass the Congress.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman.
____
Provisions in Presidio Conference Report Which Would Invoke a
Presidential Veto.
216--Conveyance to city of Sumpter Oregon: Authorizes
Secretary of Agriculture to convey 1.5 acres to City of
Sumpter, Oregon for public purposes. Administration raised no
objections when bill passed under suspension in the House.
218--Shenandoah National Park: Adjusts 1923 Park boundary
authorization to match today's existing park boundary.
Similar bill passed House 377-33 under suspension. Provision
has support of bi-partisan VA. Delegation.
219--Tulare conveyance: Clears title of 14 acres owned by a
railroad to citizens of Tulare, California. Attempt by City
of Tulare to clean-up blighted downtown area. Hearings held
and provision was reported by Resources Committee. DOI
reportedly has no objection.
220--Alpine School District: Conveys 30 acres of land to
the Alpine school district for a public school facility.
Passed House by suspension and Administration never raised
objection.
223--Coastal Barrier Resource System: Removes 40 acres of
developed property out of a 1.2 million acre Coastal Barrier
Resource System. Reported by the Resources Committee.
Supported by bi-partisan Florida Delegation and the Governor.
224--Conveyance to Del Norte County Unified school
district: Transfers small acreage to the School district in
California for educational purposes. Passed House under
suspension. Provision includes Forest Service requested
amendments.
303--Alaska peninsular subsurface consolidation: Authorizes
Secretary to exchange subsurface holdings of Koniag
Corporation on an equal value basis for lands and interest
owned by the federal gov't. Passed House and Senate. Included
in the original Presidio package, the Administration
indicated it would sign.
304--Snow basin land exchange: Would allow expedited land
exchange to facilitate the 2002 Winter Olympics. Passed both
House and Senate. Included in the original Presidio package,
the Administration indicated it would sign.
309--Sand Hollow exchange: Equal value exchange in Zion
National Park to transfer water development rights in order
to protect Zion National Park. Passed the House. The
Administration has indicated supported.
311--Land exchange, city of Greely, Colorado: Equal value
exchange to secure property needed by the city to secure
protection of the city's water supply.
312--Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve land
exchange and foundary adjustment: This would add more than 2
million acres of native owned lands to Gates of the Arctic
National Park and Preserve in AK--in exchange for lands in
the NPR-A.
313--Kenai Natives Association land exchange: This would
facilitate exchange between KNA and the FWS to allow an
Alaska Native Corp. to gain economic use of their land--this
would be an acre-for-acre exchange. An Administration
supported two-for-one acre exchange passed the House.
401--Cache La Poudre corridor: Establishes a corridor to
interpret and protect a unique and historical waterway.
Included in the original Presidio package the Administration
indicated it would sign.
405--RS2477: Places a moratorium on final regulations
without Congressional approval. Language agreed to by Senate
Republicans and Democrats and the Administration. Reported by
Energy Committee.
406--Hanford Reach preservation: Extends a moratorium on
construction of any new dams or impoundments in this area.
Passed House under suspension with Administration objections.
502--Vancouver National historic reserve: Establishes a new
historic reserve. Administration testified in support. Passed
the Senate. Hearings held in both bodies.
602--Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act: Establishes a
visitors center at Shiloh National Military Park in
Mississippi. Included in the original Presidio package the
Administration indicated it would sign. Passed the Senate.
603--Richmond National Battlefield Park: Establishes
boundary in accordance with new NPS management plan dated 8/
96. Passed the House 337-33 under suspension. Administration
opposed House-passed bill, however it has been modified to
address their concerns. Supported by the bipartisan Va.
Delegation.
604--Revolutionary War: A study to determine if these sites
warrant further protection Senate Energy reported bill--
Administration testified in support. Hearings in both bodies.
607--Shenandoah Valley Battlefield: Establishes Historical
Area. Does not create a new park. Administration opposed
House-passed bill, however it has been modified to address
their concerns. Supported by the bi-partisan Va. Delegation.
701--Ski area permits: Simplifies ski area fee collection.
Passed House and Senate. Included in the original Presidio
package the Administration indicated it would sign.
Administration testified in support.
703--Visitor services: Would raise $150 million for parks
to help with badly needed repairs of existing park
structures. 100% of new fees go back to the parks. Provision
was
[[Page S11662]]
modified to address Administration concerns.
704--Glacier Bay National Park: Raises fees to support
research and natural resources protection through a per-
person charge on vessels entering Glacier Bay.
803--Ozark wild horses: Would protect and prevent the
removal of a existing wild horse herds at Ozark National
Scenic Riverway. Passed the House under suspension without
Administration objection. Passed Senate Committee.
806--Katmai National Park agreements: Authorizes research
in National Parks, including the ability of the USGS to
conduct volcanoligical research in Katmai National Park.
Administration has supported research cooperative agreements
for the last three Congressional sessions.
811--Expenditures of funds outside boundary of Rock
Mountain National Park: Allows NPS to build a visitor center
outside the park with private funds. Administration and the
National Park Service requested this provision. Passed the
House under suspension. Passed Senate Energy Committee.
815--NPS administrative reform: Provides authorities NPS
has requested for years--aids parks in protection of
resources and provide facilities for employees. Provides
Senate confirmation of NPS Director. Administration testified
in support at House hearings. Portions incorporated in
President Clinton's Earth Day address on National Parks.
Passed House under suspension with no Administration
opposition.
816--Mineral King: Authorizes the continuation of summer
cabin leases. Totally discretionary for the Secretary.
Supported by bi-partisan members of House and Senate
California Delegation. House hearings held. Reported by
Resources Committee. Provision has been modified to address
Administration's concerns.
818--Calumet Ecological Park: A study of the Calumet Lake
area to determine alternatives for preservation.
819--Acquisition of certain property in Santa Cruz:
Provides for the acquisition of property on Santa Cruz Island
to prevent the further destruction of the resource due to
over-population of feral goats.
1021--Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park: Formally
designates a recreation area. Changes monument status to park
and creates a BLM Conservation area. Designates 22,000 acres
of wilderness. Energy Committee hearings held.
1022--National Park Foundation: Provides the opportunity
for the private sector to sponsor the NPS, similar to the
sponsorship of the Olympic games. Administration has
testified in support. Administration testified in support.
Part of President Clinton's Earth Day proclamation on Parks.
Provision has been modified to address last minute
Administration concerns.
1028--Mount Hood: Exchange between private company and
federal gov't. Passed the Senate with no Administration
objection.
1029--Creation of the Coquille Forest: Equal value exchange
creating a tribal forest. Passed the Senate with no
Administration objection.
1034--Natchez National Historical Park: Creates an
auxiliary area to a NPS unit and provides $3 million for an
intermodal transportation system and visitor center.
Administration testified in support at Energy Committee
hearing. Reported by Senate Energy.
1036--Rural electric and telephone facilities: Authorizes
BLM to waive right-of-way rental charges for small rural
electric and phone cooperatives.
1037--Federal borough recognition: Allows the unorganized
borough in Alaska to receive PILT payments. Language was
modified in conjunction with BLM and Administration has
raised no objection. Reported by Energy Committee.
1038--Alternative processing: Prohibits the termination of
a timber sale contract solely for the reason of failure to
operate a pulp mill. Provides flexibility so that jobs in the
sawmill portion of the contract are not lost along with the
pulp mill jobs. This is not a contract extension nor is it an
increase in timber harvesting. Language has been drastically
modified from original proposal. Hearings on contract issues
held in both bodies.
1039--Village land negotiations: Provides authority for the
Secretary to negotiated with five tiny Alaskan villages
regarding their entitlements under ANCSA. Language has been
modified to address Administration concerns. Provides the
Secretary with already existing authority to negotiate
without the restrictions of a legal challenge against him.
Language has been further modified from earlier versions and
does not include the conveyance of any land or assets.
Hearings held in both bodies.
1040--Unrecognized communities in SE Alaska: Authorizes the
native residents of five Southeast Alaska villages to
organize as urban or group corporations under an amendment to
ANCSA. Provision does not direct grants of any federal land
or compensation to these villages without a future act of
congress. Language has been drastically modified from earlier
proposals in that it does not contain any guarantee of land
to the villages.
1041--Gross brothers: Transfers approximately 160 acres of
Forest Service land to Daniel J. Gross and Douglas K. Gross
of Wrangell, Alaska. These are the children of the original
homesteaders. Energy Committee hearing held.
1043--Credit for reconveyance: Would allow Cape Fox
Corporation to transfer 320 acres of land near the Beaver
Falls Hydro project to the Forest Service. CFC's ANCSA
entitlement would be credited with an equal amount of
acreage. This provision does not provide CFC any additional
entitlement. Hearing held in the House. Administration raised
no objection to this provision.
1044--Radio site report: A study to determine if an
existing radio site continues to be necessary.
1045--Retention and maintenance of certain dams and weirs,
etc.: Requires the Forest Service to maintain specific dams
and weirs in the Immigrant Wilderness Area.
1046--Matching land conveyance (University of Alaska):
Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to discuss a land grant
with the University of Alaska who has never received its
federal entitlement under the Land Grant College Program.
Provides for a matching grant to the State. Provision
specifically excludes lands that are part of a CSU or part of
a National Forest.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember the
administration originally said they might veto it if it had a provision
dealing with an Alaska pulp mill, a provision in Minnesota, a couple of
major provisions that they strongly objected to.
Those were removed, were they not, out of the package?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. They were
removed. The 15-year contract extension was removed. Minnesota
wilderness waters were removed. And, of course, Utah wilderness and
grazing were removed.
Mr. NICKLES. I was going to say, the grazing provisions were also
seriously objected to. So you have removed the really contentious
issues. I have looked through the list of 46. There are some
Democrat's, and mostly Republican projects. For most of those there is
not a great deal of land, there are not significant projects that they
are trying to have removed. But it bothers me to think in many cases
there has never been an objection raised to any of those, even in the
Senate, when we passed it in the past, or from the House. Is that not
correct?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.
For example, this is in Missouri: Ozark wild horses preservation.
What we would do would be to protect, prevent the removal, of the wild
horse herds of the Ozarks on the national scenic riverway. This passed
the House under the suspension without the administration's objection.
It passed the Senate Energy Committee. Without this in the package,
without this passing, those horses are going to be killed. They are
going to be shot.
There is no explanation. I cannot imagine the administration, in an
election year--I cannot imagine the administration not responding to
the needs of the Presidio, or cleaning up the San Francisco Bay area,
or getting behind the land exchange for Snow Basin, allowing the
Olympics to continue in this plan. But there is no explanation.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Alaska,
again. I want to encourage him not to give up faith, and maybe we will
have some better cooperation from the administration and hopefully the
minority leader so we can pass this package. It does have strong
bipartisan support.
As I mentioned before, I read through a few of these projects. There
are a lot of projects by Democrats and Republicans in this package. The
Senator from Alaska runs the Energy Committee in a very bipartisan way,
as Senator Johnston has. So these projects are not partisan.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely, the Senator is correct. As a matter of
fact, I have a list here of those that affect Democratic Members, many
of whom are retiring, that they want to encourage passage of. My
Democratic friends on the committee know that, as we address the
hearing process, it is in a bipartisan manner. We work very well
together. I have always felt very comfortable with Senator Johnston as
the ranking member, and the professional staff of both sides.
I think our efforts are recognized, as trying to be responsive to
Members regardless of what their party affiliation is.
I will share this with my friend from Oklahoma. The largest single
beneficiary is the State of California. There are probably about 18
sections in here,
[[Page S11663]]
including the Presidio, Elsmere Canyon, San Francisco Bay enhancement--
cleanup of the San Francisco Bay area.
The Arkansas-Oklahoma land exchange, which affects you and the State
of Arkansas as well. Obviously, Senator Bumpers is interested in that.
Senator Heflin, who is retiring--Alabama, Selma to Montgomery Historic
Trail. These are in the package and these affect our Democratic
colleagues.
Florida, the Florida coastal barrier amendments, Senator Graham.
Georgia, Senator Nunn retiring, Chickamauga-Chattanooga. Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan--Montana, Lost
Creek exchange; New Jersey, Sterling Forest; Senator Moynihan in New
York, Women's rights boundary adjustment, Sterling Forest; Virginia,
Senator Robb, Senator Warner, Cumberland Gap boundary, Richmond
Battlefield boundary adjustment, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield
establishment.
That is why this is so cumbersome, because there are so many
sections, 126 sections. West Virginia, West Virginia rivers, Senator
Byrd.
I am absolutely at a loss. Maybe the administration simply feels
that, somehow, they can put a spin on this that this is not important;
or somehow the environmental community is not supporting the package in
its entirety. There are a few items in here that probably the
environmental community would not support. But when you put a package
together in a democratic process it is a give and take, and that is why
this package is together and not individually brought before the
Senate, because holds were put on every single bill that came out of
the committee. As the whip knows, as a member of the committee, we
could not get anything to the floor because we had holds on every
single bill that came out of this committee by the Senator from New
Jersey, who saw fit to do that to influence the House. That issue was
Sterling Forest, which I have always supported. I do not have any
problem with Sterling Forest. It is a good piece of legislation. I want
it to happen.
Now we are in the process of sacrificing everything, and I think, in
these waning hours, it is very important the public understand where
the responsibility has to lie. It has to lie at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, again, I thank my colleague from Alaska
for his leadership. He has been very fair, No. 1, in putting this
package together. As a member of the Energy Committee for many, many
years, working with him, he has done a good job. I might say, most of
these deal with our national parks. I think a lot of us like to
consider ourselves big friends of the national parks. We like to enjoy
them. You mentioned Shenandoah Park. You think of Yellowstone or you
think of some of the other projects, Presidio next to San Francisco.
That is a project that a lot of people have been working on. The
compromise package on Presidio is going to allow better management so
the Federal Government is not writing checks, as we were, and
utilization of the property is going to be a lot better for the public.
Thinking of some of the other parks and systems that we have in this,
to enhance the parks throughout our country is a good, significant
investment. That is what we are trying to do by this bill.
I did talk to our colleague, Senator Campbell, from Colorado, who,
unfortunately, had a bad motorcycle accident and is not here. But he
requested, he said, would you please help me try to pass some of these
bills? I have been working on these for the last couple of years. I
counted, I think, eight or nine bills dealing with Colorado and the
parks and so on, some land exchanges, that are important to Colorado
and really important to our country.
I told him I would try to help. I told the Senator from California I
would try to pass Presidio. I want to do it.
There have been holds, primarily on the Democrat side, that have been
blocking this bill for months. The Senator from Alaska has been trying
to bring it up. Some of that dealt with the land in New Jersey.
That is in this bill. So we do need to pass it. I hope we can still
find a way. I cannot imagine, when you have such strong bipartisan
support, that we cannot find a way to do it. I am troubled by the
administration's objection. I am troubled by the fact that they would
come up with moving the goalposts.
They had objections before. The Senator from Alaska took those out. I
urged him to take out, at some sacrifice to the Senator and to the
State of Alaska, one of his largest year-round employers. And he made
that sacrifice so we could pass this package. I compliment him for his
willingness to make some sacrifice so we could enact a bill that would
benefit most of the country.
Now, for the administration to come up with a lot of, I don't know,
excuses, to object to that package? I hope they will relent. I hope
they will reconsider. Because it will be a real shame not to be able to
pass most all of this legislation that the Senator from Alaska has
brought before the Senate.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can ask my colleague a question,
relative to what the possible motivation might be? Why will they not
allow us as a body, bipartisan, to address this and resolve it by
lifting the holds and letting us vote on it? Because the procedure is
that it would come before the Senate. There would be, if it were in
order, a vote to recommit back. If it prevails, then the Presidio and
the entire omnibus package is dead.
We are being prevented from voting to make an ultimate determination
of the disposition of the package. I tried to find out what possible
explanation there might be. With this hold on it we cannot move the
conference report back to the House. It is my understanding,
procedurally, in the House, someone could move to recommit. That would
kill it in the House. But I have been assured by the Members in the
House that is very unlikely to occur. It is doubtful it would even come
up, but, procedurally, it would come back here, be subject to
recommittal, and we would have a vote so we could determine by a
democratic process the disposition. But we are being precluded from
that at this time.
Mr. NICKLES. To respond to the question of the Senator from Alaska,
the parliamentary situation is such, in the last day or two of the
Senate, a lot of things will not move unless you have unanimous
consent. I know the Senator from Alaska has tried to get this bill up
but there have been holds. There have been objections. Now I think we
are at the place where we cannot bring this bill up unless we have
unanimous consent.
We have an objection from the Democratic side. Maybe that will be
removed. I hope that it will. I hope they realize what is at stake, and
maybe it will be reconsidered. I am urging them to do so. I just think
there are too many positive things for the entire country for us to let
this fall.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the sections which I understand the administration is objecting
to, so people can see.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sections Deleted
216--Conveyance to City of Sumter Oregon (Hatfield):
Authorizes Secretary to convey 1.5 acres to City of Sumter
Oregon for public purposes.
Parks--public purpose--this is supposed to be the people
President--What in the world does he have against a place for
kids to play.
218--Shenandoah National Park (Robb/Warner/Bliley/Wolf):
Adjusts 1923 Park boundary authorization to match today's
existing park boundary.
White House Staff informs you that they would have reached
the same conclusion on the boundary adjustment but they
needed more process.
Doesn't take anything away from the park--old map
authorized 500,000 acres--if we went to that limit there
wouldn't be enough money in the Treasury to buy all the
private farms and homes that would be in the park.
219--Tulare conveyance (House GOP): Affirms that land sold
by the railroad to citizens in Tulare, California is free
from any title problems.
This was an attempt to bring some stability and certainty
to land ownership in the town of Tulare--this administration
doesn't seem to care about the towns folks or their future.
220--Alpine School District (Kyl, McCain): 30 acres of land
to the Alpine School District for a public school facility.
What in the world is wrong with supporting a school
district and aiding in the education of school children--I
thought this was the education President.
223--Coastal barrier resource system (All Florida):
Transfers 40 acres of development property out of a 2.1
million acre undeveloped resource area.
[[Page S11664]]
This was what the Florida delegation and the Governor
believes is best for their citizens--since this President
knows better than the States ``elected'' officials what's
good for the people--there is certainly no longer a need for
State level elected officials.
224--Conveyance to Del Norte County Unified School District
(House California GOP): Transfers small acreage to the school
district for educational purposes.
I guess that it now takes more than a village to raise a
child--the title to the new book he is writing is ``All You
Really Need is a President to Raise a Child.''
303--Alaska Peninsula subsurface consolidation (Murkowski):
Authorizes Secretary to exchange subsurface holdings of
Koniag Corporation on an equal value for lands and interest
owned by the federal govt. This will complete exchanges
approved earlier.
It was this provision of the bill that caused the tax
problem in the bill.
From this action I can only conclude that the President
thinks it's a ``good'' idea to have private in-holdings in
national parks and refuges.
304--Snow-Basin land exchange (Hatch/Bennett/Hansen and all
of Utah): This provision would allow expedited land exchange
to facilitate the 2002 winter Olympics which would be an
economic boom for the U.S. especially the west. This has been
in the process for six years and have received nothing from
the Clinton Administration.
I'm not sure what the President has against the Olympics or
the people of Utah--maybe he would like to see the United
States embarrassed in the eyes of the world.
309--Sand Hollow exchange (Hatch/Bennett): Equal value
exchange to add acreage to Zion National Park and allows
additional water to flow through the park.
His ``own'' people and the environmental community have
pushed this exchange--what does this guy have against Utah!--
all I can conclude is that a young Bill Clinton must
have been pushed down by a big kid from Utah during
recess.
311--Land exchange city of Greely, Colorado (Campbell/
Brown):
Equal value exchange to secure property needed by city to
secure ownership of the cities water supply.
Apparently this administration would like to manage the
city of Greely's water supply--having achieved world peace
and cured the common cold they apparently are bored and need
something to do--sorry Greely.
312--Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve land
exchange and boundary adjustment (Murkowski, Knowles):
This exchange could have led to a more than 2 million acre
expansion of the Gates of the Arctic National Park and
Preserve in AK--in Exchange for lands in the NPR-A.
Since when is helping the national parks a bad idea in the
Clinton administration--the only conclusion that can be drawn
is that they don't like it because its not their idea.
313--Kenai Natives Association land exchange:
This would facilitate exchange between KNA and the FWS to
allow an Alaska Native Corp. to gain economic use of their
land--this would be an acre-for-acre exchange.
There seems to be no rhyme or reason in the White House
position--on one hand they don't want to add two million
acres to a national park and on the other they want to double
the acreage put into a withdrawal.
401--Cache la Poudre Corridor (Campbell/Brown's number #1
priority):
Establishes Corridor to interpret and protect unique and
historical waterway.
All I can conclude from their refusal to support this
action is that they don't think the Cache la Poudre deserves
to be protected--I guess the people of Colorado are wrong in
wanting to preserve an important piece of their history.
405--RS2477 (Murkowski/Hatch/Bennett/Stevens):
Puts a moratorium on the putting new regulations in place
without Congressional approval.
This is ``just'' moratorium lanaguage--the minority and the
BLM negotiated this language with us--we were all in
agreement.
406--Hanford Reach Preservation (Gorton/Doc Hastings):
Extends a moratorium on construction of any new dams or
impoundment sin this area.
Can we conclude from this action that Clinton ``wants'' to
start building dams on the river.
502--Vancouver National Historic Preserve (Gorton/Murray):
Changes a historic site into a National Park.
Apparently Senator Gorton doesn't know his constituents.
602--Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act (Lott):
Establishes a NPS civil war site in Mississippi.
Is there something wrong with honoring the events
associated with the civil war in Mississippi?--or could it be
that this is in Trent Lott's State.
603--Richmond National Battlefield Park (Warner/Robb/
Bliley/Wolf):
Establishes Boundary in accordance with new NPS management
Plan dated 8/96.
Administration concerned about the process--this did not
seem to bother them when he declared a national monument in
Utah--no process!
604--Revoluntionary War (Jeffords):
A study to determine if these sites warrant further
protection.
Most of the problems we have had with this administration
is that the leap before they think--I guess the idea of
studying the need for something before doing it is a alien
concept in the White House.
607--Shenadoah Valley Battlefield (Warner/Robb):
Establishes Historical Area. Does not make a new park.
This is what the delegation wants--can they not be trusted
to determine what's right for their own constituents.
701--Ski area permits:
Simplifies ski area fee collection.
This is supported by National Ski Association and western
State elected officials.
703--Visitor services:
Would raise $150 million dollars for parks to help with
badly needed repairs of existing park structures. 100% of new
fees go back to park.
Opposition to this provision is simply ridiculous--the Park
Service needs these funds to maintain operations--this seems
like a blatant attempt to tear down the national parks and
blame the Congress.
704--Glacier Bay National Park (Murkowski):
Raises fees to support research and natural resource
protection through a head tax on passenger vessels into
Glacier Bay.
Never let it be said that this administration would let
scientific data get between them and a political decision.
803--Ferel burros and horses (Ashcroft and Bond):
Our bill would prevent the slaughter of horses by the NPS.
It's not bad enough that the White House has declared an
open hunting season on people in the West--now they want to
shoot the horse they rode in on, too.
806--Katmai National Park agreements (Young):
Authorizes USGS to drill scientific core samples.
Volcanological research--what can be wrong with that--maybe
Mr. Clinton needs to live at the base of an active volcano
for a while to appreciate the need for volcano research.
811--Expenditures of funds outside boundary of Rocky
Mountain National Park (Campbell/Brown):
Simply allows NPS to build a visitor center outside the
park mostly with private funds.
The NPS has sought this for years--I guess that Mr. Clinton
no longer even trusts his own park service.
815--NPS administrative reform:
Provides authorities NPS has requested for years--Aid park
in protection of resources and provide facilities for
employees. Provides Senate confirmation of NPS Director.
In keeping with that theme--not only does he not trust his
park employees--now he wants them to live under substandard
conditions.
816--Mineral king (Boxer/Feinstein):
Extends summer cabin leases. Totally discretionary by
Secretary.
Again, the President does not trust his Secretary of the
Interior or his Park Service folks to do the right thing--
this bill gives them complete control.
818--Calumet Ecological Park (Simon/Mosley/Braun):
A study to Extend I and M canal National Heritage Corridor
to incorporate a large portion of Chicago.
Not much to say about this one.
819--Acquisition of certain property in Santa Cruz
Goats are ruining this Island--provision in this bill would
allow the NPS to remove goats from Island and restore to
pristine conditions.
Those portions of the island that are not under government
management look like Afghanistan--the remainder of this
island needs to be protected.
1021--Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (The only
thing that Campbell wants. They are punishing him):
Formally creates a recreation area. Changes monument
status to park. Creates a BLM Conservation area. Creates
22,000 acres of wilderness. Has all the four management
agencies involved operating under one complex.
1022--National Park Foundation: Park Foundation--Murkowski/
Lieberman/et. al. Provides for the opportunity for the
Private Sector to sponsor the NPS similar to the sponsorship
of the Olympic games. We have accepted Bumpers 6 amendments
which clarify the sanctity of the NPS. Which clarifies that
in no way the corporate entity can over commercialize the
Park service system.
Can anybody deny that our national parks are in need of
help and support and that Government funding is certainly not
on the increase!
1028--Mount Hood (Hatfield): Exchange between private
company and federal Gov't. Provision is already in CR.
1029--Creation of the Coquille Forest (Hatfield): Already
in CR. Equal value exchange creating a tribal forest.
1034--Natchez National Historical Park (Cochran): Creates
an auxiliary area to a NPS unit and provides $3 million for
an intermodel transportation system and visitor system.
Is this administration opposed to creating less intrusive
modes of transportation to allow more people to be able to
enjoin the magnificent national park system--or are the just
opposed to Republicans getting something for their home
States?
1036--Rural electric and telephone facilities: Authorizes
BLM to waive Right-of-way rental charges for small rural
electric and phone cooperatives.
[[Page S11665]]
1037--Federal borough recognition (PILT) (Murkowski/
Stevens): This allows the unorganized borough in Alaska to
receive PILT payments. 60% of the federal lands in Alaska are
in this borough. The Administration did not oppose this
during committee and the language was worked out in
cooperation with them.
The administration supported this in committee. This is a
slap in the face to rural Alaskans who lose out of economic
opportunities because of the massive amount of public lands
in their backyards--what could possibly be the reason for
opposing this--other than it is in a State that did not vote
for the President.
1038--Alternative processing (Murkowski): This is an
attempt to save the remaining jobs in SE Alaska.
Why doesn't the President just tell us, ``I want the
remaining jobs to go away and I want the communities to
suffer.'' This is what he is doing.
1039--Village Land Negotiations (Appendix C issue)
(Murkowski): This is an outright slap in the face of Alaska
natives. This provision just asked the Secretary to talk to
five tiny Alaskan villages who have waited more than 20 years
to receive the land they were promised under ANCSA.
This is a classic example of the Federal Government giving
the old bait-and-switch routine to America's native people
and having no intention of ever making good on their
promises.
1040--Unrecognized communities in SE Alaska (Murkowski):
This merely let five communities in Alaska establish as a
group or Urban corporation. It involved no land transfers. It
was a Native Alaska equal right bill.
Another situation in which the Federal Government has
turned its back on Alaska's Native people!
1041--Gross brothers (Murkowski): They served their country
in uniform and now there country is denying them the land
they homesteaded.
1043--Credit for reconveyance (Murkowski): This would have
allowed Cape Fox Corporation to transfer 320 acres of land
near the Beaver Falls Hydro project Back to the Forest
Service. CFC would not have gotten any new lands in exchange.
Does the Federal Government oppose receiving land back?
1044--Radio site report
A study to determine if a existing radio site is needed.
1045--Retention and maintenance of certain dams and weirs
etc.: Forces the Forest Service to maintain specific dams and
weirs in the Immigrant Wilderness Area.
1046--Matching land conveyance (University of Alaska)
(Murkowski): This authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
discuss a land grant with the University of Alaska who has
never received it's federal entitlement. On a matching basis
with the state.
Once again the ``Education President'' strikes again and
proves he is against education.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I will make one comment. Looking at the
first one, authorizes the Secretary of Interior, I believe, to convey
1.5 acres to the city of Sumter, OR, for public purposes. Senator
Hatfield and Senator Wyden, I am guessing, felt like this was important
to the city of Sumter. I don't know. It is an acre and a half. I
somewhat question why they are objecting to that. Senator Hatfield is
going to be retiring.
I am shocked, and I almost bet there has never been a veto threat or
objection raised on that land before.
I see the Shenandoah National Park, adjust 1923 park boundary
authorization to match today's existing park boundary. That seems to me
to make sense.
We could go through this entire list. We already have entered it in
the Record so people can see.
I have looked through this list, and there is no reason to veto this
bill or to object to taking up this bill. To answer the question of my
colleague from Alaska, I urge the minority to allow us to bring the
bill up and vote. I will be shocked if we don't get 90 votes for this
bill, 90-some votes, because there is no reason to object to this
package, if you look at all the good things in this bill.
I am not totally knowledgeable of all 126 projects, but I have looked
through the list, and what they are objecting to makes very, very
little sense. My guess is--and I count votes on occasion--my guess is
we will have overwhelming support. At least 80 or 90 percent of our
colleagues would vote for passage of this package.
So I urge the minority leader to reconsider and talk to the
administration and allow us to bring this bill up, pass it and let it
become law this year.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can just share with my friend, the whip,
the Senator from Oklahoma, relative to the roles that seem to be
eroding here as authorizers, and as a member of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, my friend from Oklahoma knows really what is
happening here. It is almost like a line-item veto that is being
dictated by the administration on this legislation, where we have met
with them, taken out what they objected to, then they move the
goalposts and come back with 46 more.
The constitutional structure of Government suggests the legislative
body is involved in a process. Our process is hearings, input and
movement on the bill. But they seem to come in and line-item veto or
cherry-pick and say, ``No, this is unacceptable.''
If this continues, clearly the legislative responsibility that we
have as authorizes is taken away. Of course, I have always had a
concern about these items moving on to the appropriations bill, because
the appropriators then become the authorizers as well, or they simply
control the disposition.
It would seem to me that as a consequence of what happened this year
in our committee, I refer to the experience and observation of my
friend from Oklahoma, where every single bill that you try to move out
results in a hold, that we are going to have to take some extreme means
next year in the process, if we introduce this package and pass it out
of committee, that if Members put holds on it, maybe the Senate is
simply going to have to stop, maybe we are going to have to object to
any unanimous consent agreement until we can get some kind of a
restructuring so we can move bills as we report them out of committee,
get them to the floor and get them to a vote. The disposition should be
determined by a vote, not one Member holding up 126 bills.
So that is my degree of frustration, having the responsibility of
chairman of the committee and the authorizing responsibility. To be put
in a position where I am subject to negotiations with the
administration to spin off bills that we passed and reported out for
those that they will take and those they won't take clearly puts them
in a position of line-item veto and circumvents the responsibility that
we have as authorizers.
I know there are a lot of Members out there who have bills that are
very important to them who want some kind of exception from the
package, but the problem I have is I hold a responsibility equally to
Republicans and Democrats within the committee to do the best I can to
get their bills collectively passed. When I get in the position of
having to pick and choose because of the administration's dictate, it
is very, very difficult, and I am not sure I want to proceed in that
kind of a manner because it is simply not fair to all the Members. I
would like the Record to note that.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comment. I
agree with him. Hopefully, we will figure out a way to get through this
impasse. I am going to work with the Senator from Alaska today to try
and make that happen, but it has to happen today because I think the
House will be leaving later this evening.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is the last chance. The bus has left. If we don't
get this done, I am guessing by--well, I am guessing the House is going
to probably finish around 6 with the CR.
Mr. NICKLES. Or before.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. So we probably don't have much more than an hour or an
hour and a half to have a hold that is applicable now, put on by the
Democrats at the dictate of the White House, and if we don't get this
thing done now, it is going to be too late and there is not going to be
a Presidio, there is not going to be a San Francisco Bay cleanup, there
is not going to be Sterling Forest, there is not going to be the ski
exchange, and we simply have to move now. It is now or never, and I
implore my colleagues on the other side to look at the merits of this
package in its entirety and let us vote on it. That is why we are here.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Alaska.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in
today's paper, Saturday, September 28, from the Denver Post. The
headline of the editorial is ``Clinton's partisanship threatens lands
bill.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S11666]]
[From the Denver Post, Sept. 28, 1996]
Clinton's Partisanship Threatens Lands Bill
In an election, a certain number of power plays are
expected. But the reasons President Clinton gave for
threatening to veto an omnibus parks bill go beyond power
politics to inject a dangerous level of partisanship into
public lands policies.
A congressional conference committee already had stripped
many of the most objectionable provisions from the bill,
including an ill-advised grazing proposal. Most of the 126
projects that survived into the final version were
noncontroversial.
Clinton, however, has labeled 45 of those remaining
projects as unacceptable and threatened to veto the whole
bill because of them. Of those, four are in Colorado.
Only one Colorado project had stirred much controversy
previously; A deal would have let the U.S. Forest Service
cede control of a reservoir whose water the city of Greeley
wants, in exchange for Greeley giving the U.S. government
some ranchland next to national forest property.
Environmentalists feared the deal could let Greeley dry up
streams near the reservoir. At the very least, the deal
should wait until a pending study of the region's bypass flow
issue has been completed.
But Clinton didn't cite only controversial projects as
reasons for threatening to kill the bill. He also targeted
mundane projects that enjoyed widespread bipartisan support.
For example, the bill would have funded construction of a
new visitors center at the Fall River entrance of Rocky
Mountain National Park, a project Clinton's own Interior
Department had requested.
The president also objected to a deal that would have added
22,000 acres of wilderness to the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Monument and transformed it into a full-
fledged national park. A series of lengthy public hearings
already had resolved concerns about the national park
designation.
Strangest of all, the White House spurned plans to protect
a stretch of the Cache La Poudre River from development and
to build a system of hiking, biking and horse-riding trails
in the preserved open space. Environmental groups had joined
the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley in support of the
plan.
Now, the GOP is howling because the 45 projects on
Clinton's hit list all happen to be sponsored by
congressional Republicans Clinton thus handed his foes a
whole box of political ammunition that they will shoot back
at him from now until Election Day.
If Clinton decided to veto the bill based on policy
concerns, he has been poorly advised on the merits of the
projects. If he is simply opposing projects as an election-
year ploy, however, he may have committed a serious blunder
in the eyes of many Colorado voters.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, looking through it, there are several
projects in Colorado that are objected to. It says:
The President also objected to a deal that would have added
22,000 acres of wilderness to the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Monument and transformed it into a full-
fledged national park. A series of lengthy public hearings
already had resolved concerns about the national park
designation.
That is just one. I know President Clinton stood outside of the Grand
Canyon and had a big environmental picture day and talked about taking
1.8 million acres in Utah, without consulting the Utah delegation or
the Utah Governor. But I am looking at their reluctance to cooperate
with us on this package as being a lot more detrimental, because this
package does lots of things in all States, from California to New
Jersey, including Colorado.
I just think there are some real inconsistencies here. I hope our
colleagues will join us in working together to see if we can't pass
this bill later today.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________