[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11135-S11139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS RIDERS
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that
was brought up on this floor yesterday by my friend, the senior Senator
from Montana, Senator Baucus, who proceeded to give us certain views on
a number of amendments to the Interior appropriations bill that he
proposed be stripped from that particular package.
Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that this body have an
opportunity to view the arguments on the other side of the issues, and
I think it is fair to perhaps provide a little history on what these
amendments are and the rationale associated with the arguments for or
against their merits.
There were originally nine proposed amendments in the Baucus package.
Two of them have been removed. So we are addressing amendments to strip
the Glacier Bay language, King Cove language, and the Tongass language,
road decommissioning, section 321 of the forest planning, the issue of
the reintroduction of grizzlies in Idaho and Montana, and the Columbia
and Snake River Dams, and the likely removal. I am going to enunciate a
little further on these as I go along, but I wanted to give you a view
of the issues in their
[[Page S11136]]
entirety so that we can, first of all, recognize that these have
certain environmental overtones.
I think it is appropriate that we recognize the extent to which the
environmental community has gone to encourage these be stricken.
Approximately 2 weeks ago, there was a press conference downtown in one
of the restaurants where the media was invited. There was a
presentation condemning these issues, and obviously an effort to try to
generate a one-sided view from the media.
As chairman of the Energy Committee, and representing the State of
Alaska, to which three of these particular amendments to strike are
associated, and not having an opportunity to have an invitation
extended to me, we felt it necessary to balance the process at that
point. So we proceeded with a small press conference in the Energy
Library. We invited basically the same media. We had a good attendance.
I also invited my friend from Montana to attend in the hopes that we
could respond to some questions from the media on these individual
points. Unfortunately, he was unable to be there. As a consequence, we
have each had an opportunity to express our views to the media.
I think it is also appropriate to recognize that there used to be,
more or less, a gentleman's agreement in this body relative to resource
issues and issues that affected a particular State. When Senators from
the State made specific recommendations with regard to what was in the
best interests of their State, it usually stood. But that has changed
over the years. I recognize that. Now we have the input of the special
interest groups relative to issues. That is kind of where we are today.
What I have done here is attempted to set the stage a little bit. I
think it is fair to recognize that there are other influences. I noted
today a statement of our Vice President in the White House Briefing
Room from yesterday. It is relatively brief, but it does criticize the
Republican Congress, the Republican leadership, and I think the third
paragraph bears some attention. It suggests that there is a sneak
attack being perpetrated by the Republicans and by their special
interests riders in the budget bills where they hope no one will find
them. He further indicates that the proposals are to carve roads
through the wilderness, force overcutting in the national forests, sell
the taxpayers short, and keep us from addressing global warming, and
that these issues cannot stand the light of day.
I think it is appropriate to recognize that there are other
influences. I was checking with my staff before I was recognized this
morning. Mr. President, I am advised that the Congressional Budget
Office has scored all of these particular riders as revenue neutral.
Since we are in the interest of full disclosure, I think it also is
important to recognize another fact; that is, the accusation of putting
anti-environmental riders on the Interior appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1999. It seems to be a pretty one-sided argument, because I
am sure the Senator from Montana would not object to the process of
riders, recognizing that there are 150--150--riders on the Interior
bill.
From the standpoint of the special interest groups, maybe the Vice
President, and others, we could remove all such riders, including the
moratorium of offshore oil drilling off the coast of California, and
items on mining. I think it is fair to point out that the National
Forest System--at least the first 21 million acres of the Forest
System--was created by riders and amendments to the 1897 appropriations
bill.
So, indeed, we have a history of riders. I think if you look at the
issues from the standpoint of the environmental groups, they would say,
well, the riders that I have mentioned are good riders. So I think it
is fair that we recognize we have a time-honored tradition of riders.
And if riders are under attack, so be it. But it is clearly not a
reality because many of these riders could be perceived as
antienvironment suggests that somehow there is a sleight of hand here.
I think it is appropriate to note that my friend from Montana did not
care to go into that, to recognize that all the riders in question here
have had hearings. Hearings have been held, which suggests that this
was not done in the dark of night, somehow by subterfuge.
So again I would like to examine this a little bit more so that we
can get, I think, a better understanding of just what is going on here,
and the question of merit: Do these particular seven issues have merit?
I am not going to go into detail on all of them because a few of them
are not necessarily related to my State, but I think it fair to
highlight certainly a few. I am going to start with the issue of
Glacier Bay.
The issue of Glacier Bay started a long, long time ago. Back in 1885,
long before Glacier Bay was declared a national monument, commercial
fishing was recognized as a way of life by the residents around the
area.
I should point out, Glacier Bay is in southeastern Alaska. It is west
of Juneau. Juneau is over here. I was a little chagrined yesterday in
the debate when my friend from Montana could not find Juneau, which is
our State capital. I made a point to make sure I knew where Helena is
before this morning, before I started the debate.
But in any event, it is in the area across icy straits. It is an
extraordinary area of great beauty. As you move out of Glacier Bay and
go out west, you run into the Gulf of Alaska or the Pacific Ocean. On a
map of Alaska, it would be the northernmost point of southeastern
Alaska. But the significance of it is that it is a national monument.
As such, it is under special consideration relative to the regulations
of the Park Service, which manages Glacier Bay.
Over the years, local residents in the area--and I am suggesting to
you there are very few local residents. There is no population in
Glacier Bay. There is a lodge there but no year-round population, with
the exception of those who are associated with the lodge and a few
people in Gustavus, which is out on the edge of Glacier Bay. The
general feeling in Alaska was that there would be a compatibility
between the Park Service, the management of Glacier Bay, and the
traditional uses, and there was no prohibition, no anticipated
prohibition, on commercial fishing in the marine waters of Glacier Bay.
I have a small picture here, Mr. President, that shows one of the
fishing vessels in Glacier Bay. It gives you an idea that these are
small one- and usually two-person operations. This is a small boat,
with probably a skipper, a deckhand, maybe the skipper's wife, and this
is the kind of fishing that is done there. It is relatively
insignificant in the overall magnitude of fishing in southeastern
Alaska. The fishery consists of a few vessels fishing salmon, halibut,
crab, a few bottom fish; and these fisheries pose no threat--there is
no danger to these resources. All are carefully managed for a
sustainable harvest by the State of Alaska and most are under a limited
entry, which means that you can't expand the fishery, or particularly a
fishery associated with that type of vessel.
Arguments that this fishing is somehow incompatible with the use of
kayaking or some other activity by the concession operators who favor a
prohibition is a little hard to justify in real terms. Commercial
fishing is important to the smaller communities of Gustavus and Hoonah.
Fishing provides a few jobs and local employment. All the communities
urge continuation of commercial and sports fishing in Glacier Bay.
We have had our local environmental groups working with us, and we
have reached a consensus that management of commercial fishing under
the State regulation is entirely appropriate and entirely adequate and
the fisheries can be managed on a sustained basis. The interest of the
Department of Interior's insistence on an administrative rulemaking
instead of legislation has really been a roadblock, and it has had a
detrimental effect, if you will, on working together within the local
groups. There is a lot of criticism and fear in the communities that
both commercial fishing and subsistence fishing will be terminated as a
consequence of the pressure by the environmental community.
When we look at the communities we are talking about--I mentioned
Gustavus; it has about 346 residents, 55 of whom are engaged in
fishing; Elfin Cove, 54 people--that is total residents--47 engaged in
fishing; Hoonah,
[[Page S11137]]
which is a Tlingit Indian village, has 900 people, about 228 in
fishing; Pelican has 187 residents, 86 in fisheries.
That might not sound like much, but in reality, if you are one of
those people and you are dependent on fishing--that is the livelihood
you know--it is recognizable that these communities cannot survive
without fishing. And what this appropriation language does as to
Glacier Bay is to allow discussions to proceed at the local level and
reserve the right of the Congress to make a decision on fisheries in
Glacier Bay.
Now, what the Park Service is attempting to do is to phase it out
over a 7-year period. Well, to phase it out is to ultimately do away
with it, and the rationale behind that is that the Park Service wants
to regulate the area. These are inland waters in the State of Alaska,
and to suggest the Park Service should initiate another level of
regulation I think is without any justification.
We talk about how a fishing boat or a small amount of activity in
Glacier Bay would somehow detract from a visitor's experience. Let's
talk a little bit about the visitor's experience, because between
Memorial Day and Labor Day cruise ships go into Glacier Bay--as I
indicated, a very large body of water. The cruise ships pick up at
Inlet Bay a Park Service lecturer and proceed up the bay and may go
into Tarring or may go up Muir Inlet, depending on whatever the
particular direction is that day.
But it is important to note that these are commercial passenger
ships. There is a commercial activity associated with this. These are
paying passengers. These ships carry 2,500, 3,000, 3,200 passengers. It
is a commercial activity that is going on in a national park. It is
taking place, if you will, in this general area of the so-called
wilderness.
Now, the wilderness, of course, is on the land, and we have yet to
have a determination of just what ``wilderness waters'' means. I am not
going to go into that in this debate today. But the point I want to
make is, the small amount of commercial fishing that takes place there
and the residents in the surrounding area who depend on access into
Glacier Bay is what we are talking about.
Now, the Senator from Montana would suggest that somehow this
commercial activity is foreign or inappropriate to take place in a
national monument. We have nowhere in the United States any body of
water as unique as Glacier Bay. It is open to the ocean. Commercial
vessels can come in. It is State of Alaska waters. But within the area,
of course, is the national park of Glacier Bay.
The point I want to make is that the Park Service is attempting to
eliminate the small amount of commercial fishing and, equally
important, the small amount of subsistence fishing that takes place in
the park by the Native residents of Hoonah and some of the other
communities nearby. There is no justification for this in the sense of
any detrimental effects on the fisheries resources which are basically
overseen by the State of Alaska.
I might point out that in this area there are no major anadromous
streams, that being streams that will support salmon fry. The salmon
don't go into these areas because this is all glacial types of water.
As a consequence, they simply cannot survive in the runoff from the
glaciers. As a consequence, this is not considered an area that
supports significant salmon runs. There is some halibut in here, some
salmon, some crab. Again, it is a relatively small area, but the point
is, what we are seeing here is more big government, more takeover from
the local people who have had access to commercial fishing, who have
had access to sport fishing, as well as access to subsistence.
In summary, the objection that I have is here is Big Brother
encroaching more and more upon authority that has been vested within
the State of Alaska to manage the fisheries in this area. It just
simply makes no sense, and there is no justification for it.
I want to turn now to another issue that is on the list of my friend
from Montana, and that is the issue of King Cove, Cold Bay. Many
people, of course, are not aware of just where this area is.
Roughly, it is about halfway out in the Aleutian Islands, about 700
miles west of Anchorage. We have a small village of about 700 residents
in King Cove. The area is on the Pacific Ocean, and it is surrounded by
mountains. It lends itself to a situation where if you want to get out
of King Cove, you have to fly over to Cold Bay or go by boat. It
doesn't look like much on the map, but the problems we have are
extraordinary weather conditions associated in the King Cove/Cold Bay
area.
There is a small gravel strip at King Cove. Sometimes we have a
windsock blowing one way at one end of the runway and a windsock at the
other end blowing the opposite way because of the various types of
winds that come over the mountains. The people of the area have
suggested it would be appropriate to have a road come over to Cold Bay.
There is going to be an extended debate on this issue tomorrow, so I
am not going to go into great detail other than to say that we have had
11 lives lost in the last 10 years in plane crashes half of which
involved medivacs. This chart shows pictures of some of the individuals
who have passed away in aircraft accidents trying to get over to Cold
Bay to get a medivac to Anchorage, AK.
What these people are asking for is simply access out by road. What
would this consist of, Mr. President? It would consist of extending the
road in an area that is currently a wilderness. The proposed
legislation which we are going to be offering tomorrow suggests that we
would take the area in the wilderness and do a land exchange. We would
take the area out of the wilderness, approximately 85 acres, and put it
into a refuge. That will add about 580 acres additional into the
wilderness. It would be a net gain into the wilderness of some 580
acres. This road would be about 7 miles long and would allow the
residents of King Cove to have access for medical evacuations and
transportation when the weather is so severe that the airplanes cannot
fly.
Let me show you a picture of the current method by which the medivacs
take place, and you can get some idea of the extremes we are up
against. Here is what a small boat trying to get across water in that
area in the wintertime looks like. You don't get very far doing that.
We have other pictures that will make you seasick. This is one of the
vessels going across. That is a schooner going across in the
wintertime.
You cannot appreciate the terror associated with making one of those
trips. Not only do most people get deathly seasick, but there is a fear
the storm is going to progress and damage the vessel or sink the
vessel. I have been on some of those trips, and I could not begin to
describe the terror of the situation where you are trying to get people
out so that they can get medical care in an emergency and are subjected
to this type of exposure when 7 miles of road circumventing a
wilderness area would be adequate.
This airport at Cold Bay was built during the Second World War. It
has crosswind runways and is operational virtually year-round. What we
have is a small village, less than 700 people, simply trying to have
the same right of access for medical evacuation that you and I take for
granted, and it is being denied them by objections from some in the
environmental community that say that this is striking in the heart of
the wilderness.
It is not in the wilderness, Mr. President. We are taking this area
out of the wilderness, putting it in the refuge and proposing a right
of way that could be used for a road going through and actually adding
580 acres to the wilderness. That, to me, seems like a fair and
justifiable proposal.
I will also add that we do not require any funding for this. This is
simply a land exchange. The road would be under the control and
jurisdiction of the refuge manager and, basically, under the control of
the Secretary of the Interior.
The weather in the King Cove area is something that is pretty hard to
imagine. It is the third windiest city in the United States. It is the
cloudiest city in the United States. It has the third highest number of
days of rain, and one can argue it has the worst weather in the Nation.
To take a boat or small plane out of King Cove when winds are 60 to 70
miles an hour, with a 10-to-20 foot sea is a tough situation.
We have had babies born in fishing boat galleys on a table, and we
have
[[Page S11138]]
had people who have had to be taken up off the boats in slings. This
land exchange will allow a one-lane gravel road to be built. It will be
at the option of the State. The State is evaluating the merits of this.
We are simply proposing that the State has the ability to consider this
option through the land exchange. We see no justification for those who
object to what is really a win, win, win for the environment.
I also think it fair to point out that we have seen and have a long
history in this body of changes in boundaries. To suggest somehow this
is a precedent is, again, unrealistic and is unfounded by fact. We have
had boundary adjustments on many existing wilderness areas. In the
State of Montana alone, we had 67 acres of land that was deleted from
Absaroka Bear Tooth Wilderness; 28 acres have been deleted from the
U.L. Bend Wilderness. The boundary changes were made to exclude private
lands, portions of existing roads, parking areas and public facilities
that were inadvertently included when the wilderness area was
established in 1978.
The U.L. Bend deletion was made to reinstate access through a
wildlife refuge wilderness area. What for? For access to a popular
fishing spot at nearby Fort Peck Reservoir. This history says to me
that Montanans didn't object to a boundary change in the wilderness
when it met their needs. So I fail to understand why my friend, the
Senator from Montana, believes that moving a wilderness boundary to
access a fishing hole is OK, but moving 85 acres to save the lives of
my constituents is not.
That is, basically, what we are looking at, Mr. President, an issue
of equity. I think I have made the point that, indeed, we are not
setting a precedent. We can look back also to the Lee Metcalf
Wilderness Management Act of 1983 where there was a land exchange.
Hopefully, I have countered with factual information some of the
points that were made and the allegations from my good friend who has
not been to either Glacier Bay, nor has he been to King Cove and does
not speak from personal knowledge.
The last point I want to make is on the issue of Tongass National
Forest. I have a couple charts to show the President and my colleagues
at this time--let me have the small chart first, if I may--because it
addresses the Tongass which is the largest of all our national forests.
Very briefly, what we have here in the red are the areas that are
withdrawn in wilderness areas in the Tongass National Forest. You know,
that is probably 58 percent or thereabouts. The green areas are the
areas for multiple-use lands which provide timber harvest. And the gold
areas are Native withdrawals, basically private land.
If you look at this, you can immediately tell that most of the
Tongass is already reserved in perpetuity in wilderness areas. I think
that makes the point that 84 percent of the Tongass is currently
reserved for nontimber harvesting purposes.
Ninety-three percent of all the old-growth forest remain standing in
the Tongass today. And it is pretty hard to communicate to my friends
who have never been there, but forests live and die. And a large
percentage of the Tongass National Forest is either dead or dying.
About one-third, 30 percent, of the standing trees are dead or dying.
The reality of how you utilize those trees is a matter that has been
under discussion for some time.
Basically, the value of that particular timber is in wood fiber, and
most of that either goes into chips or is used to go into pulp mills.
But because of environmental pressures, we closed our own two year-
round manufacturing plants in the State, and they are down permanently.
And those were pulp mills. So now we face a difficult situation of
trying to determine what we are going to do with that old growth.
There is a possibility of that dead and dying timber to be put in
veneer. But nevertheless, the point I want to make here today is to
counter the argument that somehow we are proposing to increase the
harvest 50 percent over last year.
In order to respond to that criticism, I think you have to look at
the harvest in the Tongass since--well, modern times began in about
1947, after the war. The allowable cut was somewhere about 1.375
billion board feet. That was the allowable cut in 1947. These are set
by the Forest Service. Then under statehood we came in and the
allowable cut was 1.3 billion. Then when we had the Alaska Native
Settlement Claims Act and we dropped down to 950 million. Now, this
basically in this timeframe supported two pulp mills and a half dozen
sawmills.
Then when we came in with the ANILCA legislation and the volumes
dropped, and the allowable cut went down to 450 million. We were able
to maintain an industry at that level, but it was marginal. Then we
came down to the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1991, and it dropped down
to about 310 million. And then we came under what is known as the
Tongass Land Management Plan or TLUMP, which was to settle at 267
million board feet. And the Forest Service has not been able to put
that up.
Currently, they have this year about 30 million that they have been
able to put up and anticipate somewhere in the area of another 100
million. So to suggest that--in this proposal, what we have done is we
have simply said that if the Forest Service does not put up what they
said they were going to put up under the TLUMP, which took 10 years and
$13 million to develop, why then that differential that previously went
to the boroughs and school districts comes out of the Forest Service
budget.
But this is an effort to try to get the Forest Service to commit on
what they said they would provide. And to suggest, as my friend from
Montana has, that suddenly we are trying to double the harvest is not
only misleading, it is an absolute falsehood, because clearly the
Forest Service says under this study that took them 10 years to
complete and $13 million, that they would provide an allowable cut of
267 million. We are saying, ``OK, do it. And if you don't do it, there
ought to be some penalty,'' because we have lost the revenue to
continue to offset from the standpoint of our boroughs and our schools
associated with that harvest under the formula that provides some of
the funds from the timber harvesting back to the communities. We are
not doubling, Mr. President, by any means, the amount of timber----
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The amount of time allotted to
the Senator from Alaska has expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
So, Mr. President, where we are today is we are fighting a battle to
maintain an industry on a substantially reduced basis. As I have
indicated, that industry has declined dramatically over the last 10
years. And the Forest Service clearly has not been acting in good faith
to get out the timber that they promised. And the fact that the Forest
Service has seen fit to initiate over a 10-year period this
extraordinary evaluation of what the TLUMP would provide and the
assurance of whatever figure they set they would be committed to is
what this issue is all about.
So, again, in conclusion, on the Tongass issue, it is not a question
by any means, Mr. President, of doubling the cut. And that is what some
of our friends on the other side would like to make this issue seem
like. If we were going to double the cut, we would go back to 450
million board feet. That is not what we are talking about today.
Finally, a couple of other issues that I think need some
clarification very briefly, and that is the requirement of
decommissioning our unauthorized roads. It is not an issue that is
unique to my State by any means, but under this provision the Forest
Service is prohibited from using funds for decommissioning National
Forest System roads until the regional forester certifies that
unauthorized or so-called ghost roads have either been decommissioned
or reconstructed to standard.
Funding is appropriated for decommissioned roads including roads
which are not part of the transportation Forest Service, and it is not
prevented from addressing or pursuing stabilization of these roads. So
what we have here is a recognition that the administration says that
they have a backlog over the last 5 to 10 years of over $10 million.
[[Page S11139]]
They have said in reported stories they have discovered 60,000 miles
of ghost road that they did not even know they had. What we propose is
that they go ahead and address the ghost roads and get rid of them
before they start proceeding on decommissioning their so-called map
roads. If you have a situation where you have so-called unauthorized
roads, then you should take care of those first before you start
decommissioning map roads.
The other issue revolving around the Forest Service, and not
necessarily addressing the needs of my State, is the prohibition of
forest plans until the administration publishes new regulations.
Late in 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture promised a revised forest
plan. He promised cost-effective changes. Well, these plans are not
completed today. And as a consequence, we see no justification for
proceeding in publishing new regulations until you get your current
Forest Service revision plan done.
The last issue I want to talk about, and again it is not unique to my
State, but it is to some of the areas involved, and that is the
reintroduction of the grizzly bear into Idaho and Montana. I think that
is a matter that should be addressed by the individuals from these
States. But I know the ranchers and others have certain views about
reintroduction of the grizzlies.
And one thing about the bears, the moose, and the elk, and so forth,
there are no boundaries or State lines that prohibit their crossing.
They move in ranges depending on a lot of factors, including
regulations on hunting. So to suggest that somehow reintroduction of
the grizzly bears in the Sellway-Bitterroot areas of Idaho and Montana
should be proceeded by the Department of Interior over the objection of
the residents is something that is best left up to those in Idaho and
Montana. What we are proposing to do is to refrain from reintroducing
those bears at this time pending an evaluation and input from the local
people.
In the Columbia/Snake River Dams--remove language that requires
congressional approval for changes in the dam system to the Columbia
and Snake River and tributaries. We are saying the disposition of dams
should come before the Congress. The Secretary of the Department of the
Interior should not have the authority to arbitrarily proceed. After
all, these dams were built with public funds. The merits and
contributions of these dams have provided an extraordinary level of
standard of living for many in these areas, and have created
agricultural areas of prosperity. As a consequence of the water and
power, we have the aluminum industry.
To suggest that somehow Congress should not be a part of any decision
to eliminate these dams is unrealistic. What we would propose here is
that there would be a requirement that any change in the dam system
must be approved by the Congress of the United States.
I appreciate the additional time allotted to me. I see several
colleagues on the floor are looking for recognition. I do want to
advise my colleagues, I think late tomorrow morning, that we will be
proceeding with the disposition of the King Cove Road. We have 6 hours
proposed for debate on the issue. It is my understanding that we
anticipate about 3 hours, 1\1/2\ hours equally divided.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes under the control of the distinguished Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
____________________