Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk a substitute amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me acknowledge my friend from Louisiana, the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for his statement of support on the Utah wilderness. As we both know, serving on the committee, this particular phase of this package of legislation has been worked long and hard. We will hear from the representatives from Utah with regard to the specifics, but I think we have a good package here. I want to remind my colleagues, of the 56 or so titles of this bill, there is virtually something in it for almost every Member of this body in the sense of it affecting his or her individual State. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the importance of staying together on this package, because once we start to take it apart by motions to strike, it will lose its base of support in the House of Representatives. I can assure all of the Members of that fact. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I think the Senator from New Jersey may want to be heard from. If not, there are a couple more of us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Menge be permitted privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate of H.R. 1296, the Presidio legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and commend the Senator from Wyoming for his effort in this regard. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will vote on this timely issue regarding the current situation in the Taiwan Strait. I am referring, of course, to the military action by the People's Liberation Army to intimidate the people of Taiwan on the eve of the first Democratic, direct election of their President. The executive branch has criticized, correctly, the military exercises. The administration has backed up its words by sending a naval presence to monitor the exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The House has passed its own resolution. It is time for the U.S. Senate to also go on record deploring the military threat of the People's Republic of China, and recommitting the United States to the terms and conditions of the Taiwan Relations Act. Senator Thomas, the majority leader, Senator Helms, and I, along with our staffs, have been in close consultation with the administration and with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to address their concerns, and am pleased that we have crafted a compromise that will have broad bipartisan support. I think it is important for the leaders of the People's Republic of China to understand that America is united in maintaining the historical commitments we have made to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act clearly states that peace and stability in the Western Pacific are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and makes clear that U.S. policy is to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic interests of the United States. The amendment we have offered makes five important points. First, the amendment directs the President to consult with the Congress, as required by the Taiwan Relations Act, when it is determined that there is a threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan. I do not believe this threshold has been met, both because the People's Republic of China ended the missile tests as scheduled on March 15 and one of its naval exercises on March 20 and because the People's Republic of China has indicated that it does not plan to attack Taiwan. We will have to wait and see if their actions match their words. Second, the amendment directs the President and Congress, as required by the Taiwan Relations Act, to reexamine the nature and quantity of defense articles and services that may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability in light of the heightened threat. The purpose of this commitment, of course, is to deter China from considering any type of attack. I am pleased that United States officials and officials from the Republic of China met this week to discuss additional sales of necessary defensive weapons. I hope the approved list is sufficient to maintain their self-defensive capability. I wonder, for example, whether the Patriot system that is scheduled for delivery in late 1997 is timely or adequate given the recent missile tests? Third, the amendment deplores the missile tests and other military exercises that have the potential to disrupt air and shipping routes. The missile tests resulted in four unarmed warheads falling in waters near Taiwan's northern and southern ports. The naval exercises using live ammunition encroach upon international shipping lanes. These actions call into question the commitment of the People's Republic of China to the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan. Fourth, the amendment calls on the People's Republic of China to cease its threats, and instead enter into a constructive dialog with the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan, perhaps through their informal organizations, the Straits Exchange Foundation in Taiwan and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits in Beijing. In the past, these two organizations have dealt with many other issues between the two countries, from fishing to highjackers, and have helped fuel the enormous investment in mainland China by Taiwanese investors, estimated at some $20 billion. Finally, the amendment notes that the Government of the Republic of China should remain committed to the peaceful resolution of its future relations with the People's Republic of China by mutual decision, consistent with government policy. Mr. President. I do not believe that China is on the verge of attacking Taiwan. I also do not believe that China's scare tactics will have their intended affect on Taiwan. When the roar of the military tests have subsided, and the last vote is counted in Taiwan, I hope the two sides will pursue a course of constructive dialog. Until the time, the United States must maintain its vigilance and monitor events in the Taiwan Strait. Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to comment on one issue that is related to the debate surrounding this resolution, an that is Congress' role in the visit of President Lee Teng-hui to his alma mater. There are some who have blamed that visit, and Congress' role in bringing about that visit, for the current crisis. Mr. President, that is simply not the case. I would refer my friends to a recent op-ed in the New York Times by Christopher Sigur that points out that it was not that visit, but the prospect of democracy in Taiwan, that has so upset the leaders in Beijing. As Mr. Sigur notes, until recently, both China and Taiwan had implicitly recognized the island's de facto independence and dealt with it peacefully. They negotiated Taiwan's participation in numerous international institutions, from the Asian Development Bank and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to the Olympics by sidestepping the independence question. But as Taiwan moved closer to a full fledged democracy with the December parliamentary elections and the March Presidential elections, Beijing's leaders saw the island moving toward a less predictable future, because, of course, in a democracy, there will be many different voices that the leadership must accommodate. All of this came at a time when Beijing is preparing to take over Hong Kong and thus test Chairman Deng's ``One Country, Two Systems'' proposition. In addition, the leadership in Beijing is still in transition as Chairman Deng fades from the scene. Finally, Mr. President, I would argue that our own administration contributed to hardening the Peoples Republic of China's reaction to a private visit by Lee Teng-hui by not issuing the visa initially and assuring Beijing that this private visit did not constitute a departure from the ``One China'' policy. Instead, Secretary of State Christopher told President Jiang Zemin that such a visit would not occur, and therefore caused the President to lose face when the decision was reversed. The United States was right to allow President Lee to return to his alma mater. The United States is right to continue to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan. And the United States is right to go on record deploring the recent missile tests and military exercises. Although these actions are condemned by the People's Republic of China they are consistent with United States policy under the four joint communiques with the Peoples Republic of China and the Taiwan Relations Act, the law of the land. Mr. President, China must understand that missile diplomacy does not work. This amendment sends that message, and I ask my colleagues for their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, as well as a recent op-ed I authored in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``What We Owe Taiwan'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that on Monday the Senate will proceed to the consideration of various bills reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It is my intention at that time to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1296, a bill to provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer, and for other purposes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title be amended to read: ``A bill to Establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Feinstein, Reid, Burns, and others, I send a substitute amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 260, S. 956, regarding the ninth circuit.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 47 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 48, en bloc, resolutions submitted earlier by Senators Warner and Ford. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be considered and agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to those resolutions appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 21; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompanying H.R. 956, the product liability bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater occur immediately following the vote on adoption of the product liability conference report.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Wyoming for telling how it really is. I thought his graphic pictures portrayed an awful lot of America that, unfortunately, few Americans see. The Senator's reference to those that would like to see something different done to that part of the American west, while explicit in its reference to the comfort around the fire and the chardonnay, I think reflect an unrealistic reference, if you will, to the responsibility that we have in this body to recognize the significance of grazing, as we know it today. As chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Energy and Natural Resources, I rise to support the substitute, S. 1459, which has been offered by Senator Domenici, the Public Rangelands Management Act. While the livestock grazing issue is not significant in my State, there is reindeer grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands under regulations specific to Alaska and some cattle grazing on Fish and Wildlife Service lands on Kodiak Island. In the lower 48 States, however, livestock grazing is a part of western society. It is part of the history, and the heritage, of the American West. And it's a part of the social fabric of the West and a cornerstone of the western economy. Because I understand the importance of livestock grazing to the rural western economy, to the ranching community and to the family structure, I want to lend my support to this important legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support S. 1459. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and as one of the three elected representatives of the State of Alaska in Washington, I have a strong interest in our Nation's natural resource and public land management policies. I believe the public lands in my State and in the lower 48 States contain abundant natural resources--timber, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and other renewable assets--that can be used to sustain the economic engine of this great country of ours. Our public lands are also a valuable recreational resource--they are used for hunting, fishing, camping, river running, bird watching, back-packing, skiing, off-road vehicle use, and other recreational uses. The fact is, our public lands are taking a great deal of pressure off our national parks for Americans who want to enjoy an outdoor experience. And just as Alaskans are willing to allow their resources to be used prudently to better the future for Alaska's children and grandchildren, I believe American are wiling to use America's resources for the benefit of future generations. I do not believe a majority of Americans support locking up our public lands for preservation purposes. As chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am obligated to speak out for responsible use of our public lands and natural resources in a way that I believe makes the most productive use of those lands and resources for all Americans. One of the reasons I support S. 1459 is because of my concern about the Clinton administration's general attitude regarding public land use and, more specifically, about Secretary Babbitt's regulations and polices regarding activities on the public lands to conduct timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration and development. There is an alarming trend toward driving traditional public land users--timber harvesters, ranchers, oil and gas drillers, and miners--off the public lands. At least in the case of the oil and gas and mining industries, good, high-paying, long-lasting jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital are being forced overseas because of a hostile attitude toward resource development on public lands. Also lost with those jobs and investment capital are untold millions of dollars in potential tax revenues and mineral receipts to the Federal Government and the States. Thousands of good, high-paying jobs in the timber industry have been lost, and are not likely to be recovered again. That is happening in the southeastern portion of my own State. For the livestock industry, however, the story is different. Ranchers have been using the public lands for generations to make a living for themselves and their families. We are not talking about high- technology, high-paying jobs. We are talking in some cases about folks who are just able to eke out a living and pay their bills. The job is tough, the hours are long, and the pay is poor, but because many of them are fourth or fifth generation ranchers, they want to keep up the tradition, run their cattle or sheep, and live the simple lifestyle out in the open space of the West. The ranches are not being forces overseas like the oil and gas and mining industries. They are simply being run out of business altogether--driven off the public lands like the cattle or sheep they herd--by an administration and an Interior Secretary hostile to their way of living. They're being run off the public range and ridiculed as relics of the past. They're criticized for receiving what some claim is a subsidy. Mr. President, we are not talking about subsidizing and preserving the way of life for ``cute little German farms in Bavaria'' as one of my colleagues recently observed, we're talking about members of western society who are making a substantial contribution to their local and State economies, to the Federal Treasury, and to the feeding of tens of millions of people who consume their products every day. What Secretary Babbitt set in motion with his Rangeland Reform 1994 regulations is symptomatic of a broader attitude toward public lands use and natural resource development from his Department. Secretary Babbitt's attitude seems to be ``lock up the public lands, keep them preserved for posterity's sake, and do not worry about all the lost jobs and economic benefits--we can get all those people retrained so they can be productive members of society again.'' What is troubling about that kind of attitude, Mr. President, is that it is elitist. It is elitist because it tells Americans that their public lands should be used only for the enjoyment of the preservationists and no one else. It says, ``the heck with the ranchers, the miners, the oil and gas drillers, the timber cutters and the others who want to use the public lands to make a better life for themselves, their families, or their country.'' It also says, ``the heck with the people who want to recreate, and hunt and fish on the public lands.'' In the case of livestock grazing, that approach takes away the lifestyle so many people have freely chosen, despite the hard work and low pay. It takes away a portion of the western culture. it takes away a pillar of the West's economy. It takes away revenues to the Federal Treasury and to the States whose education systems and public services rely so heavily on the public lands. There is one aspect of the grazing debate that I appreciate more than some of the others because of my experience as a former banker. And that is how difficult it is now for ranchers to secure lending to support their operations or to make improvements. More and more banks are asking tougher and tougher questions before they loan money to ranchers because of the seeming instability of the livestock industry-- instability that is brought about by the regulatory malaise caused by Secretary Babbitt's rangeland reform regulations. More and more banks are denying loans because they believe livestock operations cannot be conducted profitably given the current regulatory climate. That is why we need to act now to bring the stability ranchers and their lenders need. As for the substance of this legislation, Mr. President, S. 1459 starts with the premise that public lands should continue to be used for multiple use purposes. The No. 1 finding on page 3 of the bill says, and I quote: ``multiple use, as set forth in current law, has been and continues to be a guiding principle in the management of public lands and national forests.'' Multiple use is a guiding principle for public lands management now, and the bill says right up front that multiple use will continue to be the guiding principle. It says so throughout the bill. So any claim, Mr. President, that this bill establishes grazing as the dominant use of the public lands is false. That is one of the false claims we will hear over and again about this bill, Mr. President, but such a claim has no basis in fact. The multiple use foundation of this bill is further exemplified by the explicit declaration that nothing precludes use of and access to Federal land for hunting, fishing, recreation, or other appropriate multiple use activities in accordance with Federal and State law. Environmental protection of public rangelands is ensured by S. 1459 in several ways. The bill states as its first objective the promotion of ``healthy, sustained rangeland.'' Another objective is to ``maintain and improve the condition of riparian areas which are critical to wildlife habitat and water quality.'' S. 1459 also calls for: the establishment of State or regional standards and guidelines for addressing rangeland condition; consideration of the environmental effects of grazing in accordance with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act; approval of cooperative agreements and coordinated resource management practices for conservation purposes or resource enhancement; and penalties for failure to comply with permit terms and conditions or environmental laws and regulations. All of these provisions add up to a serious effort to protect the condition of the rangeland and to improve its condition where such improvement is needed. A lot criticism has been directed at the public participation aspects of this legislation, Mr. President, and I want to explain what S. 1459 does in that regard. The bill makes absolutely clear that affected interests will be notified of proposed decisions, and does nothing whatsoever to prevent those interests from having dialogue with Federal land managers concerning management decisions on grazing allotments. That is the case now and that has always been the case. The bill also makes clear that those citizens whose interests are adversely affected can appeal decisions of the land managers. Further, the bill gives the interested public the opportunity to participate in Resource Advisory Councils, the Grazing Advisory Councils, and the NEPA process. What the bill does not do, Mr. President--much to the disappointment of Secretary Babbitt and the other opponents of this legislation--is allow anti-public lands or anti-grazing activists from Boston and elsewhere to micromanage and second-guess every single decision regarding grazing and what happens on each individual grazing allotment for the price of a 32-cent stamp. Appropriate public participation in public lands management decisions is healthy and constructive. We do not have a problem with that, Mr. President. We welcome appropriate public participation. What we do have a problem with, however, is elevating in statute the legal status of an individual who lives hundreds of miles away who wants to dictate what happens on a grazing allotment out West, and whose form of public participation consists of mailing a protest postcard to the land management agency. We do not need more lawsuits spawned by armchair quarterbacks who have never seen a grazing allotment. Nor do we need to have every single decision of the public lands manager second-guessed by self-proclaimed experts. Mr. President, there are many other positive aspects of S. 1459 that deserve mentioning. But my colleagues who have labored long and hard trying to put together a grazing reform bill that can enjoy bipartisan support are anxious to speak to the many positive features of the bill. I want to tell my colleagues about the process we have been through this year on grazing reform, Mr. President, because I believe it is important that they know about the intense interest in this issue, and even more intense interest in passing legislation that will provide stability, certainty, and predictability for the foreseeable future. This is such a contentious issue that we do not need to be revisiting grazing every session of Congress. Earlier last year, May 25, another grazing bill, S. 852, was introduced by Senators Domenici, Craig, Brown, Campbell, Hatch, Bennett, Burns, Simpson, Thomas, Kyl, Pressler, Kempthorne, Conrad, Dorgan, Dole, and Gramm. Senators Baucus, Nickles, and Inhofe subsequently joined as cosponsors. A companion bill to that measure, H.R. 1713, was introduced in the House. The House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the House Resources Committee held a hearing in July. A hearing on the Senate bill was held in June by Senator Craig's Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill on July 19, 1995. S. 852 was placed on Senate Calendar but went nowhere as a result of apparent lack of sufficient support. Following the August recess, a bipartisan effort was mounted to craft a bill that would address the deficiencies of S. 852 was initiated by several Members on our side, Senators Domenici, Thomas, Kyl, Craig, and Burns, and included several of our Democrat colleagues, Senators Reid, Bryan, Conrad, Baucus, Bingaman, and Dorgan. After several weeks of staff discussions and Member involvement, a revised bill was drafted that addressed some 16 areas where there seemed to be general bipartisan agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Senate began consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Grazing provisions were not included the in Senate version of the Balanced Budget Act, but the House version did contain a handful of provisions, only one of which would have produced revenues--the grazing fee provision. In the end, the House receded to the Senate approach and no provisions on grazing were included in the Balanced Budget Act. On November 16, 1995, Senators Domenici, Kyl, Craig, Thomas, and Baucus wrote me to request that the Energy Committee consider the new draft proposal, which was reported as S. 1459 on November 30. In December and January, Mr. President, our side met with Democrat Members and staff several times in an attempt to incorporate changes desired by the Democrat Members in order to address concerns raised by their constituents and support this measure. We went what we believed was the extra mile to address their concerns. At the end of January, Mr. President, we had only five unresolved issues. We made clear to our colleagues that we could accommodate their concerns on some of these issues. On a few others, we probably could not agree because of fundamental differences in approach. However, we believed that the unresolved issues could be decided on the floor through the amendment process, Mr. President, which would allow our colleagues to offer proposals to address the remaining issues on which we seemed divided. That brings us to where we are now, Mr. President. At a crossroad. We are at a crossroad with this grazing bill because we have gone about as far as we can without harming what we believe are the legitimate concerns of the livestock industry. We believe we have ample environmental safeguards in the bill, Mr. President, and more than adequate opportunity for public participation. If our Democrat colleagues whose interests we have tried so hard to address cannot support this bill now, Mr. President, it is not for a lack of effort on our part to accommodate their concerns. It is not because of sincere effort on our part to include them in the process of drafting this legislation. And it is not because we did not seek their input and ideas as to how we could make S. 1459 better legislation. I would suggest Mr. President, that those who cannot support this legislation--even though we have bent over backwards to accommodate the interests of our western Democrat colleagues--are making their decision not on the merits of the bill but rather on the basis of a desire to make nonuse of the public lands the dominant use. We're at a crossroad not only with this grazing bill, but also with the administration's public lands and natural resources policies. We can either choose between Secretary Babbitt's Rangeland Reform 1994 regulations, which will hasten the end of livestock grazing on the public lands, or we can choose an approach that makes significant improvements in the way livestock grazing is managed while allowing ranchers to continue to graze cattle and sheep on the public range. The same choice is true for other public lands use issues: We can either ship our jobs, our capital, our mineral receipts, and our tax revenues overseas or we can keep them here and allow responsible use of our public lands for resource development activities and other multiple-use purposes. The choice for me is clear, Mr. President. On this one, I am going to side with the ranchers over the elitists. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I support the Domenici substitute for three specific reasons. First, it is pro-environment. It is pro-family, and it is pro- economy. The substitute contains, I think, significant provisions to protect the great landscape of the American West that will lead to more money being spent to improve those rangelands specifically. Furthermore, I think it keeps the families together, the families of rural America, the families out west, because it will allow them to continue what they have been doing for five and six generations--that is, producing livestock on the public lands for the benefit of all Americans. Further, the Domenici substitute is pro-economy because it will generate more fees to the Federal Government and provide a stable regulatory climate for livestock production on the public lands, and preserve livestock production as an economic pillar, which it has been on the rural communities of the West. Now, Mr. President, you might wonder why a Senator from Alaska is speaking on grazing issues. Well, it is not significant in my Western State of Alaska, although we do graze a significant herd of ``Santa Clause's reindeer'' on public land. But it is really part of the history and heritage of the American West, a part of the social fabric of the West, and it is really a cornerstone of the western economy. So I want to lend my support to this issue and this legislation. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Domenici substitute because I understand and really appreciate the importance of this issue to the West. I want to assure you that those who have risen to speak on behalf of this amendment do as well, because they are the ones ultimately accountable for their stewardship to their constituents. I have a strong interest in our Nation's natural resources, public lands, and management policies. I believe the public lands in my State and in the other lower 48, as we refer to them, contain tremendous natural resources--our timber, coal, oil, gas, minerals, and other renewable assets that can be used to sustain the economic engine of what made this country great. I firmly believe that through science and technology, we can do it right, we can do a better job than we have done. I feel, in many cases, the old rules relative to environmental oversight and various other aspects of regulatory mandates are really out of date. We have had new technology come along. We are operating under the same rules, same regulations, and a very narrow focus, Mr. President, and a very narrow interpretation. As we look at resource development, we are looking at world markets. We have the experience and expertise in the United States to do a better job, particularly with our renewable resources, and grazing is a renewable resource. We could do a better job in the renewability of our timber. But as we look at what is happening, we are depending on imports, such as imported beef and timber products, coming from countries that do not have the same sensitivity and responsibility in developing and maintaining the renewability of the resources that we do. So are we not being a little irresponsible to shed that responsibility on other countries and simply look to importation? Well, I think we are. Just as we in Alaska are willing to allow our resources to prudently contribute to the future of those in our State and the grandchildren that are coming along, I believe Americans are willing to use America's resources and resource development to benefit future generations. So I support Senate bill 1459 because of my concern about the current administration's general attitude regarding public land use. More specifically, it would be the regulations and policies of the Secretary of the Interior regarding activities on public lands to conduct timber harvesting, livestock, grazing, mining, oil and gas exploration, and development as well. I think, Mr. President, as we look a little further, we see an alarming trend toward driving traditional public land users--timber harvesters, ranchers, oil and gas drillers, and miners--off public lands. Where are they going? We are driving those jobs out of the United States, we are sending our dollars overseas, and we are importing those products. As our President communicates concern over the loss of high-paying jobs and offsets that by more low-paying jobs, the realism is that many of these blue-collar jobs are high paying. But if we do not develop our resources, we are not going to have them. The Interior Secretary's approach seems to be to drive these good, high-paying, long-lasting jobs--hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment--overseas, all with no worry, so to speak, because we will make up for those lost jobs somehow. Well, I think that is an attitude problem. As we look at oil imports alone, now we are currently importing over 54 percent of the total crude oil that we consume. We are simply becoming more dependent on the Mideast. We are only perhaps a terrorist act away from another oil crisis. So, Mr. President, as we come back to the issue at hand, it is just not about grazing; it is about utilization of the public land in a responsible manner. I think it is difficult for ranchers without this relief. As a former banker, I think I can comment with some degree of accuracy on the circumstances. It is difficult for ranchers to secure lending to support their operations and to make improvements that are needed. And more and more banks are going to be tougher and tougher before they loan money to ranchers because of the seeming instability of this industry and where it is going. That is brought about by the regulatory malaise caused by the current administration's rangeland reform regulations. I have been told by some of my banker friends that they are denying loans because they believe livestock operations cannot be conducted properly given the economic uncertainty in the industry. I think that is why we need to act now to bring stability that the ranchers need and that certainly the lenders require. That is another reason I support the Domenici amendment. As for the substance of the so-called substitute, the bill starts with the premise that public lands should continue to be used for multiple use. The No. 1 one finding on page 3 of the bill says: ``Multiple use, as set forth in current law, has been and continues to be a guiding principle in the management of public lands and national forests.'' Multiple use is a guiding principle for public lands management now, and the bill says right up front that multiple use will continue to be the guiding principle. It says that throughout the entire bill. So any claim, Mr. President, that this bill establishes grazing as a dominant use--that has been used time and time again in this debate--of public lands is simply false, and it is inaccurate. This is one of the many claims that we will probably hear over and over again in this debate. But such claims simply have no basis in fact. Next, I want to say how astounded I am that the Democratic substitute to be offered on the other side of the aisle says absolutely nothing in title I about protecting use, of and access to, Federal land for the experience of hunting, fishing, recreation, watershed management, or any other appropriate multiple-use activity. The question is, why? I wonder if we are to conclude from our friends on the other side of the aisle that they care only about these activities on national grasslands and not about such activities on the BLM or Forest Service rangelands. I hope that some of my colleagues will address that because I think it is a legitimate criticism. Next, Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how compatible the Domenici bill will be with the environment. The bill states as its first objective the promotion of healthy, sustained rangeland. Another objective is to ``maintain and improve conditions of repairing areas which are critical to wildlife habitat and water quality.'' The Domenici substitute also calls for the establishment of State or regional standards and guidelines for addressing rangeland conditions; consideration of the environmental effects of grazing in accordance with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act; and approval of cooperative agreements and coordinated resource management practices for conservation purposes. Mr. President, all of these provisions add up to a very, very serious effort to protect the public rangelands and to improve their conditions where such improvements are needed. So, Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot of criticism in this debate about public participation in the grazing management process. But, in my view, there are far more opportunities for public participation and a broader role for the so-called affected interests in the Domenici substitute than in the substitute which we will see from the other side. Under the Domenici substitute, for example, for the first time the public will be given the opportunity to comment on reports by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture summarizing range-monitoring data. This is a positive improvement and one that will not be provided in the substitute from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. What the Domenici substitute does not do, Mr. President, is allow out-of-State antipublic lands, antigrazing activists to simply micromanage and second-guess every single decision regarding grazing and what happens on each individual grazing allotment for the price of a 32-cent stamp, which, as you and I know, is possible now. Appropriate public participation in public land management decisions is healthy. It is constructive. We do not have a problem with that. We welcome appropriate public participation. Finally, Mr. President, it is our hope that the Domenici substitute ends the bureaucratic nightmare that livestock producers have been living because of widely differing rules and regulations of not one, but two Federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. The Domenici bill would require coordination of livestock administration between these two agencies. It would require them to issue regulations simultaneously to address grazing on public lands. Livestock producers need some degree of certainty. They need regulatory stability. We believe, Mr. President, that the Domenici substitute will provide that certainty and that stability. I believe Senate bill 1459, as proposed to be amended by the Domenici substitute, will allow family ranchers to continue enjoying the lifestyle they have enjoyed for generations. It is hard work. It is low pay and long hours. If you ask any one of the small family livestock operators, he or she will tell you that they would not want to do anything else or anything any differently. Are we going to take that away from them? I hope not. We need to provide the proper regulatory climate to allow the family ranchers to continue to earn their living on public rangelands. We need to continue to allow the livestock industry to make its vital contribution to the rural economy of the West. We need to provide incentives for the livestock operator to keep caring about the land that he or she lives on. Yes; ranchers are environmentalists, too. They hunt, they fish, and they recreate. They enjoy the outdoors on the lands in their areas just like others. The only difference is they know better how to take care of the land and how to preserve it. They have a vested interest in continuing to care about those rangelands because their rangelands are also their hunting grounds and their fishing streams. Mr. President, the Domenici substitute is good for the environment. It is good for the family. It is good for the rural western economy. And it is basically good public policy. I urge my colleagues to support the Domenici substitute, Senate bill 1459. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of that legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would suggest that those who cannot support this legislation for whatever reason, even though we have, in my opinion, bent over backward to accommodate the interests of our western colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are making their decisions, unfortunately, not on the merits of the bill but rather on the basis of a desire to make nonuse of the public lands the dominant use. Think about that, Mr. President. We are at a crossroads not only with this grazing bill but also with the administration's public lands and natural resource policy. We can either choose between Secretary Babbitt's rangeland reform, the 1994 regulations, which will hasten the end of livestock grazing on public land, or we can choose an approach that makes significant improvements in the way livestock grazing is managed while allowing ranchers to continue to graze cattle and sheep on public land. The same choice is true for other public land use issues. We can either ship our jobs, ship our capital, our mineral receipts, and our tax revenues overseas, or we can keep them here and allow responsible use of our public lands for resource development activities and other multiple-use purposes and to benefit, obviously, Americans who are looking for and need those jobs. The choice is clear on this one. I am going to side with the ranchers over the elitists. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, that concludes my statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1605, a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 27, 1996, it will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will debate the product liability conference report at 9 a.m. until 12 noon on Thursday. At 12 noon, a vote will occur on adoption of the product liability conference report. Mr. President, following the two back-to-back votes, the Senate will resume the grazing fee bill, S. 1459, under a previous order. There will be 75 minutes of debate on the pending Bumpers amendment regarding increased fees with a vote occurring at approximately 2 p.m. on Thursday. Additional votes could therefore occur during Thursday's session of the Senate. Also, the Senate could be asked to consider a short-term continuing resolution if approved in the House of Representatives.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is my understanding. Currently, Federal agencies are authorized to contract with suppliers of fish and fish products for various Federal feeding programs. Additionally, these products may be purchased by the Secretary of Agriculture under the commodity surplus reduction authorities of section 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1938. While these authorities for purchase will remain, my amendment will impose no requirement for purchase beyond the discretionary authorities of current law.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is my understanding. All Federal agencies who enter into agreements for purchase of food commodities solicit bids which contain a number of contractual conditions relating to the quality of the items. Nothing in my amendment would restrict the criteria imposed by the Federal Government relating to the quality of the product. The only restriction imposed by my amendment would be to prohibit a contractual requirement that processing be subject to any federally mandated continuous inspection method beyond that imposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. My amendment would only eliminate the requirement of their continuous present for any inspection purpose other than food safety and wholesomeness. All Federal agencies involved in the purchase of fish and fish products would retain all current authorities to inspect and impose quality standards they feel proper to protect the Federal investment in, and ultimate consumers of, these products. I thank my colleagues on both sides for agreeing to the amendment. I think no further debate is necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, no one more strongly supports the goals sought by the statutes and regulations of this country than I do. I come from a beautiful State blessed with resources that I have worked to see used productively and conserved wisely, I myself enjoy the great outdoors in Alaska, along with my family, and intend to have these same kinds of experiences enjoyed by my children and grandchildren; I have been a banker, where it has been my privilege to see individuals succeed in small business; I have seen first hand how issues like safety and worker protection go hand in hand with ensuring that success, but there is no doubt that achieving better protection of human health and the environment can only happen if we regulate smarter. Individuals and businesses, big and small, spend too much time trying to comply with too much paperwork, and too much regulation from too many Washington bureaucrats. For example: above-ground storage tanks must comply with five different regulations that each require a separate spill prevention plan; this means that a business with tanks files five different sets of plans--one to the State, and two each to the EPA and the Coast Guard. If you buy a business that was once registered to produce pesticides, even if you don't produce pesticides, or never have, the EPA will still want you to send in annual production reports with zeros filled in. If you don't, you can be sued and potentially fined. For just one statute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA has issued 17,000 pages of regulations and proposed regulations. The volume I'm holding has over 1,000 pages, and on any one of them is a place where a small business can get tripped up. By the way, this is one volume of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 deals with environmental protection. Title 40 has 20 more volumes like this one. And its only title 40. The Code of Federal Regulations occupies an entire 4 foot by 8 foot bookcase in the Senate library. A copy of the code costs almost $1,000, and is updated four times a year. Even if a small business could afford to buy it, it would be impossible to read it all. Why do we want to force every business in America to have to keep a battery of lawyers around just to advise about the overwhelming details in the Code of Federal Regulations? Now, usually when I describe these examples, I talk about Anchorage, AK. There, fish guts were added to the waste water to comply with regulations that require a certain amount of organic waste removed during sewage treatment. The water was too clean, so material had to be added just to comply with the requirement to get a minimum amount out. But I am happy to say that today I am no longer using that example. It seems that in response to a lawsuit, EPA announced its intention to lift some of the restrictions on sewage treatment plants such as the one in Anchorage. EPA states, ``This change would provide the affected municipalities with additional flexibility and, in some cases, cost savings without compromising environmental quality.'' If we are to move forward to a safer, cleaner, healthier future, we have to change the way Washington regulates. This bill is a positive and helpful step in that direction. S. 942 will ensure small business participates in rulemaking. This in turn will mean that rules will take small business needs into consideration before a rule is enacted. The bill also allows judicial review of regulations for compliance with the 16-year-old Regulatory Flexibility Act. A court can now examine whether agencies considered adverse impacts to Small Business when it writes regulations, and determine if an agency acted in an arbitrary manner. Penalty waivers and reductions when appropriate for small business violations. Recovery of attorney's fees when small business is forced into defensive litigation due to enforcement excesses. Comprehensive regulatory reform will continue to be a high priority for this Senator. As science and technology continue to change, we must have a Federal Government that can be responsive to such changes. We need to plan for the future, not just for today, and that means a regulatory system that can keep up with improvements. Four fundamental changes to the regulatory system will have to occur to ensure those improvements in the future. First, we must do a thorough review of existing regulations in place, decide what we need and what we don't, and avoid adding any more we don't need; second, Washington should be required to disclose the expected cost of current and new regulations. The public has a right to know what laws and regulations cost; third, when making regulatory decisions, the Government should use best estimates and realistic assumptions rather than worst case scenarios advanced by extremists; and fourth, new regulations should be based on the most advanced and credible scientific knowledge available. Common sense must be returned to regulating. I applaud Senators Bond and Bumpers, and all those who worked to bring this bill to the floor. It is an important first step toward a safer, cleaner, healthier future.