[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         GRAZING FEES PROPOSAL

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to really ask the Secretary of 
Interior a very simple question: What is going on? Frankly, whether or 
not the Secretary succeeded in the State of New Mexico in getting 
together with the so-called both sides of the so-called grazing issue 
is not really relevant. Maybe that did not work as he wanted it to. But 
I take him at his word, that he is really trying to work with people 
affected at the local level. The Secretary and his spokesman have 
claimed to come up with a policy and a set of rules and guidelines that 
will take into account the problems those who use the public domain are 
having with his original proposals and even with the proposals that 
were defeated in the U.S. Senate.
  I thought that is what the Secretary and his people were busy doing. 
Frankly, I hope that is still what he is doing. But I do not understand 
how we have stories in the news media of broad dissemination, that are 
talking about what is in the Secretary's proposals. These news stories 
are variously categorized from pro-user to antienvironment, to giving 
the local communities and regions more authority, to being chastised by 
some as giving away the reform.
  When a Senator like the Senator from New Mexico asks what are they 
talking about, I am told there is nothing to talk about yet. I am told 
there is no program yet. I am told when we are ready we will let 
everybody see it, or at least a broad spectrum will see it.
  The Senator from New Mexico was even told the other day, ``Don't 
worry about it. All your people will see it in plenty of time.'' 
Inferentially, they were not too sure I was going to. That is the way I 
took it, but they inferred that our people would.
  I do not know if the Secretary knows from whence comes the Washington 
Post article, ``Revised Grazing Proposal Makes Concessions to Livestock 
Interests,'' and the March 5 article, both of which I want to put in 
the Record, ``Four Lawmakers Fault Babbitt's Grazing Plan.'' By the 
way, they are the four who opposed what we tried to do in the Senate 
last fall. In fact, three of them were for more major changes than 
Senator Reid's proposal in the Senate. But they are commenting 
specifically on a program and rules that allegedly give the grazing 
permittees more than they deserve.
  The Secretary continues to tell us that ``the rules are not made, the 
plan is not completed; we are still doing it; it is sort of our 
internal problem yet.'' Frankly, I believe this time the Secretary 
ought to just take a look at the file in his own office, the Office of 
the Secretary, and look at a memorandum that is dated March 3 that did 
not have to be leaked, Mr. President, because it is directed to John 
Lawrence of Representative Miller's office from the Secretary's Office.
  I have nothing against any of these people. They are all fine Members 
of Congress, and these nonmembers probably represent the four Members' 
offices very well. Rick Healy, who is with Representative Vento; Sandy 
Harris with Representative Synar. This memo is directed to them, and in 
it, it is suggested that here is a press release regarding part of this 
plan. There are even blanks in this press release as to whose names 
they are going to put in saying what about this plan. Then there is a 
very interesting paragraph. The memo says to these four--three 
representatives and a Senator:

       I realize you will meet tomorrow to discuss the proposed 
     rule. If that meeting leads to substantive changes in the 
     standards and guidelines section, the press release will of 
     course change as well.

  I ask unanimous consent that that memo be printed in the Record, with 
the attachments.
  There being no objection, the memo was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 1994.
     Re possible announcement on standards and guidelines.

     To: Larry Werner, w/ Sen. Reid, John Lawrence, w/ Rep. 
         Miller, Rick Healy, w/ Rep. Vento, Sandy Harris, Ruth 
         Fleisher, w/ Rep. Synar.
                  From: Kevin Sweeney, Director of Communications.

       Attached is a draft press release regarding one specific 
     element of the proposed grazing rule: standards and 
     guidelines. At this point, we hope to issue this release at a 
     press conference this Monday, March 7.
       I realize you will meet tomorrow to discuss the proposed 
     rule. If that meeting leads to substantive changes in the 
     standards and guidelines section, the press release will of 
     course change as well.
       Please check the attached and call me with any comments, 
     criticisms or specific edits. I can be reached at 208-6416.
                                  ____


Grazing Standards and Guidelines to be Regional, Drafting Will Be Done 
                           in Western States

       Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt today announced a proposal 
     that would require ranchers to meet standards and guidelines, 
     written and implemented at the regional level, when grazing 
     livestock on lands controlled by the federal Bureau of Land 
     Management (BLM). The announcement represents a significant 
     shift: in August, Babbitt proposed standards on a national 
     scale, rather than the local scale that is now proposed.
       The proposal will be included in draft regulations expected 
     to be released in early March. Babbitt has spent much of the 
     past three months in the West, attending scores of meetings 
     on grazing issues.
       BLM state directors will coordinate the drafting or 
     standards and guidelines. In doing so, they are to work 
     closely with the Multiple Resource Advisory Councils proposed 
     last week by Babbitt. Before becoming final, standards and 
     guidelines must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.


                    ``bringing grazing policy home''

       ``The West has never been against specific standards and 
     guidelines to govern conduct on the range,'' said 
     ____________. ``What we were against was having the standards 
     imposed by people in Washington who don't understand how 
     things work on the ground. We were against using national 
     standards that don't reflect different conditions in the 
     various Western states.''
       ``Secretary Babbitt heard our concerns and changed his 
     original proposal,'' said ____________. ``Now we will have 
     state standards and guidelines promulgated with local input 
     by those who know the range.''
       ``Once again, our focus is on shifting more management 
     decisions to a place closer to the land,'' said Babbitt, 
     referring to the decision to shift from national standards to 
     regional ones. ``This is another step in the process of 
     bringing grazing policy home to the American West.''
       ``Ranchers and others constantly told me that 
     national standards would not bring lasting improvements to 
     the public range,'' said Babbitt. ``They said `cookie 
     cutter rules' won't work out West, that our best changes 
     at success would come not from national approaches, but 
     from regional ones. Once again, I agree with them.''
       ``Denying this fact denies the culture of the West,'' said 
     Babbitt. ``Any plan developed in Washington, without 
     significant local input, will have trouble succeeding on the 
     ground out West--and that is where it matters.''
       Babbitt also said regional standards and guidelines 
     acknowledge that there are great differences across the 
     region, saying ``the West is not one monolithic region.''


         rangeland conditions call for standards and guidelines

       ``Since our original proposal six months ago, I've heard 
     from countless ranchers who agree on the need for standards 
     and guidelines,'' said Babbitt. ``Most realize it won't 
     affect their pocketbooks in any way. And most are relieved 
     that the handful of bad actors on the range would finally be 
     held accountable.''
       While discussing the need for standards and guidelines, 
     Babbitt noted that assessments of rangeland condition have 
     varied widely in recent years. He cited an Environmental 
     Protection Agency study which asserted that ``extensive field 
     observations in the late 1980's suggest riparian areas 
     throughout much of the West were in the worst condition in 
     history.'' He also pointed to a recent National Academy of 
     Sciences (NAS) study, which underscored the need for more 
     data on public range conditions. At the same time, the NAS 
     report said standards and guidelines were an urgently needed 
     tool for range management.
       ``The simple fact is that our rangelands are in great need 
     of improvement, and many ranchers across the West have proven 
     they are up to the task,'' said Babbitt.
       Babbitt singled out the green strips along rivers and 
     streams in the West as areas of special focus, saying 
     ``riparian areas are among the most resilient ecosystems on 
     public lands. If given a chance, they can come back to their 
     full, healthy state.''
       ``Elevated standards, in riparian zones and elsewhere, 
     given us a chance at real success,'' said Babbitt. ``They 
     remind us that success need not be defined simply in terms of 
     staving off inevitable decline or in holding back damaging 
     trends. Success, in this endeavor, can be defined in far more 
     positive terms: we can restore the public rangelands to their 
     greatest potential.''
       ``Many ranchers accepted this challenge long ago, and have 
     met it,'' Babbitt said. ``But as we focus the resources of a 
     government agency, it is clear that, in all the areas of 
     public land management, there is no greater chance of true 
     restoration, at as small a cost, as there is with the 
     management of our public rangeland uplands and riparian 
     zones.''
       ``I would have preferred national standards and guidelines 
     because countless reports show the public range is in poor 
     condition,'' said ----. We'll never change that unless we set 
     tough standards. Still, I think this proposal is a positive 
     step, and is one that can help bring about significant 
     improvement in the health of our public range lands.''


                         national requirements

       Babbitt outlined four national requirements that regional 
     standards and guidelines must meet.
       (1) Grazing practices must enhance or maintain properly 
     functioning ecosystems.
       (2) Grazing practices must enhance or maintain properly 
     functioning riparian systems. Babbitt said this ``special 
     focus on riparian zones brings attention to those areas which 
     have suffered the greatest damage--but which also have the 
     greatest potential for recovery.''
       (3) Grazing management practices must be implemented to 
     protect public health and welfare, and must help maintain, 
     restore or enhance water quality. Water quality on allotments 
     must meet or exceed State water quality standards. ``All BLM 
     permittees must play by State rules in this area,'' said 
     Babbitt.
       (4) Grazing practices must assist in the maintenance, 
     restoration or enhancement of habitat for threatened or 
     endangered species and must also give consideration to those 
     species which are candidates for listing. Babbitt said this 
     kind of focus ``can help us avoid the kind of train wrecks 
     that have helped make other public resource battles so 
     contentious.''
       The standards represent the most basic legal mandates under 
     the Taylor Grazing Act, the Federal Lands Policy and 
     management Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean 
     Water Act.


                   regional standards and guidelines

       State standards must address soil stability and watershed 
     function, the distribution of nutrients and energy, and plant 
     community recovery mechanisms.
       In those cases where existing management practices fail to 
     meet the four requirements and the State standards, the BLM 
     land manager would be required to take action prior to the 
     start of the next grazing year. The regional guidelines would 
     provide direction for that action, and must address the 
     following.
       Grazing management practices must assist in recovery 
     planning for threatened or endangered species in the area, 
     and should work to prevent listings.
       Grazing practices must be designed to protect the public 
     health and welfare, and must restore or enhance water quality 
     so that it meets or exceeds State water quality standards.
       Grazing plans should consider such issues as the timing of 
     critical plant growth and regrowth. Consideration must be 
     given to periods of rest for livestock grazing.
       Plans must address situations in which continuous season-
     long grazing would be consistent with achieving properly 
     functioning conditions.
       The selection criteria and design standards for the 
     development of springs, seeps and other projects affecting 
     water and associated resources must maintain or enhance the 
     ecological values of those sites.
       In those areas where grazing may be authorized on ephemeral 
     rangelands, a criteria for minimum levels of production must 
     be set in advance. Likewise, standards must be set for the 
     minimum level of growth that is to remain at the end of the 
     grazing season.
       Criteria must be developed for the protection of reparian-
     wetland areas. This includes the location, or the need for 
     location or removal, of stock management facilities that may 
     be outside of the riparian area itself. These include such 
     facilities as corrals, holding facilities, wells, pipelines 
     and fences. Consideration must also be given to the 
     modification of livestock management practices, such as 
     salting and supplement feeding.
       Plans must have utilization or residual vegetation targets 
     which will maintain, improve or restore both herbaceous and 
     woody species to a healthy and vigorous condition. They must 
     facilitate reproduction and maintenance of different age 
     classes in the desired riparian-wetland and aquatic plant 
     communities. They must also leave sufficient plant litter to 
     provide adequate sediment filtering and dissipation of stream 
     energy for bank protection.
       BLM state directors would work closely with the Multiple 
     Resource Advisory councils to draft the standards and 
     guidelines. A state will be the smallest level at which such 
     standards are to be written, but once that task is 
     accomplished, standards and guidelines can be subsumed into 
     regional sets, thus allowing for consideration of ecosystems 
     that cross state borders.


                           fallback standards

       While these standards and guidelines are being drafted at 
     the State or regional level, a ``fallback'' set will be 
     drafted at the national level. In those states where the BLM 
     director is unable to produce, within 18 months, standards 
     that meet the Secretary's satisfaction, then the fallback 
     standards and guidelines will be used. BLM State Directors 
     will have the option of revising these fallback standards and 
     guidelines to provide a better fit in their State.
        ``Our hope is that the fallback standards will not be 
     utilized in any state,'' said Babbitt. ``Nonetheless, they 
     provide an incentive for those involved at the state level to 
     produce reasonable standards that match their region.''


                             riparian focus

       Since discussions of range reform first began, Babbitt has 
     placed special emphasis on riparian zones.
       According to a 1990 study by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, ``extensive field observations in the late 1980's 
     suggest riparian areas throughout much of the West were in 
     the worst condition in history.'' Other studies show that 
     between 70 and 90 percent of the natural riparian ecosystems 
     in the contiguous United States have been lost because of 
     human activity.
       Riparian zones play an essential role in supply and 
     purifying water for human consumption throughout the West. 
     They also provide essential habitat for wildlife. For 
     example, 82 percent of breeding birds in Colorado occur in 
     riparian zones, 75 percent of all wildlife species in 
     southeastern Wyoming depend on riparian areas, and 51 percent 
     of all bird species in the southwestern states are completely 
     dependent on riparian areas.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I merely ask the Secretary, what is 
going on? Are we Members of the Congress? Can only a very few Members 
comment on this rule in private, as is implied in this memo? ``After 
you meet, maybe the rule will be changed,'' this memo says, ``in which 
event we will change the press release,'' the memo says. Is that the 
way the Secretary is going to handle working with the West, working 
with those who are affected, sending a memo like this? Maybe he does 
not know it went out.
  Nevertheless, we cannot sit around, even those who want to help. The 
Secretary does not have any reason to believe that what he finally 
approves of might not be something I may want to help him with. I know 
from the beginning that I cannot get everything I want for the ranchers 
and multiple users. But I do not want to be dealt out, and I think this 
is a way to deal us out. And, Mr. Secretary, I think it is more than 
just dealing out those in the Senate who apparently are opposed to this 
program. Maybe that is all right, but how can you deal out the people 
you say you are dealing with? You are supposed to be dealing with the 
users and everybody else out there, then you meet with another group 
and say, here is the suggested way we are going to handle it. Another 
group of three Members of the House and one Member of the Senate. I do 
not think it is right. I think the Secretary ought to take a look at 
this situation and maybe call a few of us together and, as I indicated, 
just tell us what is up.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the two 
articles which I referred to during the course of my statement.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 1994]

   Revised Grazing Proposal Makes Concessions to Livestock Interests

                           (By Tom Kenworthy)

       Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, stung by a western 
     political revolt against his plans to overhaul grazing 
     policies on federal lands, will soon unveil a revised 
     proposal that makes controversial concessions to western 
     livestock interests and their political allies.
       Under the new blueprint for managing sheep and cattle 
     gazing on about 264 million acres of public lands, a draft 
     copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, the 
     federal government would delegate considerable authority over 
     many fundamental range management decisions to state and 
     local advisory groups.
       Another disputed aspect of the plan involves the fees 
     charged to land users. The new fee structure would raise 
     monthly grazing fees--the amount ranchers pay per animal--
     from the current level of $1.92 to $3.96 over three years. 
     Last August, Babbitt has proposed a top rate of $4.28.
       But the final increment of the phased-in increase would not 
     go into effect unless the administration has by 1997, 
     designed a new ``incentive fee system'' intended to reward 
     stockmen ``who have improved rangelands and contributed to 
     healthy, functional ecological conditions'' by such actions 
     as protecting stream areas and valuable wildlife habitat.
       To some critics, that provision is an open invitation to 
     administration opponents in Congress to launch a renewed 
     fight over grazing in the presidential election year of 1996, 
     when the White House would be even more sensitive than it is 
     now to congressional Republicans * * * blocking that 
     incentive plan, it would leave the highest possible grazing 
     fee at $3.50, rather than $3.96.
       Babbitt's new proposals, contained in a 200-plus-page set 
     of draft regulations now being circulated on Capitol Hill and 
     elsewhere, were developed following a bitter congressional 
     fight last fall. The Senate blocked legislative enactment of 
     Babbitt's original plan, and Babbitt then promised to 
     implement the overhaul by administrative means.
       But during the last fall and winter Babbitt traveled 
     extensively throughout the West to meet with groups and 
     individuals affected by grazing policies, and decided that 
     any new plan would have to involve less command and control 
     from Washington and more decision making by local groups. He 
     was particularly swayed by a series of eight meetings with a 
     group of ranchers and environmentalists convened by Colorado 
     Gov. Roy Romer (D).
       The concessions contained in the new plan, however, are 
     already drawing fire from some of the administrations 
     strongest allies, both in the environmental community and 
     among congressional Democrats, who believe that many western 
     rangelands have been degraded by overgrazing and other 
     destructive practices.
       Four key Democrats who long been involved in grazing 
     issues--Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Reps. George Miller 
     (Calif.), Mike Synar, (Okla.) and Bruce F. Vento (Minn.)--met 
     with Babbitt on Feb. 23 and strongly protested the direction 
     the grazing overhaul was taking.
       ``It's terrible,'' said one congressional source of the new 
     Babbitt plan, arguing it would do little to erase western 
     opposition to the overhaul while antagonizing the 
     administration's traditional allies. ``This is the Neville 
     Chamberlain approach. They really think they can appease 
     these people into support.''
       An Interior Department spokeswoman said yesterday that the 
     draft plan could still undergo some revisions before being 
     published. Consultations with congressional Democrats are 
     continuing.
       At the heart of the draft proposal are recommendations 
     prepared by * * * would play a key role in developing range 
     management plans and usage standards. Nominated by governors, 
     the members would be appointed by the Interior secretary.
       Under the terms of Babbitt's new plan, local councils would 
     have the power to appeal to the Interior secretary if federal 
     range managers do not accept their recommendations. This 
     power, environmentalists and others argue, could lead to 
     intimidation of professional land managers, and bog down the 
     Interior secretary in an endless series of local land 
     management decisions.
       Critics also say it is unwise to accept the so-called 
     Colorado model without first trying it in a pilot program to 
     test Babbitt's theory that ranchers, environmentalists and 
     local officials can work collaboratively to resolve their 
     differences.
       Other changes from Babbitt's original plan of last summer 
     include the exclusion of national standards and guidelines 
     for range management. In their place are recommendations to 
     aid in development of guidelines and standards at the 
     regional or local level, in consultation with the resource 
     advisory councils. Though there would be some federal 
     standards in place during the 18-month period for the 
     development of local prescriptions, state Bureau of Land 
     Management directors could ask the interior secretary for a 
     waiver.
       Environmentalists who have reviewed the draft also say that 
     the new plan could make it harder for people other than 
     ranchers to be given official status to comment on and 
     influence such range management decisions as how many cattle 
     can be put on an individual grazing allotment each year.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1994]

              Four Lawmakers Fault Babbitt's Grazing Plan

                           (By Tom Kenworthy)

       Some of the Clinton administration's key congressional 
     allies on politically sensitive environmental issues say they 
     are beginning to lose faith in the administration's 
     commitment to fundamental change in managing federal natural 
     resources.
       The increasing dismay felt by some powerful congressional 
     Democrats is illustrated by a detailed and scathing critique 
     of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's latest proposal for 
     overhauling federal rules governing cattle and sheep grazing 
     on millions of acres of U.S. rangeland.
       Saying they are ``deeply troubled'' by the new 
     administration proposal, four lawmakers--Sen. Harry M. Reid 
     (D-Nev.) and Reps George Miller (D-Calif.), Mike Synar (D-
     Okla.) and Bruce F. Vento (D-Minn.)--wrote Babbitt over the 
     weekend to express their concerns. The proposal is so flawed 
     and so much of a retreat from Babbitt's original plan of last 
     summer, the letter said, ``that we will be unable to support 
     the proposed regulations'' unless major changes are made 
     before it is finalized later this month.
       In separate interviews, the legislators said they view the 
     new grazing plan as a capitulation by the administration to 
     the livestock industry and western political interests and as 
     a betrayal of a deal they struck with Babbitt last year.
       The level of trust has deteriorated so much that the 
     lawmakers have agreed among themselves to try to meet with 
     the secretary and his top staff only when all four of them 
     are present because in the past they have felt misled by 
     mixed signals.
       All four members have a long history of involvement with 
     public lands issues and were key Babbitt allies in last 
     year's losing congressional fight over his original grazing 
     plan.
       In addition, all are central players in legislative affairs 
     affecting the Interior Department and the environment. Miller 
     is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee; 
     Vento is the chairman of that panel's subcommittee on 
     national parks, forests and public lands; Synar is chairman 
     of the Government Operations subcommittee on environment, 
     energy and natural resources; and Reid serves both on the 
     Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Interior and 
     the Environment and Public Works Committee.
       ``I'm on Interior appropriations, they [Miller, Vento and 
     Synar] control the authorizing over there,'' said Reid. ``I 
     wouldn't want to be in a position where I have to deal with 
     four people who are just pulling darts out of their 
     shoulders, or maybe their backs.''
       ``There's a serious problem here,'' said Synar of Babbitt's 
     relations with pivotal lawmakers. Grazing policy ``is not the 
     only issue he has to deal with these four members about,'' he 
     said. ``It's going to set the tone for any future 
     relationships we have on mining, timber, parks and a host of 
     other issues. There's more at stake here than just grazing.''
       Following last fall's legislative defeat, Babbitt set out 
     to revise the grazing plan in order to reduce opposition from 
     western Democratic governors and the livestock industry. But 
     in doing so, Babbitt appears to have undermined his base of 
     support among Democratic backers in Congress and may also 
     have lost some momentum on other parts of his agenda.
       Miller, for example, has delayed naming House conferees on 
     legislation rewriting a 19th-century mining law until the 
     final grazing plan is published. Miller said he is reluctant 
     to throw the House into a tough political battle with the 
     Senate over the mining law if he thinks the strong House 
     position will be undercut by Clinton administration 
     concessions.
       ``I have to have very clear signals and a very clear 
     commitment'' from the administration before proceeding on 
     mining, said Miller.
       At the heart of the lawmakers' growing dismay is a sense 
     that Babbitt has reneged on commitments made last fall to 
     push administratively for tough new grazing rules. They say 
     Babbitt made that pledge after the Senate blocked enactment 
     of his ``rangeland reform'' proposal unveiled last summer and 
     then stymied a compromise fashioned by all of them and 
     sponsored by Reid.
       ``We are deeply troubled by several major aspects of the 
     [draft grazing plan] that are radical departures from your 
     previous proposals and from the Reid compromise and that 
     result in a package that will undermine the effectiveness of 
     the range reform initiative,'' the four lawmakers wrote 
     Babbitt.
       Babbitt said yesterday he will visit Capitol Hill this week 
     to discuss the lawmakers' objections. But the Secretary 
     insisted he is wedded to the heart of the proposal, creation 
     of local ``resource advisory councils'' similar to one 
     operating in Colorado that would be composed of disparate 
     interests and be given broad authority to influence local 
     grazing decisions.
       ``I strongly believe the Colorado model is conceptually 
     correct,'' he said. ``I'm not going to abandon that . . . 
     absolute certain that it is the only way to open a new 
     chapter in rangeland management.
       Babbitt played down suggestions he is losing critical 
     congressional support that he will need on other issues. ``I 
     am fairly philosophical about this,'' he said. ``There is no 
     way I can negotiate something that will please everybody.''
       All four lawmakers said they understand the political 
     pressures Babbitt is under, and several attributed his 
     inconsistency on grazing to White House orders. ``He's 
     getting his political chain jerked,'' said Vento.
       But Miller warned that Babbitt must also pay attention to 
     his allies. ``Babbitt's been negotiating with people who 
     never had any intent of accepting any compromise,'' Miller 
     said. ``They have got to take stock of who it is they've been 
     doing business with. The grazing and timber and mining and 
     water barons do not go quietly. They really have no interest 
     in change.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________