[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.
____________________