[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 124 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        RANGELAND REFORM COMETH

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue I am 
sure many of you had hoped was taken care of last October. I rise today 
to remind the Senate, my Western colleagues, and the people of the West 
that Secretary Babbitt's rangeland reform cometh.
  On August 13, 1993, the Secretary proposed his rangeland reform plan 
which is designed to fundamentally alter the manner in which our 
Federal lands are managed. Secretary Babbitt's plan would revolutionize 
Western grazing, bringing it in line with his perception of the 
expanding urban structure of a new West. The Secretary's plan was 
revolutionary indeed; rangeland reform galvanized the rural West into 
action. Refusing to be cast as second-class citizens, people from the 
rural areas began to work together to stop what many describe as a 
``war on the West.''
  Last fall, I led a group of 41 concerned Senators in opposition to 
Rangeland Reform 1994. I, too, felt that the Secretary of Interior 
wanted to declare war on the West. Those who opposed my stand last 
year, predicted that there was no way to stop the Secretary and his 
vision of a new West. As a matter of fact, Secretary Babbitt threatened 
to move full-speed ahead to implement his proposal--regardless of 
Senate opposition and public outcry.
  Well, it is 1 year later and we still haven't seen implementation of 
the Babbitt plan. Nevertheless, I am not here today to claim victory; 
rather, I am here to remind people that this issue is still as critical 
today as it was last fall. And, I am here to challenge the Secretary of 
the Interior to address the concerns of those most personally affected 
by his proposal.
  To the people of the West, no news does not mean good news. 
Information on Rangeland Reform 1994 has not been forthcoming, and the 
controversy seems to have subsided. However, things have been far too 
quiet from the Secretary's office. I am fully aware that the comment 
period has not yet ended, and that the Secretary has even extended the 
comment deadline date. What I want my colleagues and the people of the 
West to know, is that it is very possible that Congress will not be in 
session when the final rule is released. In other words, it is highly 
possible that there will be no opportunity for congressional recourse 
when Secretary Babbitt offers his final plan.
  While the Secretary is keeping his own counsel, the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources has held several field hearings in the 
West. Those hearing have yielded volumes of information in opposition 
to Rangeland Reform '94. During the July hearing in Albuquerque, an 
estimated nine out of ten people in attendance were opposed to the 
Secretary's plans. Mr. Babbitt's mythical new urban West did not 
materialize. We did not hear from people supporting change, or hear 
people calling for the expansion of BLM authority, or calling for the 
recognition of a new Western order. Although the Senate Energy 
Committee hearing was more convenient to those from urban New Mexico, 
the people who attended traveled from all corners of the State to voice 
their concerns.
  I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Secretary Babbitt's 
attendance at that Albuquerque hearing in July. The Secretary did 
attend, he sat among the people in attendance, and he heard the 
testimony of many groups. I hope he was listening. In the past few 
months, I have received copies of the comments individuals have sent to 
the Secretary in regard to his proposal. Well over a thousand concerned 
New Mexicans have outlined their opposition to rangeland reform. 
Businessmen and women, ranchers, legislators, and people from all walks 
of life have forwarded comprehensive comments to both me and the 
Department of the Interior. All of the comments vary in length and 
content, but all share two common themes. One, the Secretary's proposal 
is fundamentally one sided; and two, there needs to be equal 
sensitivity to needs of the people closest to the land as to the 
concerns of those living elsewhere.

  I would like to share with this body some of the comments both the 
Secretary and I have received. I have asked my staff to review each of 
the comments and to make a list of the most common concerns. My staff 
has informed me that not only were the comments extremely varied, there 
is not one, or two, or three, or ten distinct issues that came to the 
forefront. I was hopeful that I could find the magic key, the most 
serious flaw or flaws in the proposal and offer a solution. 
Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be fixed through a change in 
language. The problem with this proposal is the proposal in itself.
  For example, Kathleen Hellman of Capitan, NM, began her litany of 
concerns with the first provision, appeals and procedures, and ended it 
with the last, standards and guidelines. Although Kathleen leaves no 
stone unturned, she repeatedly asserts that the entire proposal is 
wholly and negatively biased against the Federal lands permittee. She 
is correct.
  Another constituent, Dan Vicenti, is a member of the Navajo Nation. 
He has taken a different approach: he has prepared comments that 
encompass a personal and tribal point of view. I quote from Dan's 
comments: Where I live, the people are the poorest of the poor in the 
United States * * * Adding to their devastation as the proposed reform 
will do, is, of course, contradictory. The BLM should be more logical 
or at least sensitive to the needs of the Navajo people. Of course, Dan 
is correct, the Department of the Interior should be sensitive to the 
needs of those who live with Federal lands as a necessity. I would ask 
that copies of these letters be placed in the Record.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the 
Department of the Interior represents all the people of this country--
those who live on the land and those who do not. Secretary Babbitt has 
received thousands upon thousands of letters and comments that are 
technical in content, rational by experience, and heartfelt by 
association.
  The managers of the land, business men, women, ranchers, legislators, 
and people from all walks of life deserve serious consideration. Mr. 
Secretary, we are holding you accountable for all the promises you have 
made to all of these people that you would take into account their 
comments and criticisms. A quick rewrite of last year's plan will not 
suffice. A Washington-drafted plan is not the answer. The people of New 
Mexico, the West, and I want to say to the Department of the Interior 
that any proposed rangeland reform plan must be genuinely reflective of 
the views of those who use the land, because you, Mr. Secretary, told 
us you would listen to them. And, for those of us who represent these 
users of the land, we, too, will be watching--and watching closely.
  In August of last year rangelands reform started in the United 
States. I have made a statement that outlines what has occurred since 
then and have some samples of the comments that have been made by 
constituents in my State.
  I tried in the statement to make a reminder to the Secretary of 
Interior regarding rangeland reform that he is committed to throughout 
our States, that while he came there to listen to people, that that was 
not the end of that. He would take their comments into consideration.
  Frankly, he has received so many from the Western people who were 
either land users or rural citizens or business men and women in the 
area, that I close tonight to just issue a reminder to the Secretary 
that just a small change in his Rangeland Reform 1994 is not going to 
satisfy his own commitments to the people in the West, my State in the 
West where he said he would not only listen but take their concerns 
into consideration.
  Considerations are numerous, they are real, and they deserve his 
consideration, and his final plans should not be a slight modification 
of what was produced in Washington by a group of Washingtonians. It 
should be a plan produced out where the people are having, listen to 
them and taken their concerns into consideration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record 
comments from citizens so it may be read by the executive branch also.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Rangeland Reform '94,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     To Whom It May Concern:
       Following are comments on the Federal Register notice 
     published March 25, 1994, proposing amendments to the 
     Livestock Grazing Administration Regulations at 43 CFR Parts 
     4, 1780, and 4100. As stated: ``The purpose of the proposed 
     changes is to make the BLM's rangeland management program 
     more consistent with ecosystem management, to accelerate 
     restoration and improvement of the public rangelands, to 
     obtain for the public fair and reasonable compensation for 
     the grazing of livestock on public lands, and to streamline 
     certain administrative functions.'' and, ``. . .to provide a 
     mechanism for effective public participation in 
     decisionmaking, and to focus Federal and non-Federal 
     management efforts where they will result in the greatest 
     benefit.''

      Part 4, Title 43, Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures

       Section 4.477, Effect of decision suspended during appeal

       The proposed changes are unnecessary and have a wholly 
     negative bias toward the permittee. They violate the right to 
     due process and, by invoking Full Force and Effect 
     immediately, Constitutional rights. They are contradictory to 
     both NEPA Section 102c and the Administrative Procedures Act. 
     Further, they impact private as well as public lands and make 
     no provision for restitution of damages or loss suffered by 
     the permittee in the interim if the federal agency decision 
     is overturned.
       The language should not be changed.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

                     Section 1784.2-1, Composition

       The proposed changes would abolish a cohesive system of 
     advisory boards and councils, some of which have been in 
     place for over half a century. There is no definition of the 
     charter; how it will be established; or by whom. The proposed 
     makeup of the Multiple Resource Advisory Councils is not 
     balanced; has no provision for making sure environmental and 
     state members have any knowledge of rangeland or any land 
     management; has no residency requirements for 
     environmentalists (i.e. a resident of New York City who is an 
     ``environmentalist'', but who has never seen more open land 
     than Central Park could sit on a Council which makes 
     decisions for Wyoming); and makes no provision to ensure 
     permittees or ranchers are represented. There is no 
     justification for per diem for environmentalists! MRAC 
     members should not sit on Rangeland Resource Teams, it is a 
     conflict of interest. The terms ``industry'', ``discipline'', 
     and ``interest'' are not defined, and no criteria established 
     for proof of ``. . . experience or knowledge of the 
     geographical area . . .``or ``. . . demonstrated . . . 
     commitment. . .``or to whom it will be proven.
       The existing advisory boards and councils should remain in 
     place.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

          Section 1784.2-2, Avoidance of conflict of interest

       The proposed changes prevent permittees from being involved 
     in the decisionmaking process which directly affects their 
     lives and livelihoods. Who will verify that MRAC members do 
     not hold stock in companies which derive an interest from 
     decisions the members make? The proposed changes, if adopted, 
     should be amended to state: ``. . . that no government 
     official or employee should be allowed to serve on a MRAC or 
     RTT.'', as they have a direct and vested interest (i.e. their 
     income), and that is a conflict of interest.
       Anyone and everyone should be allowed to provide input.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

                     Section 1784.3, Member Service

       The proposed changes do not adequately define length of 
     terms. The charter should state that all terms be limited to 
     two (2) years--without exception. No member of the MRAC or 
     RTTs should receive compensation or per diem under any 
     circumstances. MRAC members should be specifically excluded 
     from serving on RTTs, as it would be a conflict of interest.
       The outcome of the proposed changes would be self-
     perpetuating government fiefdoms, funded at enormous cost by 
     the taxpayer. The changes are unacceptable.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

        Section 1784.5-1, Functions; Section 1784.5-2, Meetings

       Inasmuch as, according to the United States Constitution, 
     the Federal government holds no lands within the states, and 
     therefore Federal officers have no authority, these changes 
     are irrelevant.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

     Section 1784.6-1, Multiple Resource Advisory Councils (MRACs)

       The BLM does not have the authority, nor is the criteria 
     set forth, to determine when sections (a)(1) through (a)(3) 
     are applicable. Many terms, including but not limited to 
     ``ecosystem'' ``environmentalist'', and ``ecoregion'' are 
     inadequately defined. The proposed makeup of the MRACs does 
     not include residency requirements. Any course(s) of 
     instruction for MRAC members should be taught at the State 
     Land Grant Institution by tenured professors specializing in 
     Rangeland Management.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

           Section 1784.6-2, Rangeland Resource Teams (RTTs)

       All RTT members should be required to attend the same 
     course(s) of instruction required for MRAC members. The 
     target groups which the RTTs would replace are mandated by 
     federal law (Section 8 of the Public Rangeland Improvement 
     Act of 1978) and there is no authority to change or delete 
     them.

                    Part 1780, Cooperative Relations

                Section 1784.6-3, Technical Review Teams

       This is a redundant group. If the MRACs cannot accept and 
     utilize data provided by the RTTs, they will only be more 
     confused by input from additional sources. The stated purpose 
     of Rangeland Reform '94 is, in part: ``. . . to streamline . 
     . . administrative functions. . . .'' This proposal would 
     have the opposite effect, creating yet another bureaucratic 
     quagmire.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                     Section 4100.-0-2, Objectives

       The language of this section is subjective and vague. Whose 
     values would be applied and what is the definition of 
     ``ecosystem''? The changes proposed in Rangeland Reform '94 
     would effectively eliminate the livestock industry in the 
     Western states and turn many thriving communities into ghost 
     towns. The Federal government has no business micro-managing 
     anything outside its legal boundaries: Washington, DC; post 
     offices; etc. as provided in the United States Constitution.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                     Section 4100.0-5, Definitions

       Active Use--The revised definition violates the Taylor 
     Grazing Act (hereafter referred to as the Act), as well as 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (hereafter 
     referred to as FLPMA).
       Actual Use--The revision of this definition is 
     unacceptable, as it would extend the authority of the BLM.
       Activity Plan--The intent of RR '94 is to maintain or 
     improve range conditions. The inclusion of this new 
     definition would change the intent by using livestock 
     management for other uses and/or values. This is not 
     acceptable.
       Affiliate--The use of the term ``control'' in this 
     definition has a negative connotation. If ``Affiliate'' is to 
     be used, then the definition should also be applied to MRAC 
     and RTT members' ``Affiliates'' who may have more influence 
     and more interest in suspending or terminating livestock 
     grazing.
       Allotment Management Plan (AMP)--This plan violates federal 
     law (Section 8 of the Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 
     1978, hereafter referred to as PRIA).
       Conservation Use--This provides for the purchase and 
     subsequent retirement of permits and leases by individuals or 
     groups opposed to livestock grazing. It does not make 
     specific provision for ``Improving rangeland conditions; or 
     enhancing resource values, uses, or functions'' as stated.
       Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination--PRIA 
     specifically provides for district grazing advisory boards 
     established pursuant to Section 403 of FLPMA. Therefore, the 
     proposal defined is violation of federal law.
       Grazing Lease and Grazing Permit--The proposed definitions 
     do not differentiate between the two. There is no authority 
     for this, as it is not in compliance with the Act.
       Grazing Preference--The amended definition strikes ``* * * 
     the total number of AUMs of livestock on public lands 
     apportioned * * *'' opening a door for the BLM to revise the 
     Act.
       Interested Public--Anyone truly interested in participating 
     in the decisionmaking process regarding livestock grazing 
     will comment on Rangeland Reform '94 by July 28, 1994.
       Permitted Use--This is not consistent with the intent of 
     the Act and, in fact, eliminates the original adjudication of 
     the Act. The long-term effect will be to adversely affect 
     stability, planning, and the financial value of the permits.
       Range Improvement--Once again, the undefined term 
     ``ecosystem'' is used. Until that term is satisfactorily 
     defined, the amended language contained under ``Rangeland 
     Improvement'' is unacceptable.
       Subleasing--Deletion of this is unacceptable, as it defines 
     two separate leasing arrangements.
       Suspension--This is unacceptable, giving the BLM power to 
     arbitrarily force a rancher to reduce his AUMs by issuing a 
     full force and effect decision to place reductions or unused 
     AUMs in a suspension category. It also raises the question; 
     ``Is this the same as `suspended use', which they plan to 
     abolish?''
       Temporary Non Use--This should be further defined to 
     prevent the BLM from denying permittees and lessees this 
     status.
       Unauthorized Leasing and Subleasing--This is a violation of 
     due process and places an undue hardship on the permittee or 
     lessee.
       Utilization--Wildlife definition has been increased by the 
     addition of species and the numbers of wildlife species must 
     be managed to maintain numbers and avoid conflict with 
     livestock. ``Insects'' should be deleted as a considered 
     factor.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                Section 4110.1, Mandatory qualifications

       This section must specify that all applicants for grazing 
     use permits on public land ``* * * be engaged in the 
     livestock business.'' The ``satisfactory record of 
     performance'' criteria are arbitrary and constitute an 
     invasion of privacy.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                    Section 4110.2-1, Base Property

       This amended language provides determination that my 
     property, which has fenced pasture, a barn, a home, and 
     water, could qualify as a base for livestock operations. In 
     fact, it is entirely unsuitable. The prior language was more 
     defined and the amended, I believe, violates the Act.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

            Section 4110.2-2, Specifying Grazing Preference

       This change abolishes the historical preference AUMs 
     adjudicated under the Act. It is a classic government 
     ``switch and ditch'' maneuver to eliminate livestock grazing 
     by determining ``conservation use'' to be a legitimate use 
     and not permitting AUMs of grazing for up to ten (10) years. 
     The replacement of ``grazing use'' with ``permitted use'' is 
     yet another way of eroding livestock grazing rights.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

            Section 4110.2-3, Transfer of grazing preference

       Again, replacing ``grazing use'' with ``permitted use'' 
     erodes livestock grazing rights. The new transferee 
     requirements will restrict grazing on lands acquired by 
     ``environmental'' groups such as the Nature Conservancy and 
     the Public Lands Trust. In addition, permittees and lessees 
     will have more difficulty obtaining financing if leases or 
     permits are issued for three (3) years or less.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                      Section 4110.2-4, Allotments

       This language destroys the intent of Congress contained in 
     PRIA. No more needs to be said.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                Section 4110.3, Changes in permitted use

       This places far too much reliance on the personal integrity 
     and judgment on one person, the ``authorized officer''. The 
     qualifications and personal interests (see ``Affiliate'' 
     definition) of the authorized officer may well be in direct 
     conflict with the best interests of the permittee/lesseee 
     and/or ``general public''. Once again, ``ecosystem'' is a key 
     term which is not defined.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4110.3-1, Increasing permitted use

       This is in direct violation of Section 8 of PRIA.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4110.3-2, Decreased permitted use

       This amendment is not consistent with national 
     requirements, standards, guidelines; nor livestock grazing 
     use patterns and percent utilization factors. End result: 
     rapid reduction in livestock numbers. It is basically a 
     ``shell game'', relying on visual observations instead of 
     documented and monitored information.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

       Section 4110.3-3, Implementing reduction in permitted use

       There is no justification for decreasing numbers. It 
     violates the PRIA on several counts. It is totally illegal 
     (under PRIA) and unacceptable.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4110.4-2, Decrease in land acreage

       Again, ``grazing preference'' is replaced by ``permitted 
     use''. This is not acceptable.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

 Section 4120.2, Allotment management plans and resource activity plans

       This violates Section 8 of the PRIA. All burden and 
     hardship are placed on the permittee or lessee, including the 
     success or failure of the APs, to which the new language 
     requires them to conform.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

          Section 4120.3-1, Conditions for range improvements

       The second sentence in paragraph (f) is redundant. 
     Requiring NEPA compliance will undoubtedly cause permittees 
     and lessees to think more than twice before placing 
     improvements on public land.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

            Section 4120.3-2, Cooperative range improvements

       The inclusion of new ``cooperators'' could adversely affect 
     livestock grazing if ``environmental improvements'' such as 
     fencing of water sources is implemented. The U.S. government, 
     under the Constitution, has NO right to lands within states, 
     except as provided in the Constitution.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

              Section 4120.3-3, Range improvement permits

       These revisions have serious negative impacts on the 
     lessee/permittee, as well as the future of livestock grazing 
     as a whole. Among them: removable range improvement title 
     will be discretionary; all permanent improvements to be held 
     by the government; permittees/lessees may be forced to 
     operate in common due to forage availability; possible impact 
     on collateral interest and net worth statements which may 
     negatively prejudice lending institutions.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                Section 4120.3-8, Range improvement fund

       This new system builds in bureaucratic opportunities to 
     multiply at taxpayer expense, while directing funds 
     everywhere except rangeland improvement. It is also 
     contradictory to Section 401(b)(1) of FLPMA.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

Section 4120.3-9, Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on 
                              public lands

       This would be a federal preemption of state water rights, 
     removing water rights from the private sector. Requiring 
     permittees to assign water rights is extortion. It violates: 
     private property rights; prior appropriation doctrine; the 
     intent of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty; and states' rights.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

Section 4120.5 and 4120.5-1, Cooperation in management and with state, 
                      county, and federal agencies

       The wording of this new section implies the BLM will only 
     cooperate with other entities if, and when, it suits or is 
     advantageous to the BLM.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                      Section 4130.1, Applications

       The insidious ``conservation use'' surfaces again and this 
     section, like so many others, violates Section 8 of PRIA.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4130.1-2, Conflicting applications

       Why should the BLM oversee other state and federal agencies 
     which have, or should have, management regulations in place?

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4130.2, Grazing permits or leases

       This violates Section 8 of PRIA. In addition, it makes 
     livestock grazing an alternative, rather than the primary 
     use. The ``interested public'' should not be involved. 
     Paragraph (f) burdens a permit or lease with arbitrary, 
     subjective conditions and terms. ``Conservation use'' is, 
     again, a means to remove land from grazing use, probably 
     permanently.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

          Section 4130.4-1, Exchange-of-use grazing agreements

       Completely unacceptable and potentially having the effect 
     of government control over private property.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

       Section 4130.5, Ownership and identification of livestock

       This is an invasion of privacy and infringes on individual 
     rights.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                  Section 4130.6, Terms and conditions

       ``. . . conformance with the national requirements and 
     established standards and guidelines'' would negate the value 
     of the permit or lease. The wording of this revision is 
     illogical, impossible to comply with, and wholly 
     inappropriate.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

            Section 4130.6-1, Mandatory terms and conditions

       There is no statutory authority for this invasion of 
     private and state trust lands management.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

              Section 4130.6-2, Other terms and conditions

       This is a violation of Article V of the Bill of Rights.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                     Section 4130.6-3, Modification

       Violates Section 8 of PRIA. Additionally, ``interested 
     public'' is not a PRIA target group member and has neither 
     the knowledge nor expertise to evaluate data.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                   Section 4130.7-1, Payment of fees

       This is excessive and completely disregards the PRIA 
     formula. This would force virtually all sheep ranchers and 
     most cattle growers out of business, creating a ``domino 
     effect'' on local economies, which would ripple out across 
     the country.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

        Section 4130.7-2, Incentive-based grazing fee reduction

       What is the ``criteria'' for this?

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

            Section 4140.1, Acts prohibited on public lands

       This is not within BLM jurisdiction; gives non-livestock 
     producers the right to retire grazing permits; and gives the 
     ``interested public'' freedoms denied to the lessee/
     permittee. It also places the permittee/lessee in danger of 
     double jeopardy; while creating rules, laws, and regulations 
     which will eliminate grazing.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

               Section 4150.2, Notice and order to remove

       This is subjective, based on the decision of the authorized 
     officer, who would have unwarranted authority. Compliance 
     with full force and effect decisions, affecting private and 
     state lands, would be forced unless an administrative law 
     judge granted a stay.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                       Section 4150.3, Settlement

       There is still no clear, concise definition of 
     ``ecosystem''.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                     Section 4160.3, Final decision

       This violates the basic principle of ``Innocent until 
     proven guilty''; case law (NRDC vs. Andrus); the intent of 
     Section 9 of the Act; prior court cases (Thomas vs. BLM); and 
     the local management provision of the Organic Act of 1897. It 
     removes any incentive to settle appeals in a timely manner; 
     denies due process; and full force and effect violates 
     personal rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
     happiness).

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

                    Section 4170.2-1, Failure to use

       Existing language should be retained, as the amended 
     version removes ``. . . coordination, and cooperation . . 
     .''.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

 Section 4170.2-2, Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and 
                             Management Act

       The amended language violates due process.

         Part 4100, Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

  Section 4180.2, Standards and guidelines for grazing administration

       This new section fails to set guidelines based on 
     scientific, professional, and/or academic input--the 
     ``public'' has neither the expertise nor knowledge to 
     determine standards and/or guidelines. The federal agencies 
     do not have the authority to enforce state laws.

                                Summary

       Writing the preceding comments has been a time-consuming 
     exercise, which was really a waste of time as, according to 
     the United States Constitution, the federal government holds 
     neither control of, nor jurisdiction over, lands within the 
     states with the exception of dockyards, arsenals, forts, post 
     offices, and other needful buildings.
                                                 Kathleen Hellman.
                                  ____



                                          Rangeland Reform '94

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 1994.
     Re Comment on Range Reform '94.
       Dear Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt: My name is Dan 
     Vicenti. I am an enrolled member of the Navajo Tribe of 
     Indians. I am also a grazing permittee on range land located 
     in McKinley County, New Mexico.
       I have several concerns in response to the Bureau of Land 
     Management (BLM) proposed rules for grazing on federal lands:
       1. It is my understanding that the BLM and the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs (BIA) were to conduct a study from 1942 
     through 1955 to determine individual/family based occupancy 
     rights of the Navajo Indians in this area; However, it was 
     never completed. Therefore, the proposed grazing fee 
     increases should not be imposed upon members of the Navajo 
     Tribe for use of public lands until the study is completed. 
     See U.S. v. Tsosie, 849 F. Supp. 768 (DNM 1994), and U.S. v 
     Dan, 470 U.S. 39 (1985).
       2. Many Navajo people living in this area depend on 
     livestock grazing for a subsistence livelihood. Where I live, 
     the people are the poorest of the poor in the United States. 
     An increase in grazing fees will adversely affect them. 
     Adding their devastation as the proposed Reform will do, is, 
     of course, contradictory to one of stated goals of Rangeland 
     Reform '94. In fact, many people may be subjected to 
     starvation like the people of Africa where the Untied States 
     government is currently sending millions of dollars worth of 
     aid. The BLM should be more logical or at least sensitive to 
     the needs of the Navajo people and should complete said study 
     before imposing the increase in grazing fees. A better or 
     more respectful approach in handling the proposed range 
     reform is the government-to-government route mandated by 
     President Clinton's memorandum dated April 29, 1994 (A copy 
     of President Clinton's memorandum is hereto attached as 
     Exhibit A and made a part of my comments.)
       The Navajo Nation government leases lands including federal 
     lands, and many individual members of the Navajo Nation pay 
     grazing fees on lands including federal lands in the so-
     called ``Checkerboard Area'' of Navajo land. Much of the 
     ``Checkerboard Area'' is within the boundaries of Executive 
     Order 709, which, the Navajo Nation is currently contending 
     in the U.S. Courts, extended the boundaries of the Navajo 
     Reservation to enclose many of the sectors of public lands 
     which have been used for years by the Navajo Indians for 
     grazing of livestock. So in addition to receiving isolated 
     comments from individual departments of the Navajo Nation 
     government, Range Reform '94 should be handled formally 
     between the federal government and the Navajo Nation 
     government. BLM's requirement should be a duly enacted 
     resolution of the Navajo Nation Council to show that the 
     Navajo government has considered this matter and voted, 
     either pro or con, on the issue of Rangeland Reform '94.
       3. According to the BIA briefing, the first goal of the 
     proposed Rangeland Reform '94 is to ``Accelerate restoration 
     and improvement of public range lands to proper functioning 
     condition.'' This goal might be relevant to conditions of 
     land in other areas, but the public range lands my family 
     uses is desert land which has been kept in a proper 
     functioning condition for as long as sixty (60) years. In 
     fact, for the last ten (10) years or so, my family has been 
     underusing the land. It is all fenced in along with our other 
     lands, so there is no chance that anyone else can be 
     responsible for its condition. Therefore, as far as my family 
     is concerned, we have already achieved the first of the 
     federal government's proposed goals for Rangeland Reform '94. 
     If and when the Reform is imposed, my family should be 
     considered for the proposed incentive cited in the briefing.
       Better yet, shouldn't some incentive program be implemented 
     now rather than to penalize and victimize all land users by 
     imposing the proposed huge grazing fee increase? That is 
     unless the intent of Rangeland Reform '94 is to put all 
     federal lands in the hands of the rich. I say this because 
     the poorest of the poor Navajo people who are now using 
     federal lands in the ``Checkerboard Area'' will not be able 
     to pay the proposed exorbitant grazing fee. A check of the 
     records kept by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Navajo 
     Nation will substantiate that my family has a long history of 
     late payment of grazing fees. This is reality. This dilemma 
     will continue until we overcome our family dysfunction 
     problems which polarize for us the last ten years because of 
     family members who are now gone. No matter how much our 
     family intends to make timely payment of grazing fees, family 
     resources must often be used first to handle the inevitable 
     problems caused by the disease of alcoholism. But we are 
     gradually overcoming our handicap despite poverty.
       4. In addition, the federal government has a trust 
     responsibility for the Navajo people. As guardian, the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs should also submit comments to reflect the 
     negative impact Rangeland Reform '94 will have on its wards. 
     We hope that you will respect and heed the BIA's exercise of 
     trust responsibility to act favorably and positively on our 
     behalf.
       Suggested Changes: An individual/family based occupancy 
     study must be conducted. Then the Navajo Nation must be 
     consulted and dealt with on a government-to-government basis 
     regarding Rangeland Reform '94 before it is implemented in an 
     adapted form.
       These proposed regulations will impact on me in the 
     following ways: As stated above, the proposed exorbitant 
     increase in grazing fees will deprive me and my family of use 
     of public lands. A worsening of my people's suffering as a 
     result of such deprivation will certainly not make me happy.
       Others: Other needy Navajos in the ``Checkerboard Area'' of 
     Navajoland and other Native Americans using federal lands 
     will also be deprived use of the public lands that once 
     belonged to their ancestors. Such a deprivation and the rules 
     as written will enable only the rich, including the 
     exploitative energy companies, to enjoy use of public lands 
     now being used for subsistence by the poor.
       Even non-Native American ranchers will be deprived and 
     inflicted undue hardship by the proposed Rangeland Reform 
     '94. Cattle business is at its lowest and cattlemen have 
     never been known to be the richest in the country. The 
     proposed Rangeland Reform '94 will undoubtedly eliminate the 
     ranchers who are currently barely hanging on. So it is hard 
     not to believe that the proposed Rangeland Reform '94 is 
     discriminatory against the poor.
       Thank you in advance for considering seriousness of my 
     comments. I look forward to a favorable decision in the 
     matter and hope that the Navajo Nation and the federal 
     government can resolve this matter on a government-to-
     government basis.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Dan Vicenti,
                                                Grazing Permittee.
     Attachment: Exhibit A
                                  ____

                                                  The White House,


                                 Office of the Press Secretary

                                                   April 29, 1994.


     memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies

       Subject: Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
     American Tribal Governments.
       The United States Government has a unique legal 
     relationship with Native American tribal governments as set 
     forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, 
     statutes, and court decisions. As executive departments and 
     agencies undertake activities affecting Native American 
     tribal rights or trust resources, such activities should be 
     implemented in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful 
     of tribal sovereignty. Today, as part of an historic meeting, 
     I am outlining principles that executive departments and 
     agencies, including every component bureau and office, are to 
     follow in their interactions with Native American tribal 
     governments. The purpose of these principles is to clarify 
     our responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government 
     operates within a government-to-government relationship with 
     federally recognized Native American tribes. I am strongly 
     committed to building a more effective day-to-day working 
     relationship reflecting respect for the rights of self-
     government due the sovereign tribal governments.
       In order to ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal 
     governments are fully respected, executive branch activities 
     shall be guided by the following:
       (a) The head of each executive department and agency shall 
     be responsible for ensuring that the department or agency 
     operates within a government-to-government relationship with 
     federally recognized tribal governments.
       (b) Each executive department and agency shall consult, to 
     the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted 
     by law, with tribal governments prior to taking actions that 
     affect federally recognized tribal governments. All such 
     consultations are to be open and candid so that all 
     interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential 
     impact of relevant proposals.
       (c) Each executive department and agency shall assess the 
     impact of Federal Government plans, projects, programs, and 
     activities on tribal trust resources and assure that tribal 
     government rights and concerns are considered during the 
     development of such plans, projects, programs, and 
     activities.
       (d) Each executive department and agency shall take 
     appropriate steps to remove any procedural impediments to 
     working directly and effectively with tribal governments on 
     activities that effect the trust property and/or governmental 
     rights of the tribes.
       (e) Each executive department and agency shall work 
     cooperatively with other Federal departments and agencies to 
     enlist their interest and support in cooperative efforts, 
     where appropriate, to accomplish the goals of this 
     memorandum.
       (f) Each executive department and agency shall apply the 
     requirements of Executive Orders Nos. 12875 (``Enhancing the 
     Intergovernmental Partnership'') and 12866 (``Regulatory 
     Planning and Review'') to design solutions and tailor Federal 
     Programs, in appropriate circumstances, to address specific 
     or unique needs of tribal communities.
       The head of each executive department and agency shall 
     ensure that the department or agency's bureaus and components 
     are fully aware of this memorandum, through publication or 
     other means, and that they are in compliance with its 
     requirements.
       This memorandum is intended only to improve the internal 
     management of the executive branch and is not intended to and 
     does not, create any right to administrative or judicial 
     review, or any other right or benefit or trust 
     responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a 
     party against the United States, its agencies or 
     instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other 
     person.
       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is 
     authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the 
     Federal Register.
     William J. Clinton.

                          ____________________