[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18691-S18692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  GRAZING REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC LANDS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me bring up a subject that is very 
close to my heart, to my State of Wyoming, and to the West. This is an 
issue that I hope we will be dealing with in the next week or so, and 
it has to do with regulations on grazing on public land. That is not a 
topic that is of great interest to everyone, but it is one that is of 
great interest to that region of the country. You have to sort of get a 
little feel for what that means to public land States before you go 
into the details.
  The State of Wyoming is 100,000 square miles, half of which is owned 
and controlled by the Federal Government. In that, of course, are 
parks, forests, wilderness, and a substantial amount of Bureau of Land 
Management [BLM] lands which are the lands that were residual lands 
that were never taken up in homesteading but remained in Federal 
ownership--never withdrawn for any particular purpose, as was the case 
with the forests or the parks or the wilderness areas--but, all in all, 
more than half of Wyoming. And it is much higher in other places. 
Nevada, as I recall, is 87 percent federally owned.
  So the management and the economic decisions that are made with 
respect to these lands are very important to these multiple-use lands. 
Some of the land, such as Yellowstone Park, Teton Park, and Devil's 
Tower, of course, are set aside for a very specific and peculiar 
purpose because they are unique lands. We are talking about those that 
are for multiple purposes managed by the BLM or managed by the Forest 
Service.
  One of those purposes is grazing. There are many others, of course, 
such as hunting, fishing, recreation, mining, oil and gas, and coal. 
Much of the coal in Wyoming, which is the largest producer of coal in 
this country, is on public lands. Of course, those activities produce 
royalty fees that are paid both to the Federal and State Governments.
  The reason for our bill is something of a response to the problems 
that have been created, I believe, by the efforts of the Secretary of 
the Interior over the last 3 years to reform rangeland regulations, 
which is basically, we believe, to bring more and more of the decisions 
to Washington, while our purpose is to bring more of the decisions 
closer to the people who are governed.
  For the first 2 years that this administration was in place, 
particularly this Secretary of the Interior, there was a great deal of 
controversy going on. The ``war on the West,'' which most of us believe 
is a genuine war on the West, has been staged. There were many visits 
there by the Secretary and people related to the Interior Department in 
an effort to talk and to come to some conclusion. And, quite frankly, 
none was ever agreed to. The longer the talks went on, the more 
controversy there was.
  So in the Congress we have sought to put together a grazing bill, and 
have passed one. The purpose of it is to react to these regulations put 
forth by the Secretary which were generally unsatisfactory to the West.
  Let me talk just a moment about some of the things that are involved.
  One is public participation. This is public land. We understand it is 
public land. The decisions that are made there should provide 
opportunities for people to participate, not only those who will be 
involved in the activity, whether it be grazing, or whether it be oil, 
or whether it be fishing, but anyone who has an affected interest. This 
bill provides for that.

  This bill was passed last summer, and there was a good deal of 
discussion 

[[Page S18692]]
about it in the country. We went back again several weeks ago and did 
it again in the committee and, hopefully, will have it on the floor. 
Public participation was broadened and ensured.
  There was a notion, when the bill came forth, that it made grazing 
the dominant use over other uses in multiple use. Not true, nor was it 
intended to. However, as we came back we specifically put language into 
the bill that says there is no dominant use. Grazing is not a dominant 
use. It is a multiple use, and these uses should have a full 
opportunity.
  Environmental protection. The environmental protection under this 
will continue to be there as it has been before. Laws like endangered 
species, NEPA, and others will apply, of course, as the decisions are 
made by the Department.
  Standards and guidelines--which does not mean a lot to most of us--
has been the core of much of the problem. Standards and guidelines 
means the rules that will be laid down in Washington for the conduct of 
this whole issue. We believe, those of us in the West, that the main 
thrust of the Babbitt operation was to bring these standards and 
guidelines more to Washington and that we would have a one-size-fits-
all kind of a thing that was sent out from Washington to all of the 
Western States. Our bill provides that local universities, local State 
agriculture departments, would be involved in the establishment of 
standards and guidelines. We think that is important.
  Fees. The secretary does not deal with fees. We have set up a fee for 
the grazing program that is based on the value of cattle in the 
marketplace at a particular time and raise the fees over what have been 
paid by about 30 percent.
  So, Mr. President, we hope that this bill will come before Congress. 
We think it is a reasonable bill that, again, provides for multiple use 
and provides for the economic future of the West.
  It has always been curious to me that States who came into the Union 
on an equal basis, according to the Constitution that there should be 
equity among the States, but that a Cabinet Member in Washington can 
have more impact on the economic future of Wyoming than anybody in 
Wyoming, to make rules for 50 percent of the State, a State that is 
very oriented to minerals, very oriented to agriculture, and 
agriculture is based on cattle and sheep.

  So we think this is a reasonable, bipartisan effort which will be 
brought before the Senate, hopefully before the end of the year, and 
will give some stability to a way of life.
  It is also important--and I hope later when I come back, and I know 
you are anxious to hear more--that we will have a map. It is important 
to see the way ownership patterns exist in the West. For example, one 
of the things that happened in the development of the railroads is that 
20 miles on either side of the Union Pacific Railroad, which was 
encouraged to develop the West, every other section was given to the 
railroad to do this, and the other sections remain public. They are 
still that way. It is called the checkerboard.
  These are lands--this is not Yellowstone Park--that are arid, high 
plains, not particularly productive. So there are no fences, of course. 
Indeed, you really cannot afford to fence it because it takes anywhere 
from 50 to 60 acres for an animal unit, and it is shared with antelope, 
deer, and with elk in some places.
  So what I am saying is that these lands are not independently able to 
function. The same is pretty much true with the whole State in terms of 
ranches. When the lands were settled under the various settlement acts, 
the homesteaders, of course, took up the riverbeds, streams, water, the 
trees, and took up the best of the land, obviously. That which was left 
is now in Federal ownership. It is very difficult to separate those two 
things both from the standpoint of livestock and from the standpoint of 
wildlife. Livestock needs to have the winter feed, the water, and the 
cover, but in the summertime needs the grass to be able to graze on 
public lands.
  The other side of that, of course, is that the wildlife, which 
basically lives on the public lands, needs in the winter to have the 
water and the water developed by the ranchers in their private land.
  Mr. President, we look forward to finding a way in which these public 
lands can be managed to the benefit of the public, to the benefit of 
this country, and to the benefit of those users in Wyoming.
  I thank you very much. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________