[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2389-S2397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PUBLIC RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate,S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1459) to provide for uniform management of 
     livestock grazing on Federal land, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me try to talk to the Senate about 
where we are.
  We have before us a public lands reform act that deals with grazing 
and other multiple uses, principally with grazing as one of the 
multiple uses, and the reform in that for those who are ranching on 
public domain.
  There are a number of Senators on our side and certainly on the 
Democrat side who want to speak to this issue. There are a number of 
Senators who have amendments. Let me make a few observations about 
that.
  First, I want to thank the Democrat leader, Senator Dole, my friend 
Senator Bingaman, and other Democrats who are working on this bill 
because,

[[Page S2390]]

as I gather, we are going to try to accommodate each other and in the 
next couple of days get this matter to a final vote.
  The Republican leader has graciously given us the rest of today, most 
of tomorrow, and tomorrow night as long as is necessary to get this 
bill finished. For that we very much appreciate his generosity of the 
Senate's time. But I would say there has also been some comment about 
our leader about not having any votes on Friday. I would suggest he has 
also indicated to me that he would like to see this bill finished 
Thursday night, if we are going to have a Friday without votes to be 
followed by a Monday, as I understand it, without votes.
  So I ask that anyone who has an amendment to this bill--I only know 
of two at this point, and I have not seen one of them, but the other I 
am pretty familiar with--I hope they will accommodate us by getting to 
their manager and to the floor whatever amendments they might have. We 
do not need any surprises, and there will be none because there are no 
time agreements on the amendments.
  So, if we need a couple of hours to look them over, we can either do 
it in advance, or we will do it while the Senate is in session here on 
the floor.
  I understand Senator Bumpers has an amendment that changes the 
grazing fees. I say to all the Senators present that I have not seen it 
yet. We are asking that it be presented as soon as possible. When I sit 
down, I will go try to find out where it is.


                           Amendment No. 3555

  (Purpose: An amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Public 
                   Rangelands Management Act of 1995)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have, in behalf of a number of 
Senators--myself, the chairman of the committee, Senators Murkowski, 
Craig, Thomas, Burns, Kyl, Campbell, Hatch, Bennett, Kempthorne, 
Simpson, Pressler, and Dole--a substitute for the pending measure. It 
is understood that it will be the first thing tendered to the Senate.
  On behalf of those Senators and myself, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself, 
     Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Craig, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
     Campbell, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
     Simpson, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3555.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the floor right now I see four 
Senators on our side who might want to speak. I would like to propose 
the following: Senator Bingaman is here, and he would like to speak. I 
would like to yield to my fellow colleagues on this side for some 
opening remarks and intersperse that between Republicans and Democrats. 
Is Senator Campbell prepared to make opening remarks?
  I propose that Senator Bingaman go first. Then, if he is ready, for 
him proceed, and then we will go over to our side in which two Senators 
will speak.
  I am going to leave the floor. Let us say that after Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Burns will make his own agreement as to which one 
would go first. Senator Bumpers will not be ready until at least 4:30 
or a little later.
  So why not handle it that way?
  Mr. President, Senator Stevens has been waiting patiently on the 
floor. I ask unanimous consent that he be given 2 minutes as if in 
morning business to introduce a bill, after which we will follow the 
informal format that we just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. President, I, too, have to leave the floor. I thank my colleagues 
for permitting me to make this statement.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 1629 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members 
of my staff, Charles Hunt and Sharon Miner, be given floor privileges 
during the entire proceedings on S. 1459.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Public 
Rangelands Management Act, and for the courageous efforts of my 
distinguished colleague and neighbor, Senator Domenici.
  While I was sitting here, I was just reading a disparaging ad that 
was taken out in the Wednesday, March 13, 1996, issue of the 
Albuquerque Journal, the largest city in New Mexico. I have to tell 
you, nothing could be farther from the truth than this ad. It accuses 
the Senator from New Mexico of trashing the public lands, of drying up 
the streams, of driving people off the land, and practically everything 
except raping the West.
  I thought it was very unfortunate that the shrillness of the debate 
has gotten to that point. But I guess that is what we all face when we 
try to make changes around here--that we have to face some pretty angry 
people.
  But, from my perspective, the Senator from New Mexico has shown great 
courage in trying to solve the problem that we have been dealing with 
for decades here in the U.S. Congress.
  As many of you know, the showdown in the West over cattle and grazing 
rights has been going on for a long time. In the old days, the 
differences were simply settled over a shot of whiskey or with a shot 
from the Winchester. But today, with our elevated laws and regulations, 
we attempt to settle our differences using the power of legislative 
language and administrative rulemaking. However, it is clear when you 
read ads like that, that the raw passions and emotions over the 
management of livestock on public lands often persevere and drive these 
very strong debates. Unfortunately for the family rancher whose very 
livelihood is dependent on the fate of these laws and regulations, our 
debates have reached such emotional heights that we have almost 
forgotten what actually happens to the family that has to make a living 
on the land.
  But this issue should not be about emotions or politics. It should 
not be driven along partisan lines.
  The debate today should not be about who is right and who is wrong, 
on whichever version of rules and regulations we are looking at. It 
should not be about the environmentalists versus the ranchers. The 
debate should be about how to best nurture sustainable ecosystems on 
the public lands in the West while still maintaining a consistent, 
healthy, and viable environment for ranchers and farmers to make a 
living on the public lands.
  I believe the bill of the Senator from New Mexico does that. He has 
worked on it with a number of us from the West for many months. We have 
gone through trial and error and met with a great resistance. I think 
perhaps we finally have something that can pass.
  I ask my colleagues for a moment to put themselves in the shoes or 
boots, as the case may be, of the western rancher today. There is a lot 
of mystique over who they actually are and what they do. Oftentimes we 
hear debates in the Senate about the so-called welfare ranchers or the 
rich CEO's or tycoons or perhaps surgeons who bought some land out 
West, and have some grazing permits but do not actually know how to 
ranch. We hear these stories of people taking advantage of the system. 
But I am here to tell you most of us who really believe in the West and 
ranching in America are not here to defend them. We are here to try to 
defend our friends, and neighbors. These are the people we know who 
have helped build Western America and who have a very strong belief in 
taking care of the land.
  Contrary to perception that these folks somehow make a mint off the 
public lands, most independent cattle ranchers today are struggling 
with weak and unpredictable markets and increasing instability of rules 
and regulations that govern the way they do their daily chores. The 
uncertainty of Federal legislation often puts ranchers in a precarious 
position when they have to borrow money from their local

[[Page S2391]]

bank. They have no idea what to tell the banker regarding the stability 
of their permit, given the inability of Congress to resolve this issue.
  Raising livestock is a tough business, and I venture to say that 
those who have survived the back breaking work, the tough climate, the 
market fluctuations and the political pressures, too, are simply in it 
because they love the land and animals that subsist off it. These are 
people who care about the land not only because they have to, but 
because they want to.
  I think I can tell you with certainty that any rancher who does not 
take care of the land simply does not stay in business. I know for a 
fact that they are better stewards than they are often given credit 
for.
  Over the last few years, the Department of Interior, in my opinion, 
has engaged in kind of a deceitful and arrogant attempt to override 
westerners and our ability to make decisions for ourselves. The 
underlying message of the Department of Interior's rangeland reform 
basically states that we are not smart enough to figure out what is 
good for us. Indeed, according to the regulations promulgated last 
summer by the Secretary of Interior, we apparently need the assistance 
of beltway bureaucrats, national environmental groups, and virtually 
everyone else in the country with a peripheral interest in our business 
in order to make even the smallest decisions on our ranches, including 
where to put a water holding tank or a cattle guard.
  Unlike the administration's proposal, the Public Rangelands 
Management Act, which Senator Domenici has introduced will empower 
local people to make the decisions that affect them directly. This bill 
does nothing to prevent broader public participation in management 
plans or recreational activities on the public lands.
  Under S. 1459, affected interests are given the opportunity to 
comment on seven different kinds of proposed decisions affecting 
grazing allotments. By managing the public participation process, S. 
1459 will provide much needed relief for permittees and Federal land 
managers from frivolous protests from out-of-State activists who oppose 
any use of the public lands whatsoever.
  I believe that the Department of the Interior's rangeland reform is 
an undermining effort to overturn a lifestyle that has been part of the 
history of this Nation. In its zealous attempt to increase the 
diversity of the biological life on the range, it is threatening that 
lifestyle and operation that is already endangered. As I mentioned 
earlier, ranching is a tough business and it has become increasingly 
more difficult. Literally hundreds of ranchers in the West who were in 
business just 5 or 6 years ago, have already gone into bankruptcy.

  In my own State of Colorado, many real estate developers are taking 
advantage of the unstable market and buying ranchers out to split up 
their land and subdivide the property into small units and tracts. 
Ironically, by attempting to increase diversity on the range, the 
rangeland regulations as they are promulgated by the Secretary of the 
Interior will only assist the paving over of the brush, the grassland, 
and the fields, putting them all under concrete and plywood. I think 
even the most ardent environmentalists would prefer to see cattle in 
those meadows and fields rather than pavement and condominiums.
  In fact, if we look at the Department of the Interior's own reports, 
we can see evidence that indicates that the rangelands are in some of 
the best conditions they have ever been and continue to improve. For 
example, according to the Deer and Elk Management Analysis Guide 
published in 1993 by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado's elk 
population is estimated to have increased from 3,000 animals in 1900 to 
185,000 in 1990. That report also indicates that Colorado's deer 
population is estimated to have increased from 6,000 animals in 1900 to 
600,000 in 1990.
  As a western Senator who has worked closely with grazing for many 
years, I truly understand the difficulty of trying to achieve a 
consensus on this issue. I have to say that the time has run out, and 
S. 1459 presents us with the best and I think perhaps the last chance 
to balance the concerns of the environmentalists with the concerns of 
the ranchers in a constructive manner. If you take away all the 
rhetoric, you will find that this bill has been crafted from 
collaboration and compromise.
  In closing, Mr. President, I submit for the Record two resolutions. 
One was passed by the Colorado State Joint House and Senate Memorial 
Committee supporting the Public Rangelands Management Act. The second 
is a resolution from Club 20 which is an organization built from 20 
counties in western Colorado which also declares their support for 
Senator Domenici's bill. I ask unanimous consent to have those printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the resolutions were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                  Colorado Senate Joint Memorial 96-3

       Whereas, The federal rangelands are currently in the best 
     condition that they have ever been in; and
       Whereas, The condition of the federal rangelands has 
     improved and continues to improve through the efforts of 
     holders of federal grazing rights; and
       Whereas, As a consequence of the efforts of holders of 
     federal grazing rights, the improvement of the federal 
     rangelands has resulted in stabilized and increasing 
     populations of big game and wildlife, and further efforts 
     will continue to provide long term benefits to big game and 
     wildlife; and
       Whereas, The western livestock industry is a vital 
     component of the economy of Colorado and the economy of the 
     United States, providing the people of the nation and the 
     world with a reliable and healthy source of food; and
       Whereas, Fees for grazing on federal lands must reflect a 
     fair return to the federal government; and
       Whereas, The Public Rangelands Management Act (S. 1459) has 
     been introduced in the United States Congress; and
       Whereas, The objectives of the Public Rangelands Management 
     Act are to promote healthy sustainable rangelands and to 
     enhance the productivity of federal lands while at the same 
     time facilitating the orderly use, improvement, and 
     development of those lands; and
       Whereas, The Public Rangelands Management Act gives 
     consideration to the need for stabilization of the livestock 
     industry, scientific monitoring of trends, the environmental 
     health of riparian areas, and the needs of wildlife 
     populations dependent on federal lands; now, therefore,
       Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixtieth General 
     Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of 
     Representatives concurring herein:
       That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, 
     strongly urge the Congress of the United States to pass the 
     Public Rangelands Management Act (S. 1459).
       Be it further Resolved, That copies of this Memorial be 
     sent to the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the 
     Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and 
     the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior.
                                                                    ____


         Resolutions by Voice of the Western Slope, Since 1953


                    public rangelands management act

       Whereas: 73% of the Western Colorado is owned by the 
     federal government, mostly in the form of BLM and Forest 
     Service lands, and
       Whereas: The use of these lands for grazing is critical to 
     the economic viability of Western Colorado's livestock 
     industry and to the communities supported by that industry, 
     and
       Whereas: The Interior Department's recently-adopted revised 
     grazing regulations provide an unfair and unacceptable 
     environment for the livestock industry to operate in, 
     specifically in terms of the makeup of local grazing advisory 
     councils, lack of incentives for investment in the range 
     resource by the permitees, lack of provisions to encourage 
     stability through the use of extended permit terms, and lack 
     of needed efficiencies in the administration of grazing 
     management on these public lands, and
       Whereas: The formula for determining the livestock grazing 
     fee needs to be established in an equitable manner, in law, 
     in order to provide fair return to the public and a 
     reasonable rate for permitees, now therefore be it Resolved 
     by the Board of Directors at its 1995 Fall Meeting that CLUB 
     20 supports the concepts embodied in S. 852 and H.R. 1713 as 
     introduced, specifically:
       Addition of public representatives on local grazing 
     advisory councils while still allowing majority 
     representation by those with an economic interest at stake,
       Adoption of a new formula for establishing the public lands 
     grazing fee in order to ensure a fair return to the public 
     and a reasonable rate for permitees,
       Provisions to ensure proper management of public lands 
     resources through NEPA-documented land use plans, range 
     monitoring and enforcement.
       Streamlining of the NEPA documentation process to allow for 
     full public participation in the development of area land use 
     plans without unnecessarily encumbering local agency officers 
     and preventing them from carrying out sound range management.
                                                                    ____


          Resolution by Voice of the Western Slope, Since 1953


                         rangeland reform 1994

       Whereas: Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has proposed 
     grazing reforms which contain

[[Page S2392]]

     many administrative changes unacceptable to the West, and
       Whereas: CLUB 20 has always supported the multiple use of 
     public lands, and food production, as a component of the 
     multiple use of public lands, contributes significantly to 
     the total food production of the United States, and
       Whereas: As a whole, ranchers have been excellent stewards 
     of the rangelands, benefiting both livestock and wildlife, 
     and
       Whereas: CLUB 20 believes Secretary Babbitt's proposed 
     regulatory rangeland reform will ruin the livestock industry 
     and substantially affect the total economy of Western 
     Colorado, and
       Whereas: It is not in the best interest of Western Colorado 
     for affected ranches to be subdivided and sold in small 
     parcels, and now therefore be it
       Resolved by the CLUB 20 Board of Directors at its Fall 
     Meeting, September 10, 1993, the CLUB 20 cannot support the 
     administrative changes suggested in the proposed ``Rangeland 
     Reform `94''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a Denver Post editorial of March 13 of 1995. Although I will 
not read the whole thing, which endorses S. 1459, I wish to read the 
first paragraph which states under the headline, The Domenici Grazing 
Bill Fosters Better Stewardship:

       Some Eastern-based environmental groups have been waging a 
     political holy war against the Public Rangelands Management 
     Act authored by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, but it 
     seems clear that both the long-term environmental and 
     economic interests of the West would be well served by this 
     legislation to provide some badly needed stability and 
     balance to the management of the public lands.

  This is from one of our State's largest newspapers.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Domenici's Grazing Bill Fosters Better Stewardship

       Some Eastern-based environmental groups have been waging a 
     political holy war against the Public Rangelands Management 
     Act authored by New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici. But it seems 
     clear that both the long-term environmental and economic 
     interests of the West would be well served by this 
     legislation to provide some badly needed stability and 
     balance to the management of public lands.
       Domenici's bill is basically a response to new rangeland 
     management rules proposed in February by Secretary of the 
     Interior Bruce Babbitt after many hearings and much debate. 
     Critics of the Domenici bill are now trying to kill it in the 
     belief that it is less favorable to the environmental lobby 
     than Babbitt's rules. While they are undoubtedly right on 
     that point, the critics are overlooking a crucial fact: What 
     a liberal Democratic administration can arbitrarily impose, 
     the next conservative Republican administration can 
     arbitrarily repeal.
       Administrative mandates without the permanence of law thus 
     raise the specter of wild oscillations in policies that lock 
     everything up after one election, then encourage short-term 
     plunder after the next. That's the opposite of what the West 
     needs--a policy that fosters long-term stewardship of the 
     land, rewarding users who manage it carefully and punishing 
     the greedy or stupid who abuse it for short-term gain. Both 
     Babbitt and Domenici are aiming at that goal, but only 
     Domenici is trying to cast it into long-term law.
       The swinging-pendulum policies of recent years clearly have 
     been bad for all concerned. Ranchers who aren't sure they can 
     continue leasing land have no incentive to make expensive 
     investments to control erosion or other problems. Likewise, 
     past policies have been too slow to punish the small minority 
     of ranchers who have neglected the land. In contrast, 
     Domenici's bill, S. 852, encourages the Department of 
     Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with permit 
     holders for ``the construction, installation, modification, 
     maintenance, or use of a permanent range improvement or 
     development of a rangeland.''
       Importantly, the Public Rangeland Management Act would 
     allow grazing leases to be issued for up to 15 years--
     encouraging lessees to make long-term improvements and to 
     carefully nourish the land. And while it would increase 
     grazing fees approximately 30 percent from existing levels, 
     the PRMA would also establish future fees by a formula keyed 
     to the actual value of such leases as reflected in the price 
     of the animals that can be raised on them. Again, by assuring 
     a fair return to taxpayers and ranchers alike, the Domenici 
     bill would reduce the risk of radical ``windfall or wipeout'' 
     oscillations in fees which could themselves encourage 
     overgrazing or other misuse of the land.
       Some of the more hysterical opponents of the bill have 
     claimed it would ban hiking, fishing or hunting from the 
     public lands. The simplest answer to that charge is that it 
     is an outright lie. The bill in fact encourages conservation, 
     control of soil erosion and ``consideration of wildlife 
     populations and habitat, consistent with land-use plans, 
     multiple-use, sustained yield, (and) environmental values.''
       The bill does give an important role to ranchers themselves 
     in establishing grazing policies, recognizing that families 
     who, in some cases, have managed public lands for more than a 
     century are obvious sources of expertise and concern for 
     their long-term welfare. But local citizens, public officials 
     and environmental groups are also given seats at the policy 
     table.
       The Public Rangeland Management Act isn't perfect, and we 
     welcome efforts to improve it as it wends its way through 
     Congress. But it is a good start toward the wiser stewardship 
     the public lands so clearly require.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. So with that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor and 
simply urge my colleagues to support this well-crafted legislation. 
Under the leadership of Senator Domenici, it has taken many of us much 
time and effort.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to once again repeat and inquire 
as to whether or not we might see and be able to read the Bumpers 
amendment with reference to increased grazing fees. If it is prepared, 
I hope somebody would let us see it. We would like to have a vote as 
soon as possible and that would be the one we would vote on.
  Mr. President, I am going to very quickly yield to my friend, Senator 
Bingaman, and then to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Could I just take 3 minutes? I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, when I became a Senator 24 years ago, I knew nothing 
about grazing, nothing about rangeland, nothing about public domain. I 
traveled New Mexico and met some of the finest people in the world. It 
just so happens that more times than not they were ranchers or ranching 
families. They had their house out there on a little piece of private 
property and some of their own property and then they had permit land. 
Some of them had been there for two generations, maybe in succession in 
their family. I can guarantee you that I never met finer folks, nor 
have I ever met folks who are more dedicated to maintaining the public 
domain and their stewardship. They just reeked in stewardship of this 
land. They always talked about it in terms of how they preserved it, 
how it maintained their families and how so long as they could keep 
that together and keep the rangeland in good condition, they could be 
there and enjoy this lifestyle and this manner of living.
  We are in danger of many things in the western public domain lands. 
Some say the West is gone and urbanization shall take over. I do not 
really believe that. There is so much public domain and open space that 
the Federal Government is going to have to decide now and for decades 
to come how they want the people of this country to utilize it. Many, 
many years ago, order was made out of total chaos and the Taylor 
Grazing Act was passed for America.
  It recognized multiple uses, and a simple proposition that you could 
graze cattle, pay a reasonable fee to the Government, do maintenance on 
that land to be able to tend to those cattle, and in addition have 
hunting, fishing, recreation, and the other things that go with it--
namely, multiple use. Nothing, in my opinion, has changed. We ought to 
have multiple use. But we do not have to destroy the lifestyle of 
ranchers in our State and across the West, in an effort to maintain 
this multiple use.
  If anyone would like to go to New Mexico and visit the ranchers 
today, he would see there are no rich ranchers. For those who worry 
about us representing rich ranchers, if they are rich they were rich 
before they got on the ranch. They are not getting rich on the ranch. 
As a matter of fact, there are more ranchers in New Mexico close to 
bankruptcy than any time in our history. After 3 years of drought and 
incessant demands made upon them by the Secretary of Interior and his 
rules and regulations, and excessive demands made upon their 
stewardship every time they turn around, we have them on the brink of 
disappearing without us having to pass laws that will make them 
disappear, or even without enforcing Secretary Babbitt's rules, which 
will surely, within a decade, even without droughts, see to it that 
ranching is a disappearing way of life.

[[Page S2393]]

  In addition, I suggest, just to add to all the fury, cattle prices 
have come down half--is that correct, I say to my friend?
  Mr. BURNS. A third.
  Mr. DOMENICI. A third. So, look out where the rancher has 500 head. 
It is worth a third less this year than last year. With the drought 
setting in, they are cutting back. So they do not have any great shakes 
for those who are worried about rich ranchers and those of us in the 
West who are representing them, representing rich ranchers. We are 
trying to represent a way of life. In northern New Mexico, hundreds and 
hundreds of Hispanic Americans, in the third and fourth generation, 
have small ranches with few, maybe 100, 200 head, and some far less, on 
their annual permit of head on the range.
  Frankly, this bill that is before us, contrary to everything that has 
been said, does not take away any rights from hunters and fishermen and 
those women who hunt and fish. We just repeated it over and over in the 
bill, that whatever their rights were, they remain.
  There are some who want us to resolve all the issues between the 
hunting-fishing population and the ranchers. There is always some kind 
of problem with the public domain, some kind of friction. So some would 
like it resolved in this bill to the satisfaction of one group or the 
other. I believe we leave it just where it was. It is other regulations 
that concern us.

  Before we are finished, we will elaborate to the Senators who have 
interest, and the American people who are interested, the long litany 
of new regulations that Secretary Babbitt would impose on the 
rangeland. Frankly, the Interior Department, under his leadership, is 
playing very, very cute. None of those things are going to bite until 
perhaps next year or the year after. But, by the time those regulations 
are imposed on the ranchers, in my State and across the West, what I 
have just described as the condition will be far worse.
  I cannot believe that those who want habitat for wildlife, those who 
want hunting and fishing on the public domain, where cattle is also 
permitted to graze--I cannot believe that they truly believe they will 
be better off if cattle are not on the public domain. For those who 
were for cattle free--at one time the yell was ``Cattle free by '93.'' 
I do not know what it is now, but it is not too many years off, for 
many of those who oppose this bill.
  I wonder what we are going to do to supply water and habitat and all 
the things that are jointly used by the cattle that graze and the 
wildlife that inhabits the land. Who is going to pay for all that? Is 
the Federal Government going to go out and develop these water sources 
for them? Of course not.
  Nonetheless, there are some who would like this bill today to permit 
those who have a public interest--just a public interest--permit them 
to get into the details of operating a ranch. We have withstood that. 
We give them, the environmentalists and others, conservationists--we 
give them plenty of input in this bill and plenty of opportunity to be 
part of it. But we have resisted permitting those who have just a 
public interest to get into the day-by-day management, get into the 
day-by-day reissuing of permits. We firmly believe that is not the way 
it ought to be done. It will yield nothing but havoc on the range, 
which needs stability these days, as it has never needed it before.
  So, perhaps by Thursday night we will get a few questions answered 
and finish up some votes. I am very hopeful we will add stability to 
the West in the public domain, and will at least indicate that, while 
many of us do not understand, many Senators do not come from our areas, 
we are willing to say give this lifestyle, the lifestyle of being a 
cowboy, a private cowboy who owns a ranch--permit that lifestyle to 
exist for a few more decades.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, many of us in this body have tried to 
resolve the controversies that surround grazing on public lands. We 
have been working on it for several years. I also believe, as my 
colleagues who have already spoken believe, that a healthy livestock 
industry on the public lands is in the best interests of the country. 
Furthermore, I believe that the continued uncertainty that surrounds 
this industry, and the continued controversy that surrounds it, 
benefits nobody.
  However, unlike some of my colleagues who support this bill, S. 1459, 
I contend that the uncertainty and the controversy will not be resolved 
by this bill. I believe it will not be resolved because the bill, as it 
now reads, in the substitute form, does reduce public input into 
decisions related to our public lands. It does elevate grazing into a 
preferred status as a use of our public lands. And, third, it does 
unduly limit the ability of the land managers who work for the public 
to carry out their responsibilities.
  I believe that the resolution of these disagreements and these 
controversies can only be achieved when a balance is struck that 
respects the needs of all public land users, not just the ranchers. For 
a number of years, I and many of my colleagues have done what we could 
to ensure that any reform effort that was enacted would be fair to both 
livestock producers and the American public. My colleague has referred 
to the drought that we have experienced in the West. Certainly we have 
in my part of the country, in New Mexico. There has been a severe 
drought, and we are still in a very severe drought which adversely 
affects anyone who is trying to make a living in agriculture.
  He also referred to the low prices of cattle. Again, that is a very 
real problem for people in the ranching industry in my State. I 
certainly do not dispute that. I think that is a very real concern and 
one which we are taking into account in the position that I will 
advocate here today.
  But the other part was references to the efforts of the Secretary of 
the Interior to run these people out of a way of life, and to put in 
place extremely onerous provisions that will terminate their ability to 
use the public lands. There I have to disagree with much of what my 
colleague said.
  Last summer, after many months of meetings, I think probably the most 
extensive set of public meetings that I am aware of having had 
conducted, at least in recent years, since I have been in the Senate, 
the Secretary of Interior and the President did promulgate regulations 
that sought to achieve a balance between the various uses of our public 
lands. If we are serious about providing stability and certainty to 
public land livestock producers, we need to adopt a balanced solution 
that, first of all, addresses the concerns of livestock producers; 
second, respects the need of all public land users--the needs that they 
have; and, third, provides some reasonable authority to the agencies 
that we have given responsibility to manage the public lands.
  If we deviate from the balance in either direction, we are merely 
inviting continued strife and uncertainty as the aggrieved group, 
whichever group it happens to be, pursues legislative or regulatory 
fixes.
  The Babbitt regulations, which have been referred to by my colleague, 
create some legitimate concerns for the permittees in my State.
  In the substitute which several Senators and I intend to offer later 
in the discussion, we try to fix those specific concerns that have been 
pointed out to us and restore the balance that needs to be there in our 
grazing policies. However, if we pass S. 1459 in its current form, as 
the substitute was sent to the desk, we go beyond fixing those concerns 
and, in my view, we once again will throw the grazing policy of this 
country out of balance. This lack of balance will fester, just like the 
permittees' concerns have been festering, and lead to more instability 
and more lawsuits and more hard feelings.
  We will likely be addressing this issue again in future years if we 
err on the side which I fear this bill will cause us to err on. We 
cannot afford to let that happen. We owe it to the grazing permittees, 
to their families and communities that rely on the livestock industry, 
as well as to other public land users and the American public in 
general, to resolve the dispute now in a balanced and sustainable 
manner that will withstand the test of time.
  Mr. President, I want at this point to go through some of the 
specific concerns we have with S. 1459. In order to do that, let me put 
up a couple of charts just to keep track of where I am in the 
discussion.
  A first concern which I have repeated numerous times--and let me say 
by

[[Page S2394]]

way of introduction, the bill we are now considering is not the bill 
which was introduced last summer by my colleague from New Mexico. It is 
an improved bill. I think the designation of the earlier bill, S. 852, 
in my view, was substantially more lopsided and onesided than this bill 
is, but significant problems still exist in the legislation. Let me go 
through those.
  One of those major problems is that grazing is still given preference 
as a use of the public land over other uses in the legislation. First, 
let me talk about conservation use.
  It is ambiguous in S. 1459 whether conservation use of a grazing 
allotment is allowed. Conservation use is where the permittee would 
voluntarily refrain from grazing all or a portion of the allotment in 
order to improve the health of the range. Sponsors of the bill will 
claim that such uses would be permitted. However, I will submit for the 
Record a letter that The Nature Conservancy has sent to me concerning 
this matter, dated March 16, 1996.
  That letter states, Mr. President, and I will quote a couple 
sentences:

       But our qualification--

  That is qualification to be a permittee.

     has been challenged in a case now before the Interior Board 
     of Land Appeals. Part of the argument was that because we 
     were resting an allotment, we could not be said to be ``in 
     the livestock business'' (as required by the regulations that 
     would be reinstated by S. 1459), despite the fact that at 
     other locations we own, raise and sell domestic livestock and 
     depend on the revenues we get from the cattle business to 
     support our operations.
       Creating a category of ``conservation use'' of Federal 
     grazing permits would make it clear that The Nature 
     Conservancy could hold a permit and rest it.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this letter from Russell Shay, who is the senior policy adviser to The 
Nature Conservancy.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Nature Conservancy,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 16, 1996.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: Thank you for asking us about our 
     use of grazing permits on public lands, and the potential 
     impacts of new grazing legislation on them. We currently hold 
     23 of the more than 26,000 federal grazing permits on Bureau 
     of Land Management (BLM) or Forest Service lands. Those 23 
     permits are spread across 9 different states. Our review of 
     BLM and Forest Service records has not found any other 
     conservation organizations to be currently listed as owners 
     of federal grazing permits.
       The Nature Conservancy and cooperating ranching partners 
     actively graze domestic livestock on about half of our 
     allotments. The others are being rested in non-use being 
     annually approved by the local BLM or Forest Service 
     professional land manager. Our permits were each approved by 
     local managers whose judgement was that The Nature 
     Conservancy was qualified to hold them. But our qualification 
     has been challenged in a case now before the Interior Board 
     of Land Appeals. Part of the argument was that because we 
     were resting an allotment, we could not be said to be ``in 
     the livestock business'' (as required by the regulations that 
     would be reinstated by S. 1459), despite the fact that at 
     other locations we own, raise and sell domestic livestock and 
     depend on the revenues we get from the cattle business to 
     support our operations.
       Creating a category of ``conservation use'' of federal 
     grazing permits would make it clear that The Nature 
     Conservancy could hold a permit and rest it. It would also 
     provide a framework that would allow for local consideration 
     of such uses and their effects through public participation 
     in the land-use planning and allotment management plan 
     approval processes.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Russell Shay,
                                            Senior Policy Advisor.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think it is clear when you analyze the 
bill--and I am sure we will have more discussion on this--it is clear 
that entities that are not engaged in the livestock business under the 
language of this bill could not hold a permit in their own name, and I 
think that is something we should correct. We will propose to do that 
in the substitute that we offer.
  A second concern, which is on this chart--I hope that people can see 
this; I am sure most cannot--but a second concern that I have with S. 
1459, a second way in which grazing is given a preference is that S. 
1459 will, for the first time, allow permittees to hold title to 
permanent range improvements on forest land.
  For example, under existing law and regulations, a Forest Service 
grazing permittee is granted a permit to construct a range improvement 
and the title to that improvement is in the name of the United States. 
That has always been the law in our national forests.
  S. 1459 will allow the permittee to hold title in proportion to the 
value of the contribution that that permittee has made for the cost of 
construction, and that is a major change for those who are permittees 
in the Forest Service.
  A third way in which grazing is given a preference is that S. 1459 
statutorily provides for granting private property rights on BLM land 
as well as on forest land. The old BLM grazing regulations provided 
only regulatory authority for granting title to permanent range 
improvements on BLM land. This would take what was in the old 
regulations promulgated under the administration of Secretary Watt and 
would put that into statute for the first time.
  A fourth ground for concern is the wording of the objectives in the 
bill. Here my reading of the objectives is that they favor the 
stability of the livestock industry over the needs of wildlife. The 
objectives are extremely important in this, as pointed out in the 
Congressional Research Service report, which makes the very important 
point that under section 105(A), management standards and guidelines 
are to be consistent with the objectives and become directly effective 
upon plans by operation of law.
  Under section 134(A), terms and conditions of a permit must be 
necessary to achieve the objectives of title I. Therefore the 
objectives have more significance than would be true if they provided 
only a general guidance unrelated to particular processes.
  A fifth concern with regard to grazing being a preferred use of the 
lands, Mr. President, is that S. 1459 provides for cooperative range 
improvement agreements with permittees and lessees only. Currently, 
about 17 percent of all BLM range improvements have nonpermittee 
cooperators, such as Quails Unlimited.
  The old grazing regulations provided that the Secretary could enter 
into a cooperative range improvement agreement with any person. This 
bill goes further in restricting the Secretary, further than the 
regulations promulgated in the Watt administration or developed in the 
Watt administration, and says that the Secretary is only able to enter 
into these cooperative agreements with permittees and lessees.
  Let me move to the second of the three major points I want to make at 
this time, and that is this bill does reduce the extent of public 
involvement.
  The first way in which it reduces the extent of public involvement is 
that it denies the right of affected interests, people who are 
determined to be affected interests, to protest grazing decisions on 
public land and national forests. S. 1459 allows an affected interest 
to be notified of proposed decisions and given an opportunity for 
comment and informal consultation. However, only an applicant, or 
permittee, or lessee may protest a proposed decision. Further, in the 
absence of a timely filed protest, the proposed decision becomes final.

  Again, referring to the Congressional Research Service analysis, it 
says:

       A protest, similar to a predecisional appeal that gives the 
     public an opportunity to object to a proposal, gives the 
     agency an opportunity to change or modify its course before 
     commitment of further time or effort.

  These provisions appear to mean--these provisions being S. 1459--
appear to mean that unless an applicant or permittee protests a 
proposed decision, comments or other input from other sources will not 
be taken into account because, absent a protest, the proposed decision 
does become final. If this is a correct reading, then the opportunity 
for comment and consultation does not appear to be meaningful.
  A second way in which public involvement is reduced is, it is 
possible that only ranchers, under our reading of the bill, would 
qualify to file an appeal of a final decision affecting the public 
lands. A person who is adversely affected--and that phrase is a term of 
art, because it is used in the legislation--a person who is adversely 
affected within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 702 is permitted to appeal. 
This cited code refers back to the relevant statute.

[[Page S2395]]

  In this case, the relevant statute would be S. 1459. On that issue, 
the analysis by the Congressional Research Service says that the 
persons included within this provision are not clear. The cited code 
section refers back to the relevant statutes, thereby setting up a 
circularity.
  Since the CRS report was published, new appeals language has been 
added that further clouds the situation. It states--I will quote this 
from the bill--it says:

       Being an affected interest, as described in section 1043, 
     does not in and of itself confer standing to appeal a final 
     decision upon any individual or organization.

  Mr. President, a third way in which public input, involvement is 
reduced is that S. 1459 exempts on-the-ground management from the 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As the 
bill is presently presented, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
commonly known as NEPA, is going to be the topic of a great deal of our 
discussion. NEPA is one of the main tools used by land managers to 
analyze the health of the land and to analyze the potential affect on 
the land.
  S. 1459 exempts on-the-ground management from NEPA. In discussing the 
elimination of NEPA in site-specific situations, this Congressional 
Research Service report states:

       An activity could readily comport with a land use plan and 
     yet have many harmful aspects if carried out in a particular 
     area. Therefore, the elimination of site-specific analysis is 
     a significant change in current law and procedures, and could 
     result in significant effects on the conditions of the land.

  In place of NEPA, S. 1459 proposes a review of resource conditions. 
Essentially, the bill states that upon the issuance, renewal or 
transfer of a grazing permit or lease, at least once every 6 years the 
Secretary shall review all available monitoring data from the affected 
allotment. The central problem with this provision is that monitoring 
data usually consists of very specific measures of vegetative 
attributes. That monitoring data, in many cases, is not available.
  A fourth reason that I would cite why public involvement is reduced 
under this bill is, aside from the grazing advisory councils, the 
public is not given a say in range improvements. The old grazing 
regulations allow affected interests a say in the development of range 
improvements. As I read the provisions of this bill, it does not.
  Let me move to the third major concern that I have, Mr. President. 
That is that S. 1459, as drafted, and as being considered here, unduly 
ties the hands of lands managers. It does so in several respects. First 
of all, the application of terms and conditions needed to protect the 
land requires the development of a formal allotment management plan 
under this bill.
  Currently, less than 25 percent of BLM land and national forest 
allotments have allotment management plans prepared for them. The old 
grazing regulations' terms and conditions were attached as needed to 
protect resources and no allotment management plan was required.
  A second reason that I believe the current bill, Senate bill 1459, 
ties the hands of land managers is that the number of animal unit 
months would be established in land use plans in this bill. The land 
use plan often covers millions of acres, contains very general 
language, and S. 1459 would require costly, time-consuming land use 
plans and amendments to establish and make changes in grazing use for 
each allotment. In the old regulations, specific grazing use was 
determined through site-specific analysis, not through amendments to 
the entire land use plan.
  A third reason that the hands of land managers will be tied by this 
legislation is that in conducting monitoring activity, S. 1459 requires 
the manager to give prior notice, to the extent practicable, of not 
less than 48 hours. This exception to the notice creates a burden of 
proof that has never existed before.
  I also point out this creates a burden of proof when a land manager 
is dealing with a grazing permittee which does not exist when dealing 
with any other permittee on our public lands. Someone involved in the 
oil and gas industry certainly is not entitled to any 48-hour notice 
prior to monitoring activity taking place. It is inconsistent with the 
concept of these being public lands, Mr. President, to say that the 
manager of those public lands has to give notice 48 hours in advance 
before being able to view the lands and determine the condition. In the 
old grazing regulations no such advanced notice was required.
  A fourth way in which the hands of land managers are tied, in my 
view, in this bill is that S. 1459 would allow a sublease in cases 
where permittees neither own nor control the livestock. In the old 
regulations, ownership or control of the livestock was required. As I 
understand it, that is an appropriate requirement because clearly the 
BLM or the Forest Service cannot be expected to go around trying to 
find who is accountable for damage to the public lands. They have a 
right to assume that the person that has the permit or the lease has 
control of the livestock or ownership of that livestock and can be held 
accountable for what happens on the land.

  Mr. President, let me just conclude this set of initial comments here 
by saying that I do believe that we need to keep working to get a 
balance. We will offer later in the debate a substitute proposal which 
we believe does a better job of striking a middle ground and addresses 
the specific concerns that have been raised in the current Department 
of Interior regulations but does not repeal them entirely, as this 
legislation would. We believe that it gets us much closer to something 
that looks out for the interests of all those who have a valid interest 
in the use of the public lands.
  So I will stop with that, Mr. President. I know there are many others 
on the floor who wish to speak. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici bill. I 
would like to give a little background on it. I think later in the 
debate it will be necessary for us to talk a little bit about the 
comments of the Senator from New Mexico in that I think they are 
exactly where we are in terms of wanting more bureaucracy, wanting the 
bureaucracy to have more and more input. That is precisely what we want 
to get away from.
  Let me just say one thing in terms of this idea that keeps rising up 
that grazing is the preferred use. Let me read from page 6 here, on 
line 14.

       Nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the use or 
     the access of Federal lands for hunting, fishing, 
     recreational, watershed management, or other appropriate 
     multiple-use activities in accordance with applicable Federal 
     and State law in the principal or multiple use.

  Not only is it there in this instance, it is there in a number of 
instances and has been the focus of our interest over the last several 
months. I really do not think there is any substance to that kind of an 
argument, although we continue to hear it.

  Mr. President, let me be a little broader. I think one of the things 
about this whole debate is that there is a unique aspect to western 
public lands. Most Members of this body are not as familiar with them. 
I think you have to start with the uniqueness of the West. You have to 
start with the uniqueness of the idea that Western States run 
anywhere--in my State from 50 percent Federal ownership, and in Nevada, 
I think, as high as 80 to 85 percent Federal ownership. I think you 
have to talk about that a little bit. I brought a map to give you some 
idea of the kind of complexity involved in the management of public 
lands.
  First of all, there are a number of kinds of public lands. The idea 
that public land is public land is not the case. Many people in New 
Jersey would say, ``Well, public land must mean Yellowstone Park or 
Teton Park.'' It does not. There is a substantial difference. We have 
the parks which were reserved and withdrawn for a special purpose by 
the Congress. We have the forest which was reserved by action of the 
Congress. You have Indian reservations. You have other kinds of lands 
that were withdrawn--wilderness in the forest. These things were all 
set aside for a specific purpose because of the uniqueness of that 
land.
  The remainder is basically what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about those lands that were residual lands, lands that were 
left in the State

[[Page S2396]]

after the homesteaders came and took up the base lands, took up the 
lands, frankly, where the water is, where the winter feed is, took up 
the most valuable lands, and the others were left there. That is 
basically what we are talking about.
  Let me tell you from a standpoint of a westerner, if we do not have a 
multiple-use policy for the lands, we have very little economic future 
to look forward to. By ``multiple use,'' we are talking about hunting 
and fishing, talking about outfitting and mining, talking about oil, 
talking about grazing. These things have for a very long time been 
compatible with one another.
  Some of this map is hard to see. The colored part belongs to the 
Federal Government. The green color is the Forest Service, the purple 
is the park, and all of this yellow are BLM lands. We can see how 
interspersed they are. This is particularly unique. These are called 
the checkerboard lands. When the West was developed and the railroads 
were encouraged to be out West, they were granted 20 miles on either 
side of the railroad, and every other section belongs to the Federal 
Government. In between are private sections. For the most part, there 
are no fences there. You do not manage these separately. These are very 
unproductive lands. This land probably takes 100 acres for one cow unit 
to last for a year. This is not the kind of land that people think 
about when they think about a pasture in Indiana.
  When we were in the House, we went through this thing about the fees. 
The chairman of the committee was from Indiana. He had this pasture 
where the grass grew this big, and he could not figure out why the fee 
should not be the same for this land as it is for his land. It is quite 
different.
  What we have in terms of landownership patterns you have to take into 
account. Here is a blowup of the checkerboard land. Every other section 
here belongs to the Federal Government; the others are private. These 
are interspersed. The blue ones happen to be State lands. You can see, 
in order to manage this stuff, you have to have some of these local 
folks do it.

  Now, talking very briefly about the condition of the range, this is 
the figure put together by the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming. It 
talks about the percentage of acreage in a condition class. This green 
is called excellent and good; the red dotted line is poor. This starts 
in 1974 and goes up to 1993. This is the good and excellent here. This 
is the condition of the range. This is the poor down here. It has 
improved substantially.
  Let me give you another reason why that is the case. This is the big 
game population on public lands in Wyoming. We talk about the multiple 
uses being able to work together. Here is antelope. In 1962, we had 
97,000 of those rascals running around; now we have 226,721. I got one 
last year. Now, deer, 87,000; go up to 250,000. Elk, 12,000 in 1962; 
now 35,000. You can see the percentage increase over a 28-year period.
  My point is that the range is in good shape. The range is carefully 
husbanded by these ranchers. Why? Not just because they are entirely 
gratuitous, but because their future depends on year after year usage 
of this resource.
  I must tell you, having grown up there, that this wildlife would not 
do well if there was not somebody out there using this land for 
something else and preparing water, often digging out a spring and 
damming it up so there is water available, not only for cattle or 
sheep, but also for wildlife as well.
  It is a very unique thing, Mr. President. I think we need to start 
with understanding that. Western cattlemen, western livestock people, 
of course, a very important part of our society, not only because of 
these families that live and work there but because these are the 
sustaining families for the small towns that are there. This is the 
economy for much of the West. This is a historic time now of low prices 
for cattle, as everybody knows. The considerable loss to predators has 
also been a problem and makes it much more difficult to make a living.
  Now we face, I think, excessive regulations put on by the Bureau of 
Land Management. The Senator from New Mexico mentioned the number of 
trips of the Secretary out there. He is right. I was involved in very 
many of those. For 2 years we had meetings, meetings, and meetings. 
When the regulations were put out, they were put out almost precisely 
as they were initially. You can have meetings until you are green in 
the face; that does not mean there will be any difference. That is a 
fact.
  That is where we are. We are seeking to make some changes here from 
this movement by the Secretary for more and more bureaucracy in 
Washington, to some movement where there is more impact of the people, 
more decisionmaking by the people who live there. I do not think there 
is any question that rangeland reform will drive families off the 
range, create some economic problems in our areas. We worry about that, 
naturally. Maybe the broader, more generic concern, however, is the 
maximum, ultimate best use of multiple resources. Grass is a renewable 
resource, one that you manage.
  This Public Rangelands Management Act is a great step forward. It is 
something we have worked on for over a year. We have taken it to our 
friends on the other side of the aisle; we have talked about it; they 
have come back; they have agreed to some things; we have put in much 
more than we have changed for ourselves. However, there are some 
changes in which we do not basically agree. One of them is the degree 
of bureaucratic involvement in this bill.

  We have established and very carefully established a relationship and 
a balance between grazing and hunting and those activities. Personally, 
I come from a place where hunting and fishing is a very major function 
between Cody, WY, and Yellowstone Park. There is grazing, but hunting 
and fishing is equally important from the economic standpoint. I 
understand that. We balance that. That is what this bill does.
  I think for too long over the last several years the grazing question 
has zeroed in on the fee. The Secretary does not even have a change in 
the fee. We have a fee. We have a simplified fee based on the value of 
the product, based on the average value of the livestock, and it raises 
the fee even in spite of the economic condition that livestock people 
are in. This is not a question, this time, about fee. It is a fee that 
is based on the product.
  Too often there are comparisons made between this land and this land, 
these services and these services. I am sure we will hear, ``Well, the 
State charges more, gets paid more, private gets paid more.'' Yes; they 
do. They also provide a great many more services. You can have 
exclusive use of State land, but you cannot do that with public land.
  There are differences. Someone said it is a little like the 
difference between a furnished apartment and an unfurnished apartment. 
That is exactly right.
  Mr. President, I think we have a great opportunity to move forward to 
do something that has needed to be resolved for a very long time, and I 
think this moves toward that resolution. And I think the bill, as it 
stands, is one that has been considered and approved by many people. It 
is time, certainly, for us to come to closure on it. I have been 
disappointed that each time we have tried to do something, we get a lot 
of disinformation from BLM. I do not think that is an appropriate role. 
We have been involved in that over a good period of time.

  So, Mr. President, I am sure we will be back to talk some more about 
the specifics of the issue that have been brought up. I do not believe 
that this limits public input. I do not think that is true at all. On 
the contrary, we are seeking to deal with issues like NEPA and to try 
and say the NEPA law requires that activity in relation to a major 
Federal action.
  Last year, we had a proposal in the Forest Service that every renewed 
grazing permit have a NEPA process. Ridiculous. If you ever heard of 
excessive bureaucracy, that is it. Indeed, the NEPA process takes place 
on the land use plan which takes up a number of allotments. That is the 
reasonable thing to do. I do not think there is anybody who would argue 
you should have a NEPA process for every renewable grazing lease. That 
was already seen to be not workable.
  Mr. President, I am glad we are talking about it here. As I said, 
this is kind of an opening statement for me. I want to come back, as we 
go forward, to talk

[[Page S2397]]

about some of the specific things that were talked about here.
  Let me say, finally, that I have no doubt that this is a question 
about the livelihood of families in the West. This is a question of 
small ranchers who depend on this public land to go with their deeded 
land, to be able to sublease. They were able to do that in the past, 
and they can do it now only if the BLM agrees to that. That is what it 
says in the bill. That is the way it ought to be.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we can move through these issues, and 
I hope that we can end up with a reasonable way to provide multiple use 
in the West, protect the environment, which all of us who live there 
want to do, and, at the same time, be able to use those resources so 
that those families in the West can make a living as they do over the 
rest of the country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be brief today. We are here on the 
floor of the Senate talking about a grazing bill. I have spent a 
substantial amount of time on this issue this year. I cannot tell you 
the number of meetings I have had in North Dakota with ranchers, 
environmentalists, hunters, and others, talking about the various 
proposals that exist in the grazing legislation that has been offered 
by Senator Domenici, the substitute that was previously offered by 
Senator Bingaman and myself in the Energy Committee, and other 
iterations of each.

  This is another one of those cases where in debate on the floor of 
the Senate, it seems to me, there is a little bit of truth on both 
sides. Each side takes their side of this issue and tends to take it 
out here and make a caricature out of it. The fact is that we have a 
circumstance with respect to publicly owned lands in many of our States 
that are used for a lot of purposes, where ranchers in my State--not 
big ranchers, but family ranchers--are trying to make a living grazing 
their cattle on public lands, as has been provided for many years with 
respect to the multiple use of these lands. They work hard and they do 
not ask for much from anybody.
  Most of these folks are not big. They are family-size ranches. They 
are subject to the whims of the weather and subject to the ups and 
downs of cattle prices, and sometimes they have an awful time.
  I notice that the Senator from Connecticut has something he wants to 
do. I will be happy to yield for a moment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have been informed that Senator Dodd 
will introduce a distinguished guest. He will then ask that we be in 
recess for a period of time.
  I yield to Senator Dodd for that purpose.

                          ____________________