[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.
____________________