[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2411-S2417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today we debate a bill of tremendous
importance to my State and to many Americans who draw their livelihood
from the land. I am speaking specifically about ranchers, that often
maligned group of individuals who have played such an enduring role of
the development and prosperity of our Western States over the years--
and individuals they are.
It is difficult to conceive of a greater distortion than the
continuing ugly portrayal of those in my State being described as big-
time cattle barons, Cadillac cowboys, few in number and great in wealth
and rapacity and greed. The reality is far, far different. There are
more than 25,000 ranchers whose livestock grazes on these western lands
all over our Western States.
In Western and Midwestern States, more than 50 percent of all beef
cattle graze these lands at one time or another during the year. If
cattle were driven from these lands--and this administration seems to
advocate that; that has been the pressure from them--large numbers of
ranchers would surely go out of business. That is the stark reality. It
is also a very cynical and deceptive canard that alleges that if this
bill were to pass, public access to these Federal lands would be simply
cut off. Instead, this bill reaffirms that use of these public lands
for nongrazing purposes, shall continue in accordance with State and
Federal law, already in effect.
I am very pleased to support this bill. So many have worked so hard.
I commend the occupant of the chair, Senator Domenici, and so many
people who have worked so hard. My colleague from Wyoming, Senator
Craig Thomas, has done a yeoman's task, and does it well.
I support Americans who make their living off the land. I support a
healthy environment. Who does not? I get tired of that argument. Good
Lord, I have lifted more lumber on the environmental laws when I was a
State legislator than half the people who bark and howl at the moon in
this place. I support public access to our public lands. I support the
principle of multiple use, an unknown description to several people in
this body. It is indeed impossible to believe that we cannot pursue all
of these objectives simultaneously, which this bill does.
What I do not support is this one-size-fits-all solution for local
problems. These are issues which very much require a rich participation
in the form of the expertise and concerns of the local people, those
who are closest to the problems and those who, I might say, care the
most and are affected the most. It makes little sense for the beltway
environmentalists to have veto power over the common sense and
experience of those who have lived and worked and grubbed that land
from nothing for generations.
Mr. President, this bill is moderate and balanced and inclusive and
fair, and yet it is being described by certain special interests as a
sinister, venal, even Republican conspiracy--we have had some good
bipartisan support on this issue through the months--to turn back the
clock on environmental protection. That shows up, I guess, in focus
groups. That is not what this is. This charge is preposterous and made
by people who do not want to stop with simply regulating the proper
role of livestock on the public lands. It is made by people who would
abandon all concept and principle of multiple use altogether.
Let there be no mistake here--the groups opposing this bill hold as
their ultimate goal the outright abolition of livestock from public
lands. Let us be very clear. I believe that is very evident in slogans
such as ``cattle free in '93,'' which was gleefully chanted into the
vapors with such fierce conviction, less than one Presidential term
ago, as the type of genuine extremism which has played too great a role
in this debate.
From a purely scientific perspective, there is not a scintilla of
evidence demonstrating that responsible grazing has been detrimental to
the rangelands--not one--rather, an ever-growing body of scientific
data suggesting it has been
[[Page S2412]]
a critical component--critical component--of good range health. It is
also irrefutable that the range is in far better condition today than
it was 40 years ago. That is not my opinion. That is according to the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
The condition of the public lands is the best it has been in this
century. Yes, we have more cattle grazing on these lands, but we also
have more elk, deer, antelope, and even coyotes. We take good care of
them, too. How can this be so? The good stewardship of our ranchers,
that is how.
Mr. President, I want to just briefly show some photographs. They are
rather remarkable. The first, I think, if you can discern--these are
unique in their own historical context because the top ones on each of
these panels were taken in 1870 by the renowned William Henry Jackson
during his photographic survey of the Wyoming Territory. He was working
for the USGGST, the U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the
Territories at the time. This same expedition eventually reached the
Yellowstone area. When he got to Yellowstone, he took some
extraordinary photos that were so influential in gaining national park
status for Yellowstone National Park in that spectacular region.
He, along with Thomas Moran, the artist, upon returning with the
material and presenting it to the Congress in 1872, formed Yellowstone
Park as a pleasuring ground for the enjoyment of the American people.
You would never know that, as people forget the organic act. That is
what it was set up for.
When these photographs were taken, all of the pictured lands were
Federal. They were all owned by the Federal Government.
But here we are, and over 100 years later, then Prof. Kendall
Johnson, of the Range Science Department at Utah State University,
attempted to exactly re-create the location and the exact point from
which Jackson set up his extraordinarily cumbersome equipment. And with
the great plates and the weight of them and hauling them through the
West--which was a feat in itself--he re-created Mr. Jackson's photos as
a means of studying the condition of rangelands in Wyoming. I am
indebted to him for the use of these photographs that were published in
his book called ``Rangeland Through Time.''
Some of the lands pictured in the lower panels are Federal and some
are private, but all of them are livestock grazed. Every single photo
in the lower area is being livestock grazed, all of them.
So the top photograph here shows land about 50 miles north of
Rawlins, WY.
This photo was taken in 1870, August 28, about the same time that the
Sun family started ranching there. It looks as if the original ranchers
took some pretty tough-looking country to decide to work on, but they
have been right there ranching ever since that picture was taken.
If you look at the bottom photo just taken a few years ago, the exact
same location, you will see the fruits of their stewardship. Do not
tell me about environmental devastation wrought by selfish and greedy
ranchers. We see trees, cottonwoods. We see extraordinary vegetation,
hay lands. That is it, right there. This was the way that God had it.
God has had some helpers.
These two photos then were taken on the Laramie River about 5 miles
north of Wheatland on August 10, 1870. The top photo was taken in 1870
and the bottom was taken over 100 years later. You will notice that the
riparian habitat has been so lush that you cannot even see the river.
Here it is in the original form, and here it is 20 years ago. Here is
the riparian habitat, and this is all grazing country. As I say, you
cannot even tell where the river is because of the lushness of the
growth. Again, do not tell me our ranchers do not understand good
ecomanagement.
The next pair of photos were taken about 40 miles south of Douglas,
pretty rugged country, the same respective time as the previous pair of
photos, August 12, 1870. Now, this is a real one--notice the pine and
the growth, and here is one taken almost 100 years later. Look at the
trees, look at the pine. All of this is grazing land. Look at the
grass. This is just rock. Here is grassland, and here is all of this
being grazed for decades. Do not tell me, again, about ranchers
devastating the land.
Another pair of pictures, the fourth, showing this widespread
phenomenon, same timeframe, 1870, August 20, northwest of Douglas, WY.
The scene shows a treeless and barren landscape. There it is and there
is the camp. People were camping there, probably the first white people
to go through--not the first humans. This entire area is near the old
Bozeman Trail, Ft. Laramie, up past Ft. Phil Kearny, into Montana. Of
course, it was just 5 years after this, on June 25, 1876, that Custer
had his rather unfortunate occasion at Little Bighorn. At the bottom we
see, again, 100 years later, the grasses are lush and thick, trees are
abundant by prairie standards--cottonwoods, water, grasslands, all of
it grazed.
It was not a Ph.D. in ecomanagement that resulted in this recovery.
Rather, it was the common sense of ranchers who depend for their
survival upon the health of these lands. When your family depends on
your stewardship, you pay awful close attention, very, very close
attention.
Finally, two photos taken on the North Platte River. This was the
area of several great Indian struggles in the history of my State,
southwest of Casper, WY. A young man named Caspar Collins was killed in
an Indian skirmish there. In 1870, these lands were totally overgrazed
and treeless; August 25, 1870. By 1986, they had recovered to become
well grassed, with riparian habitat abounding. Here is the same photo.
Here is water. Here are trees, cottonwoods, native grasses, hayfields,
irrigation. So do not tell me about ranchers being poor stewards of the
land.
I always like to ask environmentalists what it is they find so
appealing about my beautiful State of Wyoming where I am a fifth
generation. My grandfather came to this rugged country in 1862 through
Ft. Laramie. He was with the Conner expedition, and he ended up going
up that trail to Ft. Phil Kearny and was there during what was called
the Fetterman massacre. He was a sutler. That is a chap who sells
tobacco, boots, and booze to the soldiers. He was good at that.
Fincelius G. Burnett. He was there when this great historical battle
took place. Then he lived in what was called Fremont County, and he
became the boss farmer of Chief Washakie. One of the great Shoshonie
leaders of all time had my great grandfather as his boss farmer. That
is what he called him. He even gave him land on the reservation. He
said, ``I will not take it because it will cause you a lot of pain in
the years to come,'' and my grandfather deeded it back. It was a good
thing to do because the lands that are there now that did go into
private hands have caused some pain.
I ask these environmentalists about Wyoming and what they find so
appealing about our great State. The answers I always get reference
such things as rugged, natural beauty, the wildlife, the clean streams,
the clean air, and great fishing. I say, well, how in Heaven's name do
you think it has managed to stay that way all these years? Somebody
must have been taking care of it. I tell them that we have been engaged
in land use activities for over 100 years. How do you think Wyoming has
managed to remain the natural jewel that it is? It is because those of
us that live there refuse to let it become ripped and ruined and torn
to bits. It is because those citizens who depend upon these lands for
their livelihoods have taken such good care of them over time. That is
how.
When you are a Republican from Wyoming, you get accused of some very
interesting things on the issue of the environment. But I was in the
State legislature for 13 years. In the State legislature we put on the
books the toughest mine land reclamation law in the United States, in
the largest coal-producing State in the United States, Wyoming; the
toughest Clean Air Act, which was six times more stringent than the
Federal Clean Air Act; a Clean Water Act; a Plant Sighting Act which
said, if you are going to come and set up a great type of structure
here, an infrastructure, you will see to it that you address the
accompanying social and domestic problems. We made them cough up the
front end money. That is what I did when I was in the legislature.
I do tire of the paternalistic approach of people who come up to me
and ask
[[Page S2413]]
about saving the State that we already saved. We get a little tired of
them hanging around. In this kind of debate, they all use the same fax
machine, and all the organizations that chop you to shreds all having
interlocking boards of directorate. They really are something. They all
live pretty well, a lot of them on inherited wealth. If they do go to
work, they find out what the rest of us find out: Work is healing,
therapeutic and keeps your mind off cows messing around on the riparian
bank and streams. It clears the air. I want that to happen. I get tired
of that paternalistic business.
Mr. President, it is no accident that our public grazing lands, each
parcel of which is the responsibility of the lessee, are in such good
shape today. We have other areas of our planet which are not in good
shape, where people have ripped, ruined and torn it up, whether in the
oceans, the mountains, or the plains. And this bill puts the powerful
tool of self interest to work in favor of the environment instead of
against it. It recognizes the basic law that its opponents seem not to
understand--that the worst thing in the world for the environment is
not mining, logging, ranching, or multiple use; the worst thing in the
world for the environment is poverty.
Look at every past civilization of the Earth; before disappearing
into the vapors of history when they have finally used up every
resource, cut the last tree, shot the last deer, caught the last fish,
overpopulated the entire system, their last contribution is a
devastated environment. That is what happens. Travel anywhere in the
world to any impoverished developing country and you will see the truth
of that. You may even come to understand that one of the most important
human rights is the right to a job. I know that sounds evil. But that
is a great human right--the right to work, the right to make a living.
So I can tell you what will happen. Here is one for the greenies to
mull as they are sitting there having a little chardonnay by the
campfire with their pals singing songs, of course, in the evening. Here
is one for the greenies to mull: What do you think is going to happen
when these old cowboys lose their grazing permit, lose the ability to
use that land which they have been using for 60, 70 years? I will tell
you. Do not miss this scenario. You lose the permit, you gather the
kids around--some of them are downtown, or maybe they are working at
the courthouse, or wherever they are--and make the decision to sell the
place. Then start talking to your pals on the county commission, those
county commissioners that you helped elect, and they will direct you to
the zoning and planning commission; go to the zoning and planning
commission, and they will say, Yes, we have a subdivision regulation
there, you bet; go to the old local civil engineer and draw up the
plans for the subdivision; and then sell the property for a subdivision
in the midst of this magnificent kind of country, just so you can do a
silly thing--eat. And then instead of cows for those same greenies to
worry about--as they slosh the chardonnay on their shoes--they can
worry about people messing up the area--a few hoof prints beside the
creek will then start to look pretty good compared to septic tanks and
leach fields. That is exactly where this one is going. So get involved
in the great emotion of it, and watch these wily, canny people, who do
not like to starve to death, pedal off their land and remove even the
Sun family--Kathleen, Bernard, Dennis and the rest--perhaps, after 5
generations--remove themselves from ranching and decide to sell it and
spend the winters in Arizona and the summers on that magnificent part
of the ranch they kept for themselves. If anybody cannot understand
this is what will happen, the drinks are on me.
Thank you.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Wyoming for
telling how it really is. I thought his graphic pictures portrayed an
awful lot of America that, unfortunately, few Americans see. The
Senator's reference to those that would like to see something different
done to that part of the American west, while explicit in its reference
to the comfort around the fire and the chardonnay, I think reflect an
unrealistic reference, if you will, to the responsibility that we have
in this body to recognize the significance of grazing, as we know it
today.
As chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Energy and Natural
Resources, I rise to support the substitute, S. 1459, which has been
offered by Senator Domenici, the Public Rangelands Management Act.
While the livestock grazing issue is not significant in my State,
there is reindeer grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands under
regulations specific to Alaska and some cattle grazing on Fish and
Wildlife Service lands on Kodiak Island. In the lower 48 States,
however, livestock grazing is a part of western society. It is part of
the history, and the heritage, of the American West. And it's a part of
the social fabric of the West and a cornerstone of the western economy.
Because I understand the importance of livestock grazing to the rural
western economy, to the ranching community and to the family structure,
I want to lend my support to this important legislation and encourage
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support S. 1459.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, and as one of the three elected representatives of the State
of Alaska in Washington, I have a strong interest in our Nation's
natural resource and public land management policies. I believe the
public lands in my State and in the lower 48 States contain abundant
natural resources--timber, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and other
renewable assets--that can be used to sustain the economic engine of
this great country of ours. Our public lands are also a valuable
recreational resource--they are used for hunting, fishing, camping,
river running, bird watching, back-packing, skiing, off-road vehicle
use, and other recreational uses. The fact is, our public lands are
taking a great deal of pressure off our national parks for Americans
who want to enjoy an outdoor experience.
And just as Alaskans are willing to allow their resources to be used
prudently to better the future for Alaska's children and grandchildren,
I believe American are wiling to use America's resources for the
benefit of future generations. I do not believe a majority of Americans
support locking up our public lands for preservation purposes. As
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am
obligated to speak out for responsible use of our public lands and
natural resources in a way that I believe makes the most productive use
of those lands and resources for all Americans.
One of the reasons I support S. 1459 is because of my concern about
the Clinton administration's general attitude regarding public land use
and, more specifically, about Secretary Babbitt's regulations and
polices regarding activities on the public lands to conduct timber
harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration and
development. There is an alarming trend toward driving traditional
public land users--timber harvesters, ranchers, oil and gas drillers,
and miners--off the public lands.
At least in the case of the oil and gas and mining industries, good,
high-paying, long-lasting jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in
investment capital are being forced overseas because of a hostile
attitude toward resource development on public lands. Also lost with
those jobs and investment capital are untold millions of dollars in
potential tax revenues and mineral receipts to the Federal Government
and the States. Thousands of good, high-paying jobs in the timber
industry have been lost, and are not likely to be recovered again. That
is happening in the southeastern portion of my own State.
For the livestock industry, however, the story is different. Ranchers
have been using the public lands for generations to make a living for
themselves and their families. We are not talking about high-
technology, high-paying jobs. We are talking in some cases about folks
who are just able to eke out a living and pay their bills. The job is
tough, the hours are long, and the pay is poor, but because many of
them are fourth or fifth generation ranchers, they want to keep up the
tradition, run their cattle or sheep, and live the simple lifestyle out
in the open space of the West.
[[Page S2414]]
The ranches are not being forces overseas like the oil and gas and
mining industries. They are simply being run out of business
altogether--driven off the public lands like the cattle or sheep they
herd--by an administration and an Interior Secretary hostile to their
way of living. They're being run off the public range and ridiculed as
relics of the past. They're criticized for receiving what some claim is
a subsidy.
Mr. President, we are not talking about subsidizing and preserving
the way of life for ``cute little German farms in Bavaria'' as one of
my colleagues recently observed, we're talking about members of western
society who are making a substantial contribution to their local and
State economies, to the Federal Treasury, and to the feeding of tens of
millions of people who consume their products every day.
What Secretary Babbitt set in motion with his Rangeland Reform 1994
regulations is symptomatic of a broader attitude toward public lands
use and natural resource development from his Department. Secretary
Babbitt's attitude seems to be ``lock up the public lands, keep them
preserved for posterity's sake, and do not worry about all the lost
jobs and economic benefits--we can get all those people retrained so
they can be productive members of society again.''
What is troubling about that kind of attitude, Mr. President, is that
it is elitist. It is elitist because it tells Americans that their
public lands should be used only for the enjoyment of the
preservationists and no one else. It says, ``the heck with the
ranchers, the miners, the oil and gas drillers, the timber cutters and
the others who want to use the public lands to make a better life for
themselves, their families, or their country.'' It also says, ``the
heck with the people who want to recreate, and hunt and fish on the
public lands.''
In the case of livestock grazing, that approach takes away the
lifestyle so many people have freely chosen, despite the hard work and
low pay. It takes away a portion of the western culture. it takes away
a pillar of the West's economy. It takes away revenues to the Federal
Treasury and to the States whose education systems and public services
rely so heavily on the public lands.
There is one aspect of the grazing debate that I appreciate more than
some of the others because of my experience as a former banker. And
that is how difficult it is now for ranchers to secure lending to
support their operations or to make improvements. More and more banks
are asking tougher and tougher questions before they loan money to
ranchers because of the seeming instability of the livestock industry--
instability that is brought about by the regulatory malaise caused by
Secretary Babbitt's rangeland reform regulations. More and more banks
are denying loans because they believe livestock operations cannot be
conducted profitably given the current regulatory climate. That is why
we need to act now to bring the stability ranchers and their lenders
need.
As for the substance of this legislation, Mr. President, S. 1459
starts with the premise that public lands should continue to be used
for multiple use purposes. The No. 1 finding on page 3 of the bill
says, and I quote: ``multiple use, as set forth in current law, has
been and continues to be a guiding principle in the management of
public lands and national forests.'' Multiple use is a guiding
principle for public lands management now, and the bill says right up
front that multiple use will continue to be the guiding principle. It
says so throughout the bill. So any claim, Mr. President, that this
bill establishes grazing as the dominant use of the public lands is
false. That is one of the false claims we will hear over and again
about this bill, Mr. President, but such a claim has no basis in fact.
The multiple use foundation of this bill is further exemplified by
the explicit declaration that nothing precludes use of and access to
Federal land for hunting, fishing, recreation, or other appropriate
multiple use activities in accordance with Federal and State law.
Environmental protection of public rangelands is ensured by S. 1459
in several ways. The bill states as its first objective the promotion
of ``healthy, sustained rangeland.'' Another objective is to ``maintain
and improve the condition of riparian areas which are critical to
wildlife habitat and water quality.'' S. 1459 also calls for: the
establishment of State or regional standards and guidelines for
addressing rangeland condition; consideration of the environmental
effects of grazing in accordance with NEPA, the National Environmental
Policy Act; approval of cooperative agreements and coordinated resource
management practices for conservation purposes or resource enhancement;
and penalties for failure to comply with permit terms and conditions or
environmental laws and regulations. All of these provisions add up to a
serious effort to protect the condition of the rangeland and to improve
its condition where such improvement is needed.
A lot criticism has been directed at the public participation aspects
of this legislation, Mr. President, and I want to explain what S. 1459
does in that regard. The bill makes absolutely clear that affected
interests will be notified of proposed decisions, and does nothing
whatsoever to prevent those interests from having dialogue with Federal
land managers concerning management decisions on grazing allotments.
That is the case now and that has always been the case. The bill also
makes clear that those citizens whose interests are adversely affected
can appeal decisions of the land managers. Further, the bill gives the
interested public the opportunity to participate in Resource Advisory
Councils, the Grazing Advisory Councils, and the NEPA process.
What the bill does not do, Mr. President--much to the disappointment
of Secretary Babbitt and the other opponents of this legislation--is
allow anti-public lands or anti-grazing activists from Boston and
elsewhere to micromanage and second-guess every single decision
regarding grazing and what happens on each individual grazing allotment
for the price of a 32-cent stamp. Appropriate public participation in
public lands management decisions is healthy and constructive. We do
not have a problem with that, Mr. President. We welcome appropriate
public participation.
What we do have a problem with, however, is elevating in statute the
legal status of an individual who lives hundreds of miles away
who wants to dictate what happens on a grazing allotment out West, and
whose form of public participation consists of mailing a protest
postcard to the land management agency. We do not need more lawsuits
spawned by armchair quarterbacks who have never seen a grazing
allotment. Nor do we need to have every single decision of the public
lands manager second-guessed by self-proclaimed experts.
Mr. President, there are many other positive aspects of S. 1459 that
deserve mentioning. But my colleagues who have labored long and hard
trying to put together a grazing reform bill that can enjoy bipartisan
support are anxious to speak to the many positive features of the bill.
I want to tell my colleagues about the process we have been through
this year on grazing reform, Mr. President, because I believe it is
important that they know about the intense interest in this issue, and
even more intense interest in passing legislation that will provide
stability, certainty, and predictability for the foreseeable future.
This is such a contentious issue that we do not need to be revisiting
grazing every session of Congress.
Earlier last year, May 25, another grazing bill, S. 852, was
introduced by Senators Domenici, Craig, Brown, Campbell, Hatch,
Bennett, Burns, Simpson, Thomas, Kyl, Pressler, Kempthorne, Conrad,
Dorgan, Dole, and Gramm. Senators Baucus, Nickles, and Inhofe
subsequently joined as cosponsors.
A companion bill to that measure, H.R. 1713, was introduced in the
House. The House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands of the House Resources Committee held a hearing in July.
A hearing on the Senate bill was held in June by Senator Craig's
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill on July 19, 1995.
S. 852 was placed on Senate Calendar but went nowhere as a result of
apparent lack of sufficient support.
Following the August recess, a bipartisan effort was mounted to craft
a bill
[[Page S2415]]
that would address the deficiencies of S. 852 was initiated by several
Members on our side, Senators Domenici, Thomas, Kyl, Craig, and Burns,
and included several of our Democrat colleagues, Senators Reid, Bryan,
Conrad, Baucus, Bingaman, and Dorgan.
After several weeks of staff discussions and Member involvement, a
revised bill was drafted that addressed some 16 areas where there
seemed to be general bipartisan agreement. Shortly thereafter, the
Senate began consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Grazing
provisions were not included the in Senate version of the Balanced
Budget Act, but the House version did contain a handful of provisions,
only one of which would have produced revenues--the grazing fee
provision. In the end, the House receded to the Senate approach and no
provisions on grazing were included in the Balanced Budget Act.
On November 16, 1995, Senators Domenici, Kyl, Craig, Thomas, and
Baucus wrote me to request that the Energy Committee consider the new
draft proposal, which was reported as S. 1459 on November 30.
In December and January, Mr. President, our side met with Democrat
Members and staff several times in an attempt to incorporate changes
desired by the Democrat Members in order to address concerns raised by
their constituents and support this measure. We went what we believed
was the extra mile to address their concerns.
At the end of January, Mr. President, we had only five unresolved
issues. We made clear to our colleagues that we could accommodate their
concerns on some of these issues. On a few others, we probably could
not agree because of fundamental differences in approach. However, we
believed that the unresolved issues could be decided on the floor
through the amendment process, Mr. President, which would allow our
colleagues to offer proposals to address the remaining issues on which
we seemed divided.
That brings us to where we are now, Mr. President. At a crossroad. We
are at a crossroad with this grazing bill because we have gone about as
far as we can without harming what we believe are the legitimate
concerns of the livestock industry. We believe we have ample
environmental safeguards in the bill, Mr. President, and more than
adequate opportunity for public participation.
If our Democrat colleagues whose interests we have tried so hard to
address cannot support this bill now, Mr. President, it is not for a
lack of effort on our part to accommodate their concerns. It is not
because of sincere effort on our part to include them in the process of
drafting this legislation. And it is not because we did not seek their
input and ideas as to how we could make S. 1459 better legislation.
I would suggest Mr. President, that those who cannot support this
legislation--even though we have bent over backwards to accommodate the
interests of our western Democrat colleagues--are making their decision
not on the merits of the bill but rather on the basis of a desire to
make nonuse of the public lands the dominant use.
We're at a crossroad not only with this grazing bill, but also with
the administration's public lands and natural resources policies. We
can either choose between Secretary Babbitt's Rangeland Reform 1994
regulations, which will hasten the end of livestock grazing on the
public lands, or we can choose an approach that makes significant
improvements in the way livestock grazing is managed while allowing
ranchers to continue to graze cattle and sheep on the public range. The
same choice is true for other public lands use issues: We can either
ship our jobs, our capital, our mineral receipts, and our tax revenues
overseas or we can keep them here and allow responsible use of our
public lands for resource development activities and other multiple-use
purposes.
The choice for me is clear, Mr. President. On this one, I am going to
side with the ranchers over the elitists. I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. President, I support the Domenici substitute for three specific
reasons. First, it is pro-environment. It is pro-family, and it is pro-
economy. The substitute contains, I think, significant provisions to
protect the great landscape of the American West that will lead to more
money being spent to improve those rangelands specifically.
Furthermore, I think it keeps the families together, the families of
rural America, the families out west, because it will allow them to
continue what they have been doing for five and six generations--that
is, producing livestock on the public lands for the benefit of all
Americans.
Further, the Domenici substitute is pro-economy because it will
generate more fees to the Federal Government and provide a stable
regulatory climate for livestock production on the public lands, and
preserve livestock production as an economic pillar, which it has been
on the rural communities of the West.
Now, Mr. President, you might wonder why a Senator from Alaska is
speaking on grazing issues. Well, it is not significant in my Western
State of Alaska, although we do graze a significant herd of ``Santa
Clause's reindeer'' on public land. But it is really part of the
history and heritage of the American West, a part of the social fabric
of the West, and it is really a cornerstone of the western economy.
So I want to lend my support to this issue and this legislation. I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
Domenici substitute because I understand and really appreciate the
importance of this issue to the West. I want to assure you that those
who have risen to speak on behalf of this amendment do as well, because
they are the ones ultimately accountable for their stewardship to their
constituents.
I have a strong interest in our Nation's natural resources, public
lands, and management policies. I believe the public lands in my State
and in the other lower 48, as we refer to them, contain tremendous
natural resources--our timber, coal, oil, gas, minerals, and other
renewable assets that can be used to sustain the economic engine of
what made this country great.
I firmly believe that through science and technology, we can do it
right, we can do a better job than we have done. I feel, in many cases,
the old rules relative to environmental oversight and various other
aspects of regulatory mandates are really out of date. We have had new
technology come along. We are operating under the same rules, same
regulations, and a very narrow focus, Mr. President, and a very narrow
interpretation. As we look at resource development, we are looking at
world markets.
We have the experience and expertise in the United States to do a
better job, particularly with our renewable resources, and grazing is a
renewable resource. We could do a better job in the renewability of our
timber. But as we look at what is happening, we are depending on
imports, such as imported beef and timber products, coming from
countries that do not have the same sensitivity and responsibility in
developing and maintaining the renewability of the resources that we
do.
So are we not being a little irresponsible to shed that
responsibility on other countries and simply look to importation? Well,
I think we are. Just as we in Alaska are willing to allow our resources
to prudently contribute to the future of those in our State and the
grandchildren that are coming along, I believe Americans are willing to
use America's resources and resource development to benefit future
generations.
So I support Senate bill 1459 because of my concern about the current
administration's general attitude regarding public land use. More
specifically, it would be the regulations and policies of the Secretary
of the Interior regarding activities on public lands to conduct timber
harvesting, livestock, grazing, mining, oil and gas exploration, and
development as well. I think, Mr. President, as we look a little
further, we see an alarming trend toward driving traditional public
land users--timber harvesters, ranchers, oil and gas drillers, and
miners--off public lands. Where are they going?
We are driving those jobs out of the United States, we are sending
our dollars overseas, and we are importing those products. As our
President communicates concern over the loss of high-paying jobs and
offsets that by more low-paying jobs, the realism is that many of these
blue-collar jobs are high paying. But if we do not develop
[[Page S2416]]
our resources, we are not going to have them.
The Interior Secretary's approach seems to be to drive these good,
high-paying, long-lasting jobs--hundreds of millions of dollars of
capital investment--overseas, all with no worry, so to speak, because
we will make up for those lost jobs somehow. Well, I think that is an
attitude problem. As we look at oil imports alone, now we are currently
importing over 54 percent of the total crude oil that we consume. We
are simply becoming more dependent on the Mideast. We are only perhaps
a terrorist act away from another oil crisis.
So, Mr. President, as we come back to the issue at hand, it is just
not about grazing; it is about utilization of the public land in a
responsible manner.
I think it is difficult for ranchers without this relief. As a former
banker, I think I can comment with some degree of accuracy on the
circumstances. It is difficult for ranchers to secure lending to
support their operations and to make improvements that are needed. And
more and more banks are going to be tougher and tougher before they
loan money to ranchers because of the seeming instability of this
industry and where it is going. That is brought about by the regulatory
malaise caused by the current administration's rangeland reform
regulations. I have been told by some of my banker friends that they
are denying loans because they believe livestock operations cannot be
conducted properly given the economic uncertainty in the industry. I
think that is why we need to act now to bring stability that the
ranchers need and that certainly the lenders require.
That is another reason I support the Domenici amendment. As for the
substance of the so-called substitute, the bill starts with the premise
that public lands should continue to be used for multiple use.
The No. 1 one finding on page 3 of the bill says: ``Multiple use, as
set forth in current law, has been and continues to be a guiding
principle in the management of public lands and national forests.''
Multiple use is a guiding principle for public lands management now,
and the bill says right up front that multiple use will continue to be
the guiding principle. It says that throughout the entire bill.
So any claim, Mr. President, that this bill establishes grazing as a
dominant use--that has been used time and time again in this debate--of
public lands is simply false, and it is inaccurate. This is one of the
many claims that we will probably hear over and over again in this
debate. But such claims simply have no basis in fact.
Next, I want to say how astounded I am that the Democratic substitute
to be offered on the other side of the aisle says absolutely nothing in
title I about protecting use, of and access to, Federal land for the
experience of hunting, fishing, recreation, watershed management, or
any other appropriate multiple-use activity. The question is, why? I
wonder if we are to conclude from our friends on the other side of the
aisle that they care only about these activities on national grasslands
and not about such activities on the BLM or Forest Service rangelands.
I hope that some of my colleagues will address that because I think it
is a legitimate criticism.
Next, Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how compatible the
Domenici bill will be with the environment. The bill states as its
first objective the promotion of healthy, sustained rangeland. Another
objective is to ``maintain and improve conditions of repairing areas
which are critical to wildlife habitat and water quality.''
The Domenici substitute also calls for the establishment of State or
regional standards and guidelines for addressing rangeland conditions;
consideration of the environmental effects of grazing in accordance
with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act; and approval of
cooperative agreements and coordinated resource management practices
for conservation purposes.
Mr. President, all of these provisions add up to a very, very serious
effort to protect the public rangelands and to improve their conditions
where such improvements are needed.
So, Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot of criticism in this
debate about public participation in the grazing management process.
But, in my view, there are far more opportunities for public
participation and a broader role for the so-called affected interests
in the Domenici substitute than in the substitute which we will see
from the other side.
Under the Domenici substitute, for example, for the first time the
public will be given the opportunity to comment on reports by the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture summarizing
range-monitoring data. This is a positive improvement and one that will
not be provided in the substitute from our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle.
What the Domenici substitute does not do, Mr. President, is allow
out-of-State antipublic lands, antigrazing activists to simply
micromanage and second-guess every single decision regarding grazing
and what happens on each individual grazing allotment for the price of
a 32-cent stamp, which, as you and I know, is possible now.
Appropriate public participation in public land management decisions
is healthy. It is constructive. We do not have a problem with that. We
welcome appropriate public participation.
Finally, Mr. President, it is our hope that the Domenici substitute
ends the bureaucratic nightmare that livestock producers have been
living because of widely differing rules and regulations of not one,
but two Federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service. The Domenici bill would require coordination of
livestock administration between these two agencies. It would require
them to issue regulations simultaneously to address grazing on public
lands.
Livestock producers need some degree of certainty. They need
regulatory stability. We believe, Mr. President, that the Domenici
substitute will provide that certainty and that stability.
I believe Senate bill 1459, as proposed to be amended by the Domenici
substitute, will allow family ranchers to continue enjoying the
lifestyle they have enjoyed for generations. It is hard work. It is low
pay and long hours. If you ask any one of the small family livestock
operators, he or she will tell you that they would not want to do
anything else or anything any differently. Are we going to take that
away from them? I hope not.
We need to provide the proper regulatory climate to allow the family
ranchers to continue to earn their living on public rangelands. We need
to continue to allow the livestock industry to make its vital
contribution to the rural economy of the West. We need to provide
incentives for the livestock operator to keep caring about the land
that he or she lives on. Yes; ranchers are environmentalists, too. They
hunt, they fish, and they recreate. They enjoy the outdoors on the
lands in their areas just like others. The only difference is they know
better how to take care of the land and how to preserve it. They have a
vested interest in continuing to care about those rangelands because
their rangelands are also their hunting grounds and their fishing
streams.
Mr. President, the Domenici substitute is good for the environment.
It is good for the family. It is good for the rural western economy.
And it is basically good public policy.
I urge my colleagues to support the Domenici substitute, Senate bill
1459.
I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of that
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would suggest that those who cannot
support this legislation for whatever reason, even though we have, in
my opinion, bent over backward to accommodate the interests of our
western colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are making their
decisions, unfortunately, not on the merits of the bill but rather on
the basis of a desire to make nonuse of the public lands the dominant
use. Think about that, Mr. President. We are at a crossroads not only
with this grazing bill but also with the administration's public lands
and natural resource policy. We can either choose between Secretary
Babbitt's rangeland reform, the 1994 regulations, which will hasten the
end of livestock grazing on public land, or we can choose an approach
that makes significant improvements in the way livestock grazing is
managed while allowing ranchers to continue to graze cattle and sheep
on public land.
[[Page S2417]]
The same choice is true for other public land use issues. We can
either ship our jobs, ship our capital, our mineral receipts, and our
tax revenues overseas, or we can keep them here and allow responsible
use of our public lands for resource development activities and other
multiple-use purposes and to benefit, obviously, Americans who are
looking for and need those jobs.
The choice is clear on this one. I am going to side with the ranchers
over the elitists. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, that concludes my statement.
____________________