[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.

                          ____________________