[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2591-S2622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PUBLIC RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate, S. 1459, the 
Public Rangelands Management Act, with 75 minutes equally divided on 
the Bumpers amendment.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:

       Domenici amendment No. 3555, in the nature of a substitute.
       Bumpers modified amendment No. 3556 (to amendment No. 
     3555), to maintain the current formula used to calculate 
     grazing fees for small ranchers with 2,000 animal unit months 
     [AUM's] or less, with certain minimum fees, and establish a 
     separate grazing fee for large ranchers with more than 2000 
     AUMs.


                    Amendment No. 3556, as Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Bumpers is here. Might I inquire 
of Senator Bumpers, we do not need our entire 37 minutes. Is there any 
chance, in the interest of moving the Senate's business along, you 
might get by with a little less of your time so that we could vote a 
little earlier?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am quite sure we will not use our all of our time, 
either. We will be happy to yield the balance of such time. I only know 
of two people on this side, Senator Jeffords and I, who will be 
speaking.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you. Mr. President, on this side, might I say in 
earshot of staff and administrative assistants, that some Republican 
Senators have indicated they want to speak on this very amendment. 
Senator Campbell has indicated, the distinguished Senator from the 
State of Colorado; I think Senator Craig has indicated that he would 
like to speak; and perhaps a couple of others. Let me put the word out, 
we are trying very hard to move this bill along and use as little time 
on the amendments as possible. If you could get hold of me, perhaps I 
could set up a time, and perhaps we could agree at a certain time that 
Senator Campbell will speak for 8 or 9 minutes. If we can work to 
arrange that, I will not have to be here anxiously wondering who is 
coming because they will have a time set.

  Mr. President, let me suggest that this amendment with reference to 
grazing fees, if it were adopted and if it becomes law, would put out 
of business, in this Senator's opinion, hundreds and hundreds of small 
ranches and ranching families that have been the backbone of this kind 
of activity for a long time. Let me yield myself 5 minutes and see if I 
can make the case for that, and then I will yield back to Senator 
Bumpers.
  Mr. President, first of all, this amendment attempts to set up a two-
tier fee system. That two-tier system that is established here, the 
distinguished Senator indicates it is only going to have an impact on 
the very large ranches. I want to get to that in a moment to try to 
make sure that the Senate understands that all grazing permits do not 
have the same tenure. Some are for 3 months, some are for 5 months 
during the year. In a State like New Mexico, parts of Arizona, parts of 
California, and parts of a few of the other States that have year-long 
grazing.
  Some private property, small portion of State property, and Federal 
leases make up a ranching unit in a State like mine. We are called 
water-based States. Essentially, the water and everything is on that 
unit. So you do not move the cattle off to public property for part of 
the year. The livestock are there all the time.
  As a consequence, when the distinguished Senator who had in mind that 
this would be just for very, very large ranches, those numbers did not 
take into consideration a ranch in New Mexico, Arizona, or California, 
that had 12-month-a-year permits and was substantially--that is, a lot 
of the property--federally controlled. I will come back to that point 
when I get the actual numbers.
  Having laid the foundation to establish this fact that it will apply 
to small ranches, not large ranches, that are on a 12-month basis and 
have a lot of public domain, let me tell you what we try to do in the 
bill. We attempt to increase the grazing fee 37-percent. We intend it 
go up to $1.85. This is a 37-percent increase. Now, Mr. President, in 
addition to a 37 percent increase, we are aware of the fact that you 
cannot have ranching units continue to operate, and have prices go 
arbitrarily up in total disregard for the market, based upon what the 
State might charge for completely different land. Ours is based upon 
the 3-year rolling average of the gross value of the commodity, which 
takes into account such things,

[[Page S2592]]

Mr. President, as this year where cattle prices have come down 30 
percent to 35 percent. It is obvious you should not be increasing fees. 
You could not on private land. The market would not bear that. You 
should not increase it arbitrarily under a formula when the gross value 
of the product is coming down.
  I stress gross value. Senator Bumpers, in the mining reform debate, 
has always wanted gross value. We use gross value.
  In addition, we use it on figuring out the interest component, so we 
get a market movement, the 10-year average of the 6-month Treasury 
bills, so that we have a very good way to establish stability and let 
the leases go up, but not go up in total disregard to the market.
  Now, Mr. President, under the Bumpers proposal, the permits could be 
as much as $3 per animal unit per month up to $10 per month. I must say 
to the Senate, not even Secretary Babbitt, in his wildest dreams about 
what we should charge, had anything like $5, $6, $7, or $10, which some 
of the permits would be worth under the Bumpers proposal. And he had 
$4.60 once and came off that because everybody told him it was 
absolutely ludicrous and the ranchers would go broke.
  Incidentally, the Department of Interior and Secretary Babbitt never 
supported, and to this day do not support, having two different fee 
schedules, depending upon the size of the ranch and the number of units 
and the number of cattle you graze, for a lot of reasons. It is 
arbitrary. It was said it will not work, and obviously there are many 
other reasons.
  I note that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas would suggest 
that because States have a different fee schedule, we should follow 
them. I want to make three or four points about that. First, Senators 
must note that many of the State leases are exclusive leases. That 
means the only thing you can do on them is graze. From the very 
beginning, the Federal leases are not exclusive. They must be used for 
multiple purposes. That is a very different concept of what you can use 
it for. If you can only use it for that, to the exclusion of all the 
other uses, obviously, it would be worth more.
  Likewise, many States have very few regulations, as compared to the 
Federal Government, making it more attractive for the rancher. Last but 
not least, for the most part, the State lands are a very small portion 
of a unit of ranching. The Federal land is more often a very large part 
of that unit. And so, to be able to exist, you have to have stability 
on that Federal side, and you have to have something that is reasonably 
consistent with a formula that acts upon the price of the commodity, 
such as ours.
  I will put in the Record that under the amendment which purports to 
save small ranches, and charge large ranches a lot more--I will give 
you just two numbers. If 95 percent of a unit is Federal land--and 
there are a number of those--in the State of New Mexico, the maximum 
number of cows that you can have on this ranch to get into the lower-
tier price is 176--not 500, not 1,000, but 176. The ranching unit could 
be between 50 and 95 percent Federal land, and the number of head would 
be between 334 and 176.
  Mr. President, this just shows when you try to establish these 
arbitrary formulas, you have to find out really everything that is 
involved.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   PERCENTAGE OF NEW MEXICO RANCHES WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF RELIANCE ON  
                    FEDERAL LAND FOR GRAZING CAPACITY                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   0-5       5-50       50-95      >95  
   Reliance on Federal land      percent    percent    percent   percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all ranches in New                                           
 Mexico.......................        49          21        26         5
Max. number of cows for small                                           
 rancher exemption to apply...    >3,340   3,340-334   334-176   176-167
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Torell et al. (1992).                                      

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment will not, as it purports 
to, have any positive effect on small ranchers staying in business in 
New Mexico and in the other States of the Union. There is a lot more to 
say, but distinguished Senators are here on our side. I have used 8 
minutes, which means we have about 25 minutes left.
  Senator Campbell, how much time would you like?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Wyoming needs 10 minutes. As soon as 
Senator Bumpers yields the floor--does he want to speak now? We can 
yield to Senator Bumpers for 8 or 10 minutes and come back and have 
them use their time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator yielding the floor?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was trying to get an agreement so we would know who 
was speaking on our side.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not have a schedule in mind. I do not have a 
certain length of time that I am going to speak. I will yield myself 
such time as I will use.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On our side, when one of our Senators is able to get 
the floor, we have agreed that Senator Campbell will speak for 10 
minutes, and the Senator from Wyoming will speak for 10 minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who yields time?
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I stepped on the floor a few 
minutes ago, something happened. I have a friend that came here from 
Colorado. He ranches out there. He was teasing me, and he said, ``What 
is Congress' only Indian doing in here defending the cowboys?'' I have 
to tell you, Mr. President, I had a good laugh with him, but this is 
not about cowboys and Indians. This is about real families. Some happen 
to be Indians, who are cowboys, by the way.
  Anybody who knows the ranch lifestyle out West knows that ranchers 
grew up with guns. They learn how to use them from childhood, and they 
get good with them. They use them for protection and for hunting. I 
guess the first thing they learn about guns is that you try to hit what 
you aim at. I have to tell you, I admire my colleague from Arkansas 
and, certainly, Senator Jeffords, too, but they are not going to hit 
what they are aiming at.
  As I understand both of their amendments, it is like hunting a wolf 
that gets in your lambs or your calves with a shotgun. You may get the 
wolf, but with a scatter-gun approach, you get everything else, too.
  I believe Senator Bumpers' amendment and Senator Jeffords', too, is 
really aimed at corporate freeloaders. But by putting everybody in the 
same category, it is certainly going to hit ranchers that are full-time 
ranchers, with no other income except ranching. I think that is a very 
sad mistake. I think they should both be opposed. To put them in the 
same category is simply not fair.
  They are trying to define, as I understand both amendments, the 
difference between real ranchers and nonranchers. But the approach they 
have taken puts the large ranchers and the small ranchers in the same 
category as the nonranchers. And so when we hear the debate, they often 
use Hewlett-Packard, Simplot, Anheuser-Busch, and many of the big 
corporations who, somehow, in the past, have gotten some of the permits 
and, in fact, probably use them as tax writeoffs or some kind of a tax 
structure in order to get tax breaks from the products they are 
producing. But they are not what we call ``real ranchers.'' I do not 
think anybody here from the West is trying to defend people who have 
used the ranching industry for a tax writeoff. What we are trying to 
defend and protect are the real ranchers, the family ranchers.
  There was some reference made to ranchers who have made it big. 
Clearly, some ranchers have made some money. As Senator Gramm, our 
friend from Texas, said, ``Welcome to America.'' What is wrong with 
that if they made it by honest labor, made the ranch grow, and have 
weathered storms, drought, wolves, cats, and everything, and they 
managed to make a little more money and invest in something else or buy 
some more land? What in the world is wrong with that in this country? 
Yet, when they succeed, they are sort of put in the category of preying 
on the American public and somehow taking advantage of the American 
public because they have succeeded.
  I think that also is not only unfair but it is wrong. This shotgun 
approach

[[Page S2593]]

very clearly of putting the ranchers in the same category as those 
people who use ranching as a tax break is simply wrong to do.
  Senator Bumpers said yesterday--I mentioned it last night --that we 
should watch where the money goes. And I have to tell you, I live among 
family ranchers. I know where the money goes. It goes to Main Street by 
and large--to the hardware stores, to the movie theaters, to the used 
car lots, to the school districts through property taxes, to the fire 
district, and to every other special district you can imagine. Very 
little goes to recreational pursuits. If they have any money left 
usually it is put back into the herd, or into the land, or some way to 
improve their own family lot. They do not, I know, take vacations to 
Nice, France, or to Montserrat, or somewhere else like the corporate 
people do that the Senator is aiming to get.
  So I think both of these amendments are probably going to miss the 
target and get the wrong people.
  We also dealt a little bit last night with the question about fair 
market value. And the accusation, of course, is that ranchers on public 
lands are not paying a fair market value because, if you compare it 
with what the rancher is paying on private lands, it is much lower. 
That is right. It is probably much lower.
  We have a small ranch. And we sometimes let other ranchers rent some 
of our pasture. And I know there is a difference. But there is also a 
difference in the amount of work they have to put up with on private 
land, whether it is rotating the fields, whether it is irrigation, or a 
lot of other things that come into play that make the difference.
  To try to charge the person on public lands the same amount I frankly 
just think would simply run a lot of them out of business, and it 
simply will not work. I often compare that question of fair market 
value with some of the other things that we have out West. I live near 
Durango, CO. Durango is near a world famous archaeological site called 
Mesa Verde, a cliff dwelling that everybody in this country knows 
about. It is run by the National Park Service. If you go to the cliff 
dwellings it costs you $3--as I recall from the last time I went--to go 
in, for an adult to get really a great historic cultural experience. 
You can stay in there for half a day, or all day, for that $3.
  Just down the road apiece in downtown Durango is another cultural and 
historic activity. It is in private ownership. It is the old train 
called ``The Durango to Silverton Train.'' It has been there 100 years. 
That old train carries about 250,000 people every year, and you get a 
marvelous western experience. But it costs you about $30 to go on that 
train. If you say that we are not getting fair market value from the 
things that are being done on public land, maybe we ought to raise the 
park fee to $30 to compare it with the other experiences that people 
are getting a few miles away on the train. If you said that to the 
people in this audience, or to the people watching the proceedings 
today, most of them would tell you that you are nuts. They simply will 
not pay it.
  Yesterday, I mentioned the zoo in Denver. It cost $6 when you go to 
the zoo. You see wild animals. They are caged but they are basically 
wild, whether it is deer, or elk, or bear, or wolves. Yet, when you go 
into the national forests you can often see those same animals for 
free. Maybe we ought to charge everybody that goes in the forests $6 so 
we get a fair market value for viewing those animals as they get when 
they go to the zoo.
  I could go on and on about the difference it would cost. Go cut a 
Christmas tree. You need a $5 permit from the Forest Service. But it 
cost $5 per foot if you go downtown. If you suggested to people that we 
are going to charge $5 a foot when they go into the forest to cut a 
Christmas tree, you would have a rebellion on your hands.
  So I think the whole discussion of fair market value simply does not 
wash.
  So I want to come in and restate my opinion on this. I think we ought 
to leave this bill alone. It has been worked on for virtually years. I 
have been involved in it myself for over a decade. Senator Domenici has 
taken a leadership role in bringing to the floor of the Senate what I 
think is about as good a balance as we could put together.
  I hope my colleagues will resist any attempt to change that and 
oppose both the Bumpers amendment and the Jeffords amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  First, I want to point out that while this is commonly referred to as 
a western issue, it is also a national issue. The 270 million acres of 
land that people control to graze cattle in the United States belong to 
the taxpayers of America. The public land may be located in Wyoming. It 
may also be located in Wyoming, Idaho, or Nevada. However, it is owned 
by the taxpayers. And 100 United States Senators have a solemn duty to 
protect the taxpayers' interests.
  Unhappily, these so-called ``western issues'' somehow or other fall 
into the category of what my mother used to say as ``Everybody's 
business is nobody's business.'' Unless you have a significant number 
of grazing permits in your State, you do not immerse yourself into 
these kind of issues.
  Why am I involved in it? No. 1, I sit on the committee from whence 
the Domenici bill was reported out. No. 2, I am an unabashed 
environmentalist and I am concerned about the conditions of the 
rangeland. Third, and above all, I am totally committed to fairness.
  Yesterday afternoon, speaking on this amendment, I pointed out that 
when I first discovered that the U.S. Government was selling its land 
for $2.50 an acre for miners to mine gold and silver, I was utterly 
awestruck and did not believe it. I found out that it was indeed true. 
That law is still on the books. The mining law was originally intended 
to encourage people to go west and help small mom- and pop-mining 
operations succeed.
  As I delved into the mining law, I discovered that it ain't mom and 
pop at all. Who is it? Who is mining the billions and billions and 
billions of dollars worth of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium off 
of Federal lands? It ``ain't'' mom and pop. It is Bannister Resources, 
the biggest gold company in the world, who bought the gold for $2.50 an 
acre. They are still doing it. It is Newmont Mining Co., one of the 
biggest gold producers in the world. It is Crown Butte, and the list 
goes on. It is not mom and pop. It is the biggest corporations--not in 
America but in the world--who are mining not only gold but mining the 
U.S. Treasury which also happens to belong to the taxpayers of America.
  So when I began studying the grazing issue I found that, No. 1, the 
amount of money involved is infinitesimal. It is about $2 billion worth 
of gold that is being mined off Federal land every year, for which we 
do not get a dime--$2 billion worth. All of the 22,000 grazing permits 
in this Nation only produce $25 million. I would be willing to forsake 
all of the grazing fees except for just the element of fairness. It is 
not that much money. But it is not fair.
  So what is my amendment about? I invite you to look at a chart.
  We permit our public rangelands to people on the basis of what we 
call an AUM. That is an ``animal unit month.'' Right now we receive 
$1.35 per AUM for every cow, or horse, or five sheep that graze on 
Federal lands under these permits. The fee was $1.85 in 1986. It is 
$1.35 now.
  So who are these people that have the permits--these little mom and 
pop ranchers you have been hearing about?
  Here they are. Here are the 91 percent of the small ranchers my 
colleagues on the other side say they want to protect. Count me in, Mr. 
President. I do, too. My amendment would cost less by the year 2005 
than the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico would cost, so do not 
talk to me about who is being fair to small ranchers. These 91 percent 
of the permittees control only 40 percent of the animal unit months. 
They are not hurt under my amendment. They should have no squawk at 
all. Do not shed any tears for them because of my amendment.
  What else does my amendment do? Look at the right-hand side of that 
chart. Mr. President, 60 percent--60 percent--of the animal unit months 
are held by this 9 percent. Nine percent of the permittees own 60 
percent of the AUM's. If you want to think of it in

[[Page S2594]]

pure terms of acreage, 2 percent of the permittees own 50 percent of 
the 270 million acres.
  Is that fair? You say yes. Let me add something else to the equation 
then. Who is that 9 percent of the permittees? There they are. This is 
just a smattering, just a small list. Anheuser-Busch, the 80th biggest 
corporation in America. In 1994, they were on Forbes list as the 80th. 
Anheuser-Busch has 4 permits controlling more than 8,000 AUM's. My 
amendment only raises the fees on people who have more than 2,000 
AUM's. Yes, my amendment would affect Anheuser-Busch. My amendment 
would affect Newmont Mining Co,, the biggest gold company in this 
country. Newmont Mining Co. controls 12,000 AUM's. Small mom and pop 
operation. Poor little old rancher out there struggling to survive. 
Biggest gold company in the United States.
  Who else? Hewlett-Packard. Maybe you have one of their computers in 
your home. Poor little old rancher Hewlett-Packard, we have got to 
protect them. Hewlett-Packard runs cattle on only 100,000 acres of 
public rangelands. They run cattle on those public rangelands because 
those lands adjoin their ranch.
  What are we doing here? It is sickening. Here is a man--one Senator 
rose in the Chamber yesterday and said he is a wonderful man, a very 
engaging person, a good citizen. I do not know him. I am sure people 
who know him like him a lot--an 85-year-old billionaire, not a small 
mom and pop rancher, a billionaire, J.R. Simplot, from the State of 
Idaho. What does he have? Well, he is not all that big. He only has 
50,000 AUM's. Mom and pop rancher?
  Here is a Japanese company. They control 6,000 AUM's on 40,000 acres. 
You look at those. The list goes on and on. I have another list here. I 
am not going to bore you with all of them. The biggest corporations of 
the United States of America mining the U.S. Treasury, and who can 
blame them as long as they know this body is not going to do anything 
about it.
  A Senator who is no longer here, a Republican Senator, whom I admired 
very much, when I first took on the mining issue I walked over to him, 
and I said, ``I need a Republican colleague to cosponsor this bill if 
we are going to change the mining laws of this country.'' I explained 
to him how the Department of the Interior actually issued deeds to 
people for $2.50 an acre that had billions of dollars worth of gold 
under it. I said, ``All you have to do is put up 4 stakes for every 
acre you want to claim. If you find gold underneath, it is yours for 
$2.50 an acre. How about joining me in this crusade?'' He said, ``I'd 
like to, but I think I will go to Nevada and start staking claims.'' At 
least he was honest about it. He was being facetious, of course,
  All we are saying in our amendment is that Anheuser-Busch and 
Hewlett-Packard and people like that are going to have to pay an 
average of what you would pay if you were renting State lands. The 
States cannot afford to give away the public domain like we do. They do 
not own the public domain. They own some land. The State of Arkansas 
owns some of its lands. Your respective States own some of the lands 
there, too. If those little mom and pop operators go to the State of 
Montana or the State of Wyoming and say, ``I would like to lease some 
of this land for $1.35,'' they would laugh them out of the State 
capital building.
  The Senator from Colorado just left the floor. You want a permit in 
Colorado? Not for $1.35 per AUM but $6.50. They are not stupid. Do you 
know what else? There is a line of people waiting for a permit in 
Colorado.
  Then look at Wyoming. Go into Cheyenne and say, ``I would like a 
permit on some State lands to graze some cattle.'' No. 1, they would 
say, ``We are sorry; we do not have any land at the moment, but if we 
did it would cost you $3.50 an AUM,'' not $1.35 like ``Uncle Sucker'' 
gets. And in Montana, the home of my distinguished good friend across 
the floor, $4.05.
  Our amendment says to that 9 percent, mostly America's biggest 
corporations, we would rather you leave the land and make it available 
to small people to make a living, but if you insist on keeping it, we 
want you to at least pay the weighted average for permits that the 
State lets in the State where your land is located. Who can quarrel 
about that?
  Mr. President, I will close by just simply saying two things. You 
know who my amendment affects? Ten percent, 10 percent of the 
permittees, and they are the biggies. Only one State, Nevada, would 
have more than 10 percent of its permittees covered by my amendment. I 
did not know until I looked this over.
  For the interest of my colleagues who may or may not be in the 
Chamber but who I hope are listening, here is how your State would be 
affected: Arizona, 10 percent; California, 8 percent; Colorado, 5 
percent; Idaho, 7 percent; Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 2 
percent; Nevada, 39 percent; New Mexico, 10 percent; Oregon, 
Washington, 8 percent; Utah, 10 percent; Wyoming, 9 percent.
  Is it any wonder people think campaign contributions play a role in 
what happens around here? There is no justification for allowing this 
to happen. Since 1981, the grazing fee for cattle grazing on private 
lands has gone from $7.88 to $11.20 per AUM. The fee on State lands has 
increased from $3.22 to $5.58, and Federal grazing fees in real dollars 
have gone from $2.31 to $1.61, to this year's $1.35.
  I say to my colleagues, I would like to appeal not only to your sense 
of fairness but to your sense of compassion. At a time when 100 
Senators committed to a balanced budget and we are cutting education, 
we are cutting environmental funds and housing funds and school lunches 
and Medicaid and Medicare, and everything that is necessary to give 
people at least a fighting chance at a piece of the action, a piece of 
the rock, we allow things like this to go on. It is unconscionable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute, and I want to 
yield to my colleague from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I guess I am sorry the Senator has 
suggested anyone who does not agree with him is a victim of 
contributions. I think that is not a very appropriate remark.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, I want to apologize for that remark. I am 
sorry. There is a certain personal thing in that, and I regret it. I 
regret I said it. I am sorry.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are a couple of things I think are 
important here. One is the predication of this idea. This amendment is 
based on the idea that there is a subsidy here.
  Yesterday I reported on the Pepperdine University study, an unbiased 
study that indicates very clearly this is not a subsidy. If you come 
from this area, where we have 8 inches of rain instead of 40, you will 
find that this is not a subsidy and Pepperdine University says that 
Montana ranchers--this was in Montana--who rely on Federal lands do not 
have a competitive advantage over those who do not.
  Second, it seems to me we enter here into a great deal of class 
warfare which I think is unnecessary. Yesterday, the Rock Springs 
Grazing Association was mentioned as one of these corporate robbers. 
Let me tell you what the Rock Springs Grazing Association is. It was 
started in 1909 in southwestern Wyoming to stop overgrazing which was 
taking place in the Red Desert, which, by the way, is the largest 
grazing district in the whole BLM in this country. The association 
breaks down roughly this way: 550,000 deeded acres are in here. This is 
what is called the checkerboard; 450,000 are leased from private and 
900,000 are Federal permits in the checkerboard. They are all 
intermixed. There is no fencing. You cannot use one from the other. 
There are 11,000 there.
  What is the association? It is 64 shareholders, 64 family ranchers, 
that is who it is. It is not a corporation. It is 64 family ranchers 
that use that.
  So I think, really, when we take a look at this thing, as I said 
yesterday, this is a unique circumstance. It is very easy to come from 
somewhere else and say, ``This is the way it is at home.'' Well, this 
is not home. This is a unique aspect where your State is 80 percent 
owned by the Federal Government. We do have some feeling about it. It 
is our economic future.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page S2595]]

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. Let us 
just talk about it from an environmental standpoint.
  Basically, what the amendment of my friends from Arkansas and Vermont 
does, or the amendments do, is throws us right back into this old class 
warfare again, the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots.'' Nobody is asking 
for that kind of situation.
  There is no doubt in my mind, my friend from Arkansas is a dedicated 
and a wild environmentalist. Every figure that we can give you is 
backed up by facts, that there is more wildlife on public lands now 
than ever in the history of this country. When you take off grazing 
management--we cannot tell the antelope not to graze the same time the 
cattle do, or the deer, or the elk. They all have the same forage. They 
all get along on the same range. That is why we have more of them now.
  But when the management of that resource goes away, do you know what 
goes away? Water. And, folks, nothing living goes out there in that 
country without water. Strictly from an environmental standpoint, pull 
all the cattle off, get all the people out of there, and watch that 
range turn into the way it was at the turn of the century, with nothing 
on it--no life, no water. Wind erosion is rampant. That is what we get 
into.

  If these amendments prevail, the impact it has on cooperative--as my 
friend from Wyoming said. These things sound big, but they are a bunch 
of little folks who throw together enough to run their cattle and their 
sheep. Rock Springs, WY is a perfect example.
  Another thing, we have two cooperative agreements, in Fleece Creek 
and Wall Creek. This is where environmental groups, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife, Montana Fish and Wildlife, the Stock Growers, BLM, and the 
Forest Service, all got together and made out a grazing pattern and 
developed a plan, to where they can graze and where they cannot graze 
on what part of the year.
  Do you know what? It is working. It is working on the ground. It is 
working because local groups got together and solved a problem, instead 
of going down this road of throwing everything back into the courts 
again, into an adversarial environment in which we have to do business, 
because it cracks up communities both within and from without.
  I know there are folks around here, in the sound of my voice, who say 
as soon as some outsider comes into our town and tries to make a 
decision for us, what happens? Polarization.
  Montana has three fees. There are different fees for different 
Federal lands, State lands--but, you know, there is a lot of difference 
in the lands, the carrying capacity, what they will produce, where they 
are, access. There is a multitude of factors that go into it before you 
set a rental. Private lands are pretty accessible. You have somebody 
going up those gravel roads every day. Some of these Federal lands you 
cannot even get to unless you are on horseback, and that is another 
cost that has to go into the grazing fees.
  So there is the difference. If I take an acre out of Arkansas, maybe 
I want to give the same price for an acre in southeast Arkansas as I do 
for an acre in northwest Arkansas. Are they the same? Will they produce 
the same, just because it is designated a State land? I do not think 
so.
  The same is true out where we live, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. So, from an environmental standpoint, this is an 
antienvironmental vote if you take everything into consideration, and I 
ask for its defeat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arkansas has 
yielded me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields to the Senator from 
Vermont?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield such time as he may wish to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have had 
these issues raised. I have been here, now--this is my 8th year. I do 
not know how many times we have had this issue raised.
  I remember when I first raised these issues in the early 1990's, I 
learned a lot about what the situation was in the West. In fact, I even 
traveled out to Wyoming and met with ranchers and saw the land and 
examined the situation. At that time there were assurances from those 
who were out there saying, ``Yes, we know we have to raise the grazing 
fees. We know that they are too low. We know that it is not fair, 
relative to those who graze on private lands and State lands.''
  What has happened since that time? Have the rates gone up? Have they 
made an effort to try to remove the inequities between these beef 
producers and other beef producers who are grazing on State lands and 
private lands? No. The fee has gone down, whereas, the private land 
fees have gone up. The State land fees have gone up; the fees on the 
Federal lands have gone down.
  I also just point out for those who wonder what happened between the 
time I offered this amendment yesterday and now--I want to thank 
Senator Bumpers and Senator Domenici for incorporating my second-degree 
amendment into the original Bumpers amendment--it is that yesterday I 
had second-degreed the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. They 
agreed that my concept of trying to help the small farmers out was a 
valid one and ought to be adopted. So that was done. So you have now 
the Bumpers-Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Does the Senator recognize that under this bill the rate 
goes up 40 percent, under the bill as Senator Domenici presents it?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That may be. But in the interim it has gone down, so 
you have not gotten to ground zero yet.
  Mr. THOMAS. This bill brings it up 40 percent.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. But 40 percent of what, though? That is the problem.
  Mr. THOMAS. Higher than yours.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. But a lot lower than it should have been relative to 
what it has been, is my point. In fact, mine is low, if you consider 
that my amendment is to help the small farmers out. So in the sense 
that you want to help out the small farmer, as I do, then perhaps you 
would want to vote for this amendment so that you can improve that 
aspect of the amendment.
  I do not have a problem with that, because that is not my problem. My 
problem is with giving a huge subsidy, which would happen without my 
amendment, to the corporate entities and the large owners that are 
going to get a huge benefit without any need or any rationale for it.
  The Senator from Arkansas has gone through, and I went through 
yesterday, the people that are going to be benefited by this. 
Yesterday, you heard on the floor a great deal about the merits and 
detractions of the underlying bill. Whether or not we agree on the 
merits of the bill, I think the majority of this body can agree on the 
merits of this amendment, which is now included in the amendment you 
will be voting on, that is, the Bumpers amendment.
  My amendment is very simple. It protects 90 percent of the ranchers. 
So, I do not understand why anyone can disagree with it. Small 
ranchers, who embody the history of the West, are going to get a 
benefit better than the underlying bill. But it also rectifies an 
ongoing injustice relative to the large users of the AUM's.
  For 9 percent of the ranchers, the large, wealthy corporate ranchers 
that consume over 60 percent of the total AUM's--over 60 percent of the 
total AUM's--who forage on public land, this amendment will simply have 
them pay the same price--the same price--that they would pay if it were 
State lands, that the rancher using the rangeland next to them are 
currently paying to the States. Now, how in the world can that be 
inequitable, wrong or inappropriate to say that those on Federal lands 
who are huge corporate owners should not pay the same as they are 
paying on the State lands?

  Organizations who have been calling for sound spending in the 
balanced budget, such as the Cato Institute--that is a conservative 
organization--believe it is time to change the fee structure. I was 
told several years ago,

[[Page S2596]]

``Yeah, we're going to change the fee structure.'' The Cato Institute 
has been promoting grazing fee reform for years, highlighting the need 
to adjust needs to reflect their true value so you would not have that 
inequity between those that are grazing on State lands and those that 
are grazing on private lands and the rest of the beef farmers of this 
country.
  I spoke to this issue yesterday, as did my colleague from Arkansas, 
quite thoroughly, I might add. I want to reiterate that this amendment 
not only makes good budget sense, but it makes good common sense. There 
is no reason why a large rancher on Federal land should be paying up to 
five times less to use what is basically the same land that his 
neighbor is grazing just because he is sending his check to Washington 
instead of to the State capital.
  The point has been made that there are a lot of wild animals grazing 
on this. There are a lot of wild animals grazing on the State lands and 
a lot of wild animals grazing on the private lands. So there is no 
inequity to be rationalized out by giving a lower fee on the Federal 
lands.
  But there are other benefits of this amendment I want to discuss 
today. Farmer protection, land stewardship, and local input.
  First, as I mentioned, this bill protects the small rancher by 
keeping the grazing fee he or she pays low. We are all aware of the 
plummeting beef prices and the economic hardships facing these 
ranchers. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility for the 
success of small ranchers. But I tell you, my dairy producers, they do 
not get a higher milk price when the price of grain goes up. No way. 
But they are trying to say now, when the price of the beef goes down, 
they should allow the price of the rangeland to go down. That does not 
happen to those on State lands or private lands.
  Not only by keeping their fee low for the small farmers, but by 
raising additional revenue that we could return to the local 
governments--this money would go back to the local governments for 
range improvements, most of it--by increasing the fee to the large 
ranchers, additional revenue will come into the Range Betterment Fund, 
a program that has helped countless ranchers.
  Second, by addressing the large ranchers, this amendment will begin 
to reduce the significant proportion of the environmental degradation 
taking place on the public lands. Studies have shown that it is the 
large ranchers who are causing ecological degradation of the public 
lands. So the ones we are giving the most benefit to are the ones that 
are causing the most damage.
  Currently, the low Federal grazing fee encourages overstocking on 
Federal lands, which has been shown to be detrimental to the 
environment and the grazing lands. A comparison of the size of herds on 
Federal lands versus the average size on private and State lands shows 
that Federal lands bear a much higher number of large ranching 
operations than the other lands. Why? Of course; it is cheaper.
  Third, this amendment brings the Federal grazing program closer to 
the local level. In the past years, on numerous issues, we have heard 
from State and local government that they want greater participation in 
the decisionmaking. This amendment accommodates this request by saying 
the fee will be at the State level. My amendment will make the system 
more equitable and make it more responsive to local ranchers.

  Yesterday, Senator Domenici discussed how one program cannot fit all 
ranchers. But by leaving the fee schedule as it is in the Domenici 
bill, we are making one size fit all. This amendment will put more 
flexibility into the fee system. Large ranchers will be paying what 
their neighbors on State lands are paying, not what everyone else in 
the West is paying. As land costs and transportation costs, fee costs 
and beef prices in the State change, all things will be taken into 
consideration, and the State fee will change, and the Federal fee for 
large ranchers will also change.
  Again, in summary, let me emphasize how this amendment not only makes 
good balanced budget sense, but also good environmental and economic 
sense. Although this amendment is fairly simple in its concept, it 
builds upon many of the themes in Senator Domenici's bill. It protects 
the small rancher and promotes good land stewardship, and it brings the 
Federal grazing program closer to the local level. It is time we face 
this issue. We have been talking about it for years and years and years 
with promises of review and promises of change and promises otherwise. 
What has happened? Nothing has happened. The fee is going down again.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in my comments here on the floor, I will 
simply make two points: First, this has been described repeatedly as 
having something to do with balancing the budget. We are being told how 
many millions--by implication, billions--of dollars of corporate 
welfare are going to the huge ranchers because of the Domenici bill. I 
would like to put that in context, Mr. President.
  If the revenue projections of the Secretary's proposed raise in 
grazing fees are met, which I do not believe they will be, we will 
generate in increased revenue less money than it took us to put the 
subway in between the Capitol and the Hart Building. We are not talking 
about enough money to make any difference whatsoever in terms of the 
balanced budget circumstance. I repeat, Mr. President, it cost us more 
to renovate the subway cars running between the Capitol and the Hart 
Building than the administration will generate in increased fees if 
their projections are correct.
  I do not believe their projections are correct for this very reason. 
That is a tiny amount of money as far as the Federal Government is 
concerned. The amount of increased grazing fees is an enormous amount 
of money for those families who are living, literally, on the edge 
right now. They will be unable to pay the increased amount called for 
by the Secretary, so they will go out of business. We will not only not 
get the increases the Secretary is projecting, we will not get any 
money at all.
  I believe the Federal revenues will go down rather than up if the 
Domenici position is not maintained. I believe that we will see 
significant financial damage throughout all parts of the rural West. 
That is my first point.
  My second point, Mr. President, is illustrated with this photograph. 
Some of you may have seen the pictures that were in full-page ads in 
the New York Times and the Washington Post and other national 
publications in which this part of the land was shown in a photograph. 
The question was asked, whose public lands are they? The implication 
was that we were getting degradation on the lands. I have heard that 
again here--degradation on the lands.
  Well, I call your attention to the lower photograph. Maybe it is 
difficult to see across the Senate. It is very clear that the riparian 
areas in this part of rural Utah are substantially better off in the 
lower photograph, the more recent photograph, than they were in the 
first paragraph. What is the difference? The first photograph was taken 
before grazing was allowed in the area, before the cattle were allowed 
to get into the area, break up the hard crust of the land with their 
hooves, allow water to get below the ground surface, allow seeds that 
were in the air to take root and fertilize the ground with their urine 
and defecation. We see here lush, lush growth in the riparian area. We 
see a better environmental circumstance than we saw before the cattle 
were there.
  I wish every Member of this body could have been here last night when 
the senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] had a series of 
photographs showing 100 years' difference in the State of Wyoming. In 
every case, the environment was substantially better 100 years later 
because cattle had been in it.
  This is an environmental vote, Mr. President, and the proper 
environmental vote is to vote with Senator Domenici.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership shown by my colleague, 
Senator Domenici in bringing this legislation to the floor. I am 
pleased to join with many of my colleagues in support of this revised 
and significantly improved legislation.

[[Page S2597]]

  Grazing of livestock on western Federal lands has been increasingly 
and unfairly referred to as a subsidized form of welfare. Yet, the 
western livestock industry is key to preserving the social, economic, 
and cultural base of rural communities in the West. This lifestyle 
helped open the West to productive development and responsible 
stewardship. Grazing is a healthy way to sustain and utilize renewable 
resources.
  We are all familiar with the administration's highly controversial 
regulations, and the significant impact on the way grazing on public 
lands are to be managed. I believe these regulations pose a serious 
threat to the stability of the industry.
  The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management and the 
Agriculture Departments U.S. Forest Service manage 268 million acres, 
or 37 percent of the 720 million acres of public and private rangelands 
in the West. The State of Utah is 69 percent controlled by the Federal 
Government. We have 22 million acres of BLM lands and an additional 8 
million acres of Forest Service lands. Detractors of grazing speak of 
continued rangeland degradation, yet the professional range managers 
for these agencies have admitted that Federal rangelands are in the 
best condition they have been in this century. Great strides have been 
made in improving the range lands through the use of partnerships and 
promotion of good stewardship. Furthermore, through shared stewardship 
with the livestock industry and the general public, populations of 
wildlife are increasing and stabilizing, and water quality on Federal 
lands has improved significantly. I believe that S. 1459 will eliminate 
the controversy caused by the administration's grazing regulations and 
help mitigate the firestorm they caused in the West.
  I am as concerned about the public's right to be part of the planning 
and decisionmaking process as I am about the bureaucratic quagmire 
caused by frivolous appeals and protests. Our legislation provides for 
full public participation in the planning process, allows for protest 
by affected interests and encourages public involvement through the 
Resource Advisory Committees and the NEPA process. The general public 
has the opportunity to comment on actions and site specific NEPA 
documents, by attending scoping meetings, hearings, and by responding 
to requests for comments by the agencies.
  Since the BLM and U.S. Forest Service offer service to the same list 
of customers, often from the same building. This legislation would cut 
bureaucratic redtape and simplify the management of livestock grazing 
by simply managing all Federal land grazing by the same rules, 
regardless of jurisdiction. This makes it convenient for the permittee 
and/or lessee and greatly reduces conflict while reducing the costs of 
Federal land management.
  Grazing is only one of the many uses that occur on Federal lands. 
This legislation supports and strengthens the concepts of multiple use 
management, which is basic to the management strategies of both 
agencies. The privileges of all Americans to access and use these lands 
is protected. The investments made by the livestock operator in range 
improvements, which have significantly helped wildlife, are protected. 
Our legislation seeks to eliminate the on-going clash over water 
between State and Federal levels by simply recognizing each State's 
right to allocate and manage water in their jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation provides a vehicle for our 
professional Federal land managers to join with livestock men and women 
in managing our Federal rangelands. We can do this while protecting the 
rights and privileges of all Americans, enhancing wildlife and riparian 
values and maintaining the viability of the livestock industry in the 
West. Grazing on Federal lands is economically and socially important 
in my State and in the West. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation in the hope that common sense can once again prevail in 
Federal land management decisions.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a summary printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Summary

       State Land grazing fees can be higher because the states 
     are generally not shackled by the regulatory burden carried 
     by Federal Land management agencies.
       In some western states, because of the checkerboard effect, 
     state lands are managed by federal land managers by default.

                SIZE OF RANGELAND PERMITS, BLM NATIONALLY               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Number    Percent   Number of   Percent
                                   of     of total     AUM's    of total
                                 permits   permits  (millions)    AUM's 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<100 AUM's....................     8,600        45        1.6         12
>100-500 AUM's................     8,600        45        5.5         41
>500 AUM's....................     1,900        10        6.2         46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Very few of the ``large'' ranchers (over 2000 aums in 
     Bumpers amendment) are owned by major corporations such as 
     Turner Broadcasting or Prudential. However, many of the 
     family ranches in this category are incorporated for tax 
     purposes, thereby meeting the definition of ``corporate 
     ranches.''
       The majority of these ranches (over 2000 aums) are family 
     owned corporations and most make 100% of their income from 
     federal land grazing.
       Because their sole source of income is from federal lands 
     and tend to be heavy indebted, they are probably the most 
     susceptible to even moderate increases in fees.
       These ranchers tend to be the best stewards of BLM lands 
     because they live on the land, not in Los Angeles.
       These ranches tend to invest heavily in federal land 
     multiple use range improvements and generally have the lowest 
     management costs to the federal land managers.
       Bottom line: If they fail, there could be significant 
     ecological changes on federal lands, major range improvements 
     will not occur and costs to the federal government could 
     increase due to the higher cost associated with management of 
     numerous small permits.

  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Montana a moment ago discussed a 
large grazing association, individual ranchers, and he said that they 
would be considered somebody who had more than 2,000 AUM's.
  Senator, our bill specifically--specifically--takes care of that. 
Your association in Montana would be judged according to the AUM's of 
each individual member, not the association.
  No. 2, my good friend from Utah, and I have utmost respect for him, 
began his statement by saying that we talk about this amendment 
producing millions and billions in balancing the budget. I have said 
time and time again the amount of money in this would not wet a 
whistle. If my amendment passed, it might accidentally produce up to 
$13 million a year.
  But, Senator, I have also said the issue here is not money except in 
the context of fairness. It is not fair for us to have a law on the 
books under the guise of helping small ranchers make a living out West, 
and allowing the biggest corporations in America to slurp up that land 
and deprive the very people you say you want to defend from grazing 
permits.
  That is the ultimate fairness we are talking about. That is all that 
my amendment does. My amendment affects less--repeat, less--than 10 
percent of the 22,000 permittees in this country. Who are they? Need I 
repeat it? The biggest corporations in America, slurping up the lands 
that ought to be used by your small ranchers who need the land, who 
could make a living on it.
  Class warfare? Somebody used that term a moment ago. How foolish can 
you get? We are not talking about class warfare. We are talking about a 
basic, elemental fairness. Some day these issues are going to catch on 
with the American public. Right now, the American public does not have 
a clue about grazing fees.
  I might say they are beginning to hone in on these mining claims. 
That is getting to be a topic across the country. It has only taken 7 
years to raise the voters' awareness slightly on that issue. Not one 
single State except Nevada will suffer a raise in rates for more than 
10 percent of the permittees in that State. Montana and the Dakotas all 
combined, only 2 percent of their permittees.
  I hope that the Senators from Montana and from the Dakotas certainly 
would vote for my amendment because they would never know it passed out 
there.
  Let me just say, Senator Jeffords and I may not prevail, but it will 
be sort of like my fights with Betty Bumpers. Those I win are just not 
over. I plead with my colleagues to think very seriously about whether 
you want to go home, and on those rare occasions when somebody says, 
``Senator, how did you vote on the grazing fee bill,'' you will have a 
good answer. If

[[Page S2598]]

you vote against this amendment, you are going to have some tall 
explaining to do. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me tell the Senator from Arkansas how I am going 
to vote. I am going to vote against the Senator from Arkansas and his 
amendment and the amendment that he has modified. In doing that, I will 
vote for fairness and equity and balance in the sale of a publicly held 
resource, the public grass of the public land States of this Nation.
  What the Senator from Arkansas did not tell you is that he has never 
asked for a two-tiered rise in the sale of the trees of the Ozark's St. 
Francis forest. The reason is because he thinks it is fair that the 
largest timber companies in the world and the smallest man with a 
sawmill in his backyard ought to pay the same price for trees.
  The only thing the Senator from Arkansas has done, and I agree with 
him, is say the small mill operator ought to be given some advantage 
through small business set-asides. I think we have agreed with that 
over the years. But the tree he buys or that Boise Cascade buys is sold 
on the market at the same price.
  Now, when it comes to selling the grass of the public lands, that 
grass should be sold in a fair way. Those who are buying it ought to be 
able to purchase it in a fair way. Should we ask that a blade of grass 
bought by a small rancher be less in value than one bought by a large 
rancher? No. I think when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of 
this Senate--who took it as their responsibility this year to revise 
grazing law, grazing policy, and we did. I say to the Senator from 
Arkansas, we heard you. We heard the American people that public land 
grazing policy ought to be adjusted and changed.
  We introduced a bill earlier this year. It was not as pleasing to 
some as it ought to be. The Senator from New Mexico and I pulled that 
bill back, along with our colleague from Wyoming and other Western 
States, reviewed it, and reached out to a variety of public interest 
groups.
  They made 27 different recommendations, and we pooled those 
recommendations together. The legislation you have before you today 
does a variety of things, but one thing it does is it raises grazing 
fees. It puts in place a new formula. It brings about a fairness and 
equity that every permittee that is a rancher, large or small, who has 
grazing on public lands, agrees with, and that is that the fees ought 
to go up. But what I do not believe in--and I do not think the Senator 
from Arkansas wants to do it--is to establish class warfare in the 
selling of public resources for the public good.
  We do not say to rich people who go to the U.S. parks, ``Oh, I am 
sorry, you are a millionaire, so you have to pay $2 more to use the 
campground.'' Maybe we should. Maybe the Senator from Arkansas ought to 
propose that. What about the backpacker that pays the fee to enter a 
wilderness area? Should they pay more if their portfolio says they are 
a multimillion dollar person? I think not.
  We in this country have always spoken to fairness, equity, and 
reasonable values. But what the Senator has offered is not fair, not 
equitable, and, in my opinion, it is class warfare. It makes great 
headlines in the newspapers.
  So if it is none of those things, what is it? Why is the Senator 
asking for this kind of dramatic change from the policy that the 
committee he serves on has crafted? I do not think it is anything to do 
about money, and he has admitted that. Whether you charge the big 
multimillion-dollar ranchers much, much more for the going market rate 
of grass than you would the smaller--the Senator from Utah said it 
would not even pay for the subway the Senate purchased a year ago. And 
if it would not, then what is the issue? The issue is power and 
control, to get a few more folks off the land so we can have a 
different image or a different idea as to how the lands ought to be 
managed. That is what we are really talking about here.
  I sincerely believe--coming from a public land State, where ranching 
is an important part of our economy--that it is good public policy to 
have a sound grazing policy in our country that says that grass ought 
to be grazed in a reasonable fashion, that it is a resource of our 
country that ought to be utilized for the development and the growth of 
red protein, for the consumption of our country and for the health of 
our citizens. We have always held that value in this country. What we 
have done over time is change the way the lands are managed, and that 
is fair. We should not be managing the grazing lands of the West the 
way they were managed in 1935, and we are not. The public is telling us 
today that they ought to be managed differently in 1996 than they were 
in 1995. Our legislation does that.
  So we accept change. We should accept change. But I plead with the 
Senator from Arkansas to accept fairness and equity. Public resources, 
whether it is the campground, whether it is the trail, whether it is 
the log, minerals, or grass, what we are talking about here is that it 
should be managed responsibly, and it should be marketed in a fair and 
equitable fashion.
  We have never in this country engaged in class warfare, nor should we 
now, whether it is the sale of public grass, the sale of the public 
tree, or the public resources. I plead with my colleagues in the Senate 
to vote down the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, raising the grazing fees under the 
Bumpers amendment is fundamentally unfair to ranchers. This proposal 
does not fully consider the investments that ranchers already have made 
in building their lots.
  In addition, the profit margins for many ranchers is small, and many 
ranchers already have fallen into bankruptcy. Raising the fees as this 
amendment proposes to do will make things even more difficult for 
ranchers and may force more ranchers to exit the business during the 
next few years.
  Mr. President, a look at the increasing losses suffered by ranchers 
paints a bleak picture. In the business of ranching, analysts consider 
the industry average for the ``estimated calf break-even'' prices in 
tracking trends.
  In the industry, we refer to the ``calf break-even price'' to mean 
the cost of supporting a cow to produce a calf for a year divided by 
the weight of the calf. There are many costs associated with supporting 
cows, such as summer pasture, winter feed, breeding costs, health 
costs, veterinary visits, and medications. Producers in the northern 
regions, including my home State of Colorado, have even higher winter 
feed costs and have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for the winter.
  In the fall of 1993, the estimated industry average calf break-even 
price was $81.95 per 100 weight. The average profit was $42 per head.
  Since then, however, the industry average shows increasing losses.
  In 1994, the break-even price was $80.78 per 100 weight, but there 
was a $12 per head loss.
  In 1995, the break-even price was $80.41 per 100 weight, but the 
losses increased to an average of $59 per head.
  For 1996, industry analysts already are predicting another year of 
losses which will be even to or greater than the losses incurred in 
1995.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point 
in the Record a table which shows the industry average for the 
``estimated calf break-even'' prices and the average losses sustained 
by the producers. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed a second 
table in the Record which reflects the average sale price and profit or 
loss per hundred weight.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                TABLE 1--COW/CALF PRODUCER PROFITABILITY                
               [Industry average for costs versus returns]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Profit/loss
                    Year                        Estimated    (per head) 
---------------------------------------------------\1\------------------
1993........................................        $81.95       \2\ $42
1994........................................         80.78        \3\ 12
1995........................................         80.41        \3\ 59
1996........................................           TDB         (\4\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated calf break-even prices (per 100 weight).                  
\2\ Profit.                                                             
\3\ Loss.                                                               
\4\ Projected loss is even to or greater than less in 1995.             


                TABLE 2--COW/CALF PRODUCER PROFITABILITY                
    [Industry average sale price and profit/loss per hundred weight]    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Est. calf                             
                                 break-even     Avg. sale    Profit/loss
             Year                 (per 100     price (per     (per 100  
                                   weight)     100 weight)     weight)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..........................        $81.95        $94.50       +$12.55
1994..........................         80.78         78.36         -2.42

[[Page S2599]]

                                                                        
1995..........................         80.41         63.43        -16.98
1996..........................           TBD           TDB         (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projected loss is even to or greater than loss in 1995.             


  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes, 25 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Jeffords, 2 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if you only listened to the facts right 
now, you would come out with completely different conclusions than you 
would from the positions people have been taking here. Let us remind 
ourselves, as far as this class warfare argument, just yesterday all of 
my friends voted in favor of the product liability bill, which has 
quite a different situation for small and big business. Why? Because 
small business obviously gets a greater hit, with a smaller amount of 
money. Well, the measure we are dealing with now will have a fee lower 
for the small farmers, the small users. All your small farmers--the 
only ones you are going to benefit, or the only ones my friends arguing 
so strongly against me are going to benefit, are the large corporate 
guys, the ones that do not need any help, the ones getting a benefit 
far above what the present price is for State lands, which we would 
charge them for private lands.
  So why in the world do my colleagues, who want to give all their 
smaller farmers a lower rate, want to vote against the amendment that 
would do that, when it only charges the wealthy and huge corporate 
ranchers the same as they pay on State lands? It does not make any 
sense at all. I do not understand it. It is just because we are so used 
to taking positions on one side or the other, and you cannot recognize 
when we are doing something to benefit you. It is purely to establish a 
system of equity and sense in the fee system.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Bumpers-Jeffords amendment. 
I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 3 minutes, 30 
seconds. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho raised a question 
about timber. I do not understand the relevance of it. We do set aside 
timber for small business people. Even so, timber is sold on a 
competitive basis.
  If you want to start leasing 270 million acres of public rangelands 
for grazing on a competitive basis, I may or may not vote for that, but 
we do not do that. Do you know how you get a permit? You have to own 
land. Hewlett-Packard may own 400 acres of land, which they have to do 
in order to be eligible for a permit. If they have a 400-acre ranch 
that they own themselves, they can run cattle on 100,000 acres of 
Federal land.
  I am telling you something else. You could not pry these permits from 
permittees with a wedge. They literally hand these permits down from 
generation to generation. Under the current regulations, the term of a 
permit is 12 years. The Senator from New Mexico, his bill originally 
considered 15 years--is it 15 or 12 now?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe it is 12.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Twelve years is a long time. You cannot compare timber 
sales, which are let competitively, to a permit which you give some 
corporation like Anheuser-Busch or Hewlett-Packard, simply because they 
own a few hundred acres in their own right, give them 50,000 to 100,000 
acres to raise cattle on for $1.35 a month per cow.
  Everybody here knows what this is--corporate welfare, pure and 
simple, just like the Market Promotion Program where we give McDonald's 
money to advertise the Big Mac in Moscow. That is more of the same. 
Here we are trying to make just a small dent and say that these big 
corporations who own 60 percent of this 270 million acres pay at least 
what the State would charge you if you were renting lands from the 
State.
  Why is it that the Government only receives $1.35, and that is way 
under what any State in the Nation charges for the same thing? It is 
politics. It is corporate welfare. And it is grossly unfair. I plead 
with my colleagues to come in here and search their consciences about 
whether this is right or wrong.
  Should we allow this practice to continue? As I say, these things are 
so patently unfair. They never go away, Senators. They never go away. 
Let us address it now. If my amendment is not perfect, we will go to 
conference and make it perfect.
  My fee is actually less than the fee of the Senator from New Mexico 
in the year 2005. We are not talking about what we are charging the 
small ranchers; we are talking about what Hewlett-Packard, Newmont 
Mining, Anheuser-Busch, and the biggest corporations in America ought 
to pay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I could get 1 additional minute. Does 
Senator Bumpers object?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Not at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to give two reasons why you 
should vote against Senator Bumpers' amendment. First of all, let me 
suggest that if this were an issue of politics, if this were an issue 
of how many people are ranchers and cowboys in the State of New Mexico 
versus those that are not, the politics would be to vote for the 
Bumpers amendment and put all the small ranchers in New Mexico out of 
business because there are not very many of them. This argument about 
the big corporate users--I am not here trying to protect them. They 
will protect themselves. I am here to protect the small guy.
  Let me tell you, in Arizona, New Mexico, parts of California, and in 
other States, this amendment that is pending will say to ranchers with 
176 animal units who use it year long, ``You are a big rancher, and you 
pay up to $10 in some States, and you are out of business.'' That is 
what this amendment will do. For another huge portion of them, 354 head 
will qualify as being large under that amendment that we are debating. 
They are not big ranchers. They will go broke under this formula.
  And last, my second point, Senator Bingaman, who has been working on 
this for a long time, has a bill, and what do you think his fee 
schedule is? His fee schedule is exactly the same as that in the 
Domenici bill. I think he has looked at it. He does not agree with 
everything that we are for, but he does agree that the fee schedule 
that is being sought by Senator Bumpers is outrageously high for many, 
many ranchers in the United States. And if you want them to quit, fold 
up their tents and go home, vote for the amendment that the Senator 
from Arkansas has before us.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be granted 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Karl Hess, Jr., a senior fellow at the 
Cato Institute--that is not exactly the citadel of liberalism down 
here--says:

       Domenici's bill is bad for ranchers, bad for public lands, 
     and bad for the American taxpayer. It will not improve 
     management of public lands and it will not be a fix for the 
     hard economic times now faced by ranchers. What it will do, 
     however, is deepen the fiscal crisis of the public land 
     grazing program by plunging it into an ever-deepening 
     deficit. If western ranchers insist on supporting this bill 
     and the additional costs associated with it, they should be 
     prepared to pay the price.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay

[[Page S2600]]

on the table the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from Arkansas. 
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerrey
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3556), as 
modified, was agreed to.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Amy Lueders, a 
congressional fellow, be accorded the privilege of the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I also ask unanimous consent that Philip Kosmacki, who 
is a fellow in Senator Wellstone's office, be granted the privilege of 
the floor for the remainder of the debate and voting on S. 1459.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is to be recognized for 
an amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say, from the Republican side, there are no 
time limitations on this amendment. I do not believe we want to speak a 
long time on it. There are a lot of Senators who would like to get some 
votes behind them here today. I am going to do everything I can to 
accommodate, without jeopardizing Senator Bingaman and those who 
support him having their opportunities to speak on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                Amendment No. 3559 To Amendment No. 3555

 (Purpose: An amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Domenici 
 substitute to S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1995)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Daschle, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3559 to amendment No. 3555.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a substitute amendment I am 
offering on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, Senator Reid, Senator 
Bryan, and Senator Daschle. I know there will be at least three other 
Senators who wish to speak in favor of this substitute.
  Mr. President, there are some basic differences between the bill as 
proposed, Senate bill 1459, and the substitute that I have just sent to 
the desk and which we are going to vote on here at some point. Senate 
bill 1459 deals with BLM land and Forest Service land.
  Let me just say generally what I believe it does in regard to each of 
those. On BLM land, it repeals all the existing regulations the 
Department of the Interior has in place with regard to grazing on BLM 
land. It would also put in statutory form a significant amount of the 
policy that has previously been handled by regulation in the Department 
of the Interior with regard to BLM land, grazing on BLM land.
  Then it states that with regard to any subject that is not covered by 
this new statute, Senate bill 1459, it would reinstate the old 
regulations which were developed during James Watts' administration in 
the early 1980's and which have been in place since that time. So that 
is what it does on BLM land.
  On Forest Service land, it changes the statutory law that the Forest 
Service has operated under for grazing in our national forests for at 
least 60 years. It changes it in a way that, in my view at least, 
encourages more use of the national forest for grazing rather than less 
use of the national forest for grazing. That is the underlying bill, 
Senate bill 1459.
  The substitute I and my colleagues have offered here has a very 
different purpose. Its purpose is to identify the portions of the new 
BLM regulations that have raised legitimate concerns among people who 
are affected by them, and it proposes that we legislate new statutory 
policy in those areas. The goal of the amendment is to ensure that the 
public maintains adequate input into the process of policymaking on our 
public lands, ensure that land managers have adequate authority to 
maintain the health of our public lands and, of course, maintain the 
use of our public lands for all of our citizens.
  The substitute that I want to address here works to accomplish these 
goals. I believe it will provide real stability for permittees and 
lessees as well. In some detail, I would like to describe, first, what 
the substitute does and then some of the things that it clearly does 
not do.
  First of all, what the substitute does. I have a chart here, Mr. 
President, that tries to identify the key policy changes contained in 
this substitute and the issues we have tried to address. As I said 
before, what we have tried to do is listen to the concerns of people 
who are permittees and lessees, listen to the concerns of others who 
have need to use the land or desire to use the public land, and put in 
statute those things we believe need to be statutorily provided for 
because they are not adequately covered by existing regulations.
  We otherwise leave in place the existing regulations on the BLM land, 
and, of course, we do not apply most of this bill--all but three 
provisions of this bill do not apply to the Forest Service. We allow 
the Forest Service to continue to administer the lands under the 
existing law that they have in place.
  The first thing we have changed is that we provided that ``interested 
publics,'' as described in the existing regulations of the Department 
of the Interior, are replaced by a definition of ``affected 
interests.'' Now, what does this mean?
  One of the complaints we heard from ranchers about these new 
Department of the Interior regulations was that those regulations 
expanded the group of people who were entitled to be consulted or 
notified about grazing decisions. The old regulations provided that, in 
order to be notified, you had to be a so-called affected interest, as 
determined by the Bureau of Land Management.

[[Page S2601]]

  Under the new regulations, anyone who is part of the interested 
public--that is the phrase that is used in the new regulations; the 
``interested public''--anyone who is part of the interested public has 
a right to be notified.
  In our view, this was a legitimate concern by ranchers. They did not 
believe that anybody who just had an interest should be given equal 
standing to be notified. What we have done in this substitute is return 
to the old language in the old regulation instead of the broader 
definition of an ``interested public.'' We believe that that is an 
appropriate change in the law that responds to a legitimate concern 
that was raised and brought to our attention.
  The second item here is regarding NEPA, the National Environmental 
Policy Act. A concern was raised, again by permittees and lessees, that 
the application of NEPA had become so pervasive by the land management 
agencies that many of the actions and decisions which the permittees 
and, in fact, the agencies considered to be fairly routine and not 
posing any threat to the environment, they were being required to go 
through long procedures under NEPA, and it was slowing down the process 
of getting a response from the agencies.
  Let me point out that this is not something you can blame on 
Secretary Babbitt. There is a lot of criticism of Secretary Babbitt 
from many corners here in this debate. But he cannot be blamed for 
this. Neither can Dan Glickman, our Secretary of Agriculture. This 
requirement that applies NEPA to all of these different activities 
applied before those two individuals ever came into office. It is not 
the result of regulations that have been adopted; it is the result of 
the law that we in the Congress passed.
  The question is, how do we deal with the problem? Senate bill 1459 
tries to deal with the problem of NEPA application to all of these 
routine activities by essentially saying that NEPA only applies in the 
preparation of a land use plan and saying that, after that, any action 
or decision related to grazing is not covered by NEPA and therefore 
NEPA does not have to be complied with with regard to those other 
items.
  In our view, that exemption is too broad. We propose a much more 
limited exception for NEPA. We say that renewal and transfer of grazing 
permits, and only the renewal and transfer of grazing permits or 
leases, can be done without complying with NEPA; that that can only 
happen where it is determined by the Secretary that the renewal or 
transfer will not involve significant changes in management practice or 
use and that significant environmental damage is not occurring or 
imminent. But where he can determine there is no significant change in 
management practice or use and no significant damage is imminent, then 
clearly he can go ahead and renew a lease or transfer a lease or a 
permit without complying with NEPA.

  We have done one other thing, Mr. President, with regard to NEPA. 
That is, we have included in the substitute a provision that directs 
both the head of the BLM and the head of the Forest Service to prepare 
a list of NEPA so-called categorical exclusions for nonsignificant 
grazing activities. The effect of having categorical exclusions for 
nonsignificant grazing activities will be to expedite the process. This 
is not a new loophole or a change in NEPA; it is a clear congressional 
direction that they should, under NEPA as it now exists, go ahead and 
use these categorical exclusions.
  In our view, this is a much more limited and targeted way to deal 
with the problem of routine concerns that are not involving significant 
damage to the environment. It addresses the specific problem. It does 
not blow a major hole in the application of NEPA to everything that 
relates to grazing except that at the land-use-plan level.
  The next item I want to mention is that in our substitute we 
reinstate grazing advisory boards. Again, Mr. President, this is a 
change in the existing regulations. The new regulations that were 
adopted this last year eliminated grazing advisory boards. They became, 
essentially, defunct. They had not been appointed, and the Secretary 
did not reestablish those in the new regulations. We have done what I 
believe the underlying bill does, and that is to provide for the 
reestablishment of these grazing advisory boards.
  In my view, it is appropriate to do so because they would provide a 
significant forum that ranchers, permittees, and lessees could use to 
have input. Half of the membership is to be made up of permittees and 
lessees, and half to be made up of other local individuals chosen by 
the Secretary.
  Another change that we have adopted in this substitute, another 
provision, is that we do adopt the grazing fee formula that is in S. 
1459, but we have put in a stabilizing provision. We have put in a 
minimum fee of $1.50 per animal unit month. This would involve some 
slight increase from $1.35, which is what the formula now results in, 
to $1.50 per month. Then the fee would go ahead and be whatever fee was 
higher than that, if the new fee that Senator Domenici devised would 
call for that.
  Quite frankly, I do not know if that is the exact right level of the 
fee. I do not think that the main issue here is how much money can be 
obtained from people for use of this land. I think that is a very 
secondary issue. The main issue here is what laws do we put in place to 
preserve the health of the rangeland.
  The next provision deals with indirect control. The indirect control 
provision is removed from the affiliate provisions. This is a fairly 
arcane item. The concern here is that looking at renewals, permittees 
were being held accountable for actions of people who were not under 
their control. That was the concern that was brought to us.
  To the extent that problem exists, we have corrected it in our 
substitute. The new regulations that are in place can look at actions 
of persons under the indirect control of the permittee. Our substitute 
bill makes it clear that the BLM could only consider the actions of the 
permittee and persons under that permittee's direct control in deciding 
whether or not to renew that lease or that permit. That is a very small 
item that was called to our attention and seemed legitimate.
  The next item is the surcharge exemption. In cases where subleasing 
is occurring, the new regulations provide an exemption from any 
surcharge only for sons and daughters of the permittee or the lessee. 
We heard the complaint from permittees and lessees that that was too 
narrow a provision, that there should be an exemption from surcharges 
for other immediate family members, as well. So we have put a provision 
in saying that the surcharge exemption should be expanded to include a 
spouse, a child, or a grandchild. Again, we have proposed a specific 
solution to a specific concern that was drawn to our attention or 
brought to our attention.
  The next item on our list is for fallback standards and guidelines. 
The substitute that we are proposing does not require any minimum 
national standard or guideline. Instead, the Secretary, in consultation 
with the resource advisory councils, the grazing advisory boards, 
appropriate State and local government and educational institutions, 
and after providing an opportunity for public participation, 
will establish statewide or regional standards and guidelines. We 
believe that is more acceptable to many of the people involved. That 
seemed like a reasonable resolution of that problem from our 
perspective.

  The final item I have is the resource advisory councils and the 
grazing advisory boards are to be involved in developing criteria and 
standards for conservation use and temporary nonuse. Our substitute 
expressly provides for conservation use. That is a major difference 
between our bill and the underlying bill.
  The resource advisory councils and grazing advisory boards should be 
consulted when the Secretary develops criteria and standards. 
Conservation use can be conducted if the agency approves the use, 
because it is necessary to promote rangeland resource protection, and 
the use is consistent with the land use plan. A permittee under our 
proposal does not need to be engaged in the livestock business to 
practice conservation use.
  When I spoke yesterday about the underlying bill and read the letter 
from the Nature Conservancy where they expressed their concern about 
this in the underlying bill, the substitute makes it clear that they do 
not need to pass a test, a threshold test, of being in the livestock 
business in order to attain a permit and engage in conservation use.

[[Page S2602]]

  Now, what we have done is to leave the decision to the land 
management agency as to whether or not to permit or to allow a permit 
to be transferred to a person who wants to use it for a conservation 
use. In my view, that discretion is appropriate. It is important this 
issue is resolved both for the permittees and the lessees who reside in 
our States.
  The underlying bill authorizes coordinated resource management 
agreements which could be, presumably, used for conservation purposes. 
It appears that under the underlying bill, a rancher could agree to 
enter into a conservation agreement with other groups, but those 
groups--groups such as the Nature Conservancy--cannot by themselves 
hold a permit and enter into a conservation use. We try to correct that 
problem.
  Mr. President, this is a fairly good description or a fairly complete 
description of what is in our bill and a summary of the problems that 
were brought to our attention as a result of the new regulations of the 
Department of the Interior. We did solicit concerns from permittees and 
lessees and others who had problems. With the exception of these 
provisions, we do allow those regulations to remain in place.
  We had several speeches on the floor yesterday about how both the 
Department of the Interior through BLM and the Department of 
Agriculture through the Forest Service were, in the view of some, 
trying to run the ranchers off the land; they were trying to end this 
way of life that the cowboy has had historically in the West. I have 
heard those speeches, Mr. President. I have heard them now for several 
years. I just need to say for all my colleagues to hear that I do not 
think that reflects the reality that I see in my home State.

  I do not dispute that there have been instances where one or both of 
those agencies have overstepped, or where permittees and lessees have 
been unfairly treated, but I also do not dispute that there are some 
provisions in the existing regulations of the Department of Interior 
that should be changed. We have tried to change those in this proposed 
substitute.
  I want all of my colleagues to know that what we are trying to do in 
the substitute is to correct specific problems that have been pointed 
out to us. We are not trying to create new problems. It is a very 
difficult balance that is required between those who graze on the land 
and those who want to use the land for other purposes. I believe the 
agencies themselves have been trying to find that balance, sometimes 
ineffectively, but they have been trying to.
  I believe Senate bill 1459 will bring imbalance to this relationship. 
For that reason, I do not support it. I think our substitute is 
preferable. I will briefly recite the concerns I have with S. 1459 
later in the debate, Mr. President.
  I see I have a colleague here from North Dakota anxious to speak. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Mexico, 
[Senator Bingaman]. I want to follow his statement with some 
observations of my own about the substitute that he offers with myself 
and others today on this issue.
  I view this issue not only from a national perspective, but also, 
especially, from the perspective of western North Dakota. That is where 
I was raised, where I grew up. It includes the grasslands and badlands 
and a lot of wonderful territory. I have, when I was younger, ridden a 
horse with my father through most of the badlands and much of western 
North Dakota. I have spent a lot of time on horseback, riding across 
those wonderful tracts of land. I do not have any interest, in any way, 
in injuring the scenic value, in interrupting the multiple use, or in 
preventing the American public, who owns much of this land in western 
North Dakota, from having full access to and full use of the land.
  But I also know from having been there, especially when I was younger 
with my father, and since then as a public official, I have been there 
visiting ranches and going to meetings with ranchers and others. I also 
know there are a lot of people who live out in western North Dakota, 
who make their living out on a family ranch, who invest a little money, 
maybe raise some cattle, do not quite know what the price will be when 
they get to the point where they are going to sell cattle. They have an 
enormous risk. They rent some land to graze on. They pay a grazing fee 
to the Federal Government and run some cattle on that land. Most of 
them have an interest in treating that land well. They understand that 
stewardship. Most of them are environmentalists, in my judgment. Most 
of them care about wildlife and care about the shape that land is in.
  I thought it would be interesting to read for my colleagues a letter 
from Merle Jost, from Grassy Butte, ND, because there is a lot of 
hyperbole about these issues. People stand up and wave their arms and 
talk about the Bingaman substitute, the Domenici bill, or this or that, 
or the other approach will destroy wildlife, destroy hunting, destroy 
the scenic beauty. I have heard all of these things. I have some 
feelings about what we ought to do and ought not to do today. But I 
want to say to you that on behalf of a lot of people out in my part of 
the country, who are trying to make a living and do a good job and be 
good stewards of the land, they also care about the same things that 
many of us care about in here, that stand up and talk about wildlife. 
Here is a letter from Merle Jost:

       As I write this letter, the deer are sneaking into the bird 
     feeder--guess I'll have to put out more sunflower seeds.
       There goes another bunch--after the pheasant food--more of 
     that. There goes a flock of sharptales--to dine on my oat 
     bales.
       The antelope are in the alfalfa field again. Oh, well, 
     spring coming; they will soon scatter. My neighbor to the 
     north is feeding 200 turkeys these days. He deserves a 
     medal-- turkeys are hell.
       My neighbor to the east has 30 deer a night--eating ground 
     feed out of his augers.

  I see a lot of press conferences screaming about ranchers wrecking 
this and that or destroying this and that. He said, ``We support 
wildlife.'' He is right. Anybody that knows much about ranching could 
exist with the wildlife in western North Dakota. This is an issue for a 
lot of people, an issue for ranchers. It is an issue for people who 
also want to use that public land for hiking, for hunting, for a whole 
range of issues. That land will be, and ought to be, open to multiple 
uses.

  We are here because, especially in my part of the country, ranchers 
who are involved in the use of that land for grazing purposes--that is 
one of the uses--have had some difficulty with respect to the 
management of that land. Let me give you an example. One permittee, the 
McKenzie County Grazing Association, has been denied a permit for a 
dozen years to construct a crossfence along a pipeline corridor in this 
allotment. He was going to construct it at his expense. A dozen years, 
no permit. The Forest Service agrees that the fence would improve the 
range conditions. But only now, after pressure from the association, 
are they going through the scoping process.
  Another permittee is unable to construct a water pipeline into a 
crested wheat-grass area, which the Forest Service also agrees would 
result in better range conditions. Why? Because, after 3\1/2\ years, 
the Forest Service has not been able to do a biological survey. It is 
not that somebody says it is not a good idea. It is a good idea and 
ought to be done. But the landlord is not able to do the survey, does 
not have the money, does not, apparently, have the will, or is not 
interested in the speed to do a survey. So 3\1/2\ years later, 
something that probably ought to be done, and will be done at the 
expense of the rancher on public lands, is not even started. Ranchers 
say, ``Wait a second, why can we not get answers and have better 
stewardship on the part of the managers of this land?'' It is a 
reasonable request.
  When those of us who evaluate these things look over these kinds of 
complaints--I have concluded that we ought to respond to them. There 
ought to be a better management scheme and management system on these 
public lands so that in those areas where we have grazing use, those 
who are grazing these lands, if they need to have a water pipe come in, 
or have a water tank moved, or construct a fence someplace, you ought 
not have to wait 18 months or 12 years for answers about that. That is 
what this is about. It is not about anything more than that.
  I have seen editorials in the last couple of days that talk about 
this is a land grab, and that this is giving public property to the 
ranchers, this is turning the keys over to the ranchers, it is

[[Page S2603]]

trying to disrupt multiple use, and it means turning our back on 
wildlife. That is not the case.
  Now, we have before us a couple of choices today. One is the 
Bingaman-Dorgan substitute, which we now offer on the floor of the 
Senate. The other is the underlying Domenici bill. Let me say this 
about the Domenici bill. It has changed some, and I think along the way 
it has been improved some. I think it could be and should be improved 
more. But the fact is, it has moved. This has been a process over a 
series of months where there have been a series of changes. The 
Bingaman substitute, which we offer, I think, is a better solution. 
They are, in fact, almost identical with respect to title II. The 
substantial differences in the substitute are in title I. Let me go 
through a couple of points with respect to the substitute and why I 
think it is a better approach.
  First of all, it is a better way to construct law. It is a shorter 
piece of legislation. The Domenici bill started with the proposition 
they were going to--I said in the committee that the Domenici bill is 
really a letter to Secretary Babbitt. There is a better way to write to 
him than to write 95 pages of codifications of regulations. I do not 
think you ought to codify regulations in law. I respect the fact that 
there are some problems with the Babbitt regulations. What Senator 
Bingaman and I are trying to do is determine, with the ranchers and 
others, what are the problems, and then address the solutions to the 
problem. That is the best way to legislate. That is what the substitute 
does.

  We, I think, come to a better conclusion and a more appropriate 
conclusion on the issue of public participation. These are, and will 
be, multiple-use lands. Hunters have a right to these lands; hikers 
have a right to these lands; and a myriad of other users have a right 
to these properties, and that will remain the circumstances under the 
legislation we have proposed. They will remain in a situation where 
they will have access to these decisions, and they will be consulted as 
affected interests on the major decisions, and the significant 
decisions about the use of these lands.
  We also recognize that we are addressing some language in this 
legislation to respond to real problems ranchers face. We do this, as 
Senator Bingaman said appropriately, in a manner designed to solve 
problems, not create new problems. I think that our approach is an 
approach that addresses legitimately the problems that ranchers have 
described to us--and they are real problems--but doing it in a way that 
does not cause additional problems and does not diminish the 
opportunities of other multiple users to use this property.

  One of the issues that we were at odds about, which was never 
resolved in a whole series of negotiations we had, was the issue of 
conservation use. I firmly believe that conservation use ought to be 
available. If an organization such as The Nature Conservancy wants to 
have a permit on 500 acres in North Dakota for its own reasons and has 
decided it does not want to graze cattle on that, I think that ought to 
be allowed. It is explicitly prohibited in the underlying Domenici 
substitute. That is one of the areas we were simply never able to 
resolve.
  Would I want there to be a circumstance where someone came in and 
said they were going to take all of that grassland in western North 
Dakota and make it conservation use and graze nothing on it? No, I 
would not want that. The fact is that too much of western North Dakota 
is already becoming a wilderness area without a designation because too 
many people are leaving. We need more people coming to our part of the 
country. My home county, which is in western North Dakota, has lost 20 
percent of its population in the last 15 years.
  So, would I think it is appropriate for us to have a circumstance 
where an organization comes in and tries to buy it all up and says, 
``By the way, we bought it for the purpose of deciding not to graze 
it''? No; I would not support that. But do I, on the other hand, 
believe that we ought to expressly prohibit someone from taking a small 
tract of land for the purpose of trying to nurture some specific kind 
of wildlife and then say to them that they cannot get a permit and 
decide not to graze that? I do not think that is appropriate either. We 
have had circumstances, even in our State, where it has been to the 
benefit of all of the surrounding ranchers that a conservation use on a 
small acreage has helped all of the other surrounding ranchers who are 
grazing other acreage, with respect to wildlife production.
  So I think the expressed prohibition in the Domenici bill is 
inadvisable.
  In the substitute that Senator Bingaman and I have offered, in title 
II, we incorporate a portion of title I which deals with a conditional 
NEPA exemption for permit renewal and transfers. We think that makes 
sense. We think what you ought to do is invoke NEPA when you have 
significant actions. We think that when you have insignificant actions, 
such as a permit transfer renewal, which is not a significant action 
and which would not affect the condition or circumstances of that land, 
we think that NEPA should not be traded.
  So those are the kinds of things that we have included in this 
substitute. I have mentioned three of them. But there are about 10 that 
make this substitute a much more advisable piece of legislation for 
this Senate to enact.
  I feel very strongly that the kinds of things we have done in this 
substitute are the kinds of initiatives that are designed to address 
the problems that have been brought to us by ranchers, but to address 
the problems in a way that does not cause other problems or does not 
restrict in any unfair way others who want access to and have every 
right to have access to this property.
  Let me conclude, without going through all of the details of the 
substitute because I think Senator Bingaman has done an excellent job 
of that, by ending where I began.

  I would not come to the floor of the Senate supporting any initiative 
under any condition if I felt it was an attempt by anybody to grab land 
for one specific interest in western North Dakota. These lands are 
owned by the public. The public has a right for multiple use of these 
properties. That right shall remain. But I also understand, having 
grown up there, that this land has been populated for many, many years 
by a lot of families out there struggling to make a living raising 
cattle. One use of this land has been grazing, and the circumstances 
under which this land has been managed have in some cases been 
acceptable but in other cases been deficient. Both of us, Senator 
Bingaman and I, as well as Senator Domenici, are offering initiatives 
today to say we would like to address those problems. We address them 
in different ways. I think ours is preferable to Senator Domenici's. I 
say that, at the end of the day, I hope the Senate will have spoken in 
a way that says these are real problems, here is a solution that is 
appropriate and is a satisfactory solution that solves the problems 
without creating additional problems.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask Senator Bingaman if he has any idea of how 
many more speakers he might have?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I know that Senator Daschle 
wanted to speak for a very short period, and I know that Senator Reid 
asked to be allowed to speak for up to 45 minutes. Senator Reid had a 
meeting at 3, and he will get here as quickly as he can. We just sent 
word to see if Senator Daschle is able to speak now.
  Those are the only two that I am aware of that want to speak. There 
may be others.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator indicate that Senator Daschle would 
like to speak now?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I indicated that we are trying to check to see when he 
wants to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do not need very much time at this point.
  Does the Senator from Idaho want to speak to the water issue? Could 
he take a short amount of time in his succinct way to address this 
important issue?
  Mr. CRAIG. No more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator, Senator 
Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. President, I will be succinct. But I do think that we have a 
great concern

[[Page S2604]]

about Senator Bingaman's substitute and how he deals with water. It is 
very clear in our legislation that the States have primacy in all water 
issues and that the Federal Government must comply with State water 
law. We know that Congress after Congress has affirmed this very 
position. In the Democrat substitute that Senator Bingaman has offered, 
it declares that new water rights shall be acquired, perfected, 
maintained, and administered in connection with all livestock grazing 
in accordance with State law.
  The key word here is ``new'' water rights. The Democrat substitute 
makes no provision against the extortion of water rights as a condition 
to grant a grazing permit or leased range improvements, cooperative 
agreements, or range improvement permits as provided in the Republican 
substitute, nor does the Democrat substitute require that the Secretary 
follow State law with regard to water rights ownership and 
appropriation as provided in the Republican substitute. Both 
substitutes protect valid existing water rights, but the operative word 
here is ``new.'' Let me repeat, ``new'' water rights.

  What about all water rights? What about existing water rights? Does 
anyone seriously believe that this Secretary of the Interior, who I 
think helped write this legislation, is not concerned about water and 
trying to grab back as much water as he can off the lands where valid 
and existing water rights have already existed?
  In the 1995 appropriation act, the Secretary of the Interior tried 
directly to assert Federal ownership and control over all water rights 
on Federal lands. This time he plans to do it indirectly through this 
kind of legislation by talking about dealing only with new water rights 
and leaving it up to his solicitor to interpret the language of 
excluding all existing water rights.
  Mr. President, this is a concern that I hope, if my interpretation of 
it is wrong, the Senator from New Mexico, the junior Senator, will 
correct. We know where Secretary Babbitt is. He is very clear, and he 
has even sidestepped NEPA and the ESA to stage a media event with his 
friends and special interests in the Grand Canyon with an artificial 
flood event that could jeopardize important ruins, threaten endangered 
species, and jeopardize blue ribbon trout fisheries.
  I say this in all sincerity. I hope that the junior Senator from New 
Mexico could clarify for me because it is very important that we stay 
within State law on this water issue; that we stay with ``existing and 
new water rights.'' I believe his legislation speaks only to ``new,'' 
and that must be clarified. I hope he can do that.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond to the questions 
because I think what has been raised is a classic red herring. In the 
West, many more people have been killed for water than for infidelity 
to their spouse, and I think this is obviously a hot button issue. We 
have provided as explicitly and as clearly as we can understand the 
English language that valid existing water rights are protected. We say 
on page 11, line 14, ``Valid Existing Water Rights.'' That is the title 
of the sentence, or the section. It says, ``Nothing in this title shall 
be construed as affecting valid existing water rights.'' Period.
  I do not know how to make it any clearer than that.
  In the previous sentence, we say, ``No Federal reserved water 
rights.'' We say, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed as 
creating an express or implied reservation of water rights in the 
United States.''
  So we have covered the exact concern that the Senator from Idaho is 
raising.
  In the previous sentence we say:

       New water rights shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, 
     or administered in connection with livestock grazing on 
     public lands in accordance with State law.

  That is appropriate. Clearly that is what we intended the law to be. 
And we have covered valid existing rights in section (c) of that same 
section. I do not understand what the issue can be. If there is a more 
plain-English way to say that valid existing water rights are not 
affected than to say ``nothing in this title shall be construed as 
affecting valid existing water rights,'' I would like to hear it.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator had said ``all'' water rights, I would 
agree with him. The Senator did not. His amendment explicitly singles 
out ``new'' water rights. It is very important that we have that 
understood for the record, and it is important, I think, if we are to 
protect these State rights and individual rights, that language comply 
with the bill of the senior Senator from New Mexico because it clearly 
sets out that whole issue.
  Is there a reason for a singling out of ``new'' versus the 
interpretation of, and excluding all existing rights?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what I said before was that we have the 
section, section 112, broken down into three subsections. The first 
section deals with new water rights. The second section deals with 
Federal reserved water rights. The third section deals with existing 
water rights. So we have covered all three. I do not understand what 
the problem is. We have covered existing water rights in section (c). 
We have covered new water rights in section (a). We have covered 
Federal reserved water rights in section (b). What is the problem?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is this Senator's opinion that by selectively singling 
out ``new'' water rights, you leave open to opinion by a very 
unfriendly solicitor and by a very unfriendly State water rights 
Secretary this issue. I think the question must be closed or you place 
those water rights in jeopardy.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Obviously, differences of opinion are what makes for 
horse races, Mr. President, and the Senator from Idaho can believe what 
he will about what the language provides. I can tell him that my intent 
was and our intent was in drafting this language to make it crystal 
clear that with regard to existing water rights, with regard to new 
water rights, with regard to Federal reserved water rights, we were not 
changing the law. And that is what we say.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator has answered my question.
  The Senator has argued an interpreted point of view. We can stumble 
around on interpretations when it comes to western water. The Senator 
and I must be in agreement with exactly what is said or the Solicitor 
of the Department of the Interior will jump squarely into that hole.
  Now, I believe the language of the senior Senator from New Mexico is 
much clearer. It says, ``No water rights on Federal lands shall be 
acquired, perfected, owned, controlled, maintained, administered or 
transferred in connection with livestock grazing permits other than in 
accordance with State law concerning the use and appropriation of water 
within the State.''

  The Senator and I both know that water is critical in the West and 
water is especially critical as it relates to the grazing on these arid 
public lands, and who controls that water oftentimes controls the 
grazing. We already know the position of this Interior Department on 
water. They want it. They want to control it. In 1995, the Secretary 
went directly at us on that. We must not allow this to be interpreted. 
I hope that the Senator could agree with the language that appears on 
page 19, section 124 under ``Water Rights of the Underlying Bill, S. 
1459.''
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, Mr. President, I think the Senator from Idaho is 
pointing out a problem that does not exist. I think we have made it 
very clear that with regard to existing water rights, with regard to 
new water rights, with regard to Federal reserved water rights, there 
is nothing in this bill and there is nothing intended in this bill that 
is to change the law with regard to it. That is exactly what we have 
said. That is exactly what we mean.
  There is no hole for the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior 
to jump into. There is no ambiguity here that needs an interpretation. 
Nobody in the committee raised this issue. The Senator chairs the 
appropriate subcommittee. This was not raised. This language has 
remained unchanged through the markup. Nobody has raised this concern 
until right now on the Senate floor. I do not think it is a valid 
concern. That is my response.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

[[Page S2605]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will yield another minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico has the 
floor unless he yields.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator, Senator 
Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. I only say to the junior Senator from New Mexico that his 
language was not at issue because it was not the document that makes it 
to the floor of the Senate coming out of the committee for the one area 
of the committee of jurisdiction that I was responsible for.
  All I say is I believe there is a difference. I believe there is an 
opportunity to interpret. I think it ought to be closed, and the way 
that can be closed is for the Senator to accept the language in section 
124 of the language of the senior Senator from New Mexico. If the 
Senator will do that, I then have no argument.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wait a minute. The Senator will have no argument with 
that provision.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for the clarification--with that 
provision.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I respond that if we could pick up the 
Senator's vote for our substitute, we clearly would be willing to 
consider that. But I should say that our language is, in my mind, very 
clear and clearer than the language in the underlying bill. So I 
suggest that the Senator accept our language rather than we accept his.
  Mr. CRAIG. Returning to my time, when you speak of no water rights, 
that is all. That is inclusive. And when we speak specifically of no 
action, no water rights unless they are in accordance with State law, 
you have broken it out and allowed interpretation. I know this 
solicitor and I know this Secretary of Interior, and I know westerners 
do not trust them. And this is one Senator who does not trust them 
either. I do not want to give them a chance to play interpretive games 
with western water.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Wyoming desire a couple of 
minutes?
  Mr. THOMAS. Just a couple of minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in general terms, it seems to me that what 
we have been doing in Congress for a year, year-and-a-half and continue 
to do is to try to find a way to cut through some of the kinds of 
regulations, maintain the effort without all of the difficulties, and 
one of the places--and I have worked very closely with it--is NEPA. I 
think we have to remember that NEPA was designed and developed as a 
process for major Federal action, major Federal action. That is 
precisely what we have done in the Domenici bill, is to hold that to 
major Federal action.
  Now, the problem that has happened in the past, particularly with the 
Forest Service--we did it this year; we had to go through with some 
legislation--was that it was uncertain, it was uncertain, so the 
lawyers over at Justice and over at the Department of Agriculture said 
to the Department, said to the Forest Service, ``Look, you have to do 
it. It doesn't say to in the law, but it is uncertain, and the 
Secretary may decide or may not decide.'' And that is how we ended up 
with all the NEPA things on grazing allotments. We have been through 
that the whole year long.
  This substitute continues with that kind of uncertainty, and it says 
you do not have to do it if the Secretary does this, if the Secretary 
does that. We will end up right back as the subject of lawsuits.
  Mr. President, that is precisely what we are trying to avoid, and the 
substitute puts us right back in that field where in the other one we 
have tried to make it clear that the NEPA requirement is there, the 
NEPA process is there for land use planning, the NEPA process is not 
there for those rather mundane, daily decisions that are made on 
grazing allotments and the kinds of things that in no stretch would 
constitute major Federal action.

  That is where we are. So I just think that the whole point of this 
thing is to try to do away with that ambiguity. And the fact is that 
this substitute puts it right back there.
  I do not understand what the sponsor was talking about on surcharge. 
There are two opportunities within the Domenici bill for subleasing. 
One, of course, is in the case of death or illness. The other is with a 
cooperative agreement, which we have had. You have to have an agreement 
with the agency to have subleasing. We want to continue with that. It 
is a very important part of grazing in our part of the country and our 
bill does that. This one does not talk about subleasing. It simply 
talks about surcharges.
  So I think that moves away from what we are seeking to do. It is a 
matter of conservation use. There is an opportunity for conservation 
use. I think, though, if you are going to have a land use plan which 
requires grazing, which is part of the community, and part of what 
upholds these communities is grazing, then to say maybe you do not need 
to have any grazing, that you dissociate base land--we went through our 
map yesterday. There is a very real relationship between base land and 
winter feed, for wildlife or livestock, and these leases. The idea that 
you can come in from Cincinnati and have a lease, here, with none of 
the other portions that go with it, is not realistic. That does not 
reveal much understanding of the way these lands are interdependent.
  So I think the Domenici bill, in these cases, deals both with 
conservation nonuse--it allows that, with an agreement with the 
agency--it allows for subleasing, and it deals with the surcharge. But 
most important of all, it clarifies this area of NEPA process.
  Mr. President, I feel very strongly that the substitute simply 
weakens this process that we have been through for so long a time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator desire some additional time? I will be 
pleased to yield 5 more minutes, because we are waiting for Senator 
Reid. He will not be here for some time, so we are going to use up some 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know we are talking here about the whole 
question of our bills. I do want to talk about how important it is that 
we have passage of this bill and I am pleased that, in the process of 
the discussion, it has been demonstrated that there is not a great deal 
of difference here. We have already talked about the fact that these 
fees do not amount to a great deal, in terms of money. But we are 
talking here, now, about trying to establish a long-term economy in our 
States. We are talking about stability in the area of grazing. We are 
talking about moving some of the decisions more close to the States and 
to the users.
  Of course this is public land. I understand that. That is why we are 
so careful and so clear in the Domenici bill, to say this is multiple 
use. There can be no question about that. This question of dominant use 
is simply not a valid observation.
  But we do need to begin to involve more closely, people who are in 
the area. For instance, Secretary Babbitt came out to the West all last 
year and the year before. We had these series of meetings. He talked to 
all these folks and, yet, came back with his proposal last year that 
was exactly the same as it was when it began.
  We need to involve, for instance, land-grant colleges in the 
development of the policy that is involved here. We need to involve 
State departments of agriculture. And we are there to do that. We need 
to make it a situation where communities can depend upon this economy. 
It is one that is very important.
  I think, most of all, what is not understood generally, and I know 
why--because it is unique to the West--is that these lands are 
interdependent. These are low-production lands, for the most part, 
these BLM lands. They do depend on winter feed. They depend on deeded 
land for winter feed. They depend on deeded land for water. Sometime 
earlier this afternoon someone

[[Page S2606]]

was saying you could have 400 acres of base land and lease 100,000 
animal units. That is not the case. You cannot do that. You have to 
have someplace to take care of this livestock in the wintertime.
  So we are looking for some balance here. I think we have worked at 
this, now, for more than a year. We have made considerable 
accommodations. Both the Senators from New Mexico have worked at this, 
and I salute both of them.
  We have some basic difference. One of them, I think, is bureaucracy. 
I think we are seeking to reduce bureaucracy. Frankly, I think the 
substitute increases bureaucracy. We do not need to deal with that. We 
need to deal with NEPA. It is there, clearly there. I am the chairman 
of the subcommittee that is taking a look at the NEPA process and we 
need to find ways to reduce some of that bureaucracy.

  I met with the new supervisor of the Black Hills Forest 2 weeks ago. 
They are in the midst of a forest plan. He has documents higher than 
his desk, the things they have done.
  The people on the ground are beginning to understand that we need to 
reduce that NEPA process. Not do away with the purpose, not do away 
with input, not reduce the opportunity for people to participate, but 
not to have that process in the minutia of the management of a grazing 
unit.
  We also need to do something with the forest. I think the Domenici 
bill treats it very well. It says ``substantially the same.'' Our folks 
feel very strongly about that. There is no real reason to have two 
unique opportunities here. We have not told them to be exactly the 
same. We said you should be substantially the same.
  So, I think we have made a great deal of progress here. Frankly, 
other than the water thing, the department does not want this because 
they like what they have. But I can tell you they have not moved very 
fast on the implementation of their regulations. If we do not make some 
changes now, a year from now, if they are still there, Babbitt is still 
there, you will see a real rush to change. I believe that very 
strongly. Now is our opportunity to soften some of those kinds of 
things that we think are difficult and troublesome.
  We have this opportunity. So I really feel very strongly about the 
efforts that we have made. We have accommodated the other side to a 
great extent. And now we have a few areas in which we have different 
views. I think the one we just talked about in water is a different 
view. I happen to have the idea that States rights are very important 
in water. We have part of that in the agriculture bill that is going on 
right now. The water, when you live in a State where much of the water 
comes from snow pack, and much of it on the forest, then you have to 
have some real strong State rights in water. We make some progress, we 
make some progress in that.
  I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I think we 
can pass it here in a very short while. I hope we do not accept the 
substitute and go back into this maze of NEPA regulations that are not 
necessary to have the proper outcome.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to my good friend from 
Wyoming, I kind of got myself carried away for a bit, because all the 
previous debate was under a time limit. But we are not under one now. 
So, nobody has to ask for time. They just have to get the floor.
  As a parliamentary inquiry, am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to speak for a few minutes and I want to say to 
anyone on the other side who arrives, who wants to speak, in the 
interests of an early evening I will try to cut it short when anyone 
arrives who wants to speak.
  First, I would like to say that an awful lot has been said across 
this land about the National Environmental Policy Act as it applies to 
grazing leases. We have heard across this land those who side with the 
environmentalists, or those who are at least joined together in an 
effort to minimize the use of the public domain by the grazing 
community--we have heard talk about the National Environmental Policy 
Act as it applies to grazing as if it were the Bible for environmental 
protection. I mean that in both contexts of the Bible--specific and 
ancient. Neither is true.
  The Bureau of Land Management, the entire Bureau of Land Management, 
does not use National Environmental Policy Act statements to control, 
manage, or evaluate the public domain.
  Let me repeat. They do not use them. Frankly, I commend them. Just 
because there is a request for a National Environmental Policy Act 
implementation, or a NEPA statement, does not mean that it is the best, 
that it is even the prescribed, that it is even close to being the 
appropriate way to evaluate the environmental impact and the overall 
management, or land use as it pertains to managing a permit. The reason 
is because nobody had in mind when they drew up NEPA that we would even 
consider applying NEPA to a grazing permit and its renewal.
  I say that because I have read the early history, and I cannot find 
anything in it that refers to such. Mr. President, do you know what it 
says? It says, if there is a major Federal action, then NEPA applies.
  I cannot believe that with thousands upon thousands of grazing 
permits that anyone really believed that every time one of those was 
going to be renewed that it was a major Federal action. Again, the 
Bureau of Land Management does not use them. Frankly, the reason was 
precisely stated on the record at a hearing. No. 1, they are not very 
good for this kind of evaluation. No. 2, they are very, very expensive, 
anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million. And No. 3, they are very, very 
time consuming, anywhere from a quick turnaround of 6 months to a year 
and a half.
  Frankly, accolades to the Bureau of Land Management for saying that 
does not even apply to grazing permits on the public domain lands.
  How many times has it been written across this land by those who 
oppose the Domenici bill that you are taking away environmental 
protection because you are abolishing and abandoning NEPA? Let me 
repeat, NEPA does not apply today to the issuance of Bureau of Land 
Management grazing permits, and I have just told you why, because there 
is nothing magical about it being the only evaluating tool around to 
determine whether a 50,000-acre grazing permit in a State which might 
have 20 million acres or 30 million acres--there is nobody saying that 
is a major Federal action.
  Let us move over to the other part of the public lands, the Forest 
Service. The best that can be said about NEPA and the Forest Service is 
that there has been a gradual movement in this administration in the 
last 3 years to use NEPA on public lands of the Forest Service where 
grazing is involved. It was used sparingly for the very reasons I just 
stated. But there are those who want no grazing on the public domain. 
They have had mottos to speak of how long cattle can be on the public 
domain. ``Cattle free in '93'' was a cry not too many years ago. I am 
glad they have not won yet, but we have been moving in that direction.
  That kind of entity will begin filing lawsuits against the Forest 
Service, and sure enough, we will get some court someplace that will 
interpret this to mean NEPA applies to even the renewal of a grazing 
permit, and then they will come and tell us that is the law.
  The law is what Congress says is the law. We are asking Congress in 
this bill to make sure the Bureau of Land Management's policy remains 
intact. We are also asking that with reference to the Forest Service 
and the Bureau of Land Management that there be one major use for NEPA, 
and it is big and it is important, and it is appropriate in its full 
implementation.
  NEPA will be applied to the Forest Service and the BLM when the land 
use plan is developed for a national forest that is being reviewed for 
all of the various competing uses. A full environmental impact 
statement will be obtained; all the citizens will be involved. As the 
plan is put together, there will be rights to go to court, to litigate. 
But we contend in this bill, contrary to what my friend, Senator 
Bingaman, provides, we provide that beyond that, you use other tools to 
evaluate, not

[[Page S2607]]

NEPA. I do not think that is antienvironment.
  Senator Bingaman chooses to say there may be other cases. It is left 
up to the discretion of the Secretary. Frankly, I do not want to do 
that. This whole problem is before the Senate because of this Secretary 
of the Interior. That is why we are here, because Secretary Bruce 
Babbitt declared a war on the ranchers and decided that he would go all 
one way. How am I going to sit here with the understanding that he 
might be around for a while and give him the authority to determine 
when we are going to use environmental impact statements on the public 
domain when we have a bill right here before us? This is the place to 
decide it. We determine the law. I do not believe we should open that 
approach to the thousands of permits on the public domain. It is not 
the right tool.

  Because I am standing here saying that does not mean for one second 
that I am for degrading the public domain. I am saying that a NEPA 
statement can be used for long delays, for reasons never intended by 
the act and, in particular, by those who would like to see ranching off 
the public domain. I do not want to sit here and hide under a tent and 
say that does not exist, because it does.
  But I want to make one more point, one more time. The environmental 
impact statement approach to assessment is not currently being used on 
the BLM land day by day for issuances or renewals, and it is being used 
sparingly by the Forest Service. If there ever was a time when we had 
an opportunity to take a look at this, it is right now. Let us see how 
we really ought to apply it and how it ought to be done.
  Frankly, I am so tired of having people interpret the bill that I 
have written and write reports and use this famous word ``may.'' ``It 
may have an impact.'' They do not tell you it will. That last report by 
the Congressional Research Service, if you read it, they have about six 
or eight mays--m-a-y. They do not say it will, they say it may.
  I would like to say, as I read my friend and colleague's bill, I can 
find a lot of ``mays'' that I am sure he did not intend. But if I sent 
it over to the Congressional Research Service and said, ``You look at 
it my way,'' they will say, ``Maybe it does the following and maybe it 
does the following.''
  For instance, in our bill, we unequivocally state that nothing in 
this legislation shall change the rights, privileges and all the other 
things that you talk about for hunting and fishing. We put it in 
because we kept getting bombarded that we were trying to take away 
fishing rights and hunting rights. I might say that provision is not in 
the bill you produced, the bill before the Senate. It may be that since 
that provision is not in there, there may be a serious negative effect 
against trout fishing and hunting under the Bingaman substitute.
  I hope everybody is listening carefully to what I am saying, because 
that is the way the underlying bill we have before us has been treated 
more times than not. I can go through and cite a number of others. The 
substitute before us does not iterate or reiterate that multiple use is 
the order of the day, if I understand from the staff who have read it. 
It does not say that.
  Senator Bingaman would say, I am sure, it does not have to be in 
there. I would say, like some of those who have reported on the 
Domenici-Craig bill, ``Well, since it isn't in there, it may be 
intended to have a negative impact on multiple use.''
  I am not suggesting Senator Bingaman intended that. But neither do I 
believe others ought to insinuate that our bill does that when they 
have some difference of opinion, or when they approach the 
interpretation from a position that I do not have.
  I do not intend to go through Senator Bingaman's bill in detail. But 
I want to say one more time--and perhaps a better way than yesterday; 
and it is good that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is in 
the Chamber because I have talked to him about this issue for a number 
of times--let me say to the U.S. Senate, sometimes we come to the floor 
and talk politics and sometimes we exaggerate our position and 
sometimes we state or understate, depending upon how the debate 
proceeds, but this Senator, from the State of New Mexico, one of the 
most beautiful States in America, this Senator who has seen more 
wilderness created in New Mexico under bills that I have introduced 
than any in history, I do not intend to spoil the public domain nor to 
turn it over to one of the myriad of multiple users.
  If I thought for a minute that the bill I have before the U.S. Senate 
was calculated to make the public domain worse or to degrade it, or to 
take away the power of the Forest Service managers and the BLM 
managers, I would tell everybody to vote against it today. I am not 
here for that reason. I am here simply because I am convinced that 
multiple use can be made to work. It is the law of the land. I think it 
should continue to be. But I do not believe ranching can continue under 
the regulations established by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.
  I believe if those stay in effect there will be no more ranching. For 
those who would say, wait a minute, Senator, it has been in effect for 
6 months, well they are written such that none of the impact will occur 
for a long time. If the Secretary has time to implement them, he will 
not implement them until after the election. I do not say that very 
often. But I believe that from the very soul of myself that this 
Secretary made a mistake when he adopted the so-called ``Babbitt 
Rangeland Reform '94 regulations.'' If I were a poet I would phrase 
something about that.
  Anyway, we are going to do away with Secretary Bruce Babbitt's set of 
regulations and substitute some that we think will manage the range 
properly, and do three very important things--stabilize the public 
domain from the standpoint of the ranching community so that they are 
not on a constant roller coaster depending upon the administration, 
depending upon the regulator, depending upon who gets them into court 
under some lawsuit.
  We will try to stabilize it at a level and we will see, once and for 
all, can ranching as a way of life exist in the public domain in 
America? This may be a debate about whether you want to have any more 
cowboys out in the West that are true, or whether you want them all to 
come from Hollywood. This may be the debate. There will be plenty of it 
in Hollywood because it is a fantastic culture. The lifestyle is 
tremendous.
  I did not come from that lifestyle. I did not know anything about it 
when I became a Senator. In fact, I was from a place where you could be 
city folk in the State of New Mexico; that was Albuquerque. Anywhere 
else, because the towns are all smaller, I probably would have been 
somewhat associated with ranching. I was not, but I have been since 
then.
  I believe we ought to stabilize that environment without jeopardizing 
the other multiple users. I think there is a chance of doing that. The 
only thing that stands in the way is a vote here in the Senate and a 
pen in the hand of the President of the United States. He will have the 
last shot when we get this bill through here. I hope we can get this 
accomplished.
  My third point is, that for those who insist that the ranching 
community are abusers of the public domain, that the community is not a 
conservation community, for those who insist that they are the ones who 
will ruin the range and the other people will preserve the range, that 
they are the ones against wild animals and habitat, let me suggest they 
are the best conservationists around. Let me suggest, but for their 
actions, habitat would disappear in many areas of America. Not just a 
little bit, but in a manifold manner it would start disappearing.
  Those who live and work on the land provide the water, they provide 
the management, and yes, a few riparian areas have been overgrazed 
because of the water being short in other areas, but most ranchers take 
as good a care of the resources as they possibly can. So I am here 
because I have confidence that this system will work, but I do not have 
one bit of confidence that multiple use will be preserved with 
equanimity and fairness for all to use if we leave the Babbitt 
regulations in place. It is just that simple.

  I commend my friend, Senator Bingaman, my cohort from New Mexico, 
because to some extent he agrees. He does not come before the Senate 
saying we want to leave every one of Secretary Bruce Babbitt's 
regulations in place. He has selectively decided

[[Page S2608]]

some of them must go. I believe our bill is fairer for the ranching 
community and is more apt to add stability to the range and protect the 
other users.
  So this may be the last word I have on this. I would not have spoken 
this long if there were Members on the other side ready to speak. I see 
Senator Bryan is here. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senate for 
listening.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, the 
distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, for yielding the floor.
  Mr. President, most of those who are privileged to represent the West 
on both sides of the political divide recognize that we need to enact 
responsible grazing legislation that balances the concerns of the 
livestock industry with the concerns of the conservation community. It 
is in seeking that illusive goal of balance that we find ourselves 
operating from a slightly different approach.
  In my view, notwithstanding the best efforts of the distinguished 
senior Senator from New Mexico, his bill fails to achieve that balance 
and, in my view, would seriously threaten the multiple-use concept 
which has governed public land policy for decades. It is for that 
reason that I rise this afternoon to support the substitute amendment 
offered by the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, which I 
believe represents a preferred course of action. The Bingaman 
substitute is a thoughtful, balanced approach to correct what is wrong 
with the current grazing regulations.
  Let me just also note for the Record, Mr. President, that each summer 
on the occasion of our recess I spend most of that recess traveling 
throughout rural Nevada. Today Nevada, paradoxically, is the fastest 
growing State in the country, although 87 percent of the total land 
area is under Federal jurisdiction. It is also one of the most urban 
states in the country, with most of the population located in the 
metropolitan Las Vegas area, which today exceeds 1 million people, and 
in northern Nevada in the so-called Truckee Meadows, embracing Reno-
Sparks. One might logically say it extends to Carson City and Douglas 
County, that they are as well in a metropolitan area.
  Although rural Nevada represents a small part of the population, I 
have been concerned, since the time I first assumed statewide office in 
1979 as attorney general, with the concerns of those good people who 
choose, as our colleague and friend, Senator Domenici, points out, a 
lifestyle which has been part of the heritage of the West and part of 
the heritage of our State.
  Their concerns are legitimate. They are good people. They work hard. 
They want to protect a livelihood and a lifestyle which is terribly 
important to them. It is for that reason, Mr. President, for the last 6 
months I have been a participant in a bipartisan group of western 
Senators and their staffs in an effort to reach a consensus on grazing 
legislation.
  Notwithstanding the hours of effort made on both sides of the 
political aisle, it is my view the negotiations failed because of the 
approach insisted upon by the distinguished senior Senator from New 
Mexico, that is, his insistence on using S. 1459, his bill, as a 
baseline for discussions. Because of that methodology or that approach, 
which sought to codify a series of old grazing regulations, 
superimposing a new series of regulations and statutory provisions as 
well, it became very difficult to modify his bill, and ultimately we 
failed to achieve a consensus in working out an issue which we all 
share a legitimate interest in resolving.
  I would note that some improvements were made to the Domenici bill, 
as a result of our discussions. But I have never been of the view that 
Congress should micromanage grazing policy to the extent that is 
provided for in the Domenici bill. For example, the bill limits public 
participation in grazing decisions by listing seven arbitrary instances 
in which an ``affected interest''--those are words of art--occur and 
individuals are entitled to be notified of a proposed grazing 
decision. It denies the public the opportunity to protest a grazing 
decision; it exempts on-the-ground grazing management decisions from 
the National Environment Policy Act; and finally, it does not target 
specific, troublesome regulations for repeal, rather, it contains a 
blanket repeal of all the current BLM grazing regulations.

  What we are presenting here today in the Domenici bill in many 
respects takes a step back from the policies originally established 
during the Reagan administration under the tenure of Interior Secretary 
James Watt. To put that in some context, the former Secretary has been 
accused of many things, but he has never been accused of being an 
environmentalist. I believe we ought to make the necessary changes to 
the so-called rangeland reform proposals that have been offered under 
Secretary Babbitt.
  Efforts to limit the public's right to be involved in grazing 
decisions will not, in my opinion, bring stability to the ranching 
industry, nor will it improve rangeland conditions. It will only lead 
to continued turmoil and lawsuits that are a drain on the resources of 
both the ranching community and the Federal Government.
  By way of contrast, the substitute amendment offered by Senator 
Bingaman, which I am pleased to cosponsor, reflects a balanced approach 
that, in my opinion, addresses the legitimate concerns of the ranching 
industry. I repeat, again, I believe that there are many such 
legitimate concerns.
  It also addresses the equally valid concern and interests of the 
conservation community. It does not arbitrarily repeal the current 
grazing regulations and replace them with an inflexible statutory 
scheme which, in my view, S. 1459 would create.
  For example, in response to concerns raised by Nevada ranchers and 
others, the Bingaman substitute waives the application of NEPA for 
permit renewals and transfers unless significant changes are made. It 
contains expedited NEPA provisions where grazing activities would not 
have a significant effect on the environment. I believe those are 
positive and instructive changes that meet some of the concerns raised 
by the Nevada ranchers. It also reinstates the grazing advisory boards 
and expands the surcharge exemption to include spouses and 
grandchildren, or children which Nevada ranchers have raised.
  On the other hand, however, in response to concerns expressed by 
conservation groups, those who enjoy the public land for outdoor 
recreational use, whether hunting, fishing or hiking, these 
organizations, as well, have legitimate interests. I believe the 
Bingaman substitute protects public involvement in grazing decisions 
and requires that other public land values, as important as grazing is, 
it is not the only important public land value that needs to be 
protected, but wildlife is given equal consideration in the 
decisionmaking process in the goal of achieving a balance, recognizing 
that we want to be fair to Nevada ranchers, we want to make sure they 
are able to continue to use the public lands as they have for 
generations and to provide for themselves and their families.
  We also need to recognize that the West has changed. The demand made 
upon public lands for outdoor recreational uses have grown 
exponentially over the years, as Nevada in my own lifetime has gone 
from a State whose population the year I started school in Las Vegas in 
1942 had slightly more than 100,000. We used to say, somewhat tongue-
in-cheek but true, that every person, every man, woman, and child in 
Nevada, could be comfortably seated in the Los Angeles coliseum in 
1942. Today, it is the fastest growing State in the Nation. Our 
population, small by contrast with some of our larger States, is 1.6 
million. So the uses of public land, where we strike that balance, is 
very important to this Senator in making sure that public recreational 
values are considered in the decisionmaking process, as well as grazing 
interests.
  In addition, the substitute offered by Senator Bingaman specifically 
authorizes conservation use so that non- ranching entities can hold a 
permit and rest an allotment if the practice is not deemed inconsistent 
with the land use. Conservation use, as a management practice, is 
particularly important to us in southern Nevada. It is an integral part 
of the Clark County's Habitat Conservation Plan, a plan devised in 
response to the concerns advanced by

[[Page S2609]]

many about the federally listed endangered species, the desert 
tortoise. Without that habitat conservation plan, a moratorium might 
very well have gone into effect with potentially catastrophic economic 
impacts for those of us who make southern Nevada our home. That habitat 
conservation plan was a compromise achieved as a result of the ability 
to use conservation use as a management practice.

  Another important provision of the Bingaman substitute concerns the 
use of the portion of grazing fees that are returned to the States and 
dispensed to local grazing boards. The substitute provides that these 
funds may only be used for on-the-ground range improvements and for the 
support of local public schools in the counties in which the fees were 
generated. Currently, those fees are subject, in my opinion, to an 
abuse, an unconscionable abuse, in that these moneys are currently 
being used to finance lobbying activities and litigation.
  Nye County, NV, has used more than $40,000 of these funds to finance 
a legal battle against the BLM, where they have asserted a claim of 
ownership over all of BLM publicly administered land in Nye County. 
This is indefensible. I acknowledge that my friends and neighbors in 
Nye County have every right to avail themselves of the Federal court 
system to make these claims, but they do not, in my view, have the 
right to rely on federal grazing fees returned to local grazing boards 
to fight these causes. Those ought to be confined to on-the-ground 
improvements for public schools in the county in which the fees are 
generated.
  The Bingaman substitute, in my view, strikes an appropriate balance 
by reinstating the grazing boards but prohibiting this outrageous 
behavior and improper use of these funds.
  As I began, I mentioned over the year I have had a chance to visit 
extensively with Nevada's ranchers and to hear their legitimate 
concerns about the new grazing regulations, concerns that I feel should 
be, but are not, addressed by the legislation before us today. The 
ranchers I have met with are honest, hard-working people who asked 
Congress, in essence, to set ground rules for grazing on public lands 
that will bring a sense of stability to the ranching community. If 
stability is of paramount concern to the ranching community, it is my 
view that S. 1459 is not the answer.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues 
that the administration has promised to veto S. 1459 as it is currently 
written. Our only hope, if we are interested in achieving that 
stability and balance to which I have addressed myself earlier this 
afternoon, is to enact a balanced piece of legislation which the 
administration can sign into law.
  For those reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in 
the Bingaman substitute so this issue can be put to rest and a sense of 
stability can be brought to our friends and neighbors in the ranching 
communities. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. My statement will not be very long, but 
I just wanted to make a couple of comments. We just completed debate on 
the salvage timber, and the package offered by Senator Bingaman is, at 
best, described as yet another example of a mindset that prevails here 
in Washington, DC.
  Yesterday, I stated in this body that in order to answer that 
question, we, this generation--this generation--if we are to hand over 
to the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, a better 
Earth than we were handed, a world that will sustain them and their 
daily needs for food and fiber, we have to approach the way the Federal 
Government writes rules and regulates them.
  In the salvage logging debate, there were examples of actions taken 
by local authorities to protect the integrity of the law and the intent 
of the law. It has, in my State, brought some peace to the woods. There 
are examples of how land managers went the extra mile involving the 
local groups in the decisionmaking process of salvage. The involvement 
was loggers, environmental groups, local government, and land managers 
themselves. We should really congratulate the region I director of the 
U.S. Forest Service, because he used that process to determine a timber 
sale and used the same guidelines that we have always used, adhering to 
current environmental law. As dedicated as he is to the forest, he used 
all of those, and the result was that local folks signed off on the 
salvage sale.

  Forest health is the goal, and it was then. Salvage is part of that 
goal. It is a dual goal. Loggers have gone back to work, mills are 
turning out wood products again for Americans--all Americans--and we 
are having and using forest resources that have been tied up in the 
courts for a long time.
  Decisions that are made on the ground work best. Yet, this substitute 
calls for decisions to be made thousands of miles away from the 
resource that is now being used by all Americans, we all benefit.
  At this point, I want to associate myself with the words of my friend 
from Iowa last night, Senator Grassley, in his brief statement made on 
this floor. There are times in this country when we who are involved in 
agriculture get a little bit timid about what we do, telling the people 
what we do. Well, I am here to tell you it is about time, and this 
country better wake up and realize what the production of food and 
fiber does for this Nation. Yes, we like to call ourselves 
agriculturalists, proclaiming the importance of it. I think we get 
timid because we go under the false assumption that everybody 
understands and knows the importance of agriculture and knows that we 
produce the largest segment of the GDP in this country, over 20 
percent. Yet, that GDP has produced a raw product by less than 2 
percent of the population. It is also the largest export this country 
has. In other words, we feed the world.
  Now, why do we so distrust the direction in which the present 
Secretary of the Interior is taking us? Can I cite one example? Wolf 
reintroduction into Yellowstone Park. Hearings all over the West. We 
did not hear a lot of support for that. Yet, it has caused some 
polarization of groups that actually share the same goal in my State--
share the same goal of a better world and, yes, the environment. But 
the actions of the Federal Government and the arrogance of this 
particular occurrence have damaged the relationship within and without 
the communities in Montana. Not only is it expensive, spending your tax 
dollars, but if you contrast that, exactly the same thing is happening 
in Glacier National Park. But that is a natural migration of wolves 
from Canada. That does not seem to get any headlines in the newspaper. 
In that area of Montana, there is hardly any contact between man and 
wolf because, basically, both have learned the hard reality of the 
rules of survival. One never hears of that occurrence. Yet, we have 
wolves up there in Glacier Park and in the Bob Marshall. But one hears 
of the artificial introduction of that animal into that Yellowstone 
Park, which, in my opinion, is doomed to fail.
  There are different fee rates. In my opinion, there is one main 
problem of this debate. We are trying to find the answer to a very, 
very difficult question. I say this: We are trying to recommend a 
policy of ``one size fits all,'' when there are differences in the 
lands, the topography, thus, the production capability of the lands. 
Those differences are huge.
  I guess that is why I so strongly recommend that we allow all the 
major decisions to be made on the ground locally, to involve local 
people. There is no way that we, in Montana, run and manage our range 
the same way as they do in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, or anywhere 
else. There are different soils, different growing seasons, different 
weather conditions, different patterns, all dictating managing our 
range differently. It is just like privately owned land. All Federal 
lands and locales are not alike. The management scheme has to be 
different to attain the same result. Anyone who has ever had anything 
to do with land understands that. I understand that. I was raised on a 
small farm of 160 acres, with two rocks and one section of dirt in 
northwest Missouri. Every acre was not the same on that little 160 
acres either. But you knew how to handle them. You farmed each one sort 
of differently in order to get the desired results.
  That is hard to explain to folks who have not had a personal 
relationship

[[Page S2610]]

with the land or a real understanding of it. Most times, they do not 
care about the knowledge, or the common sense, or even less caring and 
respect for the thousands of families who have the sense, knowledge, 
history, and responsibility to manage this land that sustains them, and 
the rest of America, as well.
  Let us not go backwards. Let us make those decisions on the ground. 
The Bingaman substitute takes us backward. Let us force people to sit 
down and talk, but let us base our decisions on the right decisions and 
on what has to happen on rangeland. Take the management. If hunters are 
worried about access, in the Domenici bill there is express language 
dealing with access. If you are worried about wildlife, we have already 
given you the figures that we have more wildlife today than ever in the 
history of this country. Water quality, that, too. Once you take the 
management of the land away--and this could well do it because there 
are folks who do not have a real good understanding--then we are in 
real trouble in the communities that derive a living from this 
resource. It is resource management.
  So what I suggest and what I tell my colleagues is to defeat the 
Bingaman substitute and let us pass the Domenici bill, because there 
have been so many hours and so much work that has gone into this bill, 
working with the administration and with everybody concerned. No, 
everybody will not get everything they want. But everybody is going to 
want what they get. Let us put people into the equation whenever we 
start talking about resource management on public lands because real 
people are involved and will be impacted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman 
substitute. In August of 1994, as a member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, when we were attempting to work out 
differences with the House, we had adopted in that conference a measure 
that was debated long on this Senate floor. In fact, the debate went on 
for several weeks. Four or five cloture votes were held on that matter. 
I believe we got 57 votes on several occasions, but we were never able 
to reach that magic figure of 60 to terminate debate and go forward 
with a revision of the grazing law. Had we done so, Mr. President, we 
would not be here today debating whether or not the Babbitt regulations 
were good or bad. We would have been working under a series of rules 
that would bind one administration to another. Ranchers would have had 
some defined rules in law to work under. They would have been able to 
obtain loans on their property, and there would be peace and quiet in 
``Ranchland U.S.A.'' The problem is, however, Mr. President, that there 
were those who felt it was better not to adopt that.

  Following the unsuccessful effort to invoke cloture, even though the 
majority of this body and the other body approved the compromise, 
Secretary of Interior Babbitt issued a series of regulations that are 
now in effect. The proposed compromise that was debated so long and 
hard here in my opinion was better than the Babbitt regulations, much 
more defined, not nearly as complicated, direct to the point, and would 
have allowed the ranchers of western America to be able to determine 
how they should run their properties. There were many months that went 
by before the regulations were promulgated. They were phased in. The 
ranchers even today really do not know for sure what the impact of 
those regulations are going to be. They are all in effect. They 
certainly are not as disastrous as prophesied by a number of people.
  I say this: I think what has gone on this past year has been 
constructive. It has been educational, I think. I extend my 
appreciation to the western Senators, particularly Senator Craig Thomas 
and Senator John Kyl. Those two Republicans and this Senator were 
appointed by the western Senators to try to come up with a compromise. 
We were making great headway when the House ducked grazing reform and 
reconciliation, and had the work terminated that we had done. But even 
that was not a failure because the work that I did with the Senator 
from Wyoming and the Senator from Arizona was helpful in the next wave 
of negotiations that we had. Senator Domenici's first bill that was 
offered had around 65 pages in it. After indicating to him that the 
bill was too complex, too broad, he came out with another draft about 
half that size. That is what we have been working from.
  We have made progress. There are matters in this Domenici bill that 
are ones that I asked to be put in that bill. I appreciate that. 
Progress has been made. That is one reason that the debate today is not 
as acrimonious as it was in August 1994. The debate is constrained. It 
is deliberative and constructive. I have listened to almost all of the 
debate that has taken place, and I think it is something that the 
Senate should feel good about.
  But I reiterate that we would have been better off, there would have 
been finality, if we had adopted the compromise of August 1994 that 
came out of Interior appropriations.
  We are now faced with reality. We have been told by the 
administration that if the Domenici bill is adopted it will be vetoed. 
I think it is quite clear that, if it is vetoed, the veto will be 
sustained. That is one reason I feel so strongly about the alternative, 
the substitute, that has been put together by a group of western 
Democratic Senators. I believe that we could prevail upon the President 
not to veto that bill.
  I understand the importance of livestock grazing in the western part 
of the United States. The small town that I was raised in southern 
Nevada had both mining and ranching. I worked as a boy and as a young 
man for those permittees of grazing in the southern part of the State 
around Searchlight. I did all kinds of things for them. Most of it was 
manual labor. But I understand--having gone out and taken water to 
cattle, taken feed to the cattle, cleaned out wells, generally helped 
those ranchers maintain their ranch on this very arid land--how 
important it is.
  Most all ranchers, Mr. President, are hard working, good citizens--
really the epitome of what is good about our country. They have great 
respect for the land. They consider it their land. I have no problem 
with that. But, Mr. President, we have talked today about western 
ranchers in a flattering way. And I repeat that the vast majority of 
those in the ranching community are good citizens. There are some who 
are not. There are the so-called proverbial rotten apples that spoil 
the barrel. What did they do? There are all kinds of things that these 
few rotten apples do. One is they deny access to public land. Others do 
not have a concern for the continued health of the land.

  Mr. President, in 1986 we debated in this body the Forest Service 
Wilderness bill for the State of Nevada. There had been 25-plus years 
since the Wilderness Act was passed. And Nevada basically had not done 
their work. I worked on that for a long time. Even though I started in 
the House of Representatives before I came here, after Senator Bryan 
arrived in the Senate we were finally able to get it passed preserving 
in Nevada beautiful land.
  Nevada is the most mountainous State in the Union. Most people think 
it is arid with no greenery on it. That is not true. We have great 
mountain meadows and streams. We have animal life, antelope, and 
mountain sheep. We even have mountain goats in Nevada, and beaver, and 
eagles. It is beautiful country. After the wilderness bill was passed 
some ranchers in Nevada blocked off their land. As an excuse for not 
allowing hunters onto public lands they said it was because of 
wilderness. It is simply not true.
  We have, for example, in northern Nevada a public land rancher who 
has blocked access to public lands on a road that was public in the 
mid-1800's to the mid-1980's. This same individual has harassed hunters 
on public land that come near his land. Also, this individual rides his 
horse onto public lands in an effort to disrupt hunting. Not 
coincidentally this same individual operates a guide service, and has a 
financial incentive to disrupt public hunting. He wants it to be 
private hunting. It is only one rotten apple. But it is enough to spoil 
the barrel.
  Another example that has been brought to my attention is a grazing 
permittee in northern Nevada who, armed with a rifle, harassed hunters 
on public lands.

[[Page S2611]]

  Mr. President, we need to ensure that the legitimate users of the 
public lands are not prohibited from hunting on these public lands, nor 
prohibited from using these public lands, nor even discouraged from 
using these public lands.
  We need legislation that will provide land managers with the 
flexibility to protect the environment with multiple use without 
placing an administrative burden or undue restriction on hunters.
  Mr. President, as my colleague from the State of Nevada indicated, 
when he started high school there were less than 100,000 people in the 
State of Nevada. We are now approaching 2 million--not large by the 
standards of the State of Pennsylvania, the State represented by the 
Chair. But it is a big State in our mind, and we have tens of 
thousands, now in the hundreds of thousands of hunters throughout the 
State of Nevada. It used to be, when my colleague and I were young men 
growing up in Nevada, that rangelands were used basically by no one 
other than cattlemen, but it is not that way anymore. There is 
competition for those lands: off-road vehicle users, all-terrain 
vehicle users, snowmobilers, backpackers, cross-country skiers, and 
family outings to go on picnics. There is lots of competition for those 
public lands in addition to the hunters and fishers and the ranchers.

  We need to make sure that those people who ranch on public lands 
treat them the way they should treat the lands. They are not the lands 
of the individual rancher. They are public lands and should be treated 
accordingly.
  As I have indicated, in the past, ranchers have had the public lands 
to themselves. The West is different today with many competing uses for 
these public lands. We cannot go backward. Today, in Nevada, we have 
had a tremendous increase, as I have indicated, in the number of 
hunters and other people who want to use the land. Because of these 
competing interests, it is essential we get a bill that provides for a 
balanced approach to multiple use. The Domenici proposal does not 
adequately provide for this.
  Now, Mr. President, as I complimented my friend from Wyoming, my 
friend from Arizona, I also compliment the senior Senator from New 
Mexico. He has come some ways in this bill, and I appreciate that very 
much. I also compliment the junior Senator from New Mexico who I think 
with this alternate proposal has done a good job in really framing the 
issues before this body.
  As I have indicated, a balanced approach to multiple use is not 
adequately contained in this bill. It elevates a single use of the 
public lands above other multiple uses, and it reduces the agency 
ability to protect the rangeland environment and limits citizen 
involvement in public lands management.
  It is not my goal to prohibit livestock on public lands, although 
that is how some opponents of the Domenici bill were characterized 
yesterday. I think that I have had as much experience as most western 
Senators, more than others, in grazing land, ranch land generally. It 
is not my ultimate goal to prohibit livestock grazing. I think we 
should maintain it. I think grazing livestock, if done right, makes 
land healthier. It makes it better. But it has to be done right. And we 
have to allow the land managers to make sure that those few rotten 
apples that are going to spoil the barrel are taken from the barrel, 
they have the ability to take the rotten apple out of the barrel.
  That is all we are asking in this alternative, this substitute. The 
substitute represents a compromise designed to provide a balance 
between providing stability to the livestock industry and the need for 
the BLM and Forest Service to have the flexibility necessary to 
responsibly manage Federal grazing lands and ensure multiple uses of 
the public lands.
  My concerns with this bill of my friend, the senior Senator from New 
Mexico, I will talk about. The alternative prohibits use of the State's 
share of grazing fees for litigation, ensuring that the money is used 
to benefit the land or community, that is, making improvements in the 
land, riparian improvements, other improvements on the land. Currently, 
in Nevada, the State's share of Federal grazing fees is being used to 
sue the Federal or State government like the Nye County case, the so-
called Sagebrush Rebellion II case. I have to tell you, frankly, Mr. 
President, everyone knew in the beginning that case was a loser. You 
would not have to graduate from Harvard Law School; I do not think you 
would have to graduate from Harvard elementary school to understand 
that that effort was doomed to failure.
  In spite of that and the demagoguery that went forward based upon it, 
they used these moneys which were intended to be spent on the land in 
Nevada, improving water holes, fixing streams, building a road maybe--
that is not what they used it for. They used in Nevada almost $300,000 
of Federal moneys for legal counsel, foundation, associations, lawyers 
generally. This money was wasted, a total waste.

  The bill that has been propounded by the senior Senator from New 
Mexico makes a provision for that. It does a good job. It is not as 
good as the substitute, but it is fine. It says those moneys can still 
be used for lawyers for administrative hearings. I do not think they 
should be able to use them even for that, and we have plugged that hole 
in the substitute.
  The money that comes from these grazing fees that is returned to the 
States, Mr. President, I want used to improve the land, not to be spent 
on litigation or lobbying activities.
  As I have indicated, the Domenici bill restricts the use of the 
State's share of the grazing fees, but it provides a number of 
loopholes. It may allow States to continue to use Federal moneys for 
lobbying and administrative appeals. We need these moneys used to 
improve the land.
  The Domenici bill excludes grazing activities, management actions and 
decisions from NEPA.
  The substitute that I am cosponsoring represents a compromise between 
sportsmen and ranchers. The renewal or transfer of permits is not 
subject to NEPA unless it will involve significant changes in 
management practices or significant environmental damage is occurring 
or is imminent.
  This is not good enough. For example, when a rancher's permit comes 
up for renewal, if he or she has been a good steward of the land and 
has maintained the health of the land, that renewal will not be subject 
to NEPA nor should it be. If, however, as a result of an ongoing 
drought caused by nature or bad management practices of the rancher 
environmental damage has occurred or is occurring, renewal would be 
subject to a NEPA review.
  That does not sound unreasonable. It also provides a mechanism to 
exclude grazing actions such as moving a fence or moving a stock tank 
from NEPA. That is what the alternative does, that is what the 
substitute does, when the activity is determined to have a significant 
impact on the environment. That is the way it should be.
  The Domenici bill does not provide for public participation up front 
in the decisionmaking process. What this is going to cause is a lot 
more litigation because you cannot stop people from filing lawsuits, 
and that is what they will do early on. So what we need is to continue 
some semblance of administrative proceedings on these decisions that 
have been made. This will avoid litigation.
  Yesterday, in the debate, it was stated that the Domenici bill does 
not take away rights from fishermen and hunters. I respectfully submit 
that perhaps the Domenici bill might not limit sportsmen's right to 
access. It does, however limit their access to the process. Sportsmen 
and other users of the public lands are precluded from involvement in 
the development of grazing decisions. They should be involved, because, 
Mr. President, they have rights to that public land. It does not 
involve the public up front in the decisionmaking process, and it 
should.

  The substitute that I am cosponsoring allows persons defined as 
``affected interests'' to be consulted on significant grazing actions 
and decisions taken by the Secretary. No formal, complicated process is 
mandated. What it does, though, is strike a reasonable balance between 
the Secretary's regulations, which would include involvement by the 
``interested public,'' and the Domenici bill, which provides for 
participation only after a draft decision has been made.
  In the Domenici bill, only permittees and lessees are able to protest 
proposed management decisions. This is wrong.

[[Page S2612]]

 All other citizens could be excluded from taking an active role in a 
protest and appeal process. This restricts the ability to resolve 
conflicts early and, I believe, cheaply. So, in our substitute, 
affected interests are allowed to protest proposed decisions, allowing 
these conflicts to be resolved earlier and more informally, without 
litigation.
  I also say that there are some who think, if you just eliminate this 
affected interest ability to challenge some of these administrative 
decisions, they are not going to challenge them. They will do it, but 
they will do it in the courts.
  The Domenici bill limits the managers' ability to tailor and develop 
terms and conditions to protect winter forage for elk and deer, nesting 
habitat of game birds, water resources for wildlife, and water quality, 
and healthy riparian interests. Only allotments under an allotment 
management plan can have terms and conditions attached. But this will 
not work, because only 20 percent of the permits are currently under an 
allotment management plan.
  So, under their proposal, 80 percent of the permits simply would not 
be under terms and conditions. And it would limit the manager's ability 
to do anything about tailoring and developing terms and conditions to 
protect the things that I have already outlined.
  Allotment management plans look to the lands in a specific area and 
prescribe the livestock grazing practices necessary to meet multiple 
users' objectives. They can be costly and time consuming to complete. 
So we cannot decree that 100 percent of them be done. But, to the 
contrary, we cannot take away the managers' ability to put reasonable 
conditions on the land. The substitute balances the need for the BLM to 
have adequate authority to properly manage the public lands to ensure 
their long-term health with the need for ranchers to have some 
stability in terms and conditions of the grazing permit that we have 
talked about.
  The proposed substitute ensures that ranchers will not be subject to 
arbitrary changes in the terms and conditions of a grazing permit. I 
think that should make the ranchers feel secure. One of the things we 
talked about when we had this long debate in August of 1994 was the 
fact that we needed to give the ranching community stability. We needed 
to give the ranching community certainty, so they could go forward and 
borrow money, make improvements. Here it is, almost 2 years later, and 
things are more uncertain than they have ever been. I respectfully 
submit, my friends who so badly want to get the Domenici bill passed, 
for what? The President is going to veto this bill. No matter what 
happens when we get it out of the House, the President said he is going 
to veto it.
  I think we would do much better if we came with a bill that would be 
approved, that will be voted for by a majority of the Democratic 
Senators from the western part of the United States, and I am sure we 
could have some influence on the President to sign the bill.
  Mr. President, the Domenici bill impedes permittees from employing 
proven restoration techniques, such as conservation use, by threatening 
permit loss if they do not make grazing use under the terms and 
conditions of a grazing permit.
  What this means is that if someone wants to purchase a grazing 
permit, they cannot do it unless they want to ranch on it, unless they 
want to graze on it. It was stated last night that the minority chose 
to make nonuse of public lands a dominant use. This simply is not true. 
I recognize what the benefits of conservation nonuse can provide to the 
environment, and I believe it should be an option available to 
permittees.
  In Southern Nevada, because of an endangered species problem, an 
animal called the desert tortoise, construction basically was brought 
to a grinding halt in the Las Vegas area.
  Mr. President, we were able to work out our problems very quickly. 
One of the ways we were able to work out our problems under the terms 
of the Endangered Species Act was we had a conservation nonuse program. 
Clark County, NV, where Las Vegas is located, along with the Nature 
Conservancy, holds allotments in conservation nonuse for the benefit of 
this endangered species and allowed us to get back to work in building 
the most rapidly growing city and State in the United States.
  Under our substitute, conservation use may be approved for periods up 
to 10 years if consistent with the land use plan. This is important. I 
will also suggest I do not know what my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are worried about, or I should say my friend the senior 
Senator from New Mexico, because under the present rules and 
regulations in the law, there is not a big line forming for people to 
sign up for conservation nonuse. It is used infrequently, but when it 
is used, it is important.
  I repeat, there is not a long line of institutions or people saying, 
``I want a conservation nonuse permit.'' It does not happen very often, 
but when it does, it is important.
  If the Domenici bill were approved, it, in effect, would deny 
citizens of this country the ability to hold a grazing permit. I think 
that is wrong. In our substitute, permittees do not have to be in the 
livestock business to hold a permit.
  Another problem I have with the bill of my friend from New Mexico is 
it requires managers--that is, someone from BLM or Forest Service--to 
provide 48 hours of advance notice to the rancher that they are going 
to take a look at the land. It inhibits the ability to manage the land. 
It also limits the flexibility of the manager to do complete 
monitoring. Mr. President, who are they trying to protect? They are 
trying to protect one of the bad apples. That is the only type of 
individual who would be concerned about someone coming on their land to 
see if they were grazing too many cattle in a riparian area or whatever 
else they were doing to degrade the environment.
  So the substitute I am cosponsoring with others does not require 
advance notification for monitoring or inspection.
  Also yesterday, it was stated that proponents of the Domenici bill 
were not here to defend the chief executive office's tycoons who bought 
some of this land out West. I acknowledge that. I think that is 
probably true. The subleasing provisions, though, of the Domenici bill 
limits the ability of the Forest Service and BLM to manage subleasing.
  What do I mean by this? What I mean by this is if someone named Tom 
Jones has a grazing permit, under our provision, if he wanted to 
sublease this to his children or grandchildren, he could do it. But if 
he wanted to sublease it to Bob Jones from the State of Arizona or the 
State of New Mexico or someplace else, he would not be able to do it. 
The permit should run to the permittee and should not give them the 
right to start leasing Federal land and making money on it. That, in 
effect, is what they have been doing. It should be stopped. We should 
not allow subleasing unless it is to family members.

  I would also suggest, Mr. President, that the Domenici legislation 
requires excessive amounts of costly time for monitoring rangeland 
studies and other delays before management actions that protect the 
environment can be implemented. That is not the right way to go. 
Agencies do not have the money nor the manpower to monitor all 
allotments. Our substitute allows agencies to rely on both monitoring 
data--and that means things they have actually seen--monitoring data, 
information they have collected, and also objective data that they have 
seen in making their decisions.
  The Domenici bill excludes groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout 
Unlimited, and other hunting and fishing groups and State agencies from 
entering into cooperative agreements for the development of a permanent 
range improvement or development of a rangeland.
  Mr. President, 5,000 cooperative agreements for range improvements 
are currently issued to nonpermittees. And 503 of these are in Nevada 
alone, representing about 15 percent of all range improvement permits 
and cooperative agreements in the State. The Domenici bill would 
dramatically limit agencies to leverage funds for range improvements. 
That is something we should not allow to happen.
  The substitute that I am cosponsoring allows nonpermittees to enter 
into cooperative agreements.
  Mr. President, in short, the Domenici substitute is certainly better 
than the

[[Page S2613]]

first draft we got of the bill. I say here that I appreciate the work 
that has been done by all western Senators. I am especially grateful to 
the staffs of all western Senators who have spent hours and days and 
weeks trying to come up with this. And there has been a spirit of 
cooperation. I wish we could have arrived at a bipartisan bill. We 
could not. But the issues have been narrowed significantly as a result 
of our sitting down and spending this endless time together.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, what I believe that the substitute 
offers is balance. It provides balance between multiple uses and 
ensuring that no one use is put on a higher plane than any other.
  The bill by my friend, the senior Senator from New Mexico, does not 
provide this balance. It elevates a single use of the public lands, 
grazing, above other multiple uses. That is not right. This is not what 
public lands are all about.
  I extend my appreciation to the junior Senator from New Mexico for 
his tireless efforts in coming up with what I think is a veto-proof 
bill, one that we should all join in supporting, get it out of the 
House, get it signed and allow Nevada ranchers and other western 
ranchers to get about their business.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last 2 days we have discussed the 
merits and shortcomings of the Public Rangelands Management Act. It is 
apparent that this is a complicated debate, riddled with hyperbole and 
misunderstanding.
  Let no one misunderstand, however, the context within which this 
debate has been conducted. There exists today throughout the West a 
palpable sense of economic anxiety that has its roots in the issuance 
of new grazing regulations by the Department of the Interior 2\1/2\ 
years ago; regulations that fueled fear among ranchers that they face a 
campaign by the Government to permanently remove them from Federal 
lands.
  This apprehension about Government insensitivity to the economic 
realities of ranching is tangible in my State of South Dakota and 
widespread throughout the West. Moreover, it has been aggravated by a 
prolonged period of extremely low cattle prices coupled with record 
high feed costs.
  There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. President, that ranchers' 
frustration with current Federal grazing policy is justified. Their 
grievances are both procedural and substantive.
  It was apparent that the regulations issued by the Interior 
Department in 1993 were conceived and issued in a manner that 
discounted the views of ranchers who earn their livelihood from public 
land.
  Those rules clearly reflect the dominant views and interests of other 
users, including environmentalists, conservationists, sportsmen and 
other recreationists. While these groups all have legitimate interests 
in the quality of Federal land management, the new rules simply do not 
strike a fair balance among competing uses.
  Like the first law of thermodynamics, every political action has a 
political reaction. The political reaction in the West to the new 
grazing rules was one of outrage and protest. Many in the ranching 
community understandably began to demonize these regulations. The 
legislation we are considering today was conceived in reaction to those 
rules.
  But unlike the laws of physics, in politics the appropriate reaction 
is not always an equal and opposite reaction. Often a political 
reaction does not solve problems, but rather only recasts them.
  That is the case with S. 1459. And that is why I will oppose the 
bill, and why I have worked with many of my Western States Democratic 
colleagues to develop an alternative to it.
  The Bingaman substitute solves many problems for ranchers without 
harming the interests of other users of Federal lands. For grasslands 
ranchers in South Dakota and elsewhere, it would create a separate 
management regime apart from the National Forest System--a system that 
is ill-suited to dealing with the unique requirements of Federal 
rangeland.
  Moreover, the Bingaman substitute overrides the language in the 
current regulations with respect to the United States Government 
perfecting all the water rights on Federal land. It places NEPA 
analysis in its proper perspective, ensuring that agency resources are 
spent evaluating the impacts of decisions that truly will effect the 
environment. And, it establishes a realistic fee formula with which 
ranchers can live.
  In other words, the Bingaman substitute addresses the legitimate 
concerns of ranchers in the West. It represents a better way of 
addressing prevailing concerns about Federal grazing policy.
  I do not question the commitment or motives of my colleagues who 
developed the committee bill. They have attempted to redress a serious 
matter through a serious effort. But their product moves Federal policy 
too far back in the opposite direction to the detriment of other public 
policy goals.
  S. 1459 strikes me as an overreaction to a very real threat to 
American ranchers. It will not bring us closer to a reasonable and 
balanced compromise. It will simply shift the equilibrium. If this bill 
is enacted, I suspect it will not be long before we are back here on 
the Senate floor debating the same issue from the opposite perspective.
  Mr. President, while we need grazing reform, S. 1459 shifts the 
balance past the sensible middle ground we should be seeking. Let me 
elaborate.
  To begin with, S. 1459 curtails public input beyond what I consider 
to be reasonable or necessary by restricting the ability of the public 
to be involved in the development of grazing proposals and to challenge 
specific decisions.
  What does this mean for users of Federal lands: campers, hikers, and 
scientists to name a few?
  It means that those who may know and use the land will have their 
opportunity for input into the decisionmaking process restricted, 
despite the fact that they may be able to offer very credible and 
useful advice. It means that recreational users will no longer be able 
to challenge a decision they feel precludes them from having access to 
lands they have a right to use.
  In contrast, Senator Bingaman's alternative retains the rights of 
ranchers and other interested parties to protest management decisions--
a provision that exists in current law.
  This is a very important point. The opportunity for public comment, 
protest, and appeal has become one of the most contentious elements in 
the grazing policy debate.
  The history of public involvement by various interest groups has not 
always been constructive. Appeals and protests have not always been 
used to offer useful advice or to ensure that decisions are faithful to 
the letter and spirit of the law. On occasion, they have been used to 
delay and derail reasonable decisions, sometimes on the basis of flimsy 
or irrelevant evidence or argument.
  Despite this acknowledgment, I am voting today to protect the 
public's right to comment on decisions that affect the public's lands. 
The course that some propose--to curtail comment process--is one that I 
do not feel can be justified by the historical evidence. Only through 
the unfettered competition of ideas will we be able to ensure 
development of the very best policies. No process of government should 
be sheltered by legal artifice from the force of a compelling argument. 
The management of our public lands demands no less a standard.
  I am also concerned that S. 1459 creates an unworkable system for 
holding title to range improvements. The Bingaman alternative retains 
the title to permanent range improvements in the name of the United 
States, while the committee bill would share the title between the 
United States and the ranchers. Under the substitute, ranchers are 
compensated for their expenses if they give up the permit or the land 
use changes and they can no longer graze the land.
  Further, S. 1459 restricts the ability of those outside the livestock 
business to obtain permits for conservation purposes. No longer would a 
Nature Conservancy be able to obtain permits and rest the land in 
conservation use. It simply is not fair to prohibit nonlivestock 
entities from obtaining permits to use Federal lands.
  The Bingaman alternative amendment allows anyone meeting basic 
requirements to obtain permits and rest

[[Page S2614]]

the land in conservation use. The Nature Conservancy does this with 24 
permits now and the Republican bill would curtail this ability.
  In addition, S. 1459 significantly restricts the flexibility of the 
land managers to ensure adequate flows of water on Federal lands. If 
this proposal is enacted, the Federal Government will no longer be able 
to protect fish and wildlife populations on Federal lands. Under the 
substitute, no such punitive restrictions would be imposed.
  Taken together, and particularly when read in the context of the 
objectives of the bill, these provisions persuade me that S. 1459 goes 
too far in one direction and fails to strike a reasonable balance among 
the multiple uses of public lands. It is not a solution to favor one 
group of users of the public lands over another. To manage this 
resource in a fair and equitable manner, a careful balance must be 
struck that responsibly addresses the legitimate concerns of all the 
public land users.
  Passage of S. 1459 will not end the debate over grazing in the west. 
In its current form, this legislation will be vetoed, and that veto 
will be sustained. Under that scenario, we will not have accomplished 
anything except to have provided more grist for the political mill.
  The Bingaman substitute will not please everyone.
  Environmentalists may feel that in some respects it is too generous 
to the ranching community, while ranchers may feel that it does not 
adequately insulate them from appeals, protests, red tape and the whims 
of the Federal Government.
  I believe it strikes a fair balance.
  The Bingaman substitute will protect the public's right to 
participate in grazing management decisions. It will ensure that 
Federal land managers have the authority and flexibility to guarantee 
sound stewardship of the land and protection of fish and wildlife 
populations. It will allow conservation organizations the opportunity 
to obtain permits and rest the land.
  In short, Senator Bingaman offers a sound, fair, and moderate 
amendment that will establish security for western ranchers, while 
genuinely protecting the interests of other users of the land. And, I 
believe, it can be signed into law.
  I sincerely want to resolve this issue--for the permittees and 
lessees who reside in our States; for the communities that rely on the 
livestock industry; for the users of the public land; and for the 
American public in general. The uncertainty surrounding the management 
of the public lands must be clarified.
  I believe the Bingaman approach will allow us to achieve our common 
goal--healthy public rangelands. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Bingaman substitute.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, ever since Department of the Interior 
Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, proposed Rangeland Reform '94, I have worked 
with other western Senators to pass meaningful legislation addressing 
the concerns raised in Secretary Babbitt's proposal. The bill before 
the Senate is the result of those efforts.
  While we were able to postpone implementation of Secretary Babbitt's 
misguided reforms for some time, Rangeland Reform '94 is now operative. 
It became effective August 21, 1995. Ranchers are expecting and should 
get relief from those regulations. We must pass S. 1459.
  Ranchers in South Dakota have told me one thing: Rangeland Reform '94 
must be changed. Many of those reforms could have a detrimental impact 
on ranching operations in South Dakota. The Secretary's reforms are 
shortsighted, weigh in too heavy on the side of environmental 
extremists and could drive many hard-working ranchers off the land.
  Hardest hit would be our young farmers and ranchers. Many have just 
started ranching on their own. These young farmers and ranchers are our 
future. They are agriculture's future. Yet they are the ones that could 
be most hurt if Rangeland Reform '94 is allowed to stand. I have heard 
from a number of ranchers who are more concerned with Rangeland Reform 
'94 than they are with low cattle prices. Now that is quite a 
statement. It clearly shows why this bill must be passed.
  The legislation before us today represents nearly 2 years of hard 
work by many Senators and a vast number of individuals of different 
interest and professions who are most affected by Federal rangeland 
policies. I also want to commend the Senate staff who worked to develop 
our reforms into legislation. They worked late into the night and on 
weekends.
  I do want to note that the bill has been significantly modified since 
it was first introduced last year. Every effort was made to reach a 
bipartisan consensus. Over the last 6 months Western States Senators 
from both sides of the aisle worked hard to reach a compromise that 
could ultimately be passed.
  S. 1459 has bipartisan support and strong support throughout the 
country. I ask unanimous consent that a letter describing this support 
be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, many South Dakota organizations support 
this bill. First of all it is strongly supported by South Dakota 
ranchers. It is also supported by the South Dakota Public Lands 
Council, the South Dakota Farm Bureau, the South Dakota Sheep Growers 
Association, and the South Dakota Stock Growers, to name a few.
  Let me outline specifically what this bill would do. Under S. 1459:
  Ranchers who depend on the use of public lands would be able to 
continue operating in an economically viable manner.
  Multiple-use management objectives would be achieved.
  The rights of sportsmen, like hunters and fishers, would be protected 
and their use of Federal lands would not be restricted.
  Water rights for livestock management grazing would be in accordance 
with State laws.
  Local input from virtually every key interest into the management of 
public lands would be assured.
  I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the fundamental goal of the 
legislation to remove a clearly objectionable rangeland policy.
  If left alone, Rangeland Reform '94 will have a detrimental effect on 
ranching operations in South Dakota. Many of these reforms are short-
sighted, take away local input and control, and could drive many 
ranchers off the land.

  It is clear that extreme environmental groups support Rangeland 
Reform '94 and are waging a baseless scare campaign on S. 1459.
  Supporters of Rangeland Reform '94 are spreading the laughable charge 
that this bill would hurt wildlife and restrict hunting on Federal 
lands.
  I say this is laughable because it simply is not true. All one has to 
do is read the bill which specifically states:

       Nothing [in this title] shall be construed as limiting or 
     precluding hunting or fishing activities on national 
     Grasslands in accordance with applicable Federal and State 
     laws, nor shall appropriate recreational activities be 
     limited or precluded.

  I originally had two important improvements to S. 1459. One was 
included in the bill and the second I intend to offer as an amendment. 
South Dakotans made it abundantly clear of the need for local and 
public input. I worked with Senator Domenici on an amendment to require 
consultation with State, local, and other interests in land-use 
policies and land-conservation programs for the national grasslands.
  All users of Federal lands should have a voice in land-use policies. 
This added input will provide needed suggestions on better grazing 
practices that will protect the land and enhance wildlife management.
  After discussing this with Senator Domenici, my amendment was 
included in S. 1459 as reported. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator 
Craig for working with me on this proposal.
  The second improvement is designed to address concerns expressed by 
sportsmen. South Dakota is probably the best hunting and fishing State 
in the Nation. I know there may be others who may disagree, but I will 
gladly promote South Dakota as a sportsmen's haven.
  Sportsmen have expressed concerns that S. 1459 could limit use of 
Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. My 
amendment would reinforce Federal policy to protect the interests of 
sportsmen who

[[Page S2615]]

hunt and fish and use our public rangelands for sport. My amendment 
would preserve the rights of hunters, fishermen, and other sport 
enthusiasts to use Federal lands.
  I hope this amendment can be accepted and made part of the bill.
  Mr. President, the Congress needs to pass S. 1459. The bill would 
address the problems with Rangeland Reform '94, provide needed 
stability to farmers and ranchers, and help preserve the social, 
economic, and cultural base of rural communities in the western States. 
Current use of Federal lands could be greatly restricted in future 
years without S. 1459. I urge its adoption.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   March 14, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: The undersigned organizations 
     represent the diverse interests of millions of citizens who 
     currently participate in the multiple use of America's public 
     lands. On their behalf, we strongly urge you to support S. 
     1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act. This bill is the 
     result of innumerable hours of bipartisan negotiations. It 
     fosters balanced multiple use management of our public lands, 
     resource protection and public participation. We have the 
     following reasons for asking your support for this 
     legislation:
       The bill maintains widespread public participation in the 
     management of federal lands. For the cost of a postcard, any 
     individual or organization may qualify as an ``affected 
     interest'' under the bill simply by writing to the Secretary 
     to express concern for the management of grazing on a 
     specific federal grazing allotment. They will then receive 
     notice of and an opportunity for comment and consultation on 
     proposed decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior 
     affecting that particular federal parcel. Public 
     participation extends down to the level of designation of 
     allotment boundaries, development of allotment management 
     plans, increasing or decreasing the use of the land by 
     permittees, issuance and modification of permits and reports 
     evaluating monitoring data applicable to a permit.
       The legislation maintains the ``multiple use'' of public 
     lands. There are those in the environmental community who 
     would have you believe this bill somehow establishes ranching 
     as a dominant use. You need not accept the word of these 
     environmentalists or our word; the legislation speaks for 
     itself. The bill states simply and clearly that ``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.'' Section 102 states that nothing shall 
     affect valid existing rights, reservations, agreements or 
     authorizations. The bill specifically states that nothing in 
     the bill shall be construed as limiting or precluding hunting 
     or fishing activities on federal lands in accordance with 
     applicable federal and state laws, nor shall appropriate 
     recreational activities be limited or precluded. The canard 
     raised by these environmentalists that this bill would 
     somehow lock in current livestock usage levels is simply 
     wrong (see Section 101(a)).
       The issue of NEPA compliance is important. The National 
     Environmental Policy Act was well intended for the protection 
     of the environment with regard to major federal actions. 
     Unfortunately, over the decades since its passage, NEPA has 
     been used by obstructionists as a tool to put a stranglehold 
     on any use of federal lands. The statutorily required major 
     federal action has devolved to the digging of a single post 
     hole on federal lands. Everyone familiar with current agency 
     interpretations of NEPA realizes the system is badly broken. 
     The reality is that agency officials are not getting out on 
     the land and monitoring multiple use; they are desk bound by 
     NEPA paper shuffling and the fear of litigation. The NEPA 
     provisions in the bill will protect the environment, restore 
     the original intent of NEPA and free up federal land managers 
     to do their job, all while saving the public money.
       The Public Rangelands Management Act is a major cost saver 
     for the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office 
     has scored the new grazing fee formula contained in the bill 
     and determined that enactment would decrease direct federal 
     spending by about $21 million over the 1996 to 2000 period. 
     CBO estimates that offsetting receipts would increase by 
     about $28 million over the same period. The western livestock 
     industry supports this new formula at a time when cattle 
     prices are at a 13 year low. Ranchers are stepping up to the 
     plate and expressing a willingness to pay more during the 
     hard times.
       If enacted, S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act 
     will be the first major revision of federal lands grazing 
     activities since the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. The time has 
     come to restore common sense to the management of the federal 
     lands and to allow ranchers utilizing those lands to continue 
     the production of food and fiber. Support responsible land 
     management, prudent resource conservation and continued 
     multiple use of national lands. Please support S. 1459.
           Sincerely,
         Agricultural Retailers Association; American Chianina 
           Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American 
           Forest and Paper Association; American Gelbvieh 
           Association; American Horse Council; American 
           International Charolais Association; American National 
           Cattle Women; American Sheep Industry Association; 
           Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association; Arizona Cattle 
           Growers Association; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; 
           Arizona State Cowbelles; Arizona Wool Producers 
           Association; Association of National Grasslands; Black 
           Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; California 
           Cattlemen's Association; California Farm Bureau 
           Federation; California Public Lands Council; California 
           Wool Growers Association; Cochise Grand Cattle Growers; 
           Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Cattle 
           Feeders Association; Colorado Farm Bureau; Colorado 
           Public Lands Council; Colorado Woolgrowers Association; 
           Dixie Escalante Rural Electric Association; Empire 
           Sheep Producers, NY; Florida Cattlemen's Association; 
           Gem State Hunters Association; Idaho Cattlemen's 
           Association; Idaho Dairymen's Association; Idaho Farm 
           Bureau Federation; Idaho Food Producers Association; 
           Idaho Hunters' Association; Idaho Mint Growers 
           Association; Idaho State Grange; Idaho Wool Growers 
           Association; Independent Petroleum Association of 
           America; Indiana Sheep Breeders Association; Iowa State 
           Grange; Kansas Sheep Association; Michigan Cattlemen's 
           Association; Michigan State Grange; Mississippi 
           Cattlemen's Association; Montana Association of Grazing 
           Districts; Montana Farm Bureau Federation; Montana 
           Public Lands Council; Montana Stockgrowers Association; 
           Montana Wool Growers Association; National Association 
           of Counties; National Association of State Departments 
           of Agriculture; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; 
           National Grange; National Lumber and Building Material 
           Dealers Association; National Mining Association; 
           Nebraska Cattlemen; Nevada Cattlemen's Association; 
           Nevada Farm Bureau Federation; New Mexico Farm and 
           Livestock Bureau; North Dakota Lamb & Wool Producers; 
           North Dakota Stockmen's Association; Oregon Cattlemen's 
           Association; Oregon Farm Bureau Federation; Oregon 
           Sheep Growers Association; Ozona Wool & Mohair; Public 
           Lands Council; Regional Council of Rural Counties, 
           California; Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association; 
           Roswell Wool, New Mexico; South Dakota Public Lands 
           Council; South Dakota Sheep Growers Association; South 
           Dakota Stockgrowers; Southern Timber Purchaser's 
           Council; Tennessee Cattlemen's Association; Texas Sheep 
           & Goat Raisers Association; Texas & Southwestern Cattle 
           Raisers Association; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah 
           Farm Bureau Federation; Utah Wool Growers Association; 
           Utah Wool Marketing; Washington Cattlemen's 
           Association; Washington Farm Bureau; Washington State 
           Grange; Wilderness Unlimited, California; Wyoming Farm 
           Bureau Federation; Wyoming Stock Growers Association; 
           Wyoming Wool Growers Association.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1459, the 
Public Rangeland Management Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
bill. And, I congratulate Senator Domenici and others who have worked 
so hard to balance the many interests involved in this legislation.
  Livestock grazing has always played a major role in our western 
lifestyle, providing a number of important economic, social, and 
cultural benefits to all Americans. Utah's rangelands are a renewable 
resource that can be used and reused without sharing the land. In fact, 
grazing has become a natural part of the ecological system. A 1990 
report from the Bureau of Land Management states that ``Public 
rangelands are in a better condition than at any time in this 
century.'' [``State of Public Rangelands 1990'', U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, emphasis supplied] This is true because livestock grazers, 
armed with the latest available knowledge, have become wise users of 
the resources available to them.
  There have been instances in the past of overgrazing to the detriment 
of the land and the local ecology; today these cases are the exception. 
Now we hold those who abuse our lands responsible for their actions.
  Mr. President, let me state clearly that the Public Rangeland 
Management Act provides no relief or protection to bad actors on our 
rangelands. Instead, it reinforces all environmental laws as they 
relate to grazing on public lands. This is as it should be.
  But, Mr. President, I am extremely concerned for the plight of 
livestock producers in Utah and throughout the United States. I am not 
aware of any cattle producers in Utah who are making a profit. There 
are a number of factors contributing to this devastating

[[Page S2616]]

trend. But when I ask them what we can do to help, they unanimously 
plead for stability--stability in the fees they are charged and 
stability in the laws and regulations they must obey.
  In Utah most of the livestock producers are small family-owned cattle 
and sheep operations. An increasing number of these families who have 
paid for grazing permits on public land, will be unable to afford to 
use the. They will simply be unable to survive under the difficult 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior known as 
Rangeland reform 94. Even the possibility that these regulations will 
be implemented has been sufficient cause for many lenders to hold back 
their money rather than provide necessary loans to ranchers. Lenders 
know the business, and they know that Secretary Babbitt's proposal is 
bad for the industry. Without the necessary credit these families have 
little hope for survival.

  Mr. President, it breaks my heart to watch as families, who have been 
in the livestock business for generations--in some cases since before 
Utah became a State--are forced to pull up their stakes and fold up the 
family business. These families have withstood terrible winters, 
devastating droughts, the depression, and other economic downturns. But 
faced with an all powerful, antipathetic Federal Government, their 
ability to endure is coming to an end.
  Considering the serious situation of our livestock industry, one 
might wonder how far S. 1459 goes to provide for their relief.
  Some fear that S. 1459 exempts grazers from some environmental laws. 
There is absolutely no ground for this fear. The language in this bill 
could not more clearly reinforce all environmental laws, and it does 
nothing to impede future changes or additions to current environmental 
law.
  Some who oppose the bill believe it would restrict the use of 
permitted lands from sportsmen and recreationists. They are dead wrong. 
Senator Domenici went so far as to add an amendment to this bill 
stating plainly that multiple use of permitted land would not be 
inhibited in any way. Mr. President, those who continue to criticize 
the bill for this reason must oppose the idea of grazing on public 
lands altogether, because it is clear that this concern has been 
addressed.
  Mr. President, even with the difficulty faced by families in the 
livestock industry, there are still those who argue that we do not 
raise grazing fees high enough. The truth is that this bill raises 
grazing fees by 30 to 40 percent from current law, generating millions 
more revenue for the Treasury than in the past.
  These critics point to the higher fees that are charged for forage on 
private lands. But, there can be little comparison made between grazing 
on private land and grazing on public land. On one hand, the private 
landowner must provide all the livestock management services as well as 
continual forage. Of course private owners charge more, they provide 
all the necessary services for grazers and must maintain them. On 
public lands, it is the grazers who are required to install and 
maintain stock water ponds, fences, and other improvements at their own 
expense.

  Before he was named as Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt said 
that ``multiple use has run its course.''--Public Lands Reform Vital, 
Denver Post, Mar. 9, 1990. This view is certainly disheartening to use 
in the West, and I, for one, regret that Secretary Babbitt has set in 
motion a number of challenges to multiple use. The Rangeland Reform `94 
plan is amount the most difficult.
  Besides putting grazing fees at a level that is sure to run a host of 
ranchers off of public lands, Secretary Babbitt's Rangeland Reform '94 
proposal would lay down a long list of new standards and regulations 
that address all public grazing in a one-shoe-fits-all approach. This 
approach just does not make sense. Every grazing district throughout 
the country has its own set of challenges and resources that must be 
dealt with to ensure sustainable use of the that area.
  S. 1459, the Public Rangeland Management Act, would set into law a 
framework for managing our lands according to each district's specific 
needs. And I might add that it would do so while keeping all current 
environmental protections in full force and effect. This bill would 
also set into law a fee formula that, although much higher than current 
law, would provide stability for families in the livestock business and 
their creditors. Fees should not be set by political appointees who 
come and go, and who bring with them differing philosophies of public 
land management.
  Again, I commend Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and all my 
colleagues who have worked to develop this compromise legislation. This 
bill is long overdue. When this process began the need for these 
reforms was great. Since then, that need has taken on great urgency. We 
must pass this bill without delay.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. It is my understanding that the grazing bill S. 1459, 
the Public Rangelands Management Act does not affect the issue of 
grazing on national parks and national wildlife refuges.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Idaho is correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The reason I ask that question is that on many 
national wildlife refuges, including at least two in my own State, 
grazing is a traditional use of refuge lands originating in some cases 
before the land was acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have grazing rights been continued on those refuges?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. It has taken a lot of effort to get the 
administration to admit that grazing rights on the refuges were 
retained by the previous landowners when the land was transferred to 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. As things stand right now, there may be 
room for some optimism that grazing will continue both as a retained 
right, and as a wildlife management technique.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his observation.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I support Senator Domenici's Public 
Rangelands Management Act. I had hoped to support a substitute or a 
series of amendments to address the concerns I expressed in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee meetings. However, we are faced with an 
amendment that fails to address my concerns and a substitute that goes 
beyond the changes that I believe we called for in the Domenici bill.
  I am concerned with two aspects of S. 1459--public participation and 
flexible management. We could have done a better job in these two 
areas.
  Affected interests should be consulted and allowed to protest and 
appeal decisions;
  Site-specific NEPA analysis should be allowed when it is determined 
to be useful; and
  A permittee or lessee should not have to be engaged in the livestock 
business and own base property in order to practice conservation use.
  The substitute makes an attempt to address these two areas, but fails 
in other respects:
  It continues to advocate two distinct range management programs, one 
for the Forest Service and one for the Bureau of Land Management;
  It fails to adequately address the water rights issue; and
  It does not adequately credit permittees for their rangeland 
investments.
  I oppose the amendment offered by Senators Bumpers and Jeffords for 
the following reasons:
  It would create two classes of rangeland users without improving 
natural resource management;
  It would become an administrative nightmare for the regulatory 
agencies; and
  It is bad policy for Government to ``reward'' small operators or 
``penalize'' large operators. The goal is to charge a fair fee to all.
  I therefore will support Senator Domenici's bill. I see it as a 
reasonable, if flawed, attempt to bring closure to this longstanding 
issue.
  The long and often contentious rangeland management debate reflects 
the profound ties that we as a Nation feel for our public lands. These 
ties are more than economic or sentimental. They are true bonds we hold 
to our Nation's past and its future.
  The decades of debate have not been wasted. They have produced 
information that is leading to new management strategies and 
cooperation where

[[Page S2617]]

previously rancor prevailed. We now have an inspiring number of 
coalitions of ranchers, conservation groups, and State and Federal 
agencies working together voluntarily to improve rangelands.
  In Southeastern Oregon's Trout Creek, for example, permittees are 
working together with Oregon Trout (a private conservation 
organization) and State and Federal agencies to improve riparian areas 
and resolve conflicts between big game and livestock. Their efforts 
have been very successful in improving range conditions on private, 
State, and Federal lands.
  The Malapai Border Project in my esteemed colleagues' State of New 
Mexico offers another example of cooperative management. Here, 
permittees, the Nature Conservancy, and State and Federal officials 
have come together voluntarily to solve regional ecosystem problems. 
Through their efforts, we hope to stop the encroachment of brush into 
grasslands.
  These and other examples should encourage us all. The condition of 
our grasslands is improving and should continue to do so if we work 
together.
  It is interesting to observe the evolution of grazing fee proposals. 
For years grazing fees provided the hot button for all sides of the 
argument. Ranchers let us know loud and clear that their fees were high 
enough. Today, by-and-large, they support the legislation before us, 
which would increase the fees. This change of heart reflects a better 
understanding of the issues and a desire to respond to others' 
concerns.
  We need to capitalize on this spirit and ensure that it grows. It is 
too easy to focus on remaining differences and go away convinced that 
they are too great to resolve. If we do this, we will inspire the 
cooperation necessary to resolve the remaining differerences.
  It is my hope that my Senate colleagues will work in conference, in 
cooperation with the House and the administration, to make the 
adjustments necessary to address my continuing concerns.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the final analysis is clear. 
Rangelands need grazing in order to be healthy. Given that 
understanding, do we work with the stewards now on the land to improve 
range health, and find the right balance of grazing? Or do we focus 
instead on regulations that will have the end result of driving many of 
those stewards off the range?
  The second alternative is unacceptable to me, and should be to all of 
us here. But under the regulations now in place, that is the direction 
we are headed. Innovative managers, like conservation award winner Bud 
Purdy from Picabo, ID, are seeing their children leave a generations-
old tradition because of the uncertainty of depending on Federal lands. 
And this all despite his nationally recognized conservation projects.
  We should be encouraging, not discouraging, private enterprise and 
individual initiative. We should be looking out for the best interests 
of the public in the long term. Creating vast empty wastelands is not 
in the best interest of the American public, and it is the 
responsibility of this body to set policy that will plot the course to 
protect environmental health and economic stability for rural 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, as you might have guessed, this debate is a source of 
great frustration for me. The focus of this Congress, and supposedly of 
the administration, is to reduce and simplify government, to serve the 
public better by decreasing overhead cost, reducing needless oversight 
and review, and improving cooperation with the private sector. But the 
regulations which the administration implemented last August fly in the 
face of those goals.
  We have to ask ourselves what our priorities are. Ranching is a 
primary industry across the West. Do we want to tap into the resources 
that industry has to offer, to encourage conservation and cooperation, 
to foster stewardship and local management? Or do we want to 
micromanage the top down, effectively pulling the rug out from under 
fragile rural economies?
  Mr. President, there are efforts underway as we speak to support 
rural America. The President is supporting an aggressive rural 
development program that is being included in the farm bill. But does 
it make sense to undertake a significant rural development program on 
the one hand while implementing regulations that will stifle 
development on the other?
  Mr. President, I believe the answer is clear, and further, that 
Senator Domenici's bill is the better path to achieving those goals. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are no other Senators on our side desiring to 
speak on this matter. I will speak maybe 3 to 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, let us talk a minute about public input into 
decisionmaking. Senate bill 1459, as introduced, has been criticized 
for its provisions regarding public involvement in management decisions 
regarding grazing activities on the Federal land.
  In fact, Mr. President, under the Domenici substitute amendment, 
public involvement has been expanded. For the first time the public 
will be given an opportunity to comment on reports by the Secretary of 
the Interior, and Secretary of Agriculture, summarizing range-
monitoring data. The only area where the role of the public has been 
somewhat diminished is in the area of protests. Let me talk about that 
a minute.
  Under the Domenici substitute, protests cannot be filed by so-called 
affected interests on very limited types of decisions, such as proposed 
decisions on applications for grazing permits or leases or relating to 
terms and conditions of grazing permits or leases or range improvement 
permits. Other types of protests are allowed, as are appeals of final 
decisions under the Domenici substitute.
  The reason for limiting protests, Mr. President, is very simple: We 
have found that we need to reduce the potential for filing vexatious 
and frivolous objections by individuals not even remotely affected by 
proposed decisions on specific grazing allotments. We want the 
Government to work better, not worse. We want decisions to be 
implemented without being protested, then appealed and delayed, and 
then delayed some more.
  Mr. President, the substitute defines an affected interest to include 
individuals and organizations that have expressed in writing to the 
Secretary concern for the management of livestock grazing on specific 
allotments for the purpose of receiving notice and an opportunity for 
comment and informal consultation on proposed decisions of the 
Secretary affecting allotments.
  As a result of being affected interests, an individual or 
organization, can receive notice of and the opportunity to comment on 
summary reports of resource conditions as well as proposaled and final 
decisions. They can also appeal final decisions, assuming they have 
standing to appeal.
  If an individual, organization is an affected interest, notice of a 
proposed decision will allow a reasonable opportunity for comment and 
informal consultation regarding the proposed decision within 30 days, 
for designation or modification of allotment boundaries, development, 
revision or termination of allotment management plans, increase or 
decrease of permitted use, issuance, renewal of transfer of grazing 
permits, modification of terms and conditions, reports, evaluating 
monitoring data and the issuance of temporary nonrenewable permits.
  In addition to all of the above, Mr. President, public participation 
occurs in the following areas under this substitute: First, resource 
advisory councils; second, grazing advisory councils; third, all the 
FLPMA processes, development of land use plans and amendments thereto.
  The NEPA process, where it is used in land use planning, it is used 
to its absolute maximum. It is also applicable in the development of 
standards and guidelines.
  It is not accurate, nor is it fair, to argue that 1459 or the 
substitute amendment to it significantly diminishes public 
participation in management decisions affecting grazing allotments. The 
intent of our legislation is to ensure fair and frequent public 
participation by interested individuals, but to curb frivolous and 
vexatious attempts by outsiders to micromanage --not macromanage, but 
micromanage--grazing on the public domain from a distance of 2,000 
miles away.
  In short, our bill attempts to keep those who would file with a 32-
cent

[[Page S2618]]

stamp, from Boston, on a postcard, from spawning administrative and 
judicial litigation. That brings livestock grazing and economic 
activity in the West to a halt. This happens with more frequency than 
you might imagine. We think we have the right amount, which is a very 
significant amount of public participation, in the right type of 
decision points.
  In some areas, our bill goes further than the Bingaman substitute; in 
others, it does not go as far. But I believe public participation is 
maintained in a very broad way and is very significant in this bill.
  Mr. President, I have a number of responses in writing that I have 
written out with reference to other contentions that have been made 
here on the floor. I do not think, in the interest of time, that I will 
go through each and every one of them. But there are some significant 
differences in conservation partnerships that are allowed, cooperative 
partnerships, than have been stated here on the floor.
  The only thing that concerns us and that is epitomized in our bill, 
is after the land use plan is put together, we do not permit those who 
would like to get rid of grazing to come in and pick the very best land 
and say, ``We'd like to take all the cattle off. We have enough money 
to pay for it. We would like to turn it into nothing more than a 
nongrazing area.''
  We think there are other, better ways to improve conservation 
measures without doing that to the public domain. I might indicate that 
even in States which have a very, very broad-based approach to 
conservation uses, instead of just pure grazing, this idea of going and 
picking leases, picking the best of leases and taking them out of 
grazing and putting them into an exclusive conservation use, has been 
denied at the State level, not only in New Mexico but in other States.
  Mr. President, another criticism of S. 1459 is that it provides for 
cooperative range improvement agreements with permittees and lessees 
only. Had Senator Bingaman read the Domenici substitute amendment, he 
would have known that his criticism of S. 1459 is utterly baseless. 
Section 105(b) directs the Secretary, where appropriate, to authorize 
and encourage coordinated resource management practices. Such practices 
shall be for the purposes of promoting good stewardship and 
conservation of multiple use rangeland resources. And, such practices 
can be authorized under a cooperative agreement with a permittee or 
lessee, or an organized group of permittees or lessees.
  Language was specifically added at the urging of some conservation 
groups to provide that such cooperative agreements could include other 
individuals, organizations, or Federal land users irrespective of the 
mandatory qualifications required to obtain a grazing permit required 
by S. 1459 or any other act. This was done so that non-permittee or 
non-lessee conservation groups could voluntarily make improvements on 
the public rangelands.
  So, Mr. President, contrary to what Senator Bingaman claims, a 
cooperative agreement is not limited to just permittees and lessees. 
Anyone can enter into a cooperative agreement with a permittee or a 
lessee and voluntarily make range improvements on grazing allotments.
  I hope, Mr. President, that Senator Bingaman isn't suggesting that we 
should discourage or prohibit this type of voluntary rangeland 
stewardship, because one of the groups that urged us to change section 
105 voluntarily makes $3 million in range improvements each year, based 
on funds raised at dinners and benefits. If Senator Bingaman wants to 
make it the policy of the United States that we should not allow this 
type of voluntarism, I think our colleagues should be skeptical about 
supporting his substitute.
  Next, Mr. President, it has been said that S. 1459 denies the right 
of affected interests to protest grazing decisions on public land and 
national forests by providing that only an applicant, permittee, or 
lessee may protest a proposed decision. Again, Senator Bingaman should 
read the Domenici substitute more carefully. Either that, or he must be 
confused about what the Domenici substitute actually does. Section 
151(b) of the Domenici substitute requires the authorized officer to 
send copies of a proposed decision to ``affected interests.''
  Section 155(b) requires the Secretary to notify ``affected 
interests'' of seven different kinds of proposed decisions: first, the 
designation or modification of allotment boundaries; second, the 
development, revision, or termination of allotment management plans; 
third, the increase or decrease of permitted use; fourth, the issuance, 
renewal, or transfer of grazing permits or leases; fifth, the 
modification of terms and conditions of permits or leases; sixth, 
reports evaluating monitoring data for a permit or lease; and seventh, 
the issuance of temporary nonrenewable use permits.
  Section 151(c)(3) states that any notice of a proposed decision to an 
affected interest must state that ``any protest to the proposed 
decision must be filed not later than 30 days after service.''
  The only limitation on protests is found in section 152, which 
states, ``an applicant, permittee, or lessee may protest a proposed 
decision under section 151 in writing to the authorized officer within 
30 days after service of the proposed decision.''
  If there is a limitation on the filing of protests by affected 
interests, Mr. President, the Domenici substitute does not allow 
affected interests to file protests on very limited types of decisions, 
such as proposed decisions on an application for a grazing permit or 
lease, or relating to a term or condition of a grazing permit or lease 
or a range improvement permit. Each of these types of issues, Mr. 
President, involve the contract-like relationship between the permittee 
or lessee and the United States. In our view, these are the type of 
decisions that do not warrant armchair quarterbacking and second-
guessing by those who want to micromanage livestock grazing on the 
public lands.

  Other types of protests are allowed--as I have already more than 
adequately explained--as are appeals of final decisions, under the 
Domenici substitute.
  On this one, Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is wrong again. So is 
the Congressional Research Service attorney who analyzed the bill for 
Senator Bingaman.
  Next, Mr. President, Senator Bingaman claims that under S. 1459 only 
ranchers would qualify to appeal a final decision affecting the public 
lands. This is false. Persons who are aggrieved by a final decision of 
an authorized officer can appeal such a decision, so long as the 
agency's standing requirements can be met. The same would be true for a 
judicial appeal of a final agency action.
  The reference to the Administrative Procedure Act simply clarifies 
that a person must actually be aggrieved--actually injured--as set 
forth in the APA and case law interpreting it. This does not mean that 
someone whose interest might be affected, or who might suffer some 
unknown injury at some point in the future can sue.
  Mr. President, what we are trying to do here is to eliminate 
frivolous and vexatious administrative and judicial appeals by those 
who are not actually adversely affected by a land manager's decision, 
but who oppose grazing on public lands or have some particular ax to 
grind.
  Senator Bingaman seems to think that being an ``affected interest'' 
should automatically confer rights to bring administrative or judicial 
appeals of final decisions. He cites the language in section 154 that 
states ``being an affected interest as described in section 104(3) 
shall not in and of itself confer standing to appeal a final decision 
upon any individual or organization.''
  Mr. President, under the administrative case law of the Interior 
Board of Land Appeals, a clear distinction has been made as to the 
appeal rights of ``affected interests'' as opposed to those ``whose 
interests may be adversely affected.'' The IBLA has ruled in several 
cases, Mr. President, that being ``deemed'' to be an ``affected 
interest'' does not automatically confer upon a person a right to 
appeal. The Interior Department's regulations state that only a person 
``whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision may appeal 
to an administrative law judge.'' (Donald K. Majors, 123 IBLA 142, 146 
(1992)).
  Mr. President, the Domenici substitute is consistent with the 
Interior Department's regulations.

[[Page S2619]]

  Senator Bingaman also claims that S. 1459 exempts on-the-ground 
management from NEPA. NEPA has been eliminated in site-specific 
situations. He cites a CRS analysis that states that elimination of 
site-specific analysis is a significant change in current law and 
procedures. In place of NEPA, S. 1459 proposes a review of resource 
conditions.
  The Domenici substitute states that grazing permit or lease issuance, 
renewal, or transfer are not ``major federal actions'' significantly 
affecting the environment under NEPA. This will spare the Government 
the time and expense--1\1/2\ years per EIS at a cost of about $1 
million per EIS--of doing full-blown EIS' on the more than 20,000 
grazing permits and leases on BLM and Forest Service lands.
  Also, the Republican substitute places NEPA consideration of grazing 
activities at the appropriate place: at the land use or forest plan 
level. The Republican substitute does not trivialize the NEPA process 
by requiring an EIS for simple decisions such as where to locate a 
watering tank or whether a fence should be built.
  What Senator Bingaman and the CRS analysis ignores is that the 
measure of whether NEPA analysis is done on ``site specific 
management'' is whether ``site specific management''--and it is not 
clear what Senator Bingaman means by this term--constitutes a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment 
within the meaning of NEPA. The Bureau of Land Management does not now 
perform NEPA analysis on grazing permit renewals, so this is not a 
significant change from current procedures.

  Current law does not require NEPA analysis on ``site specific 
management.'' Current law requires NEPA analysis of major Federal 
actions significantly affecting the environment. For Senator Bingaman 
to say that S. 1459 eliminates NEPA analysis of site specific 
management is a gross mischaracterization of the process and of what 
NEPA requires. And, as I already mentioned, decisions on the location 
of a stock watering tank or construction of a fence cannot possibly be 
considered ``major Federal actions.''
  Finally, Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is trying to dupe everyone 
into believing that the Domenici substitute eliminates NEPA analysis of 
grazing activities, and places instead a simple review of resource 
conditions. The facts about what the Domenici substitute does are 
these: first, NEPA analysis would be required at the BLM land use 
plan--also known as the resource management plan--level and at the 
Forest plan level. NEPA is not eliminated. Let me repeat--NEPA is not 
eliminated.
  Mr. President, let me just say that the Bingaman substitute would not 
require the completion of any analysis under NEPA on renewals and 
transfers unless the Secretary determines that the renewal or transfer 
would involve significant changes in management practices or use, or 
that significant environmental damage is occurring or is imminent. 
Nowhere does the Bingaman substitute specify what ``significant'' is.
  Second, Mr. President, the Domenici substitute would require 
monitoring of resource condition at an interval of no less than every 6 
years. This is not required now. Neither BLM or the Forest Service 
conduct monitoring with any regularity, if at all.
  Third, notwithstanding Senator Bingaman's complaints that monitoring 
data consists of very specific measures of vegetative attributes, or 
that, in many cases, it is not available, the Domenici substitute will 
ensure--for the first time--that adequate monitoring data are available 
to BLM and the Forest Service. Why is this so important? Because--for 
the first time--monitoring can help guide the agencies in determining 
whether grazing activities or land management practices should be 
changed to protect the public rangelands. The substitute of Senator 
Bingaman would do no such thing.
  So, Mr. President, how in the world can Senator Bingaman criticize 
the Domenici substitute?
  Last, Mr. President, Senator Bingaman claims that, under S. 1459, the 
public is not given a say in range improvements.
  While no specific provision is made in the Domenici substitute for a 
public say in range improvements--just as the Bingaman substitute does 
not specifically give the public a role in range improvements--an 
opportunity for such input would be welcomed through input from the 
resource advisory councils and grazing advisory councils.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just summarize my response on a 
few of these areas, and then I think we will have concluded the debate 
as far as I am aware on this substitute amendment.
  I wanted to talk briefly about three issues. First, the NEPA issue 
that was raised by several of my colleagues, and the difference between 
our bill and the underlying Senate bill 1459 on NEPA application; 
second, the opportunity to protest, which Senator Domenici was just 
referring to; then the question that was raised earlier in the debate 
about why our own substitute did not have a specific provision 
reserving the right of people to hunt and fish or otherwise use the 
public lands.
  First on NEPA, let me state my understanding of NEPA. The statement I 
think was made earlier by my colleague that NEPA today is not applied 
or used in the management of the BLM lands. My understanding is very 
different, Mr. President. My understanding is the National 
Environmental Policy Act sets up a procedure which applies to all of 
the Federal land management agencies and essentially says that when you 
take an action or make a decision, you need to determine by virtue of 
the National Environmental Policy Act whether there is an impact, a 
major Federal impact on the environment.
  You can do it one of three ways. If you are fairly confident that 
there is no impact on the environment to speak of, and it is clear that 
what you are doing is consistent with decisions you have otherwise 
made, you can make an administrative determination, and that is in 
compliance with NEPA, but you are complying with NEPA, as I understand 
it, by making an administrative determination that nothing more is 
required. If you think possibly a more serious impact on the 
environment might be involved you can, instead, make an environmental 
assessment, and only once you have made an environmental assessment and 
determined that there will be a significant impact on the environment 
are you required to do a full-blown environmental impact statement.
  Now, whether you do an administrative determination or whether you do 
an environmental assessment or whether you do the full-blown 
environmental impact statement, the BLM in this case is complying with 
NEPA, so the notion that the BLM is not in compliance with NEPA in the 
way they presently operate and the way they have historically operated 
is just wrong. In fact, when you look at the CEQ regulations--not the 
new regulations that Secretary Babbitt promulgated--in the CEQ 
regulations, it is made very clear that based on regulation 1501.4, 
based on the environment assessment, the agency will make its 
determination on whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.
  My understanding is that the BLM did comply with that. In most cases 
they determine that they should do an environmental assessment before 
renewing leases. We are trying to address that in our substitute, as I 
have explained here, and I think everybody concedes we are saying that 
NEPA should not apply when you are just renewing a lease, when you are 
just renewing a permit, unless there is some evidence that there is a 
change in the management or some evidence that there is danger to the 
land involved or to the environment. That is the first point on NEPA.

  On the opportunity to protest, under our bill, under this proposed 
substitute we are offering, the department will determine whether or 
not a particular group or person is an affected interest. Not everybody 
who writes in or contacts the department is necessarily an affected 
interest. If a third-grade class in Hartford, CT, wants to write and 
they say they are an affected interest on the land in a ranch in New 
Mexico, it is very doubtful that any Secretary would determine that 
they were an affected interest under the language of

[[Page S2620]]

our substitute. We have made it clear that the Secretary is given 
discretion as to look at whether or not a group is, in fact, affected.
  If they are affected, we provide they have an opportunity to protest. 
Now, the CRS report, which I know some are critical of, let me state I 
think they make a very good point here. They say a protest is similar 
to a predecisional appeal that gives the public an opportunity to 
object to a proposal, gives the agency an opportunity to change or 
modify its course before committing itself to a final course of action.
  That is all we are saying. We are not saying that someone should have 
legal rights as such, except to state their position and do so at a 
stage in the process before a final decision is made. That is not 
permitted under the underlying bill. It is permitted in our substitute. 
I think, clearly, it should be permitted.
  Again, it should be permitted for those who are determined to be 
affected interests--not for the so-called interested public, which is 
what the current Department of Interior regulations refer to. We have 
corrected that. We agree that is an overly broad category, the 
interested public. So we have said in the case of an affected interest, 
if you are determined to be an affected interest you should have a 
right to protest before they finalize the decision.
  The other area I wanted to particularly point out, I know my 
colleague had said that someone could raise an objection to our bill on 
the grounds that we did not specify that hunting and grazing are, in 
fact, permitted. Well, we did not. I point out that the reason we did 
not is that in our bill we made it very clear that our legislation is 
not an amendment to all of the different statutes that are being 
amended in the underlying legislation. The underlying legislation, by 
its very language, section 102, page 5, says,

       The Act applies to the Taylor Grazing Act, Federal Land 
     Policy Management Act, Public Range Improvement Act, Organic 
     Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield 
     Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource 
     Planning Act, the National Forest Management Act.

  Since they are saying that all of those acts are modified or changed 
to the extent necessary by this, they then have to come back later in 
that same section 102, and say nothing in this title shall limit or 
preclude the Federal language from being used for hunting, fishing, 
recreation, watershed management, et cetera.
  We did not have that same proviso in there because we are not 
affecting those acts. Nothing in our bill affects those earlier acts. 
We are proposing very limited statutes which have the effect of 
correcting regulatory provisions that we had concerns about. That is a 
basic reason why we did not repeat that same provision that the Senator 
from New Mexico has in his earlier bill.
  I gather he wants to speak in response to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just wanted to say, Senator, and ask you if you would 
turn to the section called Applications of the Act on page 5. It says, 
``This act applies to,'' and then it says, ``(1), the management of 
grazing on Federal land by the Secretary of Interior under * * *'' So 
it is the management of grazing as affected by these acts.
  All I said about your failure to include the provision was that 
somebody, if they wanted to treat your bill like they have treated my 
bill, would say, why does it not have in that language that says it in 
no way would affect, and all I said was somebody might write--since 
that is not there, maybe it affects them in some adverse way.
  I do not believe with that language which says ``grazing on Federal 
land,'' that we are changing these acts. It is the management of 
grazing on Federal land.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond that there are a great 
many groups and individuals around the country very concerned about 
preserving hunting and fishing rights. To my knowledge, none of them 
have raised concerns about whether our legislation impinges upon those 
or our proposed substitute impinges upon those rights, or fails to 
adequately protect those rights. I think those concerns have been 
raised about the underlying bill. Senate bill 1459, not about our 
substitute. So I think this is a problem which is not real, in my view.

  Mr. President, I will conclude my comments by just going back to the 
basic point that I think needs to be understood by our colleagues. In 
putting together our substitute, which we are getting ready to vote on, 
we sent a letter to my colleague, Senator Domenici, in September of 
last year. It was signed by myself, Senators Dorgan, Daschle, Bryan, 
and Reid, all five of us, who have spoken here on this issue. We sent a 
letter saying that, in our view, the only way we should go forward and 
develop legislation that would do what needs to be done here is to 
identify the problems that exist in the new grazing regulations and 
then legislate corrections to those, legislate solutions to those, 
correct the specific problems that have been pointed out. Do not go 
beyond that and create new problems.
  I believe that we have done that in the substitute. We have tried to 
strike a balance between those who graze the land, the authority of 
those who graze the land, and the authority of those who want to use 
the land for other purposes. I believe that balance is very important 
to maintain. I fear that the underlying bill gives us an imbalance, 
which we will be back here trying to correct in future years, if the 
underlying bill were to become law. With that, I believe we have 
concluded debate on this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I move to table the Bingaman 
amendment, I want to say to Senator Bingaman, and other Senators who 
have worked with him on that side of the aisle, obviously, even with 
reference to the Domenici amendment, your work has not been in vain 
because we changed it rather dramatically in response to various 
meetings we held with Senator Bingaman, and the other Senators he 
mentioned. A number of changes have been made since he suggested them, 
and the major one was made because of a suggestion Senator Bingaman 
made--that we not provide by statute to wipe out all of the regulations 
and say these are the regulations. We left many of the old regulations 
in place, which he recommended we do. I thought that was a major 
change. That it reduced the bill by two-thirds in length, if nothing 
else, should be good. Many of us think we ought to have fewer words 
rather than more. In many areas we have complimented their efforts.
  We believe that the Domenici amendment will create the balance, and 
that it will create more of a certainty for the ranching community to 
continue to exist. At the same time, it will protect all the other 
interests.
  With that, Mr. President, I move to table the Bingaman amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURNS). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and 
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman

[[Page S2621]]


     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Gregg
     Kerrey
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3559) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, there is a request for the yeas and 
nays on final passage.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I still have an amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Senator from South Dakota has an 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to fix that right now and then vote on it.
  Mr. DOLE. There has also been a request for final passage on the 
Taiwan resolution which has been agreed to. That can be the second 
vote, and then everybody can vote and leave.


        Unanimous-Consent Agreement--House Joint Resolution 165

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent at this time 
that when the Senate receives from the House House Joint Resolution 
165, the continuing resolution, it be deemed considered read three 
times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all 
without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the yeas and 
nays on final passage of S. 1459, the grazing bill?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. And on Taiwan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And on Taiwan? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have a bit of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order, please. All conversations 
should be removed to the cloakrooms.


                Amendment No. 3560 to amendment No. 3555

 (Purpose: Amendment To make clear the intent of title II to preserve 
            sporting activities on the National Grasslands)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3560 to amendment No. 3555.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In section 202(a)(3), after ``preserving'' insert 
     ``sporting,''.
       In section 202(b), strike ``hunting, fishing, and 
     recreational activities'' and insert ``sportsmen's hunting 
     and fishing and other recreational activities''.
       In section 205(f), strike ``Hunting, Fishing, and 
     Recreational Activities.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as limiting or precluding hunting or fishing 
     activities'' and insert ``Sportsmen's Hunting and Fishing and 
     Other Recreational Activities.--Nothing in this title shall 
     be construed as limiting or precluding sportsmen's hunting or 
     fishing activities''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to address a 
concern expressed by sportsmen in South Dakota. South Dakota is 
probably the best hunting and fishing State in the Nation. I know there 
may be others who may disagree, but I will gladly promote South Dakota 
as a sportsman's haven.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order. And the Chair will 
withhold comment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment reinforces Federal policy 
to protect the interests of sportsmen who hunt and fish and use our 
public rangelands for sport. My amendment would preserve the rights of 
hunters, fishermen and recreationalists to use Federal lands.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I will yield.
  Mr. FORD. The longer the Senator talks, the less chance this 
amendment has of passing.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope this amendment can be accepted 
and made a part of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would agree for a moment to 
set his amendment aside.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Modifications to Amendment No. 3555

  Mr. DOMENICI. I send to the desk a Pressler amendment and two other 
technical amendments in behalf of Senator Campbell and Senator Dorgan 
and one in behalf of Senator Burns. They have been approved by Senator 
Bingaman in behalf of the minority. I send them to the desk and ask 
that my amendment be modified to include those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the underlying amendment is 
so modified.
  The modifications are as follows:
       In section 202(a)(3), after ``preserving'' insert 
     ``sporting,''.
       In section 202(b), strike ``hunting, fishing, and 
     recreational activities'' and insert ``sportmen's hunting and 
     fishing and other recreational activities''.
       In section 205(f), strike ``Hunting, Fishing, and 
     Recreational Activities.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as limiting or precluding hunting or fishing 
     activities'' and insert ``Sportsmen's Hunting and Fishing and 
     Other Recreational Activities.--Nothing in this title shall 
     be construed as limiting or precluding sportsmen's hunting or 
     fishing activities''.
       On page 7, line 7, strike paragraph (7) in its entirely and 
     insert a new paragraph (7) as follows:
       ``(7) maintain and improve the condition of Federal land 
     for multiple-use purposes, including but not limited to 
     wildlife and habitat, consistent with land use plans and 
     other objectives of this section. ''
       On page 9, line 10, after ``Service'' insert' ``in the 16 
     continguous Western States''.
       On page 21, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``or''.
       On page 21, line 21, strike ``A grazing permit or lease 
     shall reflect such '', and insert in lieu thereof ``The 
     authorized officer shall ensure that a grazing permit or 
     lease will be consistent with appropriate''.
       On page 18, line 23, strike ``or'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``and''.
       On page 6, strike the present text in lines 9-13 and insert 
     in lieu thereof the following: ``Nothing in this title shall 
     affect grazing in any unit of the National Park System, 
     National Wildlife Refuge System or on any lands that are not 
     federal lands as defined in this title.''
       On page 13, line 22: add the following subsection:
       ``(4) State Grazing Districts established under state 
     law.''
       On page 29, line 20: add the following subsection:
       ``(i) State Grazing Districts.--Resource Advisory Councils 
     shall coordinate and cooperate with State Grazing Districts 
     established pursuant to state law.''
       On page 31, line 13: add the following subsection:
       ``(f) State Grazing Districts.--Grazing Advisory Councils 
     shall coordinate and cooperate with State Grazing Districts 
     established pursuant to state law.''


                      Amendment No. 3560 Withdrawn

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Pressler has withdrawn his amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe we are ready for final passage. Is that 
correct?


                    Amendment No. 3555, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the substitute 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3555), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.


      Unanimous-Consent Agreement--House Concurrent Resolution 149

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, who did not 
read the unanimous consent request, I ask

[[Page S2622]]

unanimous consent that following the vote on passage of S. 1459, the 
grazing bill, the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of 
House Concurrent Resolution 149 regarding Taiwan, with Senator Thomas 
to be recognized to offer an amendment, the amendment be considered 
agreed to, and the Senate immediately vote on adoption of House 
Concurrent Resolution 149, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and 
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Gregg
     Kerrey
  So the bill (S. 1459), as amended, was passed.
  The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the following 
staff for their important contribution to the passage of S. 1459, and I 
ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record; as follows:

       Charles Gentry and Gary Ziehe of Senator Domenici's staff.

       Energy Committee Majority Staff: Gary Ellsworth, Jim 
     Bierne, Mike Poling, and Jo Meuse.

  The personal staff of the following members:

       Dan Naatz--Senator Thomas.
       Ric Molen--Senator Burns.
       Nils Johnson--Senator Craig.
       Rhea Suh--Senator Campbell.
       Kevin Cook and Greg Smith--Senator Kyl.

       Energy Committee Minority Staff: David Brooks and Tom 
     Williams.
  The personal staff of the following members:

       Damon Martinez--Senator Bingaman.
       Eric Washburn--Senator Daschle.
       Mike Eggl and Doug Norrell--Senator Dorgan.
       Bret Heberle--Senator Bryan.
       Bob Barbour and Peter Arapis--Senator Reid.
       Bryan Cavey and Kurt Rich--Senator Baucus.
       Kevin Price--Senator Conrad.

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

                          ____________________