[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9706-H9708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FORAGE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 284 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 284

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2493) to establish a mechanism by which the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior 
     can provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on 
     Federal lands. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour, with thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources and thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three 
     hours. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall 
     be in order to consider the amendment printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative Smith of Oregon or his designee. 
     That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment. During consideration of the 
     bill for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee 
     of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the 
     basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose of clause 
     6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered 
     as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in 
     the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote 
     on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the 
     minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed 
     question that follows another electronic vote without 
     intervening business, provided that the minimum, time for 
     electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand 
     a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
     the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original 
     text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
     with are without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for one hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is a 
modified open rule providing for one hour of general debate, with 30 
minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources, and 30 minutes equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. After 
general debate, the

[[Page H9707]]

bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule for a 
period not to exceed 3 hours.
  The proposed rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment 
in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. Furthermore, this rule provides that prior to consideration 
of any other amendment, a manager's amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Smith] or his designee shall be made in order and 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an 
opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 284 also provides that the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may accord priority recognition to Members 
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. 
Furthermore, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes 
to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute 
vote.
  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as have been adopted.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Forage Improvement Act 
of 1997, is a balanced, bipartisan bill, that assures some 
predictability to western ranchers' ability to plan for forage use.
  This legislation will require the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Land Management to coordinate their administration in the Grazing 
Management Program. Additionally, the legislation creates new 
discretionary authority for the government and ranchers to enter into 
cooperative management plans, where the rancher is meeting rangeland 
management goals.
  These are important and significant reforms. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would include for the record a letter from the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association is an organization that is urging all Members to vote aye 
on House Resolution 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. NCBA 
commends the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the Chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, for their work on House 
Resolution 2493, and fully supports the balanced bipartisan bill they 
have reported out of the respective committees.
  It makes several major changes, but assures some predictability to 
western ranchers' ability to plan for forage use, such as requiring the 
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to coordinate 
their administration of grazing management programs. Two, requires 
scientific monitoring of grazing conditions and allowing the agencies 
to coordinate monitoring with ranches and/or qualified ranchland 
consultants. Three, prohibiting subleasing of grazing allotments by 
absentee ranchers. Next, creating new discretionary authority for the 
government and ranchers to enter into cooperative management plans, 
where the rancher is meeting rangeland management goals. Next, 
codifying a new grazing fee formulated to ensure a fair return to the 
government and resulting in a 36 percent increase over the current fee.
  Codifying the resource advisory councils, they are called RACS, with 
enhancements that will improve coordination and communication between 
the Federal agencies and regional, State and local levels on Federal 
land and management issues.
  House Resolution 2493 does not affect existing multiple use 
activities like hunting and fishing, nor authorizations nor agreements 
set under other Federal or State laws. It does not amend the National 
Environmental Policy Act, it does not amend the Clean Water Act, it 
does not amend the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act.
  And though it does clarify that Federal employees cannot demand 
access across private property as a condition for obtaining a grazing 
permit, it does not prevent Federal personnel engaged in grazing 
administration activities access to do their work, nor does it limit 
public access to Federal lands in any manner.
  When this resolution is brought before the House, I ask my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect a statement of the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and 
I would, first of all, like to commend the chairman. I think he has 
done a tremendous job. He has had a lot of different interests that he 
has had to balance, and I think this is appropriate to reflect his 
thoughts.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] does rise in 
strong support of House Resolution 2493, the Forage Improvement Act, 
introduced by his good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who should 
be applauded for laboring tirelessly and putting together a bill that 
keeps controversy out and common sense in regarding grazing practices 
on our public lands.
  The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has worked extensively hard to 
bring together the many sides of the grazing issue and has assembled a 
bill that helps a rancher whose livelihood depends on public land 
grazing without doing any harm to the range land resources. In fact, 
implementing this bill will ultimately improve the rangelands across 
the West.
  Controversy and confrontation on grazing on public lands has been 
raging for years. It is clear that changes in the current grazing laws 
and regulations are not only long overdue, but are absolutely necessary 
in order to resolve many of the grazing issues.

                              {time}  2115

  H.R. 2493 makes these necessary changes. For example, this bill will 
bring economic stability to those ranchers who use Federal land for 
grazing, while at the same time generate additional revenue for the 
Federal Treasury. This will be accomplished by implementing a new 
grazing formula which is easy to understand, simple to track, and which 
charges a fair price to the rancher who buys access to forage from the 
Federal Government.
  Furthermore, the changes found in H.R. 2493 will improve ranchland 
conditions by increasing the focus on science-based monitoring. For far 
too long and for a variety of excuses, the Federal Government simply 
has not done its job in assessing ranchland conditions to monitor.
  The bill of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] puts the emphasis 
back to what actually exists on the ground, through a monitoring 
program that is scientifically based and which follows established 
protocols. This program will greatly enhance the decision-making 
process and help establish ranchland goals that are good for land and 
achievable.
  Moreover, H.R. 2493 will establish a program of management 
flexibility to those ranchers who have demonstrated good land 
stewardship. This will help to keep the grazing in good and excellent 
condition.
  This is a good bill whose time has come. It does nothing to harm the 
environment. In fact, it will improve ranchlands across the West. It 
treats the Western land grazer honestly and fairly, and in return the 
U.S. Treasury makes more money and gets improved ranchland resources. I 
urge my colleagues to support and vote for House Resolution 2493.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to take a look at the impact 
of multiple use on Federal lands, and where that concept came from. We 
have to look back in the history of this country. If we look back at 
the history of this country, there was a point in time where this 
country urged its citizens to settle the West: Go west, young man, go 
west.
  In doing that, they tried to encourage their citizens to go out to 
the West and set down their stakes, grubstakes, so to speak. In order 
to do that, they felt, in order to entice their citizens to go to the 
West and settle this unknown land, they felt that they needed to give 
land grants.
  A land grant of 160 acres, which was pretty typical in the State of 
Kansas, was enough for a family in those times to support themselves. 
But once you got into the mountains, into the rough terrain of the 
Rockies, 150 acres is what was necessary to feed one cow.
  In other words, to sustain a family in the Rocky Mountains, as 
compared to

[[Page H9708]]

what is necessary to sustain a family in Kansas or the rich farmlands 
of Nebraska or Missouri, it took several thousand acres, compared to 
the few acres it took in those very agricultural land-rich States. So 
the government felt it did not have the political support, obviously 
the public support, to go ahead and give land grants of several 
thousand acres to people who settled in the Rocky Mountains, and 
thereupon the concept of multiple use was created.
  Multiple use is very important. If we take a map of the United States 
and we take a look at the government ownership, we will find that by 
far, no comparison, by far the majority of land ownership by the 
government in this country is in the western half of the United States, 
not in the eastern half.
  So as a result, for the people in the western half of the United 
States to live, the concept of multiple use, which includes not just 
grazing, and by the way, multiple use means a lot of different things 
to a lot of different people. It means the ability to hike on Federal 
lands. It means the ability to have minimum stream flows in our streams 
to help us protect our environment.
  It means that every power line in my district, and by the way, my 
district, the Third District of Colorado, the Rocky Mountains of 
Colorado, is geographically larger than the State of Florida. Every 
power line, every TV tower, every highway, every drop of water, the 
water either originates, runs across, or is stored, all of this comes 
across Federal land. All of it is very dependent on multiple use.
  I grew up in the Rocky Mountains. My family came to the Rocky 
Mountains in 1871. My wife's family came to the Rocky Mountains in 
1872. I have a very close friend of mine, Al Stroobants, his family 
came many, many years, very similarly, generations of families out 
there in those mountains.
  What is very, very important is that the concept of the government 
was it would be a land of many uses. What we see happening is people 
who do not understand the concept of multiple use, people who do not 
understand the concept of private property and the importance of it as 
a foundation for the freedoms in our country. They try and take away 
the multiple use on Federal lands and take away that sign that says, 
``You are now entering the Rocky Mountain National Park, a land of many 
uses,'' or those types of signs, and replace them with a sign that says 
``No Trespassing.''
  There are fearmongers out there who would make us think that there 
are cattle grazing every inch of the Rocky Mountains, that there are 
condominiums going up everywhere, that the water is being wasted and 
abused. Do not take these people on their word. Look at the proof of 
the pudding.
  The proof of the pudding is in the hearts and souls of the people who 
are descendants of the generations of the people who were persuaded by 
this very government in Washington, D.C. to go west. These people 
deserve the courtesy of having their bill heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and to the 
legislation that the rule would make in order, the so-called Forage 
Improvement Act. This rule is open in name only. Last night the 
Committee on Rules voted to limit the amendment process to 3 hours; not 
3 hours of debate time but 3 hours in total. That includes voting time 
on any amendments and any other parliamentary motion or question which 
may arise during that time.
  Three hours would be totally inadequate, given that the gentlewoman 
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] alone has filed nine amendments, and other 
Members have filed an additional half-dozen. The ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] 
offered three amendments to the rule last night in an attempt to allow 
sufficient time for all amendments to the bill to be fully debated on 
the floor. However, the majority refused to accept the ranking member's 
amendments to the rule.
  Even if this were a carefully crafted bill, and it is not, that had 
moved through the committee process, and it did not, with ample 
legislative hearings, and there were not, in time for Members to 
consider it, the brief time for floor consideration that the Committee 
on Rules made in order last night would still be problematic. But the 
fact of the matter is that the bill was just introduced a month ago, 
was rushed through the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on 
Resources with no legislative hearings whatsoever, and it shows.

  I am left with the impression that the majority did not want the 
members of those committees to look too closely at what they were 
passing for fear that they might see it for what it is, special 
interest legislation that is a bad deal for the American taxpayer and a 
very bad deal for our environment. Rather than seizing this opportunity 
to enact genuine and positive reform of our grazing laws, this 
legislation undermines the management of Federal land resources by 
continuing the subsidized use of public lands for wealthy corporate 
interests.
  The Interior Department Inspector General reports that grazing 
benefits go to a vast array of large foreign-owned companies and 
domestic corporate conglomerates, including a brewery, a Japanese land 
and livestock company, an oil corporation, and a life insurance 
company. These are not struggling family businesses or mom and pop 
ranchers, but multinational corporations reaping huge profits, most of 
whom are engaged primarily in businesses that are wholly unrelated to 
ranching. Why should they not pay the market rates for the grazing 
rights on our Federal lands?
  Every western State charges a grazing fee that is higher than the 
Federal Government. Several States charge six times as much. Yet, this 
bill continues that disparity with a new fee formula that does not even 
come close to reflecting the fair market value of the use of our public 
resources.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that little additional 
Federal land revenues will be generated from this bill, and in fact, 
when the legislation's new administrative requirements on land 
management agencies are taken into account, the grazing program will 
lose even more money than it currently does.
  This bill makes other modifications to the Federal land grazing 
program above and beyond its changes to the grazing fee formula. For 
example, it would allow ranchers with grazing permits to sublease their 
lands to private interests at a significant profit over what they have 
paid the Federal Government for the use. Yet, incredibly, the Committee 
on Resources failed to hold a legislative hearing on this bill, denying 
Members any opportunity to hear testimony on the far-reaching 
implications of this legislation.
  Members should be aware that Secretary Babbitt has given notice that 
he will recommend a veto should this bill reach the President's desk. 
But this ill-advised legislation does not deserve to make it that far. 
Indeed, it should not even reach this floor, given the cursory exposure 
and debate it received in committee. Because of the truncated amendment 
process made in order by the Committee on Rules last night, I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Further proceedings on the resolution will 
be postponed until tomorrow.

                          ____________________