[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20987-21015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                             2000--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2466, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Gorton amendment No. 1359, of a technical nature.
       Bond (for Lott) amendment No. 1621, to provide funds to 
     assess the potential hydrologic and biological impact of lead 
     and zinc mining in the Mark Twain National Forest of Southern 
     Missouri.
       Hutchison amendment No. 1603, to prohibit the use of funds 
     for the purpose of issuing a

[[Page 20988]]

     notice of rulemaking with respect to the valuation of crude 
     oil for royalty purposes until September 30, 2000.
       Robb amendment No. 1583, to strike section 329, provisions 
     that would overturn recent decisions handed down by the 11th 
     circuit corporation and federal district court in Washington 
     State dealing with national forests.


                           Amendment No. 1621

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on or in relation to 
amendment No. 1621.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment requires a study of mining in 
the Mark Twain Forest to address the scientific gaps identified 
specifically by the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey on behalf of 
the Forest Service, EPA, and others. While the information is 
collected, it delays any prospecting or withdrawal decisions for the 
fiscal year.
  It does not permit mining, prospecting or weaken environmental 
standards. It preserves the long-term requirements of a full NEPA 
process, which will ultimately dictate whether additional mining will 
occur.
  The opponents seem to have an argument not with me but with the 
administration scientists who have concluded that there is insufficient 
information. The bipartisan county commissioners of the eight counties 
in the area are unanimous and adamant in their support. I met with the 
representatives of the 1,800 miners whose continued livelihood in this 
poor area depends on the opportunity to continue to mine. They want a 
hearing held in Mark Twain country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the two additional letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark 
           Twain National Forest,
                                         Rolla, MO, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to respond 
     to the situation concerning the collection of data to assess 
     the potential impacts of lead mining on the Doniphan and 
     Eleven Point Ranger Districts of the Mark Twain National 
     Forest. These two districts were acquired in the Fristoe 
     Purchase Unit in the 1930's, so there is some documentation 
     that refers to the area as the Fristoe Unit. A Multi-agency 
     Technical Team was established in 1988 to identify and 
     collect the information necessary to evaluate the impacts of 
     mining upon this area of the Forest. The Forest Service has 
     chaired this Team since it began and since 1989 the Forest 
     staff officer for Technical Services, Bob Willis, has been 
     Chair. The original charter for the Team is enclosed.
       A great deal of information has been collected, but there 
     is much that remains to be gathered if a decision for mineral 
     production is ever proposed. At this time, there are no 
     proposals for exploration or leasing in this area of the 
     Forest. The information that has been gathered is all that is 
     identified in Phase I of the plan and is a portion of the 
     information that may be required. The remaining information 
     identified will be collected only if a proposal to mine is 
     made. A proposal to withdraw the area from mineral entry 
     would require collection of similar information.
       Members of the Multi-agency Technical Team as well as a 
     summary of the information the Team has collected is 
     enclosed.
       We anticipate the Technical Team will identify additional 
     site specific information if a proposal to mine or a proposal 
     to withdraw the area from mineral entry is made. This 
     information will only be a portion of the information 
     necessary to make a National Environmental Policy Act 
     decision, and a multi-disciplinary team will take the 
     Technical Team data as well as cultural, economic, social, 
     biological, and additional ecological information to analyze 
     the impacts of mining. Funding for the Technical Team 
     information collection has been limited, and only a small 
     portion of the data identified as needed for a mining 
     decision has been collected. The remaining information will 
     be extremely expensive to collect and has been waiting on a 
     proposal to mine to initiate collection. The technical data 
     needed to analyze the impacts of mineral development in this 
     portion of the Forest is complex and the technical Team has 
     done a good job identifying the technical data needs of the 
     decision and collecting the first place of information. 
     Additional effort by the Team will be needed on any mineral 
     entry or withdrawal proposal.
       Thank you for your interest regarding this issue and the 
     Mark Twain National Forest. If you have additional questions, 
     please contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Randy Moore,
                                                Forest Supervisor.


                  multi-agency technical team members

       USDA Forest Service--Mark Twain National Forest.
       Bureau of Land Management.
       National Park Service--Ozark National Scenic Riverways.
       Environmental Protection Agency.
       U.S. Geological Survey--Water Resources Division.
       U.S. Geological Survey--Geologic Division.
       U.S. Geological Survey--Mineral Resource Program.
       U.S. Geological Survey--Mapping Division.
       Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
       Missouri Department of Conservation.
       U.S. Geological Survey--Columbia Environmental Research 
     Center.
       Ozark Underground Laboratory.
       Doe Run Company.
       Cominco.
       University of Missouri--Rolla.
       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                  ____

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                       U.S. Geological Survey,

                                        Reston, VA, July 30, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: This is in response to your letter of 
     July 20, 1999, to Mr. Jim Barks, related to mining in the 
     Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) area. In your letter, you 
     ask that we provide a brief and clear assessment as to the 
     quality of information that was compiled by the interagency 
     technical team charged with building a ``relevant database to 
     assess mining impacts and base future decisions.'' You ask 
     that we, ``specifically address the question as to the 
     adequacy and relevance of information currently available to 
     provide a solid scientific foundation for any decision to 
     justify either withdrawal or mining in the region.''
       In 1988, an interagency technical team was assembled to 
     guide the identification, collection, and dissemination of 
     scientific information needed to assess the potential 
     environmental impact of lead mining in the MTNF area. Since 
     1989, the team has been chaired by Bob Willis of the Forest 
     Service. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has actively 
     participated on the team from the beginning, with Mr. James 
     H. Barks, USGS Missouri State Representative, serving as our 
     representative.
       The technical team believes that there is insufficient 
     scientific information available to determine the potential 
     environmental impact of lead mining in the MTNF area. This is 
     a consensus opinion that the technical team has held from the 
     beginning through the present. Due to the lack of scientific 
     information available to assess the potential impacts of lead 
     mining, the technical team proposed that a comprehensive 
     study be conducted.
       In January 1998 at the request of the technical team, the 
     USGS prepared a proposal for a multi-component scientific 
     study to address the primary questions about the potential 
     environmental impacts of lead mining in the MTNF area. Mr. 
     Barks provided a copy of the proposed study to Brian 
     Klippenstein of your staff at his request on July 9, 1999. 
     Neither a requirement for full environmental review to 
     support a Secretarial decision nor a source of funding has 
     been established. For these reasons the proposed study has 
     not been initiated.
       Please let us know if we can provide additional information 
     or assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles G. Groat,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to oppose the Bond 
amendment. This sets the stage for lead mining in the Mark Twain 
National Forest, one of the most beautiful recreational areas in the 
Midwest. This is opposed by the Governor of Missouri, the attorney 
general of Missouri, every major newspaper in the State, a score of 
different groups of citizens living in the area, as well as 
environmental groups.
  To open this area to lead mining is to run the risk of making an 
industrial wasteland out of one of the most beautiful recreation areas 
in Missouri. It is an area shared by those of us who live in Illinois 
and in many other States. At the current time, the Department of the 
Interior has the authority to review this. What the Senator from 
Missouri is attempting to do is to circumvent that process. That should 
not

[[Page 20989]]

happen. Please, preserve this land owned by the taxpayers of America, 
which should not be exploited for lead mining purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 1621) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1583

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on or in relation to 
the pending Robb amendment No. 1583.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 329, the 
legislative rider which attempts to bypass the administrative and 
legislative process. Section 329 would overturn recent Federal court 
decisions which merely required the Forest Service to collect the data 
the law requires for making forest management decisions like cutting 
timber. It would apply to all activities that are affecting wildlife on 
all 450 million acres of public lands in the United States. The 
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior said:

       It is unnecessary, confusing, difficult to interpret, and 
     wasteful. If enacted, it will likely result in additional and 
     costly delays, conflicts, and lawsuits, with no clear benefit 
     to the public or the health of public lands.

  It is opposed by the Forest Service. It is opposed by BLM. The Forest 
Service can comply and is complying with the court rulings. They are 
gathering the information now.
  Last night, my colleagues complained that the New York Times and the 
Washington Post did not understand the Northwest. Here is what the 
Seattle Times has to say about the decisions, in an editorial opposing 
section 329 with the headline, ``No More Outlaw Logging.''

       It falls to the Forest Service to balance scientific and 
     commercial interests . . . keeping the Forest Service honest 
     and forcing it to commit resources to make the plan work.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the effect of the Robb amendment would be 
to terminate all harvests on all public lands in the United States and 
much recreational activity that requires any kind of improvement. It 
requires between $5 billion and $9 billion worth of wildlife surveys 
beyond endangered species, surveys that are unnecessary and so 
expensive that it will not be wise to go ahead with any of them.
  The amendment does not require the Forest Service or the Secretary of 
the Interior to do anything. It simply authorizes them to conduct their 
business in the future as they have conducted it in the past. If they 
do not want to, if they want to go after these surveys, they still can. 
Section 329 is entirely discretionary and is entirely within the power 
of the administration to interpret as it wills.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I express my full support for Senator 
Gorton's section 329. It is the right thing to do because, without it 
there would be a new $8 billion mandate on the Forest Service.
  This provision is needed because it affirms a position taken by three 
circuit courts and nine Federal courts. Senator Gorton's effort is 
necessary because it will ensure that the Forest Service and the Nation 
have a uniform public policy.
  The opponents of section 329 want to ignore the position taken by 
three circuit courts and nine Federal courts because they got the 
decision they liked from the 11th Circuit Court.
  There is a certain irony here. Here is an instance where 
environmentalists do not want a one-size-fits-all national policy.
  Senator Gorton's provision helps the Forest Service. It properly 
eliminates very expensive and completely unnecessary work by the Forest 
Service.
  Senator Gorton would allow the Forest Service to rely on sampling 
data regarding available habitats for the species.
  Opponents want the Forest Service to count the actual populations of 
the species--not just once, but several times to determine population 
trends. In each case, the three circuit courts and nine Federal courts 
did not buy this argument.
  Currently, the Forest Service has followed the Federal court 
decisions. It has correctly contained to inventory wildlife by habitat 
availability for almost two decades.
  Now, the Senate is being asked to ignore 20 years of experience plus 
decisions from three circuit courts and nine Federal courts.
  Mr. President, I do not want to ignore the experts at the Forest 
Service.
  The Senate is also faced with a decision that will significantly 
increase the cost of operating the timbers sales program in the Forest 
Service. Eight billion dollars is real money and spending the 
taxpayer's hard earned money unwisely is criminal.
  Let me put the Senator Robb mandated spending into a context. Eight 
billion dollars is 2\1/2\ times the entire annual budget of the whole 
Forest Service.
  Mr. President, it is clear the 11th Circuit Court has ``overreached'' 
and Senator Robb's mandated spending is unjustified.
  The current wildlife data requirements can be applied nationwide 
without threatening species habitats. But timber sales, an authorized 
and core mission of the Forest Service, would be placed in jeopardy.
  In Mississippi, timber sales are the lifeblood of many counties. It 
funds children's education in some of Mississippi's and the Nation's 
poorest counties.
  Congress must ensure that Forest Service timber sales continue in a 
timely fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the efforts of Senator Robb. His 
amendment would, quite frankly, destroy the fiscal viability of two 
counties in Mississippi. Wayne County and Perry County are currently 
listed by Federal Governments as two of the poorest in the Nation. They 
depend on Federal timber sales--remember, this is a legal and primary 
mission of the Forest Service.
  Mr. President, Senator Gorton's section 329 is the right provision on 
the right appropriation bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we all want to solve the problems 
concerning implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and the so-
called ``survey and manage'' requirements. I have long supported and 
continue to support the plan and believe it should work as written. 
Unfortunately, section 329 undermines the important protection and

[[Page 20990]]

scientific credibility of the forest plan and does not solve the 
current problems. That's why today I supported the Robb/Cleland 
amendment to strike section 329 from the fiscal year 2000 Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Recently, a Federal court injunction halted dozens of timber sales in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. The injunction is not the fault of 
the timber industry, the environmental community, or the Northwest 
Forest Plan. The blame rests squarely on the forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They have failed to undertake the 
survey and manage requirements of the forest Plan despite having five 
years in which to do so. The Forest Service and BLM may believe they 
were meeting the requirements of the forest Plan, but clearly they did 
not. Unfortunately, the Forest Service and BLM's failure is harming 
innocent communities and, potentially, species.
  The Northwest Forest Plan came out of a time of discorded in the 
Pacific Northwest. In 1992, our timber industry was shut down by the 
spotted owl. The Forest Plan was designed to provide industry with a 
greater assurance regarding timber harvest levels, while also 
protecting the forests and the species they support.
  The Northwest Forest Plan's survey and manage provision was developed 
by scientists to help land mangers reduce the potential 9mpact of 
timber harvests and other activities on a wide variety of currently 
unlisted species, ranging from fungi, to mollusks, to tree voles. The 
result should have been a management program for the Pacific Northwest 
national forest that provided for stable timber harvest levels and 
protection against another spotted own crisis. That hasn't happened.
  However, we cannot abandon the Northwest Forest Plan. We especially 
cannot abandon it without putting in place other ways to protect our 
forests species and provide a sustainable flow of timber.
  Section 329, is not a solution to the failure of federal agencies to 
meet their survey and manage requirements. The solution lies in the 
forest Service and BLM getting their acts together and doing what they 
are required to do. If some of the survey and manage requirements are 
flawed or unnecessary, we need the Federal agencies and the scientific 
community to tell us. We can then all work to find a balanced solution. 
I commit to working with the industry, agencies, environmentalists, and 
my colleagues to find a way to make the Northwest Forest Plan work.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb, that will 
move to strike a section of the Interior appropriations bill that is 
not only important to the future of the management of our national 
forests, but critical to the taxpayers of this country.
  Section 329 of the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill is a 
necessary clarification to the National Forest Management Act provision 
that requires the Forest Service to include wildlife diversity in its 
management of the national forests. A recent decision by the 11th 
Circuit Court determined that the Forest Service must conduct 
comprehensive wildlife population surveys in every area of each 
national forest that would be disturbed by a timber sale or any other 
management activity in order to authorize that activity.
  This may seem like a simple requirement. However, in order to 
understand this amendment, you need to understand what types of surveys 
are currently being done and how expensive it would be to comply with 
the new recent decision. It is also important to know that this 
decision overturns 17 years of agency practice and is contrary to 
decisions in 3 other courts of appeal.
  From 1982 until 1999, the Forest Service has consistently interpreted 
its rules implementing the wildlife diversity by inventorying habitat 
and analyzing existing population data when determining the effect of 
planning decisions on wildlife populations. During this same 17 year 
period, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Eighth, and 
Ninth Circuits have upheld the Forest Service's interpretation of its 
own rule, not to mention several lower courts.
  Then this year the Eleventh Circuit overruled a lower court decision 
concerning one national forest in Georgia and found that the Forest 
Service, despite two decades of agency interpretation and performance 
and judicial opinions, must count every member of every species on the 
ground. This decision sets a standard never seen before in the 
management of our national forests. The cost estimate to carry out such 
a laborious task could be as high as $9 billion. That is almost three 
times the entire National Forest Service budget. This inventory 
standard is unachievable and sets a paralysis on the management of our 
national forests.
  In my home State of Georgia, this decision threatens small saw mills 
that purchase their lumber from public lands as well as fisheries and 
wildlife projects, recreation, land exchanges and new facility 
construction such as trails and campgrounds. Section 329 will reapply 
the standard that the Forest Service has been using for the past 17 
years, and allow for a balance between protection of wildlife and 
protection of public lands.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric on this 
amendment and see that section 329 does not interfere with the judicial 
process, nor does it reverse current policy of the Forest Service or 
the Bureau of Land Management. It simply allows agencies to use the 
best information that is available to them to protect our national 
forests. I urge you to support sensible management and vote ``no'' on 
the amendment to strike the language of section 329.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator 
Robb's amendment to strike section 329 from the Interior appropriations 
bill. This effort is misguided and I urge my colleagues to understand 
the need for this Section if our National Forests are going to continue 
to function.
  The ability of my home State's national forests to provide timber and 
other important resources is critical to the survival of many 
communities. I know the supervisors of both the Ozark-St. Francis and 
Ouachita National Forests in Arkansas. They are dedicated to preserving 
the forests' survival and natural beauty, while providing a healthy 
source of timber. The timber purchase program in Arkansas is one of the 
few in the country that consistently makes a profit. Not only does 
Arkansas' timber industry benefit, but so do school children who 
receive a portion of the earnings from the timber sales.
  Section 329 simply clarifies that despite a recent circuit court 
decision, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior should maintain 
the discretion to implement current regulations as they have been doing 
for nearly 20 years. Specifically, on February 18, 1999, the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Forest Service must conduct 
forest-wide wildlife population surveys on all proposed, endangered, 
threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species in order to 
prepare or revise national forest plans on all ``ground disturbing 
activity.'' Never before has such an extensive and impossible standard 
been set by the courts. In the end, this ruling results in paralysis by 
analysis.
  It would require the Forest Service to examine every square inch of a 
project area and count the animals and plant life before it approved 
any ``ground disturbing activity.'' The cost to carry out such 
extensive studies--studies which have never been required before--could 
be as much as $9 billion nationwide. How do we know this? Because the 
Forest Service does contract for population inventorying on occasion.
  If one were to extrapolate from the $8,000 cost of one plant 
inventory, they will reach $38.1 million for the 864,000 acres within 
the Chattahoochee National Forest where the 11th Circuit Court decision 
originated. When applied to Arkansas, one could deduce that this action 
could cost my state's industry roughly $78 million. If applied to the 
188-million acre national forest system, the cost reaches $8.3 billion. 
During the past two decades, nine separate court decisions have backed 
the

[[Page 20991]]

way the Forest Service has been conducting their surveying populations 
by inventorying habitat and analyzing existing population data.
  We appropriate roughly $70 million for forest inventory and 
monitoring. Are we prepared to shift the $9 billion necessary for this 
new standard? If not, this recent interpretation forces the Forest 
Service to shut down until they can apply the new standard.
  The purpose of section 329 is not to change the court decision or set 
a new lower standard. It is simply to clarify that the existing 
regulation gives the discretion to the Forest Service and the BLM when 
determining what kind of surveys are needed when management activities 
are being considered.
  Some of my colleagues would argue that this is an issue for the 
authorizing committees to deal with. I agree. This is an issue that 
absolutely should be dealt with by those committees. They need to 
determine whether the agencies have been correctly interpreting their 
regulation for the past 17 years. They need to determine whether it is 
sufficient to inventory habitat, rely on existing populations, consult 
with state and Federal agencies and conduct population inventories only 
for specific reasons. But I argue that the appropriations process 
should not be made to bear the burden while the authorizing committees 
study the question.
  All section 329 seeks to do is preserve the status quo, as the 
already limited resources of our home States' National Forests would be 
further stretched if they are required to fund this new standard. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support sensible 
management.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. ROTH (when his name was called). Mr. President, on this vote, 
Senator Murkowski is absent but would have voted ``nay.'' If I were 
allowed to vote, I would vote ``yea.'' I therefore withhold my vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1

       
     Roth, for
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 1583) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 1603

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Hutchison 
amendment No. 1603.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I see both the sponsor of the amendment 
and also a couple of opponents of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have an up-or-down vote on the 
Hutchison amendment no later than 12 o'clock today.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a 
vote on the Hutchison amendment no later than 5 p.m. today.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I 
would like to have a vote on the Hutchison amendment. I think the 
Senator from Texas has a good amendment. The Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Domenici, has worked on this amendment. It is unfortunate that it 
is needed.
  I am chairman of the Energy Regulation Subcommittee, and we had a 
hearing on this issue. The issue was whether or not MMS could change 
policy on royalties, or does that take an act of Congress. Does MMS 
have the power to increase taxes or the power to increase royalties? 
They have the power to collect royalties; that has been the law. Do 
they have the power to change it?
  I tell my colleague from California, if she is not going to give us a 
vote on the amendment, then I am going to move to table the amendment 
momentarily. I am going to make a couple more comments. If she wishes 
to have a couple of minutes on this, I will agree to that. I listened 
to the debate last night for a while. I wasn't able to get in here to 
join the debate. I will make a couple of comments momentarily. If the 
Senator from California wishes to speak before I move to table, I will 
agree to that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Oklahoma a 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my friend, it is very generous to 
offer me a little time before he moves to table. My friend and I have 
spoken. We are very open about our disagreement on this amendment and 
whether it is the right or the wrong thing. That will come out in our 
debate. We have a couple of people who wanted to talk and weren't able 
to get over here last night. Senator Wellstone has been waiting. We 
would be very happy to agree to quite a limited time, a few minutes, if 
that would be possible, before my friend makes his motion to table.
  Perhaps we can have a unanimous consent agreement that includes 
sufficient time, not exceeding 10 or 15 minutes total, before he moves 
to table. And, by the way, we are all going to vote not to table. I 
don't exactly know why we are going to do this. We think this deserves 
more discussion.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 
minutes of debate on the motion to table, equally divided between the 
Senator from Texas and the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
being generous. We know that under the rules he can move to table 
immediately, and we would not be able to have time for debate. I want 
to tell my friends from Illinois and Minnesota that I intend to yield 
to them under this unanimous consent request.
  Let me set the stage, before I do that, by encapsulating in a very 
few minutes why I think the Hutchison amendment is not a good idea, why 
I think it is dangerous for the Senate to put its imprimatur on the 
Hutchison amendment, and why I think it is wrong for the taxpayers to 
continue to be cheated out of millions and millions of dollars.

[[Page 20992]]

  Mr. President, if rushing through this center door here in this 
beautiful Senate Chamber we saw someone with a bag full of cash that he 
or she had stolen, we would call the police. Yet what is going on today 
on behalf of 5 percent of the oil companies is out and out thievery. 
Those are strong words, but they are backed up.
  Listen to the words of USA Today. They say:

       Imagine being able to compute your own rent payments and 
     grocery bills, giving yourself a 3 to 10 percent discount off 
     the marketplace. Over time, that would add up to really big 
     bucks. And imagine having the political clout to make sure 
     nothing threatened to change that cozy arrangement.

  They say:

       It is time for Congress to clean up this mess.

  Yet the amendment we have before us continues this mess. We have 
already lost, because of these amendments in the past, $88 million from 
this Treasury. This amendment will continue that loss--another $66 
million.
  It is wrong. How do we know it is wrong? First of all, a royalty 
payment is not a tax. May I say that again. A royalty payment is not a 
tax. The Senator from Texas calls it a tax. It is not a tax. It is an 
agreement that is freely signed by the oil companies. It says they will 
pay royalty payments when they drill on Federal lands belonging to the 
people of the United States of America, and that payment will be based 
on the fair market value of the production. As a matter of fact, it is 
even stronger language:

       It shall never be less than the fair market value of the 
     production.

  Yet 5 percent of the oil companies that are vertically integrated are 
continuing to underpay. How do we know this? We know this because there 
is proof of this.
  We know this because already the oil companies have settled with 
seven different States for $5 billion. In other words, rather than face 
the trial, they settled for $5 billion--I don't think any of us could 
imagine how much that is--because they didn't want to face the truth. 
They settled because they admitted it in essence, although technically 
they didn't. But by settling, the basic message is, we were wrong. How 
else do we know there is cheating going on?
  How about the retired ARCO employee who said that the company 
underpaid oil royalties. Where do you think this ran? It didn't run in 
some liberal publication. It ran in Platt's Oilgram News. It is big 
news. It is big news--since the last time this rider went into effect.
  Here he is, a retired Atlantic Richfield employee, admitting in court 
that while he was secretary of ARCO's crude price committee, the posted 
prices were far below market value. He basically says that he admitted 
he was not being truthful 5 years ago when he testified in a deposition 
that ARCO posted prices representing fair market value. What did he say 
while he was an ARCO employee? Some of the issues being discussed were 
still being litigated. He says: My plan was to get to retirement.
  So you have a former employee from ARCO who raises his hand on the 
Bible and tells the truth about the scam that is going on. What does 
the amendment do? It continues the very scam that he has rebuked.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 20 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to the good Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Hutchison amendment is one 
of the most outrageous provisions to be offered to the Interior 
appropriations bill and shouldn't be included in this legislation. This 
amendment would restrict the Interior Department from doing its job, 
which is to make sure that these oil companies pay full royalties for 
the oil they are drilling on Federal and Indian lands.
  I thank the Senator from California, who is willing to stand up to 
oil companies. There are many Senators who will not do so. The Senator 
from California has the courage to do it.
  I don't know why it is that all of a sudden we appear to have such 
sympathy for people who appear to be cheating the public. I know that 
when it comes to finding out what is happening to poor women and 
children, we do not seem to have a lot of interest in figuring out what 
is going on in their lives. I know that when we try to raise the 
minimum wage, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
block that. But in through the door walks the CEO of one of these 
large, integrated oil companies that has been underpaying its 
royalties--oil companies that have been heavy campaign contributors--
and all of sudden we have sympathy to spare. We have sympathy coming 
out the wazoo. We feel their pain. All of a sudden, it is: ``At your 
service; we can do it for you, Senator. How can we serve you better?''
  This is a vote about whether or not we have an open, accountable 
political process. These companies should pay their fair share, and 
when they try to get away with basically not being honest and paying 
what they owe the public, they call on their friends in the Congress. 
The Republican-led Congress answers their call without a moment's 
hesitation with an amendment to this bill. Congress comes to the rescue 
and rewards them for chronically underpaying the royalties which they 
owe to people in this country.
  That is what this is all about.
  I think this amendment is a sweetheart deal. It lets the oil 
companies off the hook. Frankly, I don't believe we should let them do 
that--not if we represent the people in this country.
  I thank the Senator for her amendment. I will vote against tabling 
the amendment because I want to have a lot of debate and discussion. 
Because the more the people in this country know what is at stake on 
the floor of the Senate and understand what is going on, the better the 
chance we have of a significant victory.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield the remaining time?
  How much time more time does the Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask the Senator if he was aware that the 
Hutchison amendment had been included in the bill, and whether when it 
came out of the Appropriations Committee it was stripped out because it 
was deemed legislating on appropriations. Now it is back before us in a 
little bit of a changed technical fashion. But doesn't the Senator 
agree with me that the Senator from Texas is legislating on an 
appropriations bill?
  This is a matter that is very serious. It is not about 
appropriations. As a matter of fact, it is stealing appropriations. It 
is stealing money from the people. It results in money being lost from 
the Interior bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't have time. But I agree.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reclaim any time and give an additional 
30 seconds to the Senator.
  If he will continue to yield, doesn't he believe that this kind of a 
rider doesn't belong on this bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't think the rider belongs on this bill. I don't 
think the rider belongs on any bill. I think these oil companies should 
pay the royalty. I think the public is cheated when they don't. I don't 
think, because they are big contributors and heavy hitters, that they 
should be taken off the hook. I don't believe it should be included in 
any bill, especially this bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I leave the remaining time to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Before I do, I wanted to call to my colleagues' attention a Los 
Angeles Times editorial, ``The Great American Oil Ripoff.'' ``America's 
big oil companies have been ripping off Federal and State Governments 
for decades by underpaying royalties for oil drilled on public lands.''
  It goes on. It says that Congress should not buckle to the pressure 
of the oil lobby, and that the Hutchison bill should be defeated.
  Let me say I don't think you need a degree in economics; I don't 
think you need a degree in political science to know cheating when you 
see it. We know cheating when we see it. We know these companies are 
settling for

[[Page 20993]]

billions because they do not want to face the courts. Yet this Senate, 
if it votes for the Hutchison amendment--I feel so strongly about it--
is putting its approval on organized cheating. How do we know that it 
is organized? Because we have had former ARCO executives and others 
admit that it was, in fact, planned and organized.
  I yield the remaining time to Senator Durbin.
  Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say in conclusion that this is one 
of the legislative riders that calls into question the basic issue. Who 
owns the public lands of America? Will they be a playground for the 
companies that want to come in and use our lands to make a profit, or 
will these companies pay their fair share for using public lands?
  The Senator from California is resisting Senator Hutchison's 
amendment. She wants these companies to pay their fair share in 
royalties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who seeks time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Texas would 
give me time. I know the Senator from Louisiana wants a couple of 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  When I heard some of the arguments by my colleagues about cheating, 
stealing, and lying, I thought I was listening to a country and western 
song at one point. The question is not about cheating, stealing, and 
lying. It is not about whether you have sympathy for the oil companies 
coming out the wazoo. I checked my wazoo, and I don't have any sympathy 
for the oil companies coming out of it. But I do think I have sympathy 
for what is fair and what is right.
  The Federal Government owns the oil, and it allows companies to 
explore and produce it. The companies give back in return one-sixth or 
one-eighth of the royalties to the Federal Government--to the taxpayers 
of the United States--in payment for the right to do this type of 
production.
  The only question is, What is the value of oil? The companies don't 
set that. We do. Congress does. The only issue is, How do you determine 
the legitimate value of the oil?
  We have a formula that has been in place for years. The Federal 
Government, through minerals management, said we will try to make it 
simple. We are not going to try to raise any additional money and keep 
it revenue-neutral. We want to have a simpler way of doing it.
  The issue now boils down to the regulations. They are very 
complicated. It is not an easy process. How do you determine the price 
of oil that is produced in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? If you 
sold it at the well 200 miles offshore, it would be easy to determine 
what the price is. But it is not sold in the middle of the Gulf of 
Mexico. It is transported hundreds and hundreds of miles onshore where 
it is refined and then ultimately sold.
  The question is, What is the legitimate production price? Who pays 
for the transportation from the middle of the gulf? It is the Federal 
Government's oil. Do the companies pay for the transportation, or does 
the Federal Government pay for the transportation?
  The question is, What is the legitimate production in determining 
what the price is?
  Could I have 30 seconds to conclude?
  What the Senator from Texas has done is say: Look, pull over. There 
is a huge disagreement. It is very difficult and very complicated. 
Nobody is stealing, cheating, or lying. But we need a little bit more 
time to try to bring both sides together to come up with a realistic 
way of determining fair market value.
  I think our amendment is a good one and should be supported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the explanation 
of the Senator from Louisiana because he is getting to the real point.
  This chart shows what the MMS is proposing to do under the new rule. 
As the Senator from Louisiana said, the mandate to MMS was to simplify 
the rule so the Federal Government and the taxpayers of America get a 
fair share of the oil royalties. This is what they have come up with.
  I believe if we can have a 1-year moratorium that MMS, which has a 
new leader, will come forward with a reasonable plan. It is not going 
to tax costs. No other industry has a tax on their transportation costs 
and their marketing costs. It is going to be a fair return. That is 
what we are after.
  I want to make one other point before I yield to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  We keep hearing about this former ARCO employee and all of the oil 
companies settling. But the Senator from California fails to mention 
that 2 weeks ago, there was a verdict by a jury in California saying 
that Exxon did not cheat the taxpayers of California. That is the oil 
company that didn't settle because it didn't believe it had cheated. 
The former ARCO employee who has been referred to by the Senator from 
California testified in the case and was found uncredible.
  So I think it is very important that be in the debate.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Texas. I think the Senate has an opportunity today to decide 
whether we are going to give in to a group of Federal bureaucrats who 
have decided it is going to be their way or no way. That is actually 
the issue. All we are trying to determine through the activities of an 
established regulatory body is what the fair market value of the oil is 
on which the U.S. taxpayers are entitled to receive a royalty.
  The MMS has decided to change the way we have done it in the past and 
in the process, in the opinion of this Senator and many others, has 
made it no longer fair. It is not actually levying a royalty on the 
value of the oil. They have decided to have new starting points. They 
are not allowing certain things to be deducted that are actual business 
expenses. In a nutshell, they are establishing a price upon which the 
royalty is predicated which is not the result of the marketplace and 
ordinary business practices but some concoction that they have come up 
with which will cost more money to an American industry that clearly 
should not be paying new taxes today.
  This is a new tax because you change the way you regulate it and the 
way you determine value and you thus increase the taxes. If it is not 
the right way, then it is an increase in taxes. I do not believe they 
should be doing this. I think we should be doing this. I believe they 
ought to establish a process and submit it to us and ask, Do you want 
to change the rules on this or not?
  Essentially, I listened attentively to the Senator from Louisiana. He 
hit it right on the head. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma 
in his brief remarks was right there. There has not been a better 
fighter than Kay Hutchison. She has been right again. We have been 
right together on this, and we have convinced the Senate heretofore, 
but we cannot convince the MMS to be fair, and that is what the issue 
is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the distinguished assistant majority leader and thank him very much for 
his leadership on this issue. Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, and I 
have been fighting this fight and I could not think of two people who 
better understand the issue.

[[Page 20994]]


  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Texas for 
her statement of yesterday and today, and also for the chart. I hope my 
colleagues will look at the chart because that is what MMS is proposing 
and it is not workable. People who work in this field all the time have 
come before our committee, a committee of Congress, and said this 
proposal is not workable. They told that to myself, they told that to 
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, as well as Senator Domenici, 
also from New Mexico. They said it is not workable.
  I have two or three problems. I am going to touch on them briefly.
  One, I have a problem with the Senator from California saying she 
doesn't like the amendment so she is going to filibuster the amendment. 
I earlier said: Let's vote on the amendment an hour from now, or 5 
hours from now.
  No, no, we are not going to have a vote on the amendment; she's going 
to filibuster the amendment.
  If we are going to filibuster every amendment coming along on an 
appropriations bill, we are never going to get it done. If we do this, 
we are never going to be able to get finished.
  People can talk all they want about a do-nothing Congress, but if we 
have members of one party or the other, or individual Members, who say: 
I don't like that provision in the transportation bill so I am going to 
filibuster the transportation bill--we have already seen that happen 
today--or I don't like this provision so we are going to filibuster it 
so we are not going to get an Interior bill unless I get my way, or get 
a supermajority--to say we need to have 60 votes to pass any amendment, 
I think that is a mistake. So we should get away from that.
  Let me touch on the subject of this amendment. We passed in 1996 a 
bill, the Federal Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act, of which I 
was one of the principal sponsors, in a bipartisan way to simplify 
royalty collection. We did that. It passed overwhelmingly. The 
President signed it. It was a good bill.
  The chart Senator Hutchison shows, the proposed MMS regs, is just the 
opposite of royalty simplification and fairness. If we follow the MMS 
proposal, what we have is an invitation for litigation. You have 
litigation nightmares already going on. The Senator from Texas already 
mentioned the testimony of the ARCO employee. His testimony was not 
persuasive. The issue of royalty under payments went before a jury of 
twelve in California in a case that had been ongoing for 14 years, and 
guess what? The jury decided in favor of the oil companies. They 
decided that the oil company was right. This company litigated the 
issue of underpayments for 14 years.
  A lot of companies decided it was not worth the expense. It was not 
worth the bad press. It was not worth these editorials that really do 
not know what they are talking about, that know nothing about oil 
valuation and the complexity of it. So maybe they do settle. That does 
not mean they are guilty, that they are stealing. That is like somebody 
who says, wait a minute, the IRS audited your taxes and you owe some 
more money. Does that mean you are stealing?
  There are some things wrong with the current royalty valuation 
program. We had two government employees who were involved in these 
developing the new MMS regulations and all of a sudden they got paid 
$350,000 each by an outside group who supports the proposed 
regulations. That is pretty corrupt. That is like having an IRS agent 
say: I audited your return and as a result we found out you owed more 
money. I want half of it. That is what happened in this case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
majority leader's time for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. That investigation is pending. Supposedly, the Justice 
Department is reviewing that case.
  I urge all of our colleagues, to think about that. There are two 
federal employees involved in developing these MMS regulations who were 
paid $350,000 by a group with a financial interest in the final rule. I 
find that to be corrupt. I find that to be unethical. I find that to be 
outlandish. It needs to be stopped.
  So I compliment, again, my colleague from Texas for this amendment. 
We need to make sure that Congress raises taxes if Congress is going 
to. If there is going to be a tax increase, if there is going to be a 
royalty increase, it should happen by an act of Congress. It should not 
happen by an act of unelected bureaucrats changing the rules without 
appropriate legislative authority and opening up a litigation 
nightmare.
  Mr. President, I move to table.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent 
request to add Senators Brownback and Thomas as cosponsors of the 
Hutchison-Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator 
Hutchison's amendment to continue the moratorium on the Minerals 
Management Service (MMS) oil royalty valuation rule. I am concerned 
that the MMS proposed rules for determining federal royalty payments 
will increase compliance costs for small, independent oil producers. 
These producers have just begun to recover from some of the lowest oil 
prices in 30 years, which cost the oil and gas industry more than 
67,000 American jobs and saw the closure of more than 200,000 oil and 
gas wells. A hike in the royalty rates will make a bad situation worse 
and could cause more domestic oil production to be replaced by foreign 
imports.
  It is up to Congress and not federal agencies to establish public 
policy. The MMS clearly exceeded its authority by proposing to raise 
royalty rates without congressional authorization. No congressional 
committee or affected industry groups were notified before the final 
version of the rule was announced. The MMS has also tried to get around 
the congressional moratorium by changing federal lease forms and taking 
other measures that are similar to the prohibited rule. These reckless 
actions have led me to believe that this is an agency out of control.
  I am also very concerned about the appearance of a quid pro quo with 
respect to payments that were made by the Project on Government 
Oversight (POGO) to officials at the Departments of Interior and Energy 
who were involved with the royalty rate valuation issue. I agree with 
Senator Hutchison that the Interior Department should not proceed with 
this rule until this matter has been resolved by the Justice 
Department.
  I do believe that the current royalty rate valuations are 
fundamentally flawed and should be changed. But the regulations 
proposed by the MMS would increase the amount of royalties to be paid 
by assessing royalties on downstream values without full consideration 
of costs. In a period of low oil prices, the government should be 
considering royalty rate reductions, not an increase.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to make policy decisions 
affecting royalty rates and the responsibility of the MMS to implement 
those policies. We, the United States Senate, have been elected by our 
constituents in order to make these difficult decisions and should not 
have our authority preempted by federal bureaucrats. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Hutchison royalty rate moratorium amendment 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am supporting Senator Hutchison's 
amendment to extend the moratorium on the oil valuation rule of the 
Department of the Interior. I do this with some reluctance because like 
most of my colleagues from oil producing States, I believe strongly 
that this issue must be settled. Yet, after careful consideration, I 
cannot honestly conclude that the rule as currently proposed will 
achieve that.
  I have worked hard with officials from the Department of the Interior

[[Page 20995]]

and others to try to find the right approach to resolving the disputes 
involved in this rulemaking. I am very aware of the hard work and good 
faith efforts of many in the environmental and public interest 
community, within the States, and within the industry, to address the 
controversial issues raised by this rule. I believe there has been 
progress. However, we are not there yet.
  The way oil from Federal leases is valued for purposes of calculating 
royalty payments is complex to say the least. Nonetheless, it is also 
very important; it is important to those producing the Federal oil, it 
is important to the American taxpayers, and it is important to the 
States who receive up to half of the proceeds from Federal leases 
within their state boundaries.
  My State of New Mexico is the second largest producer of onshore 
Federal oil and gas. In 1998, there were almost twelve thousand Federal 
oil and gas leases within New Mexico, covering over seven million acres 
of land. The majority of these leases are operated by small independent 
producers whose livelihood is greatly impacted by the manner in which 
Federal payments are calculated.
  In 1998, the State of New Mexico received almost $168 million as its 
share of the revenues from Federal mineral leases within the State. My 
State uses these payments to help fund its public education system.
  Given these circumstances, it is obvious to me that the method of 
valuing these Federal royalty payments is of deep concern to New 
Mexico, from a number of different angles. It is important to get it 
right. It is pointless to create rules that are unworkable, or unfair, 
or that will be mired in costly and nonproductive litigation. I owe it 
to the honest producers in my State, as well as to my State Treasury, 
to try to ensure that a final rulemaking on this subject will achieve 
the desired end of fairness to all, and creation of a clear set of 
standards that will not be plagued by endless controversy.
  For this reason I am supporting an additional moratorium. I do not 
believe the rulemaking as it is currently proposed will work. The 
Department of the Interior has indicated that its latest round of 
comments has resulted in information which it has found helpful, and 
which could result in changes that would satisfy the concerns of 
industry and others, while ensuring that the United States receives 
fair market value for its oil resources. The Department has suggested 
that with this new information, it may be able to work out ways to 
resolve the issues that to date have proven so intractable.
  I believe imposition of this moratorium will allow the Department the 
additional time it needs to re-propose this rule, and get to the 
elusive, but necessary resolution of this issue.
  In comments I submitted to this rule, I recommended a number of areas 
for change, based on my conversations with New Mexico producers, and 
with other interested groups. These include ensuring that independent 
producers and others who engage in arms-length sales of their oil pay 
royalties only on the actual amount they receive; creating reasonable 
deductions for transportation costs; and resolving the treatment of 
marketing costs. I continue to urge the Department to consider these 
recommendations as it addresses the final rule.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, so we will have all Senators on record 
voting either for or against the Hutchison amendment, I move to table 
the Hutchison amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion 
to table.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 amendment No. 1603. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 2, nays 96, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--2

     Byrd
     Gregg
       

                                NAYS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Murkowski
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the present order of business, of course, 
is a continuing debate on the Hutchison amendment. There will be a 
cloture motion filed on that amendment that will ripen either Monday or 
Tuesday; I am not certain which. The Senator from California has 
justifiably, in defending her position, asked for assurances that there 
will not be a cloture motion filed on the whole bill, which could 
theoretically deprive her of her right to continue debate until some 
conclusion with respect to the Hutchison amendment.
  I assure her that will not take place. Her amendment will be disposed 
of one way or another--either by the adoption of cloture and the 
eventual vote on the amendment, or by a failure of cloture and its 
withdrawal before any cloture motion will be filed on the bill as a 
whole. In fact, I can say I don't see any reason or need that we should 
have to file cloture on the bill as a whole. We are making good 
progress on it. There are other amendments we can discuss and vote on 
today, and perhaps even on Monday, so it may very well be that the 
disposition of her amendment is the last significant matter.
  In any event, I assure her that her rights will be protected, and 
that, of course, is a necessary precondition to my asking unanimous 
consent to set the Hutchison amendment aside and go on to other 
amendments. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, has such an 
amendment. So I hope with that assurance, it is sufficient that we can 
go forward on another subject.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. GORTON. I will.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
being so gracious in preserving my rights. My friend from Texas and I 
feel equally strongly on the point, just on different sides. I think 
each of us wants to have justice done on the amendment. So I want to 
reiterate what my friend stated so we all agree that this is the 
procedure. There will be a cloture motion filed on the Hutchison 
amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. A vote will be held Monday or Tuesday, or perhaps later, 
at whatever date it ripens. Then, in any case, there will not be a 
cloture vote on the entire bill until the cloture vote on the Hutchison 
amendment is held.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from California is correct.

[[Page 20996]]


  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much. With that, I do not object 
to laying the amendment aside.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison 
amendment be laid aside and the Senator from New Jersey be recognized 
to propose an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1571

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to 
authorize, permit, administer, or promote the use of any jawed leghold, 
trap, or neck snare in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself, 
     Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Moynihan, 
     and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1571.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. 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:

       On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 1 _. USE OF TRAPS AND SNARES IN NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
                   REFUGES.

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     authorize, permit, administer, or promote the use of any 
     jawed leghold trap or neck snare in any unit of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System, except for the purpose of research, 
     subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection.

  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.
  Mr. GORTON. I have been informed that members of his party are in a 
policy meeting and would like to defer any vote on this amendment to a 
time certain--2 o'clock. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If, indeed, it is required to have a rollcall vote, 
that would be OK. I have some expectation that it might not be 
required.
  Mr. GORTON. It seems to me to be appropriate to say, for Members, 
that there won't be another rollcall vote prior to 2 o'clock, and we 
hope by that time we will have completed debate on the Torricelli 
amendment and deal with it either by rollcall or voice vote at the 
necessary time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, trapping has been 
part of the American economic and cultural life before there was a 
United States, whether for recreational purposes or subsistence----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt, but 
this is so crucial, and I am with him on it.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to correct myself and make sure the Senator from 
Washington would allow me this chance and not on Senator Torricelli's 
time. I wanted to say that I agree with the Senator that there would 
not be a cloture vote on the bill until the Hutchison amendment was 
resolved. Those were his words. I didn't say it exactly in that way in 
my agreement.
  Mr. GORTON. I thought she did. In any event, that is the agreement.
  Mrs. BOXER. In remembering my words, I am in agreement with my 
friend. I have no objection.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate deals 
with the issue of trapping on Federal wildlife refuge lands. It 
recognizes the reality that trapping has been part of the economic and 
cultural life of the United States for generations and, indeed, an 
important part of the economic life of many communities. But as 
anything else in life, there is a right and a wrong way to have 
trappings on these Federal lands.
  Overwhelmingly, trappers on Federal lands are using relatively humane 
methods of trappings that ensure the death of the animal so that there 
is no suffering. But in a small minority of these instances there are 
particularly egregious types of traps that continue to be used on 
Federal lands though many States have banned them for years. Most 
egregious of all are steel-jaw leg-hold traps and neck snares. These 
traps almost assure the suffering of an animal. The legislation before 
the Senate would ban these two specific types of traps and no others--
traps used in a small minority of the trapping industry and no others, 
and not for all purposes.
  Trapping for research is not included in this amendment. All 
scientific research can continue with any traps.
  Subsistence: Many Native American tribes that live off these traps--
live off the game they collect--should not be impacted and are not 
impacted.
  Facilities protection, or conservation: For any of those purposes, 
trappers are free to use whatever type of traps they would like. But 
for recreational purposes or other subsistence purposes, we would ban 
these two specific types of traps.
  I know some Senators have raised the question of whether or not 
banning any traps would cause a problem for the Government itself in 
maintaining stocks, endangered species, or other legitimate purposes of 
the Government itself.
  It is important to note that Secretary Babbitt was asked to address 
this question, and he wrote:

       The amendment would not impact the ability of the U.S. Fish 
     and Wildlife Service to manage refuges under the Organic Act 
     of 1997.

  Specifically, therefore, Secretary Babbitt had given testimony that 
banning these traps would not contradict the lawful purposes of the 
U.S. Government.
  It should also be noted that it is not a new issue for the States. It 
is not a new issue for the Congress. The House of Representatives on 
July 14 was confronted with the identical issue on whether or not these 
two specific traps should be banned for these narrow purposes. By a 
vote of 259 to 166, with 89 Members of the Republican majority, it 
overwhelmingly passed this same prohibition.
  The question arises: Why have the States, why has the House of 
Representatives, and why have so many of our colleagues expressed 
concern and support on this floor about a ban on these two specific 
forms of traps?
  A leg-hold trap is simply designed to trap an animal by its leg with 
the force of this steel jaw and hold the animal until the trapper 
returns. There are several problems with this very old, very tested, 
but very cruel technology. The trapper may not return for days, or a 
week, in which case the animal starves to death, becomes dehydrated, 
and suffers over a period of days and days and days.
  Second, the extraordinary power of this trap is nearly certain to 
cause a laceration, or to break the leg of the animal. The animal 
suffers. As is the case with 80 or 90 percent of these traps, the trap 
catches the wrong animal. It is not the animal the trapper wants. It is 
some other animal. If it were a live cage, as overwhelmingly trappers 
use, the trappers would then release to the wild the animal that was 
unwanted. But in 80 or 90 percent of the cases the trapper has an 
animal that he didn't even want. The leg is now broken, or the animal 
is bleeding to death. It cannot be released to the wild. And an 
unwanted species is destroyed for no purpose when another technology--a 
live-bait trap, which most trappers use--would have avoided the whole 
problem.
  Even crueler, what is often happening is, these animals caught in the 
leg-hold trap for days and the trapper does not return are chewing off 
their own legs--destroying themselves to get free. The reality is that 
it is destroying unwanted species, with extraordinary suffering, with 
animals maiming themselves, and for absolutely no reason.
  This legislation, I repeat, does not deal with scientific reasons, 
subsistence reasons for Native American tribes, or other scientific 
purposes. It is only for recreation. It is only for a minority of 
trappers. It is only for these two kinds of traps, and it only deals 
with wildlife refuges.
  What kind of wildlife refuges are the United States maintaining if we 
are to allow these particularly egregious and cruel types of traps? 
These are refuges.

[[Page 20997]]

They are set up for the safety and maintenance of an animal species. It 
allows trapping and harvesting of species, but not with this one 
particularly cruel kind of trap. That is the purpose of the amendment.
  Only 1 out of every 10 species actually gets caught in these traps. 
It is the intended species--1 in 10.
  I brought before you a protected species of bird caught in a leg-hold 
trap. No one was trying to trap an eagle. No one wanted to do so. It 
was unlawful. There is no purpose in doing so. But the trap doesn't 
discriminate. When the trapper arrives, what is he to do? The leg of 
this bird is broken. You can do nothing but kill this animal, though it 
was no one's intention.
  This has been endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical 
Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, hunting groups, 
and sportsmen. The States of California, Arizona, Colorado, and 
Massachusetts have already passed statewide ballot initiatives banning 
these specific traps. Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have 
legislative or administrative bans. Eighty- eight nations--virtually 
the entire industrialized world--developed nations, all have banned 
these traps. We, and we alone, use them. And we are not only using 
them, we are using them in wildlife refuges that we have had set up for 
100 years to protect these animals. How could anyone rise in defense of 
this trap?
  Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join the House of 
Representatives and the various States and impose this narrow 
prohibition on these two specific traps for these narrow recreational 
purposes and on these Federal lands. It is a modest request for what is 
an egregious problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment. I 
think it sets a bad precedent because I think it is bad politics.
  I just came back from my State, as most of us did, and talked to my 
agricultural producers. We have a predator problem in Montana.
  Let me tell you about a conversation I had with a good friend in 
Glasgow, MT. They are sheep producers. They run from the Fort Peck 
Reservoir south towards Circle, MT. That is McCone Valley and Roosevelt 
County. They have trapped and killed 90 coyotes on their ranch, and 
they are still run over with them.
  This lies along the CMR Wildlife Refuge in Montana along the Missouri 
River. Those sheep are smart enough to stay in that refuge. The only 
time we can get them is when they come out. They lose about 300 lambs a 
day. I don't know how many people can sustain that much loss.
  But this particular trap is sort of needed, whether it be in the use 
of predator control, whether it be used on the refuge, or on BLM or 
private land.
  I said yesterday that on one of the amendments one of these days this 
body is going to be hit by a large bolt of common sense. Then I don't 
know what is going to happen. We will not know how to deal with things 
here.
  But I will tell you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes 
this amendment. They are the ones who manage the refuge systems.
  The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that 
represents the 50 fish and wildlife agencies and conservation groups--
which includes the Izaak Walton League of America--all oppose this 
amendment. They oppose it for the simple reason that we get a little 
loose with definitions.
  I think the point is that nobody likes to see the suffering and 
catching the wrong animal in the wrong trap. I would question the 80 to 
90 percent wrong animal figure. I would question that because no 
trapper I know, whether they did it as a sportsman for recreation, 
whether they did it to prevent predation on livestock, or whether they 
did it for a living, worth his salt, who knows how to trap, has figures 
similar to this. There is none that I know. And we have quite a few of 
them in my State.
  So I ask we oppose and defeat this amendment. It is taking away some 
of those tools that do not meet the definition. We say, if States OK it 
for recreation, then define recreation. We know it has a habit of 
spilling over into areas where, if we cannot use these traps to prevent 
predation, then we are again put at the mercy of predators, of which we 
have many.
  Businesses cannot sustain those losses. Maybe no one cares whether 
businesses sustain themselves or not. Let's face it; they have human 
faces, too, in this situation. So I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from 
Montana. I want the Senate to know this amendment would seriously harm 
a vital sector of the rural Alaskan economy. It would injure greatly 
those who follow the Alaskan way of life.
  We are very much involved with this amendment. What it seeks to do is 
end trapping in the Federal wildlife refuges. There are some exceptions 
in the Senator's amendment for research, conservation, facilities 
protection, and subsistence.
  Let me point out this chart I have. There are 77 million acres of 
wildlife refuge in our State; 85 percent of all the wildlife refuge in 
the country is in Alaska.
  The amendment seeks to absolutely discard the concepts of sound game 
management principles. As the Senator from Montana stated, the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies, which represent State fish and game managers 
throughout the country, have opposed the amendment because it limits 
the ability to manage wildlife populations scientifically. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service wrote me a letter on July 20 explaining the Service's 
opposition to the House amendment in detail. This is a very serious 
thing. I am disturbed when my colleague talks about recreational 
trapping.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that the core of its mission 
is wildlife management. In its letter to me, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service stated that:

       . . . a prohibition of specific animal restraint devices is 
     not in the best interest of sound wildlife management.

  The Department of Fish and Game of my State of Alaska also stated 
this amendment hinders the ability of wildlife managers to do their 
job. It said:

       We have consistently supported trapping as an important 
     tool in managing the national wildlife refuge system.

  I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Division of 
           Wildlife Conservation,
                                        Juneau, AK, July 22, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am writing to express my concern 
     over house approved language amending the FY2000 Interior 
     Appropriation Bill (HR2466) that restricts the use of leghold 
     traps and neck snares on National Wildlife Refuges. I 
     understand similar language may be introduced soon on the 
     senate floor. If that language is introduced, I encourage you 
     to vote no and to remove the house passed language in 
     conference committee.
       Commercial, recreational, subsistence, and nuisance animal 
     trapping have never been classified in regulation as separate 
     uses because pelts are acquired, traded, or sold and enter 
     commerce through all of these uses. Therefore, it is 
     meaningless to separate commercial and recreational 
     activities from other types of trapping for purposes of 
     managing the refuge system.
       Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska is 
     important to our department because the activity helps us 
     track furbearer populations in areas not often frequented by 
     members of the public, especially during winter when weather 
     can have severe impacts on animal populations. We have 
     consistently supported trapping as an important tool in 
     managing the National Wildlife Refuge system and the Wildlife 
     Refuge Improvement Act of 1996 recognizes the importance of 
     that tool.
       Eighty-five percent of all lands in the National Wildlife 
     Refuge system are in Alaska. The opportunity to trap and 
     snare furbearers on these lands is essential to our rural 
     culture and the lifestyle of families living in remote 
     villages. Many people in these areas

[[Page 20998]]

     have seasonal incomes, and trapping plays a critical role in 
     supplementing that income with cash obtained from a local 
     resource when jobs are nonexistent. If trapping and snaring 
     are prohibited on these refuges, the impact would be 
     disastrous economically, as well as culturally, to the people 
     of Alaska.
       Thank you for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Wayne Regelin,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the House of 
     Representatives recently adopted an amendment by Congressman 
     Sam Farr to the Interior Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2466) 
     concerning trapping on National Wildlife Refuges. We 
     anticipate that this issue may arise during Senate 
     consideration.
       The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this amendment. 
     We believe national legislation directing a prohibition of 
     specific animal restraint devices is not in the best interest 
     of sound wildlife management. The enclosed statement explains 
     our opposition to this amendment.
       We would be happy to respond to any questions or provide 
     any further information that may be helpful as you consider 
     this matter.
       Identical letters have been sent to the Honorable Robert C. 
     Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and 
     Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States 
     Senate; the Honorable Slade Gorton, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
     Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 
     United States Senate; the Honorable John Breaux, United 
     States Senate; the Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman, 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States 
     Senate; the Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate; the 
     Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate; the 
     Honorable Max Baucus, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works, United States Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Rogers,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these agencies agree wildlife managers 
rely upon commercial trappers to control invasive and nuisance species, 
as well as normal predators. In Alaska, Federal and State wildlife 
managers rely on these trappers to control predators in order to 
maintain healthy moose and caribou herds, for instance. Moose and 
caribou are major subsistence species, and a ban on this trapping would 
harm subsistence hunters by creating more competition for subsistence 
resources.
  Another example is the Aleutian-Canada goose. This species was listed 
under the Endangered Species Act after foxes were introduced on the 
Aleutian Islands. At first, the refuge managers tried to poison the 
foxes until EPA banned the poison. Then they hired local trappers to 
save the goose, and trappers have successfully controlled the fox 
population, restoring the Aleutian-Canada goose.
  Our Alaska Department of Fish and Game relies upon data from trappers 
to track remote populations, where the agency cannot afford to have 
biologists, through this area that is one-fifth the size of the United 
States. I know proponents of the amendment argue that more humane 
methods are available. But the trouble is the methods cost 10 times as 
much and will not work, and we do not have the people to pursue those 
methods. A $2 snare trap works much better than a $30 conibear trap 
that freezes in the snow. A trapper can vary the size, location, 
tension, bait, scent, screening, and seasonal timing of a trap to 
target specific animals.
  These unfortunate concepts that have been mentioned by the Senator of 
the birds that have been trapped--no one seeks that. I do not believe 
that is a normal result of trapping, particularly in our very wild 
country.
  The amendment purports to contain a subsistence exemption. I want to 
explain that a little bit to the Senate. In 1980, the Congress 
specifically allowed those who reside in the area of wildlife refuges 
in Alaska to use refuge lands for subsistence hunting. Most of the 
trappers in our States are, in fact, subsistence hunters.
  Many Native Alaskans trap for subsistence and they generate cash 
income from the pelts they take. This permits trapping only for 
subsistence, but not for the commercial side of that operation. These 
people are not in trapping for recreation. They are trapping not only 
for the food they obtain but also for the cash they derive from the 
trapping activities. That cash is one of the main sources of income for 
people who live in the rural area of Alaska.
  In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, which added 53 million acres, in one act of Congress, 
to the wildlife refuge system, the National Wildlife System, on lands 
within our State. Among the new Federal lands added by that act were 
the Innoko, Kanuti, and Koyukuk; almost 9 million acres of land, the 
size of New Hampshire and Connecticut together. Congress specifically 
recognized the furbearer resources of those refuges when it passed that 
act which we call ANILCA.
  This amendment will essentially repeal the Alaska National Interest 
Land Conservation Act concept of permitting trapping by prohibiting the 
harvesting of resources in a way that currently is recognized by law. 
In Alaska, licensed trappers earn about $7 million annually, mostly 
from marten, lynx, and beaver. It may not sound like a lot of money to 
Members of Congress, but within these refuges in our State lies the 
most poor census district in the country; that is, the Wade Hampton 
District in the Yukon Delta Refuge. That stretches over 22 million 
acres. It's the largest refuge in the United States and the largest of 
the 16 refuges in Alaska. It is, I would say to my friend from New 
Jersey, four times the size of New Jersey.
  The refuge contains 42 Native Alaska villages and tens of thousands 
of people, mostly Natives. Like many others in Alaska, most of these 
people rely on subsistence lifestyle, which includes commercial 
trapping, as I have said.
  I have received letters from a number of villages on or near refuges, 
including Ruby, Mountain Village, and Quinhagak. They point out to me 
that trapping keeps predators in check so the other game animals on 
which they rely will flourish. They also point out how the only 
nongovernment jobs available in the winter are trapping jobs and they 
would rather trap and sell the fur than sit idle and collect welfare 
checks. As a matter of fact, we in Congress have mandated they do just 
that; they go to work.
  When we passed the welfare reform we required these people to go to 
work. Now this amendment would outlaw the only jobs that are available 
for these people in this very remote area of Alaska.
  The amendment also makes a value judgment about the way these 
Alaskans have lived for generations. This bothers me greatly. For 
decades, in many cases centuries, our Alaskan Native people have lived 
off the land. They have been joined by a great many non-Alaskan people, 
by the way. The Federal law guarantees both non-Natives as well as 
Natives the right to a subsistence lifestyle, and to trap within these 
areas if they reside in the area of the refuge. When others tell 
Alaskan hunters, trappers, and fishermen how to manage our resources, 
they are literally telling them how to live their lives.
  We have a great deal of respect and admiration for our wildlife, 
probably more than any I know. This includes trappers who, 
incidentally, have a very strict code of ethics. I want to have that 
printed in the Record. I am not sure many people realize these trappers 
have come together and put up, even before this issue arose, an ethics 
code.
  That code encourages trappers to act humanely, to concentrate on 
areas with overabundant population, and to share information that they 
obtained with the wildlife managers. In other words, each one of them 
is a volunteer on a wildlife refuge to assist in the scientific 
management of the areas that are set aside in our State.
  I ask unanimous consent that the code of ethics be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 20999]]



               Code of Ethics--A Trapper's Responsibility

       1. Respect the other trapper's ``grounds''--particularly 
     brushed, maintained traplines with a history of use.
       2. Check traps regularly.
       3. Promote trapping methods that will reduce the 
     possibility of catching nontarget animals.
       4. Obtain landowners' permission before trapping on private 
     property.
       5. Know and use proper releasing and killing methods.
       6. Develop set location methods to prevent losses.
       7. Trap in the most humane way possible.
       8. Dispose of animal carcasses properly.
       9. Concentrate trapping in areas where animals are 
     overabundant for the supporting habitat.
       10. Promptly report the presence of diseased animals to 
     wildlife authorities.
       11. Assist landowners who are having problems with 
     predators and other furbearers that have become a nuisance.
       12. Support and help train new trappers in trapping ethics, 
     methods and means, conservation, fur handling, and marketing.
       13. Obey all trapping regulations, and support strict 
     enforcement by reporting violations.
       14. Support and promote sound furbearer management.
       The Code of Ethics is reprinted from the Alaska Trappers 
     Manual. The manual was created in a joint effort by the 
     Alaska Trappers Association and the Alaska Department of Fish 
     and Game.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
respect the needs of these wildlife managers and the traditional 
lifestyle of our Western States, as well as to respect the basic 
concepts of the Alaska lifestyle.
  Let me add just a few statistics before I close.
  Our State has 365 million acres. As I said, we are one-fifth the size 
of all the lands of the United States. These 16 wildlife refuges have 
77 million acres. They are more than 20 percent of Alaska. More than 
one-fifth of our State, which is one-fifth of the Nation, has been set 
aside in refuge land.
  Congress specifically recognized the need for this type of harvesting 
of resources in the 1980 act. We believe the impact of this amendment, 
if adopted, would deny our Alaskan people the protection that was 
assured by Congress at the time this vast acreage was set aside as 
wildlife refuge areas.
  I want to quote from a book written by a friend, John McPhee. Some 
people may recognize John. He wrote a book, called ``Coming Into The 
Country,'' about Alaska. It was a book that received acclaim from all 
sides of issues pertaining to Alaska, those who agree with us as well 
as Alaskans who basically agree with John McPhee and his outlook.
  He told a story of one woman in Alaska, and he said this:

       Ginny looks through Alaska Magazine, where her attention is 
     arrested by letters from the Lower 48. ``There was a time 
     when man was justified in taking wildlife,'' she reads aloud, 
     ``for then man's survival was at stake, but that time is long 
     gone. . . .'' She slaps the magazine down on the table. 
     ``They don't understand,'' she says. . . .''These people who 
     write these letters are not even rational. They say we're out 
     to kill everything. People in the Lower 48 do not understand 
     Alaska. . . . They wonder how Alaskans get their mail, and 
     what they do in the winter. They can't believe anything can 
     grow here. They're amazed we can't buy any land. They think 
     Indians are Eskimos. They know nothing about Alaska and yet 
     they've been manipulating us for years. We thought Statehood 
     would put an end to that. They don't understand trapping. 
     They don't understand the harvesting of animals.''

  That is the type of comment I get when I go home. People in Alaska 
constantly tell me: Those people you work with in the Congress just 
don't understand us. They have asked me to stand up and try to explain 
to the Senate what the Alaska lifestyle is.
  That is hard for a lawyer, a person who has been here 30 years now, 
to continue to try to convince succeeding generations, those who have 
come after me, that Alaska is still that way. For the most part, Alaska 
is natural wilderness, and dispersed throughout that wilderness are 
some 700,000 people. The bulk of the people out of the cities live the 
Alaska lifestyle. They hunt for their food. They trap to obtain furs as 
well as food, but the furs give them a cash flow of income. That is 
supplemented by our own Alaska system of what we call a permanent fund 
dividend. Without the income they obtain from hunting, these people 
would not be able to survive.
  In this area, hunting is done by trapping. If you take away the 
traps, they will go back to shooting them. This bill does not ban guns. 
What it would do is go back to the day before traps were recognized as 
a scientific management concept, and animals will be shot. For every 
time there is a miss, it is much worse than one being caught and having 
a leg broken in a trap because that animal is wandering off forever.
  The wildlife managers have told us, if you are going to harvest these 
animals, the best way to do it is with these traps following the code 
of ethics that has been adopted by the trappers themselves, with the 
approval, by the way, of the wildlife managers.
  I can tell you without any question that I have urged every Member of 
the Senate by a personal letter to vote no on this amendment. This is 
not the way to change the concept of scientific management of the lands 
that we have set aside as wildlife refuges. It is not the way to change 
basically the Alaska lifestyle. Eighty-five percent or more of its 
impact is in our State. We would be devastated if this concept is 
adopted. I urge this amendment be defeated.
  I serve notice that I will ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment. 
When the time is appropriate, I will make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Torricelli. I listened carefully to the statement of my 
colleague from the State of Alaska. Having visited his State several 
times, I acknowledge they have an extraordinary situation that is 
unlike perhaps any other State across this Nation. I hope he will take 
into consideration what Senator Torricelli's amendment seeks to do is 
to really limit the use of this trap on national wildlife refuges.
  I am not sure exactly how one would define a refuge, but in my way of 
thinking, it is akin to a shelter. It is something that has really been 
designed by law to provide a special kind of protection that might not 
otherwise be available to wildlife. That is why Senator Torricelli's 
amendment, I believe, is so appropriate because it is limited to the 
wildlife refuge and, secondly, it makes exceptions.
  I understand what Senator Stevens has said, that the subsistence 
exception would not cover commercial trapping on wildlife refuges, but 
I say to the Senator from Alaska, I think perhaps other forms of 
trapping should be used rather than this form.
  I know the Senator from New Jersey is going to take the floor again 
and make a part of the Record a letter which was received after the 
letter quoted by the Senator from Alaska. I have a copy of it, and I 
will read from it. It is a letter from the Secretary of the Department 
of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. It is written to the House sponsor of 
this legislation. It is very brief, and I will read it into the Record:

       Dear Mr. Farr:
       I am responding to your letter requesting the Department's 
     position on your amendment relating to the use of certain 
     kinds of traps on national wildlife refuges. The letter dated 
     July 20, 1999, from Mr. John Rogers and the enclosed effect 
     statement do not represent the position of the Department of 
     the Interior. After careful consideration, I can advise you 
     that your amendment--

  The Farr amendment--

     and the Torricelli amendment, which is identical, would not 
     impact the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     manage refuges under the Organic Act of 1997. Accordingly, 
     the Department does not take a position on your amendment.

  I say to those who are following this debate, the earlier reference 
to a letter of July 20 was superseded by a letter on July 23 from the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior who said they will not take 
a position on the amendment and the Torricelli and Farr amendment do 
not in any way impact their ability to manage wildlife refuges.
  I also remind those following the debate of Senator Torricelli's 
statement that some 88 nations across the world have already banned 
this form of trap. Many people are critical of Senators from New Jersey 
and Illinois who try

[[Page 21000]]

to make comment on the way people live in the West. My friend from 
Montana, Senator Burns, occasionally calls me aside when I offer these 
amendments related to Montana and the West and speaks of his Midwestern 
friends who do not quite understand the lifestyle of the West. I will 
concede, by classic definition, I am from a sodbuster State. I may not 
understand all the things that are part of the lifestyle of the West, 
but I call the attention of those who are considering this amendment to 
statements made in the press in Western States about these steel-jawed 
leghold traps.
  Arizona, the Arizona Republic, February 7, 1993:

       Outlawing the barbaric, needlessly cruel steel trap--a 
     device that tortures animals to death--should no longer be a 
     matter of serious dispute.

  The Arizona Tribune, 1994:

       No need for extremists to exaggerate what happens to an 
     animal when a trap's steel jaws slam shut on it. It's more 
     than inhumane; it's heinous.

  Colorado, October 15, 1996, the Boulder Daily Camera:

       The trapper hides the equivalent of a land mine in wildlife 
     habitat and ``harvests'' whatever has the rotten luck to step 
     in it.

  From the Californian, October 8, 1998:

       Laying a trap that statistically is more likely to maim or 
     kill an animal other than the one being hunted is wasteful, 
     inhumane, and cruel.

  The Tucson Citizen 1993, Arizona:

       Steel-jaw traps are cruel devices that subject animals--
     sometimes family pets--to mutilation or slow and painful 
     death. And they pose a threat to people who use public lands 
     for recreation. . . . Steel-jaw traps have no place in a 
     civilized world, particularly on public lands.

  Those were statements not from some bleeding heart eastern journals 
but from newspapers from the West--Arizona, Colorado, California--areas 
where I think they have even more familiarity with this than some 
Members of the Senate might themselves.
  I have a couple photographs to demonstrate how these traps are used. 
You can see from this photograph that the cat has had the misfortune of 
coming across a steel trap and its paw has been trapped inside. From 
what we have been told, it might be a day or two or maybe even more 
before the person who set this trap comes to decide what to do with the 
animal that is included. I don't know if this was the target animal 
this trapper was looking for. My guess is that this animal will be in 
pain and suffering until that trapper shows up on the scene to either 
release it or kill it.
  Here is another photograph. It appears to be a fox trapped as well. 
There is evidence that many of the animals that are caught in these 
traps, in pain, in desperation chew off their own limbs to try to 
escape. Of course, as they hobble around the wilderness, they may not 
last long either.
  These are basically and fundamentally inhumane. For us to allow them 
in wildlife refuges, I think, is a serious mistake. The amendment by 
the Senator from New Jersey is a reasonable one. It allows exceptions 
for research, subsistence, which the Senator from Alaska has alluded 
to, conservation, and facility protection.
  When the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, told the story of those in 
Montana who were trying to protect their flocks of sheep from coyotes 
that came out of the wildlife refuge, as I understand the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey, there would be no prohibition against 
their setting these traps on their own property to protect their flock 
from these predatory animals. The Torricelli amendment alludes only to 
putting these traps in wildlife refuges. I think, frankly, that is a 
line that should be drawn and one that I support.
  As I have said, Secretary Bruce Babbitt has written to the Senate 
indicating the Torricelli amendment would have no adverse impact on the 
management of the Fish and Wildlife Service on refuges. The House has 
approved this amendment overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Eighty-
eight nations and a number of States have made it clear that this 
barbaric device has no place in wildlife management.
  I urge support for the Torricelli amendment and yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment 
offered by Senator Torricelli to the Interior Appropriations Act 
concerning leghold traps. This is a sensible and narrowly tailored 
amendment that will address the misuse of tax dollars to promote cruel, 
commercial trapping programs on the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  This amendment will prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to administer 
or promote the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck snares for 
commerce in fur or recreation on National Wildlife Refuges. Our 
amendment would not limit the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to manage our National Wildlife Refuges.
  I am proud to say that my State of California banned the use of 
steel-jawed leghold traps last year when voters overwhelmingly approved 
a ballot initiative related to trapping. Californians recognized not 
only that these traps are inhumane, but also non-selective. In other 
words, these traps often result in the death of many animals that are 
not the targets of the traps.
  In its 1998 Environmental Document on trapping, the California 
Department of Fish and Game cited several state studies showing a high 
number of non-target species being caught. In Colusa County, 26 target 
muskrats and 19 non-target animals; in Tehema County, seven target 
coyotes and 85 non-target animals; in San Diego County, 42 target 
bobcats and 91 non-target species.
  Mr. President, these numbers are astonishing, and they demonstrate to 
us beyond a shadow of a doubt that these traps are abhorrent devices. 
Whether they are hunting dogs, family pets, bald eagles, deer, or other 
animals, there are countless untold victims of these traps. They have 
rightly been likened to ``land mines'' for wildlife, catching any 
animal that triggers them.
  It is shocking that these traps are allowed in our country at all, 
especially given that 88 nations throughout the world bar their use. 
But it is even more horrifying to think that American tax dollars go to 
administer trapping programs on our nation's wildlife refuges.
  I looked up the word ``refuge'' in the American College Dictionary. 
It defines refuge as (1) ``a place of shelter, protection, or 
safety,'', or (2) ``anything to which one has recourse for aid, relief 
or escape.''
  It is plainly contradictory to allow the commercial killing of 
wildlife on places called wildlife refuges. It is worse to allow the 
use of barbaric traps on refuges. And it is shocking to Americans to 
have their hard-earned dollars finance this hoax. The Torricelli 
amendment goes very far to be reasonable and accommodating.
  It does not bar trapping on refuges. It does not even bar steel traps 
or neck snares on refuges, since the amendment specifically allows 
these traps to be used for research, conservation, subsistence 
trapping, or facilities protection. It simply bars these devices for 
commerce or recreation.
  This amendment should be adopted overwhelmingly. It makes sense. The 
policy of allowing the financing of such programs is contradictory and 
wrong-headed. It should be no surprise that fully 83 percent of 
Americans oppose using steel traps on refuges. Just last month, the 
House passed an identical amendment by an overwhelming margin. The 
Department of the Interior has no problem with this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Torricelli amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is basic in this institution, 
indeed in our Union, that each of us, as representatives of some 
States, have respect for the economy, the culture, and the traditions 
of other States.
  Indeed, this should not, and cannot, be a debate between Illinois and 
New Jersey against Montana and Alaska. Disproportionately, this would 
impact the great State of Alaska and several other Western States. 
Because of the gracious invitation of the Senator from Alaska, I have 
visited his State. I have been to Montana many times. I have enormous 
respect for their traditions and their cultures. It is because of that 
fact that this amendment was so carefully designed.

[[Page 21001]]

  Senator Burns has appropriately talked about the problem of ranchers 
and farmers who lose livestock and need to protect their own 
properties. The Senator from Montana need not be concerned. The 
management of species protection of those lands is exempt from this 
amendment. Private lands are exempt from this amendment.
  There is no greater advocate of native peoples than Senator Stevens. 
He appropriately has talked about the need for subsistence of people 
who live off the land. And while he has talked about the need to sell 
some of those species, to the extent that he is concerned about the 
need of people to trap for their own subsistence, he need not be 
concerned. That is exempt from this amendment.
  Maintenance of species, dealing with predatory animals, research are 
all exempt from this amendment. Private lands are all exempt from this 
amendment.
  We are talking about wildlife refuges set up by this Congress to 
protect species from two specific traps. The question was raised by the 
Senator from Montana whether or not it was accurate that 80 percent of 
the species caught in these traps are not the intended species. The 
life of the animal lost is wasted because these specific traps cannot 
distinguish between the fox or the mink or the coyote, whatever it is 
that is being hunted, and another animal. Indeed, 80 percent, upon 
further research, is not accurate. In 1989, a study by Tomsa and Forbes 
from the Fourth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control proceedings found that 
11 nonintended animals were maimed or killed for every 1 that was being 
sought, 11 to 1.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have placed in the Record the statement prepared by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and a letter they sent to me on July 20. 
In there is a statement about which I want to ask the Senator, my good 
friend from New Jersey, a question. It says: As background, during the 
period 1992 to 1996, a total of 281 refuges conducted one or more 
trapping programs, a total of 487 programs. Eighty-five percent of the 
mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted for wildlife and 
facilities management reasons--85 percent. The remaining 15 percent 
occurred primarily to provide recreational, commercial, subsistence 
opportunities to the public, as portrayed by the following table.
  The Senator's amendment exempts all of the 85 percent. It affects 
only those who are not government, those who live on the land.
  I ask the Senator, what about the 85 percent of the trapping programs 
using the same traps that will continue to be conducted by Federal and 
State managers? They have the same effect as the Senator complains of 
concerning those that are private. Why should the Senator allow any 
trapping if he believes as he does? The Federal managers, State 
managers are not prohibited from conducting 85 percent of the trapping 
in the wildlife refuges. This only prohibits those of the people who 
live there, who reside there. Why would the Senator pick out those who 
earn money from trapping and say they cause more damage than the 85 
percent of the trapping by Federal and State agencies?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, the Senator from Alaska cites an 
interesting point, but it is one that has been done to accommodate 
people concerned about trapping. Senator Burns has noted the problem of 
maintaining stocks, of protecting ranchers. We have kept the power on 
these lands to use these traps by government or private citizens or 
scientists or universities or trappers or anybody else, if it is to 
manage the stocks, if it is to deal with predatory animals or research.
  What is interesting about Senator Stevens' points is, to identify the 
extent of what this amendment does in order to minimize the impact on 
ranchers, on the economy, on hunting, we are taking what in essence, by 
the Senator's own statement, is only 15 percent of all the activity 
with these traps, recognizing these traps only represent 10 or 15 
percent of all trapping activity. We are dealing with 10 percent of 10 
percent of trapping activity and then only on Federal wildlife lands.
  Now, if the Senator from Alaska wants to offer an amendment to ban 
these traps on all lands and by everybody and for all purposes, I can 
assure the Senator from Alaska, he will have my vote. I have narrowly 
constructed this because I do not want to impact native peoples who are 
on subsistence. I do not want to interfere with predatory animals. I do 
not want to interfere with the management of these lands by the 
Government. My main purpose is to try to prohibit this for recreational 
purposes, only with these two traps, or other purposes where it is not 
necessary to protect ranchers or other legitimate objectives.
  I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has used the statistics for all trapping on 
Federal wildlife refuges in order to try to eliminate those who use 
them for income, those who use them to pursue a lifestyle. I say to my 
friend, does he think that is fair?
  The wildlife managers use these traps. The statistics the Senator has 
cover all the programs on all of the wildlife refuges mainly, 85 
percent, conducted by managers. But the Senator presumes that the 
damage is done by the 15 percent. Does the Senator think it is fair to 
say: Let's stop these people from using these traps because they harm 
the animals that they trap? What about the 85 percent? They catch 
birds. They catch foxes that eat their legs off. They catch other 
animals other than the targeted species. But in terms of fairness, the 
Senator's amendment prohibits those who live by trapping.
  Trapping is a management tool. I defend the 85 percent. I don't 
oppose it. It is a management tool.
  I wonder if the Senator knows that trapping of species such as red 
fox and racoons has saved the Hawaiian coot and duck and goose. They 
have saved some of the indigenous species that live in these refuges 
from the predators they trap.
  The predators they trap have a value. Those skins are sold for cash. 
I just ask the Senator, in fairness now, why should we say those people 
who use traps for a living do all this damage? It is not fair, in my 
opinion.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. First, let me repeat my offer. If the Senator would 
like, for the sake of fairness, to abandon this, not only by the 
managers of the land and recreational, but also commercial people, I 
would be the first to vote for his amendment. This has been narrowly 
construed only for commercial purposes as an accommodation to the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Now, I believe that, as you know, overwhelmingly, trappers are not 
using these two traps. Overwhelmingly, they are using alternate kinds 
of technology that are not inhumane, are recognized internationally, 
and by most other States.
  If, indeed, by further banning these, we can encourage others to use 
these traps, I would be the first to do it. It is simply my belief that 
people who are in this for cash business, they are trapping for furs, 
getting cash for their furs, we have a right to ask them to spend the 
extra money to get different traps that either kill the animal outright 
or catch it alive and unhurt so it can be released and the wrong 
species are not caught. I think we can put that extra burden on a 
person who is trapping for cash dollars to buy the different trap. The 
subsistence people, who are eating the game they are trapping, are 
exempt from this, as the Senator knows--particularly native peoples who 
may not be able to afford to do so, or it is in their tradition to do 
so. They are exempt.
  So we are dealing with a minority of a minority, only on wildlife 
refuge lands. I think that is fair; it is narrowly construed, and 
mostly to accommodate the Senator from Alaska. The Senator was probably 
unaware of this or he would not have put the earlier statement in the 
Record, but after the letters the Senator submitted for the Record, 
Secretary Babbitt wrote to me as he did to Congressman Farr, making 
clear that ``The letter dated July

[[Page 21002]]

20, 1999, from Mr. John Rogers and the enclosed effect statement do not 
represent the position of the Department of the Interior.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                        Washington, July 26, 1999.
     Hon. Robert G. Torricelli,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Torricelli: I am responding to your request 
     for the Department's position on your amendment relating to 
     the use of certain kinds of traps on National Wildlife 
     Refuges. The letter dated July 20, 1999, from Mr. John Rogers 
     and the enclosed effect statement do not represent the 
     position of the Department of the Interior.
       After careful consideration, I can advise you that your 
     amendment would not impact the ability of the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to manage refuges under the Organic Act of 
     1997. Accordingly, the Department does not take a position on 
     your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. STEVENS. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of the 
Interior as a Secretary of the Interior. I don't accept him, however, 
as a wildlife manager. I have put in the Record a letter from the 
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, a professional who has put 
over 30 years of his life into the management of wildlife refuges, and 
he stands by his position. The letter that I have read to you was 
written after the Secretary of the Interior made his statement as a 
political figure, and the wildlife managers stand by their position. 
They stand by their position that these traps are the best scientific 
way to manage wildlife on Federal refuges.
  I really believe the Senator misinterprets my position. I want to 
make sure we understand each other. I support the use of these traps 
for wildlife management purposes, and I support the use of them for 
those who want to trap for income. But I say to my friend, in terms of 
the two types of traps that he would ban, those are traps that have 
been specifically approved by the wildlife managers. They are now 
opposed on a political level; I admit that. But what does the Senate 
want to do in terms of wildlife refuges? Manage for political purposes, 
or manage the system as the scientifically trained managers tell us is 
the best way to manage them?
  We defend the fish and wildlife managers and the safe fish and game 
commissioners. I say to my good friend, I accept the fact that he is 
defending the political judgment of my good friend, the Secretary of 
the Interior. I disagree with that, and I hope the Senate does also.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. As the Senator knows, I have respect for him for his 
extraordinary advocacy in all interests of Alaska. We simply have a 
difference of judgment on what is a relatively narrow matter. You have 
pointed out that one-fifth of Alaska is in a Federal wildlife refuge. 
That means in four-fifths of Alaska you can use any trap you want, any 
way you want, for any purpose you want. But on those lands set up as 
refuges--20 percent of your State--in those few lands where, by 
political judgment, this institution in previous years decided it 
wanted wildlife to have a refuge, it is basic to the concept of a 
refuge that we try to use, at least for the killing of animals, a 
technology that is understood and accepted to be relatively humane in 
those lands and only for these narrow purposes.
  For all the concerns that you legitimately bring and Senator Burns 
brings about the destruction of livestock, or culture, people who live 
on subsistence, they are free to do what they want, even in the refuge. 
If we cannot make this narrow exception here, with a letter from the 
Secretary of the Interior making clear the position of his Department, 
something endorsed by the House of Representatives, by my party and 89 
members of your party, by every other industrialized nation in the 
world, and we alone are doing this, all I am asking--and it is 
overwhelmingly in the United States--if you want to use a leghold trap, 
though it is inhumane and rejected by the rest of the world and most of 
the Nation, you are free to do so under my amendment. For all these 
purposes, I ask that, in those few narrow lands, these two specific 
traps be banned for these few narrow purposes. That is our fundamental 
disagreement. But that is our only disagreement on that narrow point. I 
wanted to clarify that.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I say to my friend, I have 
this map again to show to the Senate. Isn't it interesting that, 
however, the Senator's amendment affects 52 native villages in that one 
area, the Yukon Delta Refuge. The Senator says I can use the other 
four-fifths of the land of the United States. These people have no 
access at all. They are the lowest income people in the United States. 
The effect of the Senator's amendment would limit them, even under 
subsistence, to obtaining no more than $10,000.
  I don't know if he understands that, but Federal law already limits 
subsistence use when it is totally for subsistence, without a 
commercial protection, to $10,000, in terms of barter concepts. But 
these people can't go to these lands that are in yellow. Those are the 
other lands that are not affected. The lands affected are the lands in 
which they live.
  Congress, in 1980, gave them the right to continue their lifestyle in 
order that they might continue to live. They live on fish and game 
resources, and they sell both to obtain cash income, very limited 
amounts, on an individual basis. The total, altogether, is $7 million. 
But the total out there is something like 70,000 people. When you look 
at it, you are saying, oh, yes, you can use traps, just go to downtown 
Anchorage now and get one of those newfangled traps, the ones that the 
environmental people say are safe and humane, but you can't use the one 
that the scientific managers say are the most effective, not only to 
carry out the business of obtaining their food and their cash income, 
but to pursue our own objectives of limiting predators so we can 
protect other wildlife.
  I have a whole list of wildlife that have been protected by these 
people who are subsistence hunters, who catch or trap these animals and 
sell the furs, but they do protect the migratory birds that come into 
this vast area. The areas were not set aside to protect the animals 
being snared. They were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl. These 
are not wildlife refuges to protect the red fox, or anything else. They 
are for migratory waterfowl. You are telling them that they cannot use 
these traps. As our volunteer agents, by the way, they are doing the 
job that it would take a thousand paid officials to do.
  They are trapping the predators and selling their skins.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. So our colleagues are clear on this narrow difference 
that we represent, two things have been said that deserve further 
attention.
  One, if the trapping is to deal with a predator--and indeed this is 
part of the management of the refuge--my amendment does not affect 
them. They can trap.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator want a permit every time they do it and 
have the managers say this is for management purposes only?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Allow me to finish.
  If it is a predator and it is for management of the species, they are 
free to use any trap they want.
  Second, it was appropriately pointed out if they are in the business 
of getting furs, they are in that cash business. My amendment would 
impact them. However, if they are using these traps for subsistence for 
their own consumption, as the Senator knows, they are also exempt from 
my amendment.
  There is a great deal of debate on this floor for a great number of 
people who have no relationship to my amendment.
  We are dealing with two traps, one kind of land, narrowly defined, 
with six exemptions. We are dealing with a fraction of a fraction of 
the hunting that is going on, which will still leave the United States 
as the only developed nation in the world that is allowing the traps to 
be overwhelmingly used. If we cannot take the narrow stand for the 
wildlife refuge, my guess is we can take no stand at all.

[[Page 21003]]

  I yield the floor and I thank the Senator from Alaska for what has 
been an enlightening discussion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I heard this morning a brilliant 
statement by the Senator from Hawaii to our Alaska Federation of 
Natives forum being conducted now.
  One of the things he stated I want to repeat to the Senator from New 
Jersey: Subsistence is not about eating. The Senator's amendment 
presumes subsistence means going out and obtaining food.
  Subsistence is a way of life. Subsistence is the ability to hunt, 
fish, trade, or barter what they get for cash in order to live. It is 
more than just obtaining an animal. The Senator's amendment says one 
can continue to trap for subsistence and I believe he means for food. 
He says once they sell the pelt, they are into commercial activities.
  Our State fish and wildlife service recognizes that trapping for 
subsistence is a legitimate activity. As a matter of fact, the 
exception in the Federal law is for subsistence hunters. They can trap 
in pursuing their subsistence lifestyle.
  To think they could not then sell those animals, sell the pelts, or 
to put them in a position where they could only do so for wildlife 
management purposes--which is the effect of the Senator's amendment--
offends us. The people who rely on a subsistence lifestyle hunt, fish, 
and trap. They consume some of the fish, they consume the animals, and 
they sell or use the remainder of what they catch--both mammals and 
fish--for their native arts and crafts.
  They also carry out the purposes of wildlife management because they 
are, in fact, trapping the predators that would destroy the migratory 
waterfowl--the foxes that eat the eggs, the other predators that eat 
the birds. The area was set aside to protect the migratory waterfowl.
  The Senator is saying they cannot use traps on these wildlife refuges 
that were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl because these traps 
catch some birds. The predators they catch considerably outnumber the 
impact of the traps on migratory waterfowl. The Senator says they can 
do it if it is for wildlife management purposes. There is no agent 
setting traps because these people are setting traps. In effect, they 
carry out the purposes of the management scheme by trapping the way the 
managers tell them to trap. They are using the traps that have been 
approved by the Federal and State system.
  Along comes this amendment. It makes the judgment that two of those 
traps are inhumane and should not be used by these people. It doesn't 
ban the fish and wildlife managers from using them. It doesn't ban 
anyone from using them. It bans the 15 percent of the people who use 
these traps. I don't intend to support banning anyone from using them 
as long as the fish and wildlife managers say this is scientifically 
the best way to deal with both the predator control and the objective 
of obtaining resources for maintaining the subsistence lifestyle of 
these people.
  These 52 native villages, I think the Senator knows, can only be 
reached by air in the wintertime. For the most part they are on rivers. 
During the summertime, visitors can travel to the villages but during 
the winter trapping period, the only way to get to and from there is by 
air. Diesel costs $3 to $5 a gallon. And now the Senator would say they 
can't sell those pelts? They can still catch the animals and eat them 
but they can't sell them?
  Those people are out there trapping simply for plain trapping 
purposes. That is their cash income. They are from one of the larger 
villages, but they have a trapline. They have a permit. They are 
supervised by somebody. They get approval of where they will set the 
traps. They get approval of the type of traps they will use. That is 
what the wildlife management system brought to them. They live with 
that. They made up the code of ethics as required by the Federal 
managers; they live by that. Why should the Congress of the United 
States tell them they cannot carry out a lifestyle that the scientific 
manager says is the correct way to manage those resources?
  I think those who live in the East have the luxury of saying do 
something else. Go to the store and get another trap. That is not the 
case. Most of the traps are very old. They are maintained by our 
people. Many of them were made by them. The idea of saying they can 
continue trapping but go down to the store--there is not a Sears, 
Roebuck store nearby. You can't get the needed traps by mail order.
  If you use these new traps, you can continue trapping, but you can't 
use the ones you have been using.
  It is amazing; the Senator's amendment hits about 95 percent of the 
traps that are in use today on the wildlife refuges. Does the Senator 
know that?
  I say to my friend, I could not oppose this more, not only on the 
basis of being the Senator from Alaska but on the basis of scientific 
management. As much respect as I have for the Secretary of the 
Interior--I was assistant to the Secretary of the Interior and the 
solicitor general counsel to the Interior Department in the Eisenhower 
administration, but in my day we relied upon scientific managers and 
did not reverse them for political purposes. That, I think, is what the 
Senator is defending, which I oppose.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I believe we have defined the issue 
appropriately and at length. That ultimately is where we now differ. 
The technology of trapping has clearly moved. Eighty-five percent of 
those who are trapping in the country are not using these traps. The 
largest States in the Nation have now banned these traps, as have other 
nations.
  What remain are those few on Federal wildlife refuge lands who 
continue to use these two traps identified as inhumane who would 
admittedly, as Senator Stevens suggested, for purposes where they are 
in the cash business of killing the animal and getting the fur, have to 
change to use other traps. If they are eating the food, they can use 
the same trap. If it is against predators, they can use the same trap. 
If they are in management for wildlife species, they can use the same 
trap. If they are going to sell the fur and they are in the business of 
making money by doing so, they are going to have to move to a more 
humane trap. That is as narrow as I know how to write this.
  That is the issue. That is our difference. I commend it to the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I serve notice to the Senate that as the 
hour of 2 o'clock approaches, I will make a motion to table. I am 
informed that other Senators wish to make statements. Therefore, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we work to pass Interior appropriations, 
of course, because this is a piece of legislation that is key to so 
many important areas of our States, whether they be east or west, it is 
also an opportunity to attempt to change what is standard law or 
practice or belief in many of our States. The Torricelli amendment on 
trapping is just that kind of amendment.
  My guess is there are few Senators on the floor who have actually 
ever trapped. I grew up on a very rural ranch in southwestern Idaho, 
and at age 6 I began to run a trapline and I used legholding traps to 
catch coyote and bobcats. That was done largely for the purpose of 
raising money, but it was also to protect our domestic livestock herds 
in the springtime when our cows began to calve and would find 
themselves, oftentimes, having their baby calves harassed and killed by 
coyotes.
  I was taught how to trap, but I was also taught an important lesson 
in trapping. I will not dispute in any way what the Senator from New 
Jersey might try to suggest is an inhumane approach, but I will suggest 
it can be used in a right and responsible way.

[[Page 21004]]

The thing I was taught by my father and by an elderly gentleman who 
lived on our ranch who taught me how to trap was that you check your 
trapline daily, so if an animal is caught, it will not suffer. Of 
course that is exactly what I did, and that is exactly what good 
trappers do throughout the West.
  The reason I was allowed to do that and the reason trappers around 
the country are allowed today to trap when and where necessary under 
the appropriate circumstances is that responsibility always rested with 
State governments--State fish and game departments and State agencies. 
And because I believe, as most Senators do, that State agencies are 
much closer to the people and can more quickly respond to the needs of 
a State or a given locale, that that is where that authority to 
determine policy ought to be--not with a Senator from New Jersey who 
would not understand Idaho or any other Western State where the 
abundance of wildlife sometimes is such that it needs to be managed. He 
would not understand the State of Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Alaska 
works very closely with their fish and game department to make sure 
laws and regulations fit the need and the desire of the area under 
concern.
  Historically, this Government, our Government, the Federal 
Government, has said it is the responsibility of States to govern and 
manage wildlife populations. They have said it for the very reason I 
have just given, because a Congress and a Senate cannot really be in 
tune with what is necessary in Juneau, or out from Juneau in Alaska, or 
out from Jackson Hole in Wyoming, or out from Midvale in Idaho. They 
don't really understand the circumstance if there is an infestation or 
large buildup of coyote, a killing of domestic livestock herds, and a 
reason to moderate and manage that wildlife population. That is why we 
have allowed trapping and why States have consistently allowed it. We 
have constantly erred on the humane side, of being responsible in the 
management of our wildlife, as we should.
  We have the responsibility of good stewardship. That is my job, that 
is every citizen's job, to be a good steward of their public land 
resources. But it is not our job here to try to fine tune and 
micromanage because some interest group comes to us and suggests this 
is a good and right political thing to do, because it will sell well in 
suburbia New York. It has no impact in New York. It has no impact 
whatsoever in that State. But what might sell well and be a good, warm, 
touchy-feely, ``I care'' kind of vote in New York causes all sorts of 
problems in a rural Western State such as mine.
  That is why, again, we have tried to take the emotions out of these 
issues and say there are categories of responsibility on which we ought 
to err and on which we ought not. This is an amendment that really 
should not be debated on this floor. We have a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. They make every effort to be responsible in the effective 
management of our wildlife. And they, while they have broad authority, 
work directly with State fish and game departments. Historically, they 
have always had a right and proper relationship, erring on the side of 
the State and on the side of the area or local fish and game management 
experts when making the kinds of decisions that I believe arbitrarily 
the Senator is attempting to make with his amendment.
  That is why it is interesting that after this amendment passed the 
House, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to all of us 
saying they would not support the House amendment. It was only when the 
politics caught up with it that Bruce Babbitt, our Secretary of the 
Interior, came out and said that is not the position of the 
administration. The reason it has not become the position of the 
administration is because of a set of environmental groups that came 
forward and said this is our national cause and we need to make it a 
national cause, totally ignoring what is good policy or what is a 
reasonable relationship between a State government and a State agency 
and the Federal Government and a Federal agency.
  Interestingly enough, even with the position of the Secretary of the 
Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not changed its 
position. It still believes the Torricelli amendment is the wrong 
amendment, and the right thing to do is what they have done 
historically with State fish and game agencies.
  What do I hear from my citizens? They want the right to trap. They 
accept the responsibility and they accept the regulations that the 
State fish and game agency would put upon them. But an outright ban is 
not the way to manage this, and I hope those of my colleagues who focus 
on this issue will cut away from the idea that this is an easy, free 
vote that somehow demonstrates their humaneness toward a population of 
wildlife.
  What they ought to err on the side of is allowing their State fish 
and game agencies to make those determinations and allow the State 
agencies and the Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that kind of a 
relationship. I hope they will err on the side of good government 
instead of warm, feely, and touchy politics because that is all this 
is. It is a feel-good vote that ends up being pretty bad government in 
the end.
  Sometimes, I suggest to my colleagues, it takes a little bit of 
strength and a little bit of backbone to stand up and say, no, this is 
the wrong thing to do and then be willing to go home and explain it, if 
you erred on the side of the State capital and the fish and game agency 
of that State in making the decision and you trust your State 
legislators because they are the closest to the people, to make sure 
fish and game regulations and fish and game management in their State 
is done in a fair and humane way. I believe it is today, and I believe 
it will continue to work well that way when we allow our national U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service to work closely with our State agencies, 
erring on the side of primacy, or primary responsibility, at the State 
and local level. It has worked well in the past. It will work well in 
the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Torricelli amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe there was an understanding that 
this vote would not start before 2 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that 
the vote start at 2 p.m. and the quorum call end automatically at that 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I applaud my friend, Mr. Torricelli, for 
bringing up this important amendment today.
  This amendment is very simple. It prohibits the expenditure of funds 
to administer or promote the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck 
snares on any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System except for 
research subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection.
  This is a no-brainer. These traps are inhumane. They are designed to 
slam closed. The result is lacerations, broken bones, joint 
dislocations, and gangrene.
  Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free himself, 
sometimes chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from chewing at the metal 
trap.
  An animal may be in a trap for several days before a trapper checks 
it.

[[Page 21005]]

  The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal 
Hospital Association, and the World Veterinary Organization have all 
declared leghold traps to be inhumane.
  Our National Wildlife Refuges are the only category of federal land 
set aside for the protection and benefit of wildlife. It is 
inconceivable to me that, as a matter of federal policy, we allow 
recreational and commercial killing of wildlife on refuges with 
inhumane traps.
  This is not even a close call. These traps are so inhumane and 
indiscriminate that they have been banned altogether in 88 countries. 
Additionally, they have been banned in four of our United States: 
California, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts. Other states impose 
restrictions on them.
  Let me be clear about one critical point: This amendment does NOT bar 
trapping on National Wildlife Refuges. Other traps, such as foot 
snares, conibears, and box and cage traps can be used for any purpose 
consistent with applicable laws and regulations on Refuges.
  This amendment does not even forbid the use of steel traps or neck 
snares outright, although I think that would be a good idea. It just 
bans these two processes on National Wildlife Refuges.
  As I mentioned at the outset, research, subsistence, conservation, 
and facilities protection uses are still allowed under this amendment.
  In this day and age, there is no need to resort to inhumane methods 
of trapping, particularly not on those portions of our federal land 
that are set aside specifically for the protection and benefit of 
wildlife. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Torricelli 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 1571.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Chafee) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chafee
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note the presence of the senior Senator 
from Illinois, who has an amendment related to grazing. My inclination 
is, since he is here and ready to go, he should go next.
  I think it is important to inform our Members that we hope to 
accomplish more business during the course of the day. The particular 
large piece of business that we are closest to, an agreement on a 
collection of several amendments that do not relate to amounts of money 
in the bill, we hope shortly to have unanimous consent for. We are also 
working, of course, on a managers' amendment. Many of the amendments 
that have been reserved are likely to be the subject of a managers' 
amendment. I have discussed this matter with a number of individual 
Members.
  I say to the Senator from Illinois, whether we will be able to get to 
a vote on his amendment this afternoon I am not certain. I hope we 
will. He has cooperated in this connection. I would like to see a 
couple of more votes this afternoon, but I am not sure we will. But 
let's begin the debate and we will see what its dynamics are and 
determine how far we can go.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Washington yield?
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am prepared to agree to a time agreement allowing 40 
minutes on this amendment and a vote to follow.
  Mr. GORTON. Unfortunately, I am not able to agree to even that yet. 
The opponents to his amendment will control that. While I will be 
voting with the opponents, I will not lead the debate on this. So I 
think we should work on a unanimous consent agreement during the course 
of the debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let the Record show that I tried.
  Mr. GORTON. It will so show.


                           Amendment No. 1591

   (Purpose: To require the Bureau of Land Management to establish a 
 schedule for completion of processing of expiring grazing permits and 
                                leases)

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending business and to move to my amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1591.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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:

       On page 52, strike lines 16 through 24 and insert the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 117. PROCESSING OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES.

       ``(a) Schedule.--''
       ::(1) In General.--The Bureau of Land Management shall 
     establish and adhere to a schedule for completion of 
     processing of all grazing permits and leases that have 
     expired in fiscal year 1999 or which expire in fiscal years 
     2000 and 2001.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The schedule shall provide for the 
     completion of processing of the grazing permits and leases in 
     compliance with all applicable laws, including the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) not 
     later than September 30, 2001.
       ``(b) Required Renewal.--Each grazing permit or lease 
     described in subsection(a)(1) shall be deemed to be renewed 
     until the earlier of--
       ``(1) September 20, 2001; or
       ``(2) the date on which the Bureau completes processing of 
     the grazing permit or lease in compliance with all applicable 
     laws.
       ``(c) Terms and Conditions of Renewals.--
       ``(1) Before completion of processing.--Renewal of a 
     grazing permit or lease under subsection (b)(1) shall be on 
     the same terms and conditions as provided in the expiring 
     grazing permit or lease.
       ``(2) Upon competition of processing.--Upon completion of 
     processing of a grazing permit or lease described in 
     subsection (a)(1), the Bureau may--
       ``(A) modify the terms and conditions of the grazing permit 
     or lease; and
       ``(B) reissue the grazing permit or lease for a term not to 
     exceed 10 years.
       ``(d) Consideration of Permit or Lease Transfers.--(1) 
     During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, an application to transfer 
     a grazing permit or lease to an otherwise, qualified 
     applicant shall be approved on the same terms and conditions 
     as provided in the permit or lease being transferred, for a 
     duration no longer than the permit or lease being 
     transferred, unless processing under all applicable laws has 
     been completed.
       ``(2) Upon completion of processing, the Bureau may--
       ``(A) modify the terms and conditions of the grazing permit 
     or lease; and

[[Page 21006]]

       ``(B) reissue the grazing permit or lease for a term not to 
     exceed 10 years.
       ``(d) Effect on Other Authority.--Except as specifically 
     provided in this section, nothing in this section affects the 
     authority of the Bureau to modify or terminate any grazing 
     permit or lease.''

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which addresses the 
question of grazing on public land. If you followed the debate on the 
Department of Interior appropriations bill over the last few days, and 
the weeks when we were in session before our August recess, you would 
see that we have an issue primarily between the Republican side of the 
aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle, a question of stewardship 
of public land. In virtually every amendment offered from the 
Democratic side there has been an attempt to make certain that the 
public lands are protected, that the value of the public lands are 
protected, and that America's taxpayers, who in fact own these public 
lands, are not shortchanged by those who would come in and use them.
  Consistently on the other side the position has been, if someone 
wants to take the land of America, the land belonging to all Americans, 
our public land, and use it for grazing, drilling, mining, or logging, 
that there should be few or any restrictions and, second, that they 
should not pay an extraordinary amount of money for the privilege of 
taking profit off our public land.
  This has been a clash of philosophy that has been visited on every 
single amendment in one form or another. It is a clear difference of 
opinion, primarily between the Republican side of the aisle and the 
Democratic side of the aisle.
  There are those of us on the Democratic side who understand that 
these public lands, first and foremost, are a legacy that we inherited 
from previous generations and must leave in good shape for future 
generations. First and foremost, that is our obligation.
  Second, if the lands are to be used for a practical purpose such as 
deriving income from logging or mining or grazing or drilling, the 
taxpayers of this Nation are entitled to fair compensation from those 
who would use the lands for commercial purposes.
  We have had a lot of arguments about various aspects. This particular 
amendment goes to the question of grazing. The Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, is an agency within the Department of the Interior 
which is entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility--to administer 
literally millions of acres of our Nation's valuable and diverse public 
lands located primarily in 12 Western States, including Alaska.
  The BLM has an extraordinary responsibility when it comes to land 
management. It manages more Federal land than any other Federal agency. 
This agency, BLM, oversees 40 percent of our Nation's Federal lands, 
roughly 264 million acres of surface land.
  But acres do not really tell the story. Our Nation's public lands 
contain a wealth of natural, cultural, historic, and economic resources 
that literally belong to every American. The natural and ecological 
diversity of BLM-managed public lands is perhaps the greatest of any 
Federal agency. The BLM manages grasslands, forest lands, islands, wild 
rivers, high mountains, Arctic tundra, desert landscapes, and virtually 
the spectrum of land primarily in the western part of the United 
States. As a result of this diversity of habitat, many thousands of 
wildlife and fish species occupy these lands. These fish and wildlife 
species represent a wealth of recreational, natural, and economic 
opportunities for local communities, States, and the Nation's hunters, 
sportsmen, and families. So the responsibility of the BLM is not only 
to watch this land but to make certain that they preserve the resources 
given to them in the lands.
  Grazing is the most extensive use of BLM lands in the lower 48. Of 
the roughly 179 million acres of BLM public lands outside of Alaska, 
grazing is allowed on almost 164 million acres, and millions of these 
acres also contain valuable and sensitive fish, wildlife, 
archeological, recreation, and wilderness values.
  At the present time, BLM authorizes, through the issuance of grazing 
permits, approximately 17,000 livestock operators to graze on these 164 
million acres of public lands. These permits and the public land 
grazing they allow are important to thousands of western livestock 
operators who literally make their living by grazing their cattle on 
the public lands. Many of these operators use the permits they receive 
from the BLM to secure bank loans that provide important financial 
resources for their operations.
  The BLM typically issues grazing permits for a 10-year period of 
time. Many of the current grazing permits were issued in the late 1980s 
and now are starting to expire in large numbers during a 2- or 3-year 
period. These permits, numbering in the thousands, present the BLM with 
an unusually large and burdensome short-term renewal workload.
  The BLM reports that they face a workload of renewing some 5,300 
grazing permits which will expire in fiscal year 1999. While the BLM 
will be able to handle the majority of these renewals during this 
fiscal year, it is anticipated that 1,000 of these expiring permits 
will have to be held over until the next fiscal year. In addition, the 
number of permits due to expire in that fiscal year is greater than 
average. As a result, the BLM will have a fiscal year 2000 workload of 
approximately 3,000 permit reviews.
  I raise this point because we are trying to balance, with this 
amendment, two or three things: First, to make sure that those who make 
their livelihood by grazing livestock on public lands have an 
opportunity to renew their permits to secure the bank loans to continue 
their operations in a responsible way. That is reasonable. This 
amendment that is offered is consistent with that, and I think it will 
achieve that end.
  On the other side of the ledger, and equally important from a public 
policy viewpoint, we believe that this Federal agency, the BLM, has a 
responsibility to look at the permits and view the land that is being 
used, the public land being used by private people, to make certain it 
is being adequately protected, protecting America's natural resource, 
the millions of acres of public land that we as a nation own. How does 
the BLM do that?
  When they reissue these permits for grazing, they take a look at the 
land to determine what has been the impact of the grazing: Is there too 
much grazing in one particular area? Are there things that need to be 
changed in terms of the terms and condition of the grazing to protect 
America's natural assets, these public lands?
  Superimpose over this balance this workload I have just described. 
BLM now has more permits to renew than is usually the case, and there 
is some uncertainty among those who are asking for permits as to 
whether BLM can do their job in an expeditious fashion. It is my 
understanding that last year we extended permits by a year. We decided 
because of the workload that we wanted the permit holders to know they 
could continue to have their permits even if they had not been 
individually reviewed by the BLM.
  My amendment says that the extension will be for 2 years or, if the 
BLM is able to do the review, sooner, which gives assurance to the 
landholder that they will have the permit and they can go to the banker 
and say: We have at least 2 years on this, perhaps longer.
  At the same time, it says to the BLM: Don't shirk your 
responsibility; you are supposed to review these permits, guard 
America's natural assets, and make sure the public land is not 
exploited.
  The purpose of my amendment is to strike this balance to give to the 
permit holders the additional 2 years and to say to the BLM: Still do 
your job, protect these assets, make the environmental reviews that are 
necessary, and open it for public hearing as required.
  The on-the-ground, permit level decisionmaking that should legally 
accompany BLM's permit renewal process is fundamentally important to 
the ecologically sound, multiple-use management of our Nation's public 
lands. The BLM must conduct what is known as National Environment 
Policy Act compliance--shorthand, in Federal jargon, NEPA, National 
Environmental Policy

[[Page 21007]]

Act--and land use plan performance reviews before reauthorizing the 
permits.
  To meet the review requirements of NEPA and other existing Federal 
laws and regulations and to meet the diverse demands of the American 
public, the BLM uses interdisciplinary teams composed of agency 
professionals in wildlife, range, wild horse and burro, cultural, 
recreation, wilderness, and other areas. The BLM also solicits public 
comment and relevant information from the wide array of the public 
interested in range management, including hunters, fishermen, and 
others who enjoy our public lands.
  The simple fact is this: On most public land grazing allotments, all 
the important decisions that determine the condition of public 
rangeland resources are contained in the terms and conditions of the 
grazing permits and in the annual decision about the amount, timing, 
and location of livestock grazing.
  These decisions determine whether streams and riparian areas will 
flourish or be degraded, whether the wildlife habitat will be 
maintained, protected, or destroyed. Public involvement in this process 
is essential for balanced public land management. Without the 
application of NEPA and related laws, the American public literally has 
no voice in public rangeland management.
  The unusually large number of permits that need to be renewed have 
created a dual dilemma for the Bureau and for its many public 
constituents. Western livestock operators who currently hold these 
expiring permits are worried that delays in the Bureau's processing 
time may cause them to lose their permits or otherwise threaten their 
ability to use them to secure loans and make a living.
  Conservationists meanwhile believe the Bureau ought to perform 
responsibly the environmental stewardship and analysis aspects of its 
grazing management and permit renewal activities.
  It is not the ranchers' fault that such a large number of permits are 
expiring at once. If anyone were to blame, it would be BLM, the agency, 
which should have recognized this and addressed the problem sooner.
  I am not certain whether we provided the resources, incidentally, so 
they could do that, but certainly it should have been called to the 
attention of Congress.
  BLM has a duty to all public land users, ranchers, conservationists, 
and others to provide orderly and balanced management of our public 
land resources.
  It is entirely understandable to me, being from the State of 
Illinois, that ranchers are concerned about the issues of security and 
predictability. My farmers face the same thing. Likewise, we require 
the BLM to wisely manage and protect our public lands for all 
Americans. In the face of these concerns, a balance must be struck. The 
good news, I submit, is that these two concerns can be handled in a 
mutually inclusive fashion.
  The substitute language I am offering addresses the ranchers' needs 
for the Bureau to process grazing permits in a timely fashion and in a 
manner by which ranching operations and financial operations will not 
be needlessly disrupted.
  I want to hold BLM's feet to the fire, make them do their job right. 
I want them to solve the backlog of expiring permits. I want them to 
deal in a fair and forthright way with ranchers. And I want them to 
apply our Nation's environmental laws so that public rangelands are 
protected for all to use and enjoy.
  As I seek to protect ranchers from operational uncertainty due to 
bureaucratic delays, I also want to address the concerns raised by 
conservationists that the Bureau's equally necessary environmental 
analysis and resource protection duties move forward.
  The current language in the bill, if I am not mistaken, was inserted 
by Senator Domenici of New Mexico. This language, unfortunately, 
provides an unnecessarily controversial, open-ended, and uncertain 
response to this problem. Clearly, the language in the bill, which I 
seek to change, is pitting conservationists against ranchers, and that 
is needless.
  Ironically, I am concerned the language in the bill at this time, as 
drafted, will actually undercut both the ranchers and the 
conservationists. The actual permit renewal and environmental 
protection problem at hand is tightly defined and should be remedied 
with a tightly defined and effective solution.
  Nevertheless, section 117 in the bill, as drafted, would apply to 
permits that have or will expire in ``this or any fiscal year''--any 
fiscal year.
  Consider that for a moment--not just those that would expire during 
the term of this appropriations bill, but any fiscal year. Given the 
tightly defined 2- to 3-year nature of the current issue, this section 
provides an open-ended timeframe that is excessive and unnecessary. 
Instead of responding to the current real and specific crisis, section 
117 in the bill virtually writes a new policy for permits that expire 
in this or any fiscal year.
  I think that goes way beyond what we need to accomplish in this 
legislation. Section 117 provides a loosely drafted, open-ended delay 
of application of NEPA, the environmental law, and many other laws.
  Given the facts of the issue at hand and the importance of 
maintaining adequate environmental protections and reviews for public 
land management decisions, section 117 is far too sweeping in its 
effect. As written in the current law, section 117 would actually 
provide the Bureau of Land Management with an incentive to delay the 
application of NEPA and other laws.
  Because the Senator from New Mexico does not put a time certain as to 
when these permits will end, putting pressure on BLM to do its job, I 
am afraid we are going to have literally no review, and that is not in 
the best long-term interest of protecting America's public lands, which 
is the second half of this equation that we have to balance if we are 
going to be fair both to ranchers and to conservationists and Americans 
at large.
  Section 117 also undercuts meaningful opportunities for public 
involvement in the range management process. Because it requires the 
BLM to reissue permits under their current terms and conditions for an 
indefinite period of time, it effectively eliminates effective public 
input. As a result of these and other problems, the existing section 
117 is adamantly opposed by a wide array of groups that include the 
National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, and the Wilderness Society.
  If enacted as written, section 117 could well cause the Bureau to 
maintain expiring grazing permits in sort of a bureaucratic limbo 
indefinitely. Ranchers might find themselves holding a permit of 
uncertain tenure instead of ultimately receiving the clearly defined 
permit that would be required under my amendment. Section 117, 
therefore, could well create a situation that would actually harm the 
economic certainty of ranching operations in the West.
  We need to find a workable solution. We must not give the BLM the 
ability to delay its important permit renewal activities indefinitely. 
Congress must act to place the Bureau on a schedule to accomplish its 
work in a timely fashion to renew the permits. We need not--we must 
not--create a system that sacrifices either legitimate rancher concerns 
or environmental protection. We have to hold the BLM's feet to the 
fire. We must treat public land ranchers fairly, and we must protect 
the environment. We do not need to sacrifice one for the other, and I 
fear the existing language of section 117 does just that.
  My intent is to ensure that the Bureau will be able to bring the 
current permit renewal situation under control by the end of fiscal 
year 2001, 2 years from now.
  Additionally, I propose we extend the tenure permits which have 
expired in fiscal year 1999, or will expire in fiscal year 2000 or 
2001, until the end of fiscal year 2001 or until the necessary 
environmental analysis under NEPA and other laws is completed, 
whichever comes first. This says to a rancher, you know with certainty 
if the Durbin

[[Page 21008]]

amendment is adopted that your permit will be extended at least to the 
end of fiscal year 2001, and if in the interim BLM has done its job, it 
could be extended longer. That gives them something to go to the bank 
with, that they can, in fact, secure loans and continue their ranching 
operations. This amendment provides the ranching community and 
financial institutions certainty that these permits will not lapse 
during reprocessing. This amendment will provide continued assurance to 
the American public that their lands are being protected. It provides a 
real solution, not a controversial stopgap approach.
  I based my proposal on the permit language that Congress adopted as 
part of the Interior appropriations law for fiscal year 1999, as well 
as current House and Senate versions of this bill. My language closely 
resembles a solution that Congress passed as part of the 1995 
rescissions bill to address a similar permit renewal problem faced by 
the Forest Service. In the rescissions bill, Congress placed the Forest 
Service on a fixed-year schedule to bring their grazing permits into 
compliance with NEPA. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this balanced approach to the management and protection of our Nation's 
public lands.
  I understand the backlog and the workload faced by the BLM. As I 
said, it is extraordinary in its scope. I also understand the 
challenges that face the ranchers and those who depend on these permits 
for their livelihood. I think we have struck a balance, a balance which 
should give some assurance on the one hand to the ranchers about the 
future of their permits, and give assurance to the public and 
conservationists that these natural resources are being protected.
  I have two illustrations of why this is a particularly important 
issue. These photos were taken on BLM land and give a good indication 
of what can happen with proper land management and what happens when it 
doesn't occur. Notice on the left-hand side this overgrazed riparian 
area, Road Canyon in southeast Utah. There is hardly anything left, 
sand and gravel.
  On the other side is Grand Gulch, where it has been properly managed. 
There is a good stand of grass. This is important for many reasons. If 
we are going to protect these lands and make certain that we have 
grazing opportunities for years and years to come, we have to manage 
them. My farmers in the Midwest have to manage their lands every year, 
decide what to plant, where to plant, what to apply to make certain the 
land will be ready after this crop for another crop. Basically, the 
Bureau of Land Management has that responsibility when it comes to our 
public lands.
  They allow these ranchers to come and graze but under terms and 
conditions so they can say to the American people: Next year, 10 years 
from now, we will have protected your assets, your resources, for your 
use as well as the use of future ranchers. Overgrazing has severely 
degraded riparian areas in Comb Wash. As a result of many years of 
overgrazing, much of the natural streambank vegetation has been 
stripped away, leaving either bare soil or undesirable plants such as 
snakeweed and tumbleweed that invade overgrazed areas. Because of the 
overgrazing, severe stream channel erosion has occurred, and water 
tables have dropped.
  Annual grazing permits issued by BLM allow this degradation to occur. 
If they keep renewing the permits on an annual basis instead of 
stepping back from time to time and looking at the impact, you can see 
that, frankly, we are going to have bad results. The language in the 
bill, which I amend, section 117, would continue this degradation 
indefinitely. Once we have run these resources down to bare rock, what 
good is it to the ranchers? Literally, they have to be certain they 
have a resource to turn to in decades to come so they have some 
assurance of their own livelihood. It is in their best interest to 
protect this resource as well with reasonable permits.
  When you take a look at this healthy riparian area, as illustrated in 
the other photo, Grand Gulch, you can see the difference. This area 
had, again, been arrested from grazing for 20 years. In Grand Gulch, 
there was a healthy streamside ecosystem. The stream channels are 
stable, protected from erosion by vegetation. Sound grazing management 
decisions by BLM would allow more riparian areas across the West to 
return to healthier conditions.
  This has been a controversial area and is a clear illustration of why 
we need to have the annual review by BLM consistent with NEPA 
standards.
  The second photo shows a similar story. The ecological condition of 
the Santa Maria River in western Arizona has improved dramatically as a 
result of permit management practices under the National Environmental 
Policy Act. It is important to note the BLM continues to allow grazing 
in this area. However, it has changed the timing of this grazing. BLM 
is not at war with the ranchers but trying to make sure that it manages 
the Nation's resources on these public lands in a responsible fashion.
  As a result of environmental reviews, the grazing permits on the 
Santa Maria River now contain terms and conditions requiring livestock 
to be kept out of the riparian areas during the spring and summer 
growing seasons.
  The Santa Maria River is a rarity: a free-flowing river in the midst 
of a vast, hot, low-elevation desert. The riparian corridor provides 
essential habitat for dozens of species of wildlife, including 15 
species that are listed by Federal or State agencies as threatened, 
endangered, or other special status. The riparian area of the Santa 
Maria and its ability to support wildlife were severely degraded by 
many years of uncontrolled, unmanaged livestock grazing in the river 
corridor. The vegetation was stripped away. The water was polluted. 
Streambanks were trampled. Miles of riparian area were nearly as barren 
as the surrounding desert.
  For decades, the BLM issued and renewed grazing permits to ranchers 
along the Santa Maria River with no terms and conditions to protect 
riparian areas. Even though the BLM developed a land use plan that 
required the river to be arrested from livestock grazing, the 
requirement was never incorporated in grazing permits.
  It illustrates the point to be made: The existing language in the 
bill, which I seek to amend, extends indefinitely these grazing permits 
under the terms and conditions currently existing. If there is a need 
to step in and to protect an area such as this from being degraded and 
destroyed for future generations, the language of the bill does not 
provide for it. My amendment does. It says the permits will be extended 
to 2 years; if there is an intervening environmental review, even 
longer but under terms and conditions consistent with good environment 
and public input.
  In the late 1980s, a portion of the Santa Maria River received an 
unplanned reprieve from grazing because the rancher holding the permit 
went bankrupt and had to sell his cattle. The result of 3 years of rest 
from grazing can be seen in this second photograph. It is night and day 
between this dry river bed and this creek, which we can see, this 
riparian area, which has good growth and a stand of grass.
  The riparian vegetation has returned. The streambanks are starting to 
rebuild. The water is cleaner, as are other portions of the river. In 
the early 1990s, the bankrupt rancher sold out to a new rancher who 
wanted to restock the river corridor with cattle. The BLM proposed to 
transfer the grazing permit to the new rancher with no NEPA analysis, 
no public review. The transferred permit would have had the same terms 
and conditions as the old permit: year-round grazing in the riparian 
area with no measure to protect or restore riparian vegetation and 
wildlife habitat.
  A number of individuals and organizations challenged the BLM decision 
to renew the permit without a NEPA review. As a result, grazing permits 
on the Santa Maria contained terms and conditions requiring that 
livestock be kept out of this area during spring and summer growing 
seasons.
  If section 117 is enacted as written in the law, such permit level 
management

[[Page 21009]]

changes will be much more difficult to achieve.
  I see other Members wishing to speak to this amendment. I can 
certainly return to this debate after they have had their opportunity, 
but I do believe it is in the best interest of those who value these 
public lands as a natural resource of assets for America and those who 
see them as a livelihood to come together and reach a commonsense 
agreement.
  The existing language in the bill, which I would amend, gives the 
ranchers the upper hand. It says: Your permit is renewed indefinitely. 
We may never return to the question of whether or not your grazing 
rights should be changed to protect this particular creek bed from 
becoming part of the desert. That is not in the best interest of the 
rancher involved, nor in the best interest of the people of the United 
States who literally own this land. It is another question, another 
environmental rider which addresses the basic philosophy I mentioned at 
the beginning of this debate.
  There was an unusual breakdown in point of view between the 
Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle. It 
is hard for me, as I study history, to believe that the party of 
Theodore Roosevelt, which, frankly, initiated the creation of such 
things as the Yosemite National Park and our National Park System, 
would now take such a different point of view when it comes to guarding 
the value of these resources. It would seem to me to be bipartisan, 
nonpartisan, for us to agree that if these public lands are to be used, 
they should be used safely, responsibly, and in a way so that future 
generations could have that benefit.
  But time and again, these environmental riders that come to us, 
whether they are for logging, drilling, mining, whatever it happens to 
be, have come to us with the suggestion that the public interest should 
be secondary to the private exploitation of the land. I think that is 
wrong. I think the balance should be struck. It is not only in the best 
interest of this country, it is in the best interest of everyone living 
in the western part of the United States. The amendment I have offered 
has been supported by virtually every major environmental group: The 
Wilderness Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Earth, American Land 
Alliance, and others.
  I sincerely hope my friends from the West, the Senator from New 
Mexico, and the Senators from Idaho and Wyoming, will look carefully at 
this amendment and realize that it is a positive one; it is not 
negative in nature. It is an attempt to resolve this in a fair and 
balanced way.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Mexico 
is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we have three people who want to 
speak on our side. I think the Senator from Wyoming would like to speak 
first. I will follow with a few minutes and then Senator Craig will 
follow, and we will be finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for giving leadership 
on this issue. We have worked together for a very long time in this 
area. I guess I am a little surprised and, frankly, a little offended 
that it would be said that people on this side of the aisle are not as 
careful or do not care as much about public lands as someone else.
  I brought out this map I used yesterday. You can see where the 
Federal land holdings are in this country. Out in the West, nearly half 
of the land in most of our States belongs to the Federal Government, 
and we have taken care of it for years. I think the Senator's State of 
Illinois has about 2 percent. Here he is telling us how to manage 
public lands. I find that very difficult.
  We are very intent on being the stewards of public lands. I want to 
tell you a little bit about open space. There has been more and more 
interest in open space as people move out. We have discovered that the 
best way to keep it is to provide an opportunity for ranchers to 
continue to operate. That is how you keep open space. We are trying to 
do that now. We want fair compensation. This has nothing to do with 
compensation. Let me start by reading the language that we think works. 
This is what is in the bill:

       Grazing permits and leases which expire or are transferred, 
     in this or any fiscal year, shall be renewed under the same 
     terms and conditions as contained in the expiring permit or 
     lease until such time as the Secretary completes the process 
     of renewing permits and leases in compliance with all 
     applicable laws.

  That is what it says, ``all applicable laws,'' which includes the 
responsibility of the BLM to do this.

       Nothing in this language shall be deemed to affect the 
     Secretary's statutory authority or the rights of the 
     permittee or lessee.

  That is the language--the language that we have studied for several 
years. We have been through this temporary thing the Senator from 
Illinois brought forth before, and we are back at it again. We think we 
have found an answer that would be more long term.
  Let me cover a few of the things. This year, 5,364 grazing permits 
are up for renewal; only 2,159 have been renewed. So here we are, 
almost at the end of September, with people who have leases that, if 
not studied, will be taken off the land at the end of the month. 
Section 117 of S. 1292 addresses this problem by allowing the BLM more 
time to complete the renewal process without causing unwarranted 
hardship on the rancher or farmer who utilizes the public lands to make 
a living. Keep in mind, this is not some random thing people do. When 
the West was settled, we settled in and the homesteads were taken up 
along the water, the better lands, and these other lands were basically 
left there. They are simply residual lands that are managed by the BLM. 
They are very much attached, however, to the water and the other lands 
to make a ranching economic unit. So it is more than that.
  Section 117 allows for the renewal of grazing permits under the same 
terms and conditions of expiring permits pending completion of the 
renewal process. BLM has to do this, and in the meantime this farmer or 
rancher is not penalized for something that wasn't his fault.
  Permits renewed under this provision are not exempt from compliance 
with existing environmental laws. Permits will be issued under existing 
environmentally compliant land use plans. That is the way that is.
  Section 117 allows for a thorough environmental review by the BLM, 
industry, and the public instead of an abbreviated, cursory 
environmental analysis, which will probably happen if the Senator has 
his way. The BLM cannot and will not ignore its environmental 
obligations due to the threat of litigation, of course.
  We talked a little bit about the finances of it. One of the 
interesting things, of course, is that most farmers and ranchers depend 
on credit. Let me read you something that comes from the Farm Credit 
Association:

       It is no secret that providing loans for farmers and 
     ranchers is a risky business. The security offered by section 
     117 in allowing a full 10-year permit will relieve some of 
     the risks. However, the Senator from Illinois intends to make 
     the practice even more risky by shortening the duration of 
     permits to 1 or 2 years.

  That is the Farm Credit Association talking about the opportunity to 
have an effective beef production operation.
  There is another factor that is underlying all of these things, the 
Administrative Procedures Act. That allows for these things to continue 
if the permittee simply sends in a request and does that prior to the 
time of the exploration. That has been recently dealt with in the court 
and proved to be an effective tool. The language in this amendment, if 
it passes, would probably negate that. I think that would be a real 
problem.
  So there are a lot of things involved. It sounds kind of simple. You 
know, we are just going to do it for 2 years and we will get this all 
resolved. That isn't the way it works, my friends. We have been through 
this before. We continue to come up each year, and we have found, 
through the help and leadership of the Senator from New Mexico, a long-
term solution that will not

[[Page 21010]]

change the obligation for environmental protection, will not change the 
obligation of the BLM, and it, in fact, will take away some of the risk 
from the farmer or rancher, which has nothing to do with the fact that 
this has been elongated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think Senator Durbin, who serves on 
the Budget Committee, which I happen to chair, knows that on many 
matters I hold him in high esteem. As a matter of fact, I believe he is 
smiling a very gentle smile there as he sits back in his chair, and I 
guess he is going to listen now for a few minutes. I hope so. He would 
not disavow what I have just said. But he is wrong on this one. He is 
wrong in many ways.
  First, he would have done a wonderful job if he had left out the 
partisan speech at the end about this side of the aisle not being as 
concerned as our forefathers about the environment. Second, he showed 
some pictures of leases where one of the leaseholds had been abused and 
in some way tied that to the Domenici language or to his amendment. To 
do that is totally without an understanding of the ongoing authority of 
the BLM and the Forest Service, the twin agencies who are out there on 
our property.
  I say to the good Senator, the BLM does not find malfeasance on the 
part of ranchers only when they renew the lease every 10 years. As a 
matter of fact, they have total authority to enter upon the premise, 
inspect, and periodically recommend changes in the use that the rancher 
should make. They don't wait around until a drought year or until the 
10-year permit has expired to go in and change the usage of the lessee.
  You cannot use what we are trying to do to prevent a wholesale 
diminution of ranching properties in our States, and state that there 
are abuses out there that need to be fixed; let me suggest they are 
being fixed. Animal numbers are being changed all the time. As a matter 
of fact, 2 years ago they were changed regularly in my State, regularly 
in Arizona, and regularly in Wyoming because we were in a drought 
period. Federal managers would say this coming year you can't do as 
much because the foliage isn't so good. You wore it down pretty good 
last year. So we are going to cut you by 50 head or 100 head.
  Ongoing management remains the prerogative of the management agency--
in this case the Bureau of Land Management.
  Having said that, let me also say I have been around a little while--
sometimes longer than I want to admit. But the Senate ought to know 
that no administration before this one--Democrat or Republican--has 
subjected the leases of cattlemen and women and businesses to a total 
review under NEPA for the simple issuance of permits. The Forest 
Service did on a few selective ones. This administration comes along 
with thousands and thousands of leases out there and decides that 
before they are going to issue a renewal, they are going to subject it 
to an environmental assessment and, if necessary, a full-blown impact 
statement. Some of us told them that is crazy. We lost. Do you know the 
result? The result is this debate on this floor of the Senate because 
BLM can't conceivably do their work on time.
  As a matter of fact, in the State of Wyoming only 15 percent of the 
subject leases--these leases are to families who live on the ranches 
and borrow money on their houses and their ranch together--only 15 
percent have gone through compliance by the BLM. The BLM hasn't done 
its work.
  Look, before we leave a wide-open opportunity to cancel these leases 
because the environmental assessment is not done, we have to give some 
latitude to these people who are subject annually to review in terms of 
their ranch management. We have to provide them with some flexibility 
and assurance from the standpoint of knowing what they own and what the 
bankers are going to say about the loans they have on the ranch. There 
is nothing new about having a loan on a ranch in Wyoming or New Mexico. 
You put it on the entire ranch, including the fee ownership, and the 
ranch house. The entire unit--it is called--is collateral for the loan.
  It is a coincidence that a member of an esteemed banking institution 
is sitting in the Chair and happens to be from the same State as the 
Senator who is opposed to my approach. But I ask hypothetically, do you 
think a banker who had been expecting to renew a loan because there was 
going to be a new 10-year permit issued--it is about a year away--and 
the rancher comes up, and says: Hey, banker, friend, are you going to 
give us a loan again?
  And the banker says: What does the BLM say about your permit?
  The poor rancher says: Well, they have their own rule, and it says if 
you do not have an impact statement you can't get the permit.
  But they haven't done the required work on this permit.
  And the poor rancher says: Won't you lend me the money anyway?
  But the banker says: No, of course not.
  What Senator Domenici tried to do was to say it isn't a ranchers' 
problem that the BLM undertook such a mammoth job of environmental 
assessments and sometimes full-blown statements on every single lease 
out there in the West. BLM and the Forest Service began the process, so 
we can say both of the public lands management twins do this. It is not 
the ranchers' fault. They didn't hold up these environmental 
assessments.
  I said to the ranching community: What would be a fair way to make 
sure you are not harmed by the inaction of the Bureau of Land 
Management?
  They said: Let them extend our lease as they would have done 5 years 
ago, and as they would have done if they had completed their work. But 
let them continue with their assessment work, and when they get it done 
and say there are some changes that have to be made, give them the 
authority to make the changes that the assessment calls for.
  That is essentially where we are. I understand we are in a battle in 
the West. We are in a battle where ranchers are looked upon by some 
environmental groups with very low esteem. In fact, some of the groups 
even say there shouldn't be any cattle grazing on public lands. They 
say this without any evidence it is harmful. If managed properly, 
grazing is not harmful. It is salutary. It is healthy. It is good for 
the forest lands and for Bureau of Land Management lands.
  We are not talking here about rich farmers and ranchers; even though 
there may be some in corporate ownership.
  I have five letters from New Mexicans. I want everybody to listen to 
the last names of these people. They live in northern New Mexico with 
anywhere from 100 head to 350 head. Their names are Gerald Chacon, a 
Hispanic American whose family has lived there for generations.
  He says in this letter, ``Please don't take away our security.'' It 
isn't ``take away our ranch.'' They are saying ``our security.'' ``The 
bank won't lend us the money.'' He alludes to the fact that if it is 
only a 2-year opportunity to get a loan, he is not going to have a very 
good chance.
  That is the solution of the Senator from Illinois to this problem.
  From Palemon Martinez, also from northern New Mexico, a letter that 
just plain pleads with me to make sure their leases are not held in 
abeyance because the Bureau of Land Management did not do their work.
  Again, I repeat for those worried about proper management, BLM has 
entry all year long, and management opportunities all year long. They 
do not need to wait around for permit renewal to say to my friend, 
Palemon Martinez, that he has to change his way of doing business 
because he is grazing too heavily or he is affecting the stream.
  Alonso Gallegos from Pena Blanca, NM--the same kind of letter. Jake 
Vigil, and Dennis Braden, general manager for a family. They are all 
the same--frightened to death of what is going to happen to the 
security in their allotment if we don't say it is the BLM's fault for 
not having done the assessments.

[[Page 21011]]

  This fellow, Jake Vigil, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. He is 
wide open to review. They come out there and do their assessment. He 
makes his comments. But they do not get it done.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: I am pleased to have the opportunity 
     to express the serious concerns we have should the Bureau of 
     Land Management not complete its required environmental 
     assessments of each grazing permit.
       I sincerely hope your colleagues in the senate recognize 
     the economic and personal hardships that ranch families will 
     face in our county.
       I represent 3 families who share as an association, a BLM 
     allotment made up mostly of BLM lands. Our contact (permit) 
     with the US government allows for 348 head of cattle to graze 
     from May 1 to November 1 of each year. Our winter grazing is 
     located 70 miles away at a lower elevation with winter 
     access. We have no alternate pasture available to us should 
     we be removed in mid season. The permittees will be forced to 
     suffer for something, we did not have any control over or 
     participation in. We would be faced to sell, at depressed 
     prices the 348 cow-calf pairs we own. Two families have loans 
     on operating expenses and cattle to service. Markets are at 
     the least, 140 miles from the ranch. Trucking expenses shrink 
     on the weights of cattle and depressed prices would bankrupt 
     us. We also have large sums of our own money currently being 
     spent on a livestock and wildlife watering pipeline system 
     for each pasture. Our water system and other rangeland 
     improvements would be lost without our ability to pay for it 
     from calf sales this fall.
       Our schools and county governments rely heavily on our 
     private property and livestock taxes to operate on. Our 
     county, already one of the poorest in this nation depends 
     heavily on income generated from public land resources like 
     grazing, timber and recreation. The multiplying affect of 
     this action to our local economies would be staggering. I am 
     hopeful that common sense will prevail and you will be able 
     to do what is right for our families and the land. Removing 
     one from the other has in the past proven disastrous for our 
     communities and for the environment.
       I would invite any members of the senate to visit our 
     homes, communities, and the public lands we care for. We are 
     constantly troubled by one decision after the other that we 
     are forced to face without a voice or process for our 
     involvement. I hope all of you can help us to stay on these 
     lands as we have for over two hundred years.
       Thank you for your continued representation and help in 
     this serious matter. Please help us to tell our story.
           Sincerely,

                                             Gerald L. Chacon,

                            Representing the Chacon Family and the
     Esperanza Grazing Association.
                                  ____

                                               Northern New Mexico


                                       Stockman's Association,

                               Ranchos de Taos, NM, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: The Northern New Mexico Stockman's 
     Association supports the language you have proposed to the FY 
     2000 Interior Appropriations Bill. Grazing activities on 
     public lands should not be disrupted or interrupted. Small 
     ranchers in Northern New Mexico cannot afford additional 
     hardships. We stand in opposition to Senator Durbin's 
     amendments.
       We appreciate your assistance.
           Thank you,
                                              Palemon A. Martinez,
     Secretary-Treasurer.
                                  ____

                                   Pena Blanca, NM, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: As a permittee with the Bureau of 
     Land Management (BLM), my family and I are in trouble. The 
     language you successfully attached to the Interior 
     Appropriations Bill would be a lifesaver.
       My ten-year permit is up for renewal this year. Under new 
     BLM policy, the agency says that National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA) analysis must be completed prior to my 
     renewal. This means that this work must be done by September 
     30, 1999.
       My permit is for 98 head, year-round. I have had it more 
     than half a century. It was inherited from my father, who 
     inherited it from his father. Our family grazed this land 
     before there was a BLM. This permit makes up 50 percent of 
     the income for my family, which includes my wife and three 
     children, ranging in age from 13 to 16.
       I was unaware that the BLM was working on my allotment 
     until the middle of June 1999, when I received a letter 
     giving me seven days to comment on an ``Analysis, 
     Interpretation & Evaluation'' (AIE). I did not even receive 
     the letter until the comment period had expired. Then in mid-
     July, I received an environmental assessment (EA) with a 15-
     day comment period.
       Given that the EA does not meet the requirements of NEPA, 
     it is highly likely that there will be problems with its' 
     completion. With just over 60 days to complete this process, 
     I am in serious jeopardy. If the NEPA is not completed, what 
     will I do with my cattle? How will I feed my family?
       As you can see, the language allowing more time for the 
     completion of the analysis is imperative to me and my family 
     as well as hundreds of other New Mexicans in a similar 
     position.
       Thank you in advance for what you have done on this issue 
     thus far. However, without passage of the amendment on the 
     Senate Floor, I will lose half of my income, not to mention 
     my heritage.
           Sincerely,
     Alonso Gallegos.
                                  ____

                                       El Rito, NM, July 28, 1999.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
     RE: BLM Permit Extension
       Dear Senator Domenici: I am the 4th Generation Rancher in 
     Northern New Mexico and hope to pass it on to my sons in the 
     future.
       I urge you to keep fighting for our BLM Permit/Extension 
     renewal. Without this permit it would be detrimental to our 
     ranching business,since this is my only source of income.
       Thank you for your support and efforts.
     Jake M. Vigil.
                                  ____



                                    El Sueno de Corazon Ranch,

                                       Abiquiu, NM, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: As a permittee with the Bureau of 
     Land Management (BLM), our ranch is in trouble. The language 
     you successfully attached to the Interior Appropriations Bill 
     would be a lifesaver.
       Our ten-year permit is up for renewal this year. Under new 
     BLM policy, the agency says that National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA) analysis must be completed prior to 
     renewal. This means that this work must be done by September 
     30, 1999.
       Our permit is for 153 head of cattle for 7 months. We have 
     had it more than 20 years. This permit is an integral part of 
     our ranching operation.
       We have been urging our BLM office to start this process 
     for over a year.
       With just over 60 days to complete this process, we are in 
     serious jeopardy. If the NEPA is not complete, what will we 
     do with our cattle?
       As you can see, the language allowing more time for the 
     completion of the analysis is imperative to us as well as 
     other New Mexico ranchers in a similar position.
       Thank you in advance for what you have done on this issue 
     thus far. However, without passage of the amendment on the 
     Senate floor, we will lose half of our income, not to mention 
     our heritage.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dennis Braden,
     General Manager.
                                  ____



                                                  Farm Credit,

                                                  Albuquerque, NM.
     Members of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am requesting your attention to a very 
     serious issue before the Senate. My concern encompasses the 
     renewal of grazing permits for a ten-year term and how my 
     financing organization deals with those permits. Within 
     Section 117 of the Interior Appropriations bill you will find 
     language providing for ten-year grazing permits.
       This year, over 5,000 BLM grazing permits for public lands 
     are expiring. In New Mexico alone over 700 permits are 
     expiring. Farm Credit Services of New Mexico currently holds 
     loans for over 1,400 ranching and farming families totaling 
     over $360 million. By providing these loans to the ranching 
     and farming families in New Mexico, we therefore also support 
     the communities in which they reside.
       It is no secret that providing loans to farms and ranches 
     is a risky business. The security offered by Section 117 in 
     allowing the full ten-year permit will relive some of the 
     risk. However, Senator Durbin intends to make the practice 
     even more risky by shortening the duration of permits to one 
     or two years. Though Senator Durbin may be well-intentioned, 
     he is placing a lot of unnecessary and unwarranted pressure 
     on families already suffering through a depressed agriculture 
     economy.
       Financial lenders, including myself, may not be as willing 
     to provide the level of support as we have in the past if the 
     grazing permit is only for a short period or if it is 
     uncertain whether the permit will be renewed. As a lender, I 
     do not look forward to foreclosing on a farm or ranch. We try 
     to do everything we can before taking such a drastic

[[Page 21012]]

     measure. Nonetheless, providing loans becomes more difficult 
     when matters out of our control such as Senator Durbin's 
     Amendment enter the process.
       I strongly urge you to resist any amendment to the existing 
     language in Section 117. The language as it stands is very 
     vital to the economic well being of many farming and ranching 
     families in New Mexico and other western states. thank you 
     for your consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Eddie Ratliff,
                                                        President.

  Mr. DOMENICI. The history of noncompliance by the Bureau of Land 
Management in getting this work done in New Mexico is miserable. In our 
State, we are a little ahead of Wyoming. We have 26 percent that have 
had their environmental assessments done. The rest aren't going to have 
it done before their permits expire and are exactly subject to what I 
have been telling the Senate on the floor.
  My friend from Illinois says: Keep the pressure on the BLM. Don't 
take the pressure off by saying you can issue the permit. But I say you 
continue your assessment work, and when you have finished and find that 
you want to make some changes to the permit, if you must, then do it, 
and you have the automatic right to do it.
  We are not on the floor of the Senate trying to risk the security of 
hundreds and hundreds of ranchers--including these people--for the 
purpose of keeping the heat on the Bureau of Land Management, which 
ought to get their own work done. As a matter of fact, there are many 
people who think the assessments and impact statements are very 
expensive, that in many cases they don't even fix the problems.
  We have a NEPA law that is a couple of decades or more old. We 
attempt to apply it to every kind of environmental issue around. The 
cases it applies to with the least efficacy are ranchlands because they 
are small ``events.'' We had in mind big governmental actions before we 
applied the NEPA laws to land.
  I am not interested in putting at risk the ranchers in my State so we 
can keep the pressure on the Bureau of Land Management. Senator Gorton 
can keep the pressure on in his bill. He gives them the money. He can 
tell them: Do your work. That is all the pressure they need.
  Frankly, this is an easy one. Sometimes it is awful hard for people 
who don't have public lands to understand our plight. This is easy. The 
only thing difficult is a whole group of organizations that don't think 
the rancher cares about anything. They are saying: Don't give them help 
with what Domenici wants, give them something less.
  Keep the heat on; and a wonderful, nice Senator from Illinois who 
doesn't have any public land making their pitch for them. He is a good 
pitch maker. He made a good speech today. It just happens to be it is 
not right. It is not right.
  I will have printed in the Record a letter of very recent origin from 
the president of the Farm Credit Services of New Mexico. I think the 
Senator from Wyoming alluded to it.
  Anyone who questions whether or not the ranchers are more at risk 
under this 2-year extension rather than giving them their permit and 
letting the Bureau of Land Management do their work, this is the proof 
of the pudding. I was giving a hypothetical. This is the banker. This 
is the Farm Credit Bureau. They go out and place these loans. They say 
it is very hard on this 2-year proposal to get the financing for the 
farmers and their families in my State, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and 
the rest.
  My last observation, and I am not at all sure the senior Senator from 
Illinois intended this, I view the amendment as making a significant 
change in FLMPA, Federal Land Management bill that underlies this 
debate. In Arabic No. 2, his amendment says:

       Upon completion of processing of a grazing permit or lease 
     described in subsection (a)(1), the Bureau may--
       . . . (B) reissue the grazing permit or lease for a term 
     not to exceed 10 years.

  I think the substantive law of the land says ``shall,'' not ``may.'' 
I am not sure he wants to have ``shall'' or ``may'' in there. It 
shouldn't be ``may.'' If you have done your work and the land is OK, 
the law is they shall issue the permit. We surely should not change 
that on the floor while we are trying to get the Bureau of Land 
Management to do their job--which they are not doing--on time. Frankly, 
I think they bit off more than they can chew. That is the reason. This 
is a big undertaking.
  What we ought to have is an economic impact statement on this huge 
job of environmental assessments. What have we gotten out of it that is 
environmentally enhancing? I am not sure it would be very much. I am 
not asking for that today. I am merely speculating based on what I 
happen to feel and know.
  Having said that, I want the Senate to know I have used far more time 
on this issue than I should. The combined time we all spent is probably 
more than we should have used. Some people are very pleased we are 
spending all of this time so they can be doing something else. But I 
guarantee, this is very important. These five letters from the New 
Mexicans that I read are multiplied across Western America hundreds and 
hundreds of times over.
  We talk on the floor about problems people have. Many times they are 
less significant and less important than the problem we are addressing 
today. We don't need to punish a few thousand Americans living out in 
rural Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, et cetera, who are already having 
it very tough because of the market in cattle and the droughts that 
have been recurring. We don't need them worrying about what the Federal 
Government will do to them, when they have done nothing wrong 
themselves.
  We don't need them worrying about their banker, who will tell them: 
When you know you have the permit, we will lend you the money. Isn't 
that what they will say? They will not say: You are a nice fellow and I 
loaned your grandpa and your great grandpa money on this ranch. They 
will say: Where is the permit? They will say: The Durbin amendment 
passed and we only have it for up to 2 years because we had to give the 
government more time to do an impact statement, which they should have 
already done.
  I don't think we need that. If Members had the opportunity to read 
these five or six letters, they would get the tone. The tone is one of 
real fear. If we don't fix this, technically, they wouldn't have to 
issue any of these permits because the impact statement isn't 
completed--because of the government's delay--and they could say: Here 
are the rules; unless it is done, we will not issue permits.
  I understand my friend from Idaho wants to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would the Senator from Idaho yield for a 
moment?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President and the Senator from Illinois, I have been 
informed that my comanager, the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia, will not be available until approximately 4 o'clock. There 
will be a motion to table, and I strongly suspect the Senator from 
Illinois will desire some time to reply. The motion to table should be 
made not earlier than 3:45, which means there is another 20 minutes for 
debate. For the information of other Senators, at least, we will be 
likely to vote on a motion to table the Durbin amendment at or some 
time shortly after 3:45.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could the chairman of the subcommittee 
put the last statement in the form of a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GORTON. I need to know how much time the Senators from Idaho and 
Illinois wish to speak in order to do that.
  Mr. CRAIG. I certainly need no more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or in relation to 
this amendment take place at 3:50 this afternoon, with the time between 
now and 3:50 equally divided between the Senator from Idaho and the 
Senator from Illinois.

[[Page 21013]]


  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, in his unanimous consent 
request there will be no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. GORTON. And there will be no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if we could add 
it be in order to make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and 
nays at this time.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I make that request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Durbin amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield such time to myself as I may consume under the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  I sat through most of the debate on this very important amendment 
that the senior Senator from Illinois has proposed. If I could speak to 
the senior Senator from Illinois for just a moment, there is a very 
real difference but a similar responsibility between the Senator from 
Idaho and the Senator from Illinois.
  When I went home during the August recess, I held meetings with the 
agricultural community. The Senator from Illinois has a good many 
farmers, but there was a different kind of person in my meetings than 
could possibly have been in any meeting he would have. That was a 
public land rancher. Because the Senator from Illinois knows he doesn't 
have ranchers and grazers on the public lands of the State of Illinois. 
But the Senators from Idaho and New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa 
do--thousands of them. Their livelihood depends on access to the public 
lands and a perpetuation and a continuation of that access, to keep 
their ranching operations alive. The Senator from Illinois understands 
that. He has already expressed that as it relates to financing and 
banking.
  What is important here--and I wish to express something that probably 
no one coming from a public land State would miss--is that there is a 
very different word, a single word in his amendment that does not exist 
in law today and should not be put in law. That is the word ``may.''
  It has been the public policy of this country that, under certain 
conditions and in the right areas, grazing is a responsible use of our 
public lands and that we shall allow grazing as a right in responsible 
use of our public lands if the following conditions are met--the 
conditions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the conditions 
that are established by the regional advisory groups that were 
appointed by this Secretary of the Interior. That is the law that 
establishes the permanency and the relationship that the Senator from 
Illinois said he speaks to, but in fact he does not.
  Having said all of that, the law of this public land is the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and from that the rules and regulations by 
which ranchers graze that public land are established. We have said as 
a Congress, and as a part of public policy, that with the renewal of 
those permits there should be an analysis of the condition of the 
rangeland that the permit is tied to. The Senator from Illinois 
understands that. That is within the law. But, because of costs, 
because of personnel, because of the time involved, not all of these 
permits have been able to be analyzed and therefore gain their impact 
statement in time for that renewal.
  Is that a fault of the rancher? It is not. Is that a fault of BLM and 
the Federal Government? It is. Last year we extended for 1 year the 
right of renewal while the studies went on. But we also understand--and 
what Senator Domenici's addition to the Interior bill clearly states--
after the analysis is done and the terms and conditions of the permit 
are established, that permit will be allowed and shall exist under 
those conditions to be met--not ``may be'' but ``shall be.'' That is 
very important.
  If the Senator from Illinois were truly dedicated to the continuation 
of grazing on public lands under these environmental conditions, then 
the word ``may'' would not be there because that is the word the 
financial community looks toward to see whether they ought to lend 
money to this rancher to continue his or her ranching operation. They 
could not continue that ranching operation without access to the public 
grazing lands. The map the Senator from Wyoming displayed is the very 
simple reason why.
  Idaho's No. 1 agricultural commodity is cattle--not potatoes but 
cattle in total dollar volume sold. Mr. President, 80 percent of that 
amount, 80 percent of the cattle in Idaho, have to graze on public 
lands at some time during the year for them to exist in our State. 
Throwing that in jeopardy is like suggesting to the Senator from 
Illinois we are going to wipe Caterpillar out of Peoria or we are going 
to throw it in such jeopardy that the banks won't continue to finance 
it. But that will not happen to Caterpillar in Peoria because they are 
not dictated to by the Government and they are not operating under 
governmental regulations, except safety and all of that, but their very 
livelihood does not exist on a ``may'' or ``shall'' piece of language 
in a Federal bill.
  That is what is important here. We want the environmental analysis 
done. We want the public lands to retain a high quality of 
environmental values.
  The Senator from Illinois held up some pictures, one from Utah and 
one from Arizona. The reason he did not show Illinois is that the issue 
he is talking about doesn't exist in his State, so you will have to go 
elsewhere to find a problem, if a problem exists, if you want to debate 
this bill. Those problems do exist on public lands but much less than 
they ever have. I am extremely proud of the laws we have changed to 
improve the rangeland conditions in my State and in large, western 
public land grazing States in this Nation. We should not be throwing 
extraordinary roadblocks in the way. We ought to be facilitating the 
BLM in this area.
  The BLM will not take a position. But when the Director of BLM was in 
my office several months ago, prior to his confirmation, he said: If 
you keep the general language in the bill that you had last time, we 
can support it. That is because they need that flexibility to go ahead 
to do their analysis in a right and proper way. That is what is 
important.
  So when the Senator from Illinois says that none of these rules can 
apply, this locks in a standard and the BLM cannot come back and make 
the changes, I must say, in all due respect to my colleague from 
Illinois, that is not correct. The BLM does govern these lands. The BLM 
can make these changes. And the BLM has the right under the law to do 
it, even if the permit is issued. The BLM has the right to amend the 
permit if there is major environmental degradation going on.
  So what the Senator said, and I quote him, ``they could not 
achieve''--that was in the beginning of his statement, and at the end 
of his statement he said, ``it would be very difficult for the BLM to 
achieve changes in the environmental standards allowed under the 
permit.'' The truth is, the BLM can change these standards. They can 
rewrite the permits if there are major grazing changes.
  Another factor the Senator from Illinois would, I am sure, appreciate 
knowing is, when ranches are brought and sold, while I do not like what 
the BLM is doing at this moment, they are actually stepping in midway 
now and saying change some of the regulations. And right now, under 
this administration's regulations, anyone from the outside can step in 
and say: We don't like the character of the regulations because the 
regulations have failed to address certain needs of the land that are 
not consistent with the grazing permit.
  Those are the realities with which we are dealing. That is why the 
Senator from New Mexico thought it was extremely important to offer 
some degree of certainty to the process. That is exactly what BLM needs 
because they have not done their work well. They have a huge backlog. 
In fiscal year 1999 there were 5,360 grazing permits and leases 
expiring, and, according to the

[[Page 21014]]

BLM's latest statistics, only 2,159 of these expiring leases--permits 
or leases--have been analyzed and renewed. So they have a giant task 
before them. We encourage them to do so. We finance them so they can.
  Because I am proud of the western legacy of public land grazing, I 
want it done right. I want it done to assure riparian quality. I do not 
want our cattlemen run off the public land, the people's land, where 
the Congress has consistently said it is a right and proper use to 
graze these grasslands. It is a way to return revenue to our Government 
while at the same time ensuring quality wildlife habitat, water 
quality, and all those natural things the Senator from Illinois talks 
about.
  Oh, yes, the Senator from Illinois has a right to talk on this issue. 
Absolutely he does, because these are public lands. But I have tried to 
discuss today the sensitivity I hope he understands is important, where 
these lands become a major factor in the economy of my State--not the 
economy of his State--where it is critically important that we maintain 
a high quality of grasslands to assure a high quality not only for the 
environment but for the very users of that environment, in this case 
the public land grazing in the West.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me and the Senator from New Mexico 
and other western legislators in tabling this amendment.
  We are not saying don't do the study. We are saying do it and do it 
right, do it properly, and make the amendments and make the changes 
where necessary, protect the riparian zones, make sure that all of that 
happens as it should. But do not put a black cloud over a third-
generation ranching family who must have a relationship with that land 
to exist and to ensure their financing on an annualized basis.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time is remaining under the unanimous consent 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 11 minutes. The 
Senator from Idaho has 9 seconds. He will have to speak quickly.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Idaho can use those 9 seconds 
very effectively, as we have seen in the past.
  I readily acknowledge to my colleagues from the Western States that 
their knowledge of the subject is greater than mine. They live in these 
areas. They deal with these problems on a regular basis. I have tried 
to make it clear with this amendment that I am not seeking to end this 
part of the western economy, the use of public lands for grazing 
purposes. I am not one of those.
  Someone in the course of the debate said there are some environmental 
organizations so radical that they would stop grazing on public lands. 
That is not my position. I do not know if it is a position of any of 
the groups that have endorsed this amendment.
  What I am trying to do is find a consistent way of protecting the 
privilege given to private people to use public lands for grazing while 
still protecting the value of those public lands.
  There are several things that have been said during the debate which 
just baffle me. I want to at least express myself on those and invite 
my colleagues during the course of my comments to perhaps ask a 
question or make a comment if they care to.
  The first is the argument that unless a rancher can go to a bank and 
say to the bank, I have the right to graze on this land for at least 3 
years or more, that rancher cannot secure a loan for his operation. We 
have heard this repeatedly. My amendment would extend these permits for 
2 years.
  Critics of the amendment have stood up and said that is not enough; 
no rancher can secure the money for his ranching operation with only 2 
years of certainty. Yet, isn't it odd, as we listen to the debate, that 
those on the other side have conceded that many of these ranchers are 
dealing with 10-year permits which do expire. So these ranchers have 
faced this time and again. There has always been the second to the last 
year and the last year of the permit when they had to finance their 
operations. This is nothing new. What we are saying is give them 2 
years with certainty.
  We have also heard it said that the Bureau of Land Management could 
step in under extraordinary circumstances and amend the terms and 
conditions of the permits. One of the suggestions was to reduce the 
number of animal units or cattle that could be grazing on a certain 
piece of land because of environmental concerns. I hear in that 
suggestion that the terms and conditions of these permits can also be 
changed unilaterally during the course of the permit and that these 
ranchers continue to do business, continue to secure loans.
  Those who argue on the other side against my amendment, saying we 
need drop-dead certainty of 3 years or more or we cannot do business, 
really, I think, have in the course of their own debate put a mockery 
on the table when it comes to that argument. We know these permits 
expire, and we know they expire in short order, 1 or 2 years to go, and 
these ranchers stay in business, as they should.
  I also suggest someone has said: We are not about the business of 
putting pressure on the BLM to do their job. I disagree. I believe it 
is our responsibility as Senators entrusted with these assets of the 
Nation, these public lands, to say to the Bureau of Land Management: 
You have a job to do here as well, not just to give a permit to a 
rancher but to make certain that permit is consistent with protecting 
public lands, and if you do not do that, we are going to be on your 
case, we are going to put the pressure on you.
  Let me step back for a second and tell my colleagues what I think the 
real concern is. I think there are many who hope the BLM will not do 
their job. They would just as soon renew the permits, the terms and 
conditions, indefinitely and not take into consideration these 
environmental concerns. That may be their point of view; it is not one 
I share.
  What I try to achieve by this amendment in a 2-year extension is to 
say to the BLM: Get your job done, too; protect the ranchers for 2 
years, but get your job done, too, to make sure that permit is 
consistent with the environmental laws of the land. I do not think that 
is wrong.
  Let me also add, the Senator from New Mexico has read letters into 
the Record of ranchers of humble means who write to his office 
concerned about their future. I have farmers in similar circumstances. 
I know that type of plaintive letter. I receive them in my office, and 
I have sympathy for men and women working hard for a living who ask 
those of us in Washington: Don't make anything more difficult; try to 
help us if you can.
  Remember last year when we addressed this problem what our solution 
was? A 1-year extension. The Durbin amendment is a 2-year extension. I 
do not think this is hard-hearted or heartless on my part. In fact, it 
is an effort to offer twice as much in terms of certainty as was 
offered by this Congress last year. So say to the BLM at the same time, 
do your job and renew these permits in the right way.
  For those who argue that I just do not understand it, I am not 
sympathetic, I do not have sufficient compassion for the situation, I 
suggest that last year a 1-year extension was considered sensible, 
reasonable, and compassionate. Now a 2-year extension is not. I do not 
follow that logic, that reasoning on the other side.
  The final point I will make is this: My concern is that in this 
debate the environmental issue is an afterthought, it is secondary. 
There are many who are determined to renew permits for ranchers to 
continue to use public lands and care not when or if BLM meets its 
responsibility. I do not agree with that point of view. I think both 
sides have to be taken into consideration. There has to be a balance, 
as offered by this amendment.
  For those who argue the existing language which Senator Domenici put 
in the bill preserves this environmental protection, I tell them that 
virtually every major environmental group in

[[Page 21015]]

America endorses the Durbin amendment because they understand that it 
puts in place a mechanism which not only gives the ranchers a new 
permit and extends for 2 years those that are expiring but says to the 
BLM: Do your job, too; you have a responsibility of stewardship as 
well.
  That is why the environmental groups support this amendment. That is 
why those who vote to table this amendment are basically saying: We 
believe the needs and requirements of the ranchers are paramount to the 
needs and requirements of the American people in the future of their 
public lands. I disagree with that, and I hope those on both sides of 
the aisle will take a close look at it when it comes up for this vote.
  I conclude by saying this amendment strikes a balance which is 
reasonable, which acknowledges that private individuals and their 
families and businesses can continue to use public land for grazing and 
can do it for 2 years if their permit is expiring but says at the same 
time to the BLM: Do your job; make certain that you supervise those 
lands in a way that we can say to future generations, those lands will 
be intact long after we have come and gone so the American people will 
realize we met our obligation of stewardship of their natural assets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have 9 seconds left, and I yield back all 
9 seconds. I believe that will bring us to the vote, if the Senator 
from Illinois yields back his time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, with more than 5,000 Federal grazing permits 
scheduled to expire in FY 1999, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, is 
hard pressed to meet its September 30 deadline before hundreds of 
American ranchers are forced to shut down business and move off the 
land. This could result in local economies suffering dramatically for 
the BLM's inability to keep up with bureaucratic regulations.
  The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has included language 
in this bill that would allow the BLM to complete its permit renewal 
process without forcing ranchers out of business.
  It is important to note, that, in spite of misconceptions put forward 
by the other side:
  1. The BLM must still comply with all Federal environmental laws and 
the BLM must still complete all of its environmental reviews. The cost 
of delays, however, will be borne by the agency and not by individual 
ranchers who have no control over the completion of the environmental 
reviews.
  2. The current language does not dictate any new terms or conditions. 
After the BLM completes its final reviews the BLM still has the 
authority to update the terms and conditions of all permits.
  3. The BLM still holds the authority to terminate grazing permits for 
unauthorized use or noncompliance.
  The goals of environmental protection and economic stability are not 
mutually exclusive. Please help keep western livestock producers on the 
land while protecting the financial future of family ranches and 
Western economies.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the existing language in 
Section 117 of the bill, and oppose this and any amendment that may 
adversely impact the delicate balance of sound livestock production, 
and the sustainability of western landscapes for wildlife habitat and 
other recreational opportunities.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 25 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will use 25 seconds of it only to clarify one point 
that has been raised; that is, whether or not I used the word ``may'' 
in contravention to existing law. We object. And the language we have 
in the bill is consistent with the language which was passed last year 
by those who wanted a 1-year extension. It is consistent with the 
language in the House as well. So we have not changed any of the 
language in the bill in that regard.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I have 2 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I am reading off a type-written 
amendment. If you say it is ``shall,'' I withdraw that part.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1591. The yeas and nays have been previously 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska 
(Mr. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chafee
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Roberts
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THOMAS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as manager I believe that is all of the 
business on the Interior appropriations bill that can be completed 
during today's session of the Senate. We are very close on two omnibus 
amendments, but we still have in addition to the debate on the 
Hutchison amendment and a cloture vote on that amendment on Monday 
several other--perhaps three or four--amendments that will eventually 
require rollcall votes.
  I regret that we haven't been able to go further today or to complete 
action on any of them. On the other hand, I think during the last 
literally 24 hours of the clock we have accomplished a great deal in 
connection with this bill. I hope that can be completed by the end of 
this Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________