LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995 U.S. SENATE, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT, Washington, DC. in room The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, Senator CRAIG. The Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management will be in order. We are here today to hear testimony on the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995, S. 852. I would have preferred not to legislate on this issue. And I suspect there are many in the room who would agree with that. But this administration has chosen to pursue a course of regulatory action that in many respects could destroy Western rural communities, family businesses and operations that have been in existence for decades and substantially cripple public land grazing as we know it. S. 852 would assure that standards and guidelines for range health were developed at the field level rather than as national standards and guides as proposed by this administration. I must also say that Rangeland Reform 1994 was an inside-theBeltway creation. S. 852 is an outside-the-Beltway, direct-involved type of creation with the industries and other interest groups all having a substantial interest in the management of our public lands. Our bill addresses grazing fees with a simple and easily-understood formula that would assure a fair and equitable fee would be paid to the Federal Government. Public involvement would be assured. It would happen at the resource plan level, however, and would not require that an EIS be done on every range permit and allotment when a renewal comes up. Our bill would require that each grazing area would be covered by a Resource Advisory Council that would be made up of people who understand local concerns and local conditions rather than people who are only interested in the confounding of good management of our public lands. (1) Finally, our bill clearly states that no water rights can be acquired, perfected, administered or transferred in connection with livestock grazing except in accordance with State law. It also clearly states that this legislation creates no Federal reserve water right. This legislation also brings in the national grasslands under the management of this legislation, this approach out from under the U.S. Forest Service. And with those comments, we think it is a simple and direct approach toward solving problems that have plagued us in the management of our public land grazing for a good number of years. With that in mind, let me turn to Chairman Frank Murkowski. Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. And you might wonder why I am here, not having necessarily a dog in his fight. On the other hand, it is hard to stay away from a tiff. But let me first congratulate you for holding the hearing, as well as you, Senator Domenici, and the other sponsors of this bill, S. 852, for your leadership and your willingness to tackle what is certainly a controversial and difficult issue. As I indicated in my remarks, grazing does not have the same significance in my State of Alaska. I do not know whether you folks that breed cattle have been able to breed a strain that will withstand our mosquitoes. But in any event, with the exception of some reindeer grazing on BLM lands under the regulations specific to Alaska, which, curiously enough, limits the ownership of reindeer to natives onlynon-natives cannot own reindeer in Alaska, nor put reindeer on public lands. We have some cattle grazing on Fish and Wildlife Service lands on Kodiak. But it is-but I am very sensitive, Mr. Chairman, to the traditions of the West, the history, the heritage. And I know many of my colleagues in the full committee represent constituents that are fourth and fifth generation ranchers and know the importance of having access to grazing. I appreciate the importance of that as it contributes to the West. And that is why I wanted to attend the hearing today and offer my assistance in moving this legislation which I am prepared to do. Now, when Secretary Babbitt proposed his grazing regulations last year, I expressed concern that the regulations could have a negative impact on the financial institutions of West. Being a banker by profession, I believed then as I do now that the regulations offer simply too many opportunities for grazing permittees to be denied renewal. And this would lead to uncertainty for permittees and lending institutions that loan their money based on the long-term tenure on the public lands; in other words, the assignability of those leases. I believe the legislation before us would add some of the muchneeded stability and certainty to the grazing program so that the ranchers and their families can make a decent living and get financial support that good business decisions mandate. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation will signal the end of the false criticism that grazing is another public lands "rip-off." I do not believe it is. And I think S. 852 makes significant strides in taking that claim away from grazing opponents. I also do not believe it is fair to compare fees for grazing on public lands with fees charged on nearby private lands. On public lands, the rancher provides the improvements at his expense. On private lands, the higher fee reflects improvements provided by the landowner-it is kind of like renting a furnished apartment vis-a-vis an unfurnished apartment. I believe the bill's grazing fee formula will bring a fair return to the United States for grazing on public lands by putting into law a simple formula based on the gross value of livestock production. I also believe the bill brings sense of understanding, if you will, or hopefully it will, to the NEPA process by requiring that grazing activities by conducted according to land use plans prepared under the Act and not by requiring NEPA review for each individual management decision or permit renewal. We heard testimony from Chief Thomas. I am pleased to see him here this morning. He had asked to shift some $25 million in his discretionary funds into grazing operations, a large portion of which, I understand, would go necessarily for NEPA review of grazing permits and leases. Some estimates are that it costs as much as $10,000 to $12,000 for NEPA analysis for each, for each, grazing permit or lease approval-renewal. I do not think this was the intent of NEPA. It is almost, well, ridiculous in a sense. And I am glad to see that the bill exempts lease activities and management actions from further NEPA analysis in addition to the studies done on land use plans. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I commend your efforts and that of your colleagues on what is so important to your particular states. I wish you a good day. Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your interests and your involvement with this issue in allowing us to move it in a timely fashion through this committee. Let me turn now to someone who has been at the forefront of this battle for the last several years and who worked directly with us in the crafting of S. 852, Senator Pete Domenici. Senator. STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank Senator Murkowski, chairman of the full committee, for his genuine interest. There are slightly different public domain problems in your State, Senator, than in ours and West and Southwest and what not. I very much appreciate the understanding you have of the problem and your constant commitment to multiple use as a concept that has not worn out, but rather still finds itself very useful. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Pete. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I have a detailed statement that I want to make a part of the record. And would you do that for me? Senator CRAIG. Without objection. Senator DOMENICI. Now, let me just say first to the committee and to the witnesses, including the three from New Mexico, I find myself not in charge of my own whereabouts these days. So I have had two hearings put upon me and one meeting with the leaders on the budget right after lunch. And I will not be here for the whole presentation. But let me just make a couple of points. I would hope that before we are finished, that somebody will explain for the Congressional Record and for those who are interested the difference between private land that is leased and the public domain that is BLM. There is an enormous difference. First of all, nobody is going to testify that the Bureau of Land Management land in my Stateand I assume in other States, most of them-that as a general rule, that most of that land would not be leased as private leaseholds because its condition is so different than the private land, that you could not get anybody talking about $6, $7, or $8 an animal unit per month for the BLM lands. So we are going to continue throughout this today to hear comparisons that are non-comparisons. Now, my other remark is nobody is going to suggest that the private leasing of land is the same as a permittee's privileges before the BLM. The Chairman said an unfurnished apartment versus a furnished apartment. I came up with that analogy some time ago. And it is very, very simple. If you rent an apartment that is unfurnished and that you do not have to pay the utilities-you have to pay your own utilities, and you have to maintain it and have a-have people maintaining the place, you have a private leasehold. Now, let me go back. The private leasehold is like a furnished apartment. All of the furnishings are there. It is managed and maintained and the utilities are paid. The public lease is a totally unfurnished apartment. What you have is you have a-you have to pay for the management yourself. You have to provide the water yourself. You have to provide all of the things necessary, the fencing, and the maintenance. And they are just not apples and apples. They are absolutely different. And my last remark is I am now hearing that we have robbed the environmental and conservation activities of America. We have taken away from them some very significant rights. And some are even saying we wiped out the Endangered Species law. Now, let me make it very, very clear. The U.S. Government has 9,400 permits. That is my best recapitulation of all of the permits on the public domain, 9,413. There are some who say that each and every renewal of 9,413 permits is a major Federal action and should be subject to NEPA, and you should have an impact statement or assessment on every single one of 9,413 extensions and renewals of permits. Now, frankly, I have tried my very best to read this law and its origins. And it is inconceivable to me that NEPA was intended to apply to each and every permit renewal. Now, I am not suggesting that those who want to apply it should not make their case. But to say we have wiped out NEPA is to assume it is then-it has been operative. And thus far, it has not-there is no law saying NEPA should apply to each permit. Is that not right, Mr. Chairman? Senator CRAIG. Absolutely. Senator DOMENICI. So what we are saying here: Do an environmental impact assessment on the land use plan for the forest, and go through the whole thing. And have your rights and have your arguments. But as to each leasehold we are merely saying: NEPA does not fit. NEPA was not intended. And we clarify this and say it does not apply on each permit. Now, I am willing to take this argument anywhere anybody wants to take it. To assume that 9,413 permits across Americaand, remember, NEPA says there has to be a major Federal action. That is the those are the words in quotes, "a major Federal ac..tion." I just do not believe that you can sell the idea that each renewal is a major Federal action. So we have said it is not, and it was never intended to be. And yet, NEPA will apply to the forest. There are many other issues. But let me just say, if one starts, that we must get a fee equivalent to private land somewhere, you will never join with us in this bill, because it is impossible and, we feel, not very relevant. And secondly, if you want to apply a NEPA to every renewal, an environmental impact statement, then you are never going to agree with the majority of this committee and those who wrote this bill because we do not think that is fair to the permittees, nor necessary for the United States. With that, I look forward to the testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you because you and your staff helped immeasurably in drafting this piece of legislation. I am very-I feel very good about the fact that we now have 14 Senators on board-excuse me-16 Senators; 14 Democrat-14 Republicans and 2 Democrats. I think we will have more before we finish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support of the S. 852, the Livestock Grazing Act (LGA) of 1995, and thank you for the expediency in holding this hearing. As you well know, Secretary Babbitt's final rule, "Rangeland Reform '94", will soon become effective. As a matter of fact, there are only sixty-one days left in the Interior Department's self-imposed moratorium. If you do not include weekends, and possible times of recess, the Congress has less than thirty days to complete action on S. 852 and thus stop Rangeland Reform '94. Obviously, time is of the essence and I look forward to moving this legislation through the Senate and to the President. LGA, Mr. Chairman, is stability. Stability for the ranchers across the West; stability for the federal lands; and stability for the rural western economy. While we here |