Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not delay the Senate. I know that Members would like to get back to the Terrorism Prevention Act. I would like the record to reflect that I did vote against the establishment of the special committee to investigate Whitewater. I think it was not a proper function for the Senate this election year. I certainly would like the Record to reflect had there been a rollcall vote on this resolution extending the jurisdiction of that special committee, I would also vote against this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Nation lost a great leader Tuesday with the death of David Packard. He was the first and greatest of the acquisition reformers in the top reaches of the Pentagon. As Deputy Secretary of Defense in the first Nixon administration, he fostered competition in a wide range of programs, including the Air Force fighter program that produced the F-16 and F-18. He helped found the Defense Systems Management College at Fort Belvoir in order to bring modern management techniques to the defense acquisition system. And throughout the almost quarter century since he stepped down as Deputy Secretary of Defense, he continued in an advisory capacity to the most senior reaches of Government to argue for the need for change in the way the Pentagon develops and buys weapon systems. It is perhaps fitting that under Secretary Bill Perry's leadership, the reforms which Mr. Packard advocated for so long are now taking firm root throughout the military services. Dr. Perry and all the reformers with whom I have had the pleasure of working during my 13 years service in the Senate point to David Packard as the first to show the way toward a more rational acquisition system. Mr. President, I am grateful that I was able to work with David Packard over the last decade on several important issues. He was at an age when most people stop work and take up retirement. But not David Packard. He would answer the call of public service whenever it sounded. He suffered from a bad back, and taking transcontinental plane flights forced him to endure real pain to serve his country, but serve he did. David Packard always was focused on the art of the possible. He knew that change was incremental and he would take what progress he could make today to build for another day. I first met him in 1985. He came to me, a Democrat then in the minority here in the Senate, because I had indicated an interest in a report he had written in 1983 for the White House Science Council. Its topic was how to improve the Federal Government-operated research laboratories. He had called for significant changes in personnel policy, in acquisition of laboratory equipment, and in improving laboratory infrastructure. The most important change he and his panel had advocated was to allow all the laboratories to go to a more flexible personnel system along the lines of the system then in place at the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, CA. Mr. Packard had been frustrated by the slow pace of the Reagan administration in considering his panel's proposals. He wanted to jumpstart congressional consideration with my help and that of then Congressman Don Fuqua, another Democrat. Unfortunately, all we were able to win in the short run was the adoption of a flexible personnel system at the National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As predicted, that personnel system has worked very well and helped NIST maintain its leadership in a broad range of technologies. As usual, David Packard was ahead of his time. What he recommended more than a decade ago on lab personnel reform is now part of the effort to reinvent the Pentagon's laboratories. Mr. President, I will miss David Packard's wisdom and guidance, and so will many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. There's a passage from T. E. Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which reads: All men dream, but not equally. Some dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, and wake in the day to find it is vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men. For they act their dream with open eyes to make it possible. David Packard was a dreamer of the day who deserves to be remembered by a grateful Nation for the dreams he made possible. I am glad to have known him.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also understand that my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, will work with me to develop appropriate offsets that will insure that this amendment will not violate the provisions of the Budget Act when the amendment comes before the Senate during this Congress. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment to the debt limit bill that would have rectified an unjust situation in the legislation concerning the Social Security earnings limit increase for retirees. My amendment would have reestablished the linkage between earnings limit increases for retirees and the blind, a linkage that has existed since 1977. Unfortunately the bill we are considering ends that linkage which I believe is unfair and not supported by adequate policy considerations. However, Mr. President, I understand that passage of this amendment would have potentially damaged completion of the debt limit bill, a bill that has too long been delayed by extremist politics, so therefore I do not feel that now is an appropriate time to pursue my amendment. However, Mr. President, it is my understanding that the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Moynihan, has given me his commitment to support my efforts in the Finance Committee and on the floor of the Senate, if necessary, to support an amendment that reestablishes some linkage between the blind and retirees on the next bill reported out of the Finance Committee that amends the Social Security Act. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 6 minutes off the time Senator Kerry has reserved. Mr. President, I also oppose the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995. In my view, it is wrongheaded legislation and, if enacted, it will undermine our national interests. The legislation, in fact, does undermine the President's constitutional mandate to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. By passing a bill such as this, we would be trying to run America's foreign policy out of this Chamber rather than allowing the Executive to conduct the Nation's foreign policy. Among my concerns about this act is the forced consolidation of agencies. By passing the act, we would tell the President that he is required to eliminate at least one foreign affairs agency, either the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the U.S. Information Agency, or the Agency for International Development. When the goal becomes putting the Government out of business and wrecking departments and agencies in some haphazard approach without carefully considering the consequences that a particular agency's termination might have, then something has gone very wrong. Furthermore, the authorization levels that are provided in the bill will force other organizations to retreat further from engagement in world affairs. America needs to pursue its interests vigorously in international affairs and to assure that the interests of American citizens are promoted. Withdrawing from the world will only help to make our citizens victims of emerging problems to which we will be ill-equipped to respond if this bill becomes law. The legislation sets authorization ceilings in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 that are far below the levels necessary to conduct the President's foreign policy and to properly maintain U.S. interests abroad in such areas as overseas posts, foreign affairs agencies, arms control and nonproliferation activities, international organizations and peacekeeping, public diplomacy and sustainable development. In this bill, the Congress is recklessly venturing into an already stressful set of complex problems between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. By amending the Taiwan Relations Act to state that the act supersedes the provisions of the 1982 joint communique between the United States and China, as the bill instructs, we are certain to pour oil on a smoldering flame. Many commentators and scholars argue that this would be seen as a repudiation of a critical and stabilizing element of the longstanding United States policy toward China. This bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the President of Taiwan should be admitted to the United States for a visit this year with all appropriate courtesies. We have already gone down that road once. It seems clear to me that it is foolish, if not dangerous, for us to do so once again. My list of concerns continues in that that bill prohibits any funds from being used to open, expand or operate a diplomatic or consular post in Vietnam unless a number of compliance items are met by Vietnam. I am not going to debate whether those compliance guidelines are important. I believe that they are probably valid things to pursue, but not as a condition to establishing an embassy or getting it operating. This is cold war legislation that does not appear to recognize that the cold war is over and that the world has moved on. It is not appropriate for this Chamber to micromanage the President's foreign affairs initiatives in this manner. On other fronts, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act compels the United States to downgrade its participation in the United Nations, significantly restricts our country's ability to coordinate peacekeeping efforts and intelligence activities, when global stability issues are at stake. Our role in the United Nations is something that certainly deserves national discussion and debate, but this bill presupposes the answer to that discussion. Mr. President, this act should be rejected. It clearly does not further the best interests of the American public. I urge my colleagues to vote against its passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns with the current language of the Utah wilderness bill. First of all, I am opposed to this controversial bill being attached to a large group of largely noncontroversial bills that are very important. I do support passage of a Utah wilderness bill. However, I cannot support this bill. This bill largely precludes future designations of BLM wilderness in Utah; substantially alters the definition of wilderness; and may result in an unfair land exchange value between the United States and the State of Utah. I am opposed to the hard release language the bill contains. If this bill were to become law, it would be the first of over 100 wilderness laws to contain hard release language. I agree that lands not included in this bill should generally be released to standard multiple use provisions, but I do not agree that BLM should be precluded from ever considering future wilderness designations on any of the other 20 million acres of public land in Utah. I believe the soft release language that the Bush administration supported is the appropriate route. Even if these issues were resolved, I still have grave concerns stemming from the unique management and land exchange provisions. If this Utah wilderness bill were to become law, the Nation would effectively have two wilderness systems, Utah and the rest of the Nation. It would in effect result in a brand of wilderness that would be so different, that current BLM regulations, which are appropriate for all other BLM wilderness areas, would have to be substantially altered just to accommodate the unique provisions of this bill. Most startling is the fact that it appears that the Secretary of the Interior would in Utah have less authority to control access in and around wilderness areas than nonwilderness areas. I repeat, it appears the Secretary would have less authority to control access in and around wilderness areas than nonwilderness areas. How can this be wilderness if it is less protected than other multiple-use lands? One small example of nonconformity is the bill's special provisions for facilities within wilderness areas. Section 2003(d) provides: Nothing in this title shall affect the capacity, operation, maintenance, repair, modification or replacement of municipal, agricultural, livestock, or water facilities in existence of the date of the enactment of this Act There is no qualification to this paragraph. Conceivably, projects could be expanded without any regard to impacts to wilderness values. This is only one small example of the special provisions included in the language of this bill. In the past, wilderness laws have generally deferred to the access provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. This practice provides a measure of consistency throughout the wilderness system. The proponents of this Utah wilderness bill have strayed so far from the vision of the original framers of the Wilderness Act that an althernative type of wilderness would, in effect, be established. I do not support this establishment of an alternative version of wilderness. Even if this bill did not contain these nonconforming provisions, I would still have concerns with the land exchange provisions that would provide a unique means to establish the value of Federal lands to be exchanged to the State of Utah. These provisions would give a significant advantage to the State of Utah that no other State has enjoyed in its wilderness bills. I support passage of a Utah wilderness bill. However, I believe the bill must not preclude future designations of wilderness; substantially alter the definition of wilderness; nor result in unfair exchange values between the United States and the State of Utah.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I respond that if we could pick up the Senator's vote for our substitute, we clearly would be willing to consider that. But I should say that our language is, in my mind, very clear and clearer than the language in the underlying bill. So I suggest that the Senator accept our language rather than we accept his.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Obviously, differences of opinion are what makes for horse races, Mr. President, and the Senator from Idaho can believe what he will about what the language provides. I can tell him that my intent was and our intent was in drafting this language to make it crystal clear that with regard to existing water rights, with regard to new water rights, with regard to Federal reserved water rights, we were not changing the law. And that is what we say.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I indicated that we are trying to check to see when he wants to speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I know that Senator Daschle wanted to speak for a very short period, and I know that Senator Reid asked to be allowed to speak for up to 45 minutes. Senator Reid had a meeting at 3, and he will get here as quickly as he can. We just sent word to see if Senator Daschle is able to speak now. Those are the only two that I am aware of that want to speak. There may be others.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a substitute amendment I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, Senator Reid, Senator Bryan, and Senator Daschle. I know there will be at least three other Senators who wish to speak in favor of this substitute. Mr. President, there are some basic differences between the bill as proposed, Senate bill 1459, and the substitute that I have just sent to the desk and which we are going to vote on here at some point. Senate bill 1459 deals with BLM land and Forest Service land. Let me just say generally what I believe it does in regard to each of those. On BLM land, it repeals all the existing regulations the Department of the Interior has in place with regard to grazing on BLM land. It would also put in statutory form a significant amount of the policy that has previously been handled by regulation in the Department of the Interior with regard to BLM land, grazing on BLM land. Then it states that with regard to any subject that is not covered by this new statute, Senate bill 1459, it would reinstate the old regulations which were developed during James Watts' administration in the early 1980's and which have been in place since that time. So that is what it does on BLM land. On Forest Service land, it changes the statutory law that the Forest Service has operated under for grazing in our national forests for at least 60 years. It changes it in a way that, in my view at least, encourages more use of the national forest for grazing rather than less use of the national forest for grazing. That is the underlying bill, Senate bill 1459. The substitute I and my colleagues have offered here has a very different purpose. Its purpose is to identify the portions of the new BLM regulations that have raised legitimate concerns among people who are affected by them, and it proposes that we legislate new statutory policy in those areas. The goal of the amendment is to ensure that the public maintains adequate input into the process of policymaking on our public lands, ensure that land managers have adequate authority to maintain the health of our public lands and, of course, maintain the use of our public lands for all of our citizens. The substitute that I want to address here works to accomplish these goals. I believe it will provide real stability for permittees and lessees as well. In some detail, I would like to describe, first, what the substitute does and then some of the things that it clearly does not do. First of all, what the substitute does. I have a chart here, Mr. President, that tries to identify the key policy changes contained in this substitute and the issues we have tried to address. As I said before, what we have tried to do is listen to the concerns of people who are permittees and lessees, listen to the concerns of others who have need to use the land or desire to use the public land, and put in statute those things we believe need to be statutorily provided for because they are not adequately covered by existing regulations. We otherwise leave in place the existing regulations on the BLM land, and, of course, we do not apply most of this bill--all but three provisions of this bill do not apply to the Forest Service. We allow the Forest Service to continue to administer the lands under the existing law that they have in place. The first thing we have changed is that we provided that ``interested publics,'' as described in the existing regulations of the Department of the Interior, are replaced by a definition of ``affected interests.'' Now, what does this mean? One of the complaints we heard from ranchers about these new Department of the Interior regulations was that those regulations expanded the group of people who were entitled to be consulted or notified about grazing decisions. The old regulations provided that, in order to be notified, you had to be a so-called affected interest, as determined by the Bureau of Land Management. Under the new regulations, anyone who is part of the interested public--that is the phrase that is used in the new regulations; the ``interested public''--anyone who is part of the interested public has a right to be notified. In our view, this was a legitimate concern by ranchers. They did not believe that anybody who just had an interest should be given equal standing to be notified. What we have done in this substitute is return to the old language in the old regulation instead of the broader definition of an ``interested public.'' We believe that that is an appropriate change in the law that responds to a legitimate concern that was raised and brought to our attention. The second item here is regarding NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. A concern was raised, again by permittees and lessees, that the application of NEPA had become so pervasive by the land management agencies that many of the actions and decisions which the permittees and, in fact, the agencies considered to be fairly routine and not posing any threat to the environment, they were being required to go through long procedures under NEPA, and it was slowing down the process of getting a response from the agencies. Let me point out that this is not something you can blame on Secretary Babbitt. There is a lot of criticism of Secretary Babbitt from many corners here in this debate. But he cannot be blamed for this. Neither can Dan Glickman, our Secretary of Agriculture. This requirement that applies NEPA to all of these different activities applied before those two individuals ever came into office. It is not the result of regulations that have been adopted; it is the result of the law that we in the Congress passed. The question is, how do we deal with the problem? Senate bill 1459 tries to deal with the problem of NEPA application to all of these routine activities by essentially saying that NEPA only applies in the preparation of a land use plan and saying that, after that, any action or decision related to grazing is not covered by NEPA and therefore NEPA does not have to be complied with with regard to those other items. In our view, that exemption is too broad. We propose a much more limited exception for NEPA. We say that renewal and transfer of grazing permits, and only the renewal and transfer of grazing permits or leases, can be done without complying with NEPA; that that can only happen where it is determined by the Secretary that the renewal or transfer will not involve significant changes in management practice or use and that significant environmental damage is not occurring or imminent. But where he can determine there is no significant change in management practice or use and no significant damage is imminent, then clearly he can go ahead and renew a lease or transfer a lease or a permit without complying with NEPA. We have done one other thing, Mr. President, with regard to NEPA. That is, we have included in the substitute a provision that directs both the head of the BLM and the head of the Forest Service to prepare a list of NEPA so-called categorical exclusions for nonsignificant grazing activities. The effect of having categorical exclusions for nonsignificant grazing activities will be to expedite the process. This is not a new loophole or a change in NEPA; it is a clear congressional direction that they should, under NEPA as it now exists, go ahead and use these categorical exclusions. In our view, this is a much more limited and targeted way to deal with the problem of routine concerns that are not involving significant damage to the environment. It addresses the specific problem. It does not blow a major hole in the application of NEPA to everything that relates to grazing except that at the land-use-plan level. The next item I want to mention is that in our substitute we reinstate grazing advisory boards. Again, Mr. President, this is a change in the existing regulations. The new regulations that were adopted this last year eliminated grazing advisory boards. They became, essentially, defunct. They had not been appointed, and the Secretary did not reestablish those in the new regulations. We have done what I believe the underlying bill does, and that is to provide for the reestablishment of these grazing advisory boards. In my view, it is appropriate to do so because they would provide a significant forum that ranchers, permittees, and lessees could use to have input. Half of the membership is to be made up of permittees and lessees, and half to be made up of other local individuals chosen by the Secretary. Another change that we have adopted in this substitute, another provision, is that we do adopt the grazing fee formula that is in S. 1459, but we have put in a stabilizing provision. We have put in a minimum fee of $1.50 per animal unit month. This would involve some slight increase from $1.35, which is what the formula now results in, to $1.50 per month. Then the fee would go ahead and be whatever fee was higher than that, if the new fee that Senator Domenici devised would call for that. Quite frankly, I do not know if that is the exact right level of the fee. I do not think that the main issue here is how much money can be obtained from people for use of this land. I think that is a very secondary issue. The main issue here is what laws do we put in place to preserve the health of the rangeland. The next provision deals with indirect control. The indirect control provision is removed from the affiliate provisions. This is a fairly arcane item. The concern here is that looking at renewals, permittees were being held accountable for actions of people who were not under their control. That was the concern that was brought to us. To the extent that problem exists, we have corrected it in our substitute. The new regulations that are in place can look at actions of persons under the indirect control of the permittee. Our substitute bill makes it clear that the BLM could only consider the actions of the permittee and persons under that permittee's direct control in deciding whether or not to renew that lease or that permit. That is a very small item that was called to our attention and seemed legitimate. The next item is the surcharge exemption. In cases where subleasing is occurring, the new regulations provide an exemption from any surcharge only for sons and daughters of the permittee or the lessee. We heard the complaint from permittees and lessees that that was too narrow a provision, that there should be an exemption from surcharges for other immediate family members, as well. So we have put a provision in saying that the surcharge exemption should be expanded to include a spouse, a child, or a grandchild. Again, we have proposed a specific solution to a specific concern that was drawn to our attention or brought to our attention. The next item on our list is for fallback standards and guidelines. The substitute that we are proposing does not require any minimum national standard or guideline. Instead, the Secretary, in consultation with the resource advisory councils, the grazing advisory boards, appropriate State and local government and educational institutions, and after providing an opportunity for public participation, will establish statewide or regional standards and guidelines. We believe that is more acceptable to many of the people involved. That seemed like a reasonable resolution of that problem from our perspective. The final item I have is the resource advisory councils and the grazing advisory boards are to be involved in developing criteria and standards for conservation use and temporary nonuse. Our substitute expressly provides for conservation use. That is a major difference between our bill and the underlying bill. The resource advisory councils and grazing advisory boards should be consulted when the Secretary develops criteria and standards. Conservation use can be conducted if the agency approves the use, because it is necessary to promote rangeland resource protection, and the use is consistent with the land use plan. A permittee under our proposal does not need to be engaged in the livestock business to practice conservation use. When I spoke yesterday about the underlying bill and read the letter from the Nature Conservancy where they expressed their concern about this in the underlying bill, the substitute makes it clear that they do not need to pass a test, a threshold test, of being in the livestock business in order to attain a permit and engage in conservation use. Now, what we have done is to leave the decision to the land management agency as to whether or not to permit or to allow a permit to be transferred to a person who wants to use it for a conservation use. In my view, that discretion is appropriate. It is important this issue is resolved both for the permittees and the lessees who reside in our States. The underlying bill authorizes coordinated resource management agreements which could be, presumably, used for conservation purposes. It appears that under the underlying bill, a rancher could agree to enter into a conservation agreement with other groups, but those groups--groups such as the Nature Conservancy--cannot by themselves hold a permit and enter into a conservation use. We try to correct that problem. Mr. President, this is a fairly good description or a fairly complete description of what is in our bill and a summary of the problems that were brought to our attention as a result of the new regulations of the Department of the Interior. We did solicit concerns from permittees and lessees and others who had problems. With the exception of these provisions, we do allow those regulations to remain in place. We had several speeches on the floor yesterday about how both the Department of the Interior through BLM and the Department of Agriculture through the Forest Service were, in the view of some, trying to run the ranchers off the land; they were trying to end this way of life that the cowboy has had historically in the West. I have heard those speeches, Mr. President. I have heard them now for several years. I just need to say for all my colleagues to hear that I do not think that reflects the reality that I see in my home State. I do not dispute that there have been instances where one or both of those agencies have overstepped, or where permittees and lessees have been unfairly treated, but I also do not dispute that there are some provisions in the existing regulations of the Department of Interior that should be changed. We have tried to change those in this proposed substitute. I want all of my colleagues to know that what we are trying to do in the substitute is to correct specific problems that have been pointed out to us. We are not trying to create new problems. It is a very difficult balance that is required between those who graze on the land and those who want to use the land for other purposes. I believe the agencies themselves have been trying to find that balance, sometimes ineffectively, but they have been trying to. I believe Senate bill 1459 will bring imbalance to this relationship. For that reason, I do not support it. I think our substitute is preferable. I will briefly recite the concerns I have with S. 1459 later in the debate, Mr. President. I see I have a colleague here from North Dakota anxious to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also ask unanimous consent that Philip Kosmacki, who is a fellow in Senator Wellstone's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate and voting on S. 1459.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just summarize my response on a few of these areas, and then I think we will have concluded the debate as far as I am aware on this substitute amendment. I wanted to talk briefly about three issues. First, the NEPA issue that was raised by several of my colleagues, and the difference between our bill and the underlying Senate bill 1459 on NEPA application; second, the opportunity to protest, which Senator Domenici was just referring to; then the question that was raised earlier in the debate about why our own substitute did not have a specific provision reserving the right of people to hunt and fish or otherwise use the public lands. First on NEPA, let me state my understanding of NEPA. The statement I think was made earlier by my colleague that NEPA today is not applied or used in the management of the BLM lands. My understanding is very different, Mr. President. My understanding is the National Environmental Policy Act sets up a procedure which applies to all of the Federal land management agencies and essentially says that when you take an action or make a decision, you need to determine by virtue of the National Environmental Policy Act whether there is an impact, a major Federal impact on the environment. You can do it one of three ways. If you are fairly confident that there is no impact on the environment to speak of, and it is clear that what you are doing is consistent with decisions you have otherwise made, you can make an administrative determination, and that is in compliance with NEPA, but you are complying with NEPA, as I understand it, by making an administrative determination that nothing more is required. If you think possibly a more serious impact on the environment might be involved you can, instead, make an environmental assessment, and only once you have made an environmental assessment and determined that there will be a significant impact on the environment are you required to do a full-blown environmental impact statement. Now, whether you do an administrative determination or whether you do an environmental assessment or whether you do the full-blown environmental impact statement, the BLM in this case is complying with NEPA, so the notion that the BLM is not in compliance with NEPA in the way they presently operate and the way they have historically operated is just wrong. In fact, when you look at the CEQ regulations--not the new regulations that Secretary Babbitt promulgated--in the CEQ regulations, it is made very clear that based on regulation 1501.4, based on the environment assessment, the agency will make its determination on whether to prepare an environmental impact statement. My understanding is that the BLM did comply with that. In most cases they determine that they should do an environmental assessment before renewing leases. We are trying to address that in our substitute, as I have explained here, and I think everybody concedes we are saying that NEPA should not apply when you are just renewing a lease, when you are just renewing a permit, unless there is some evidence that there is a change in the management or some evidence that there is danger to the land involved or to the environment. That is the first point on NEPA. On the opportunity to protest, under our bill, under this proposed substitute we are offering, the department will determine whether or not a particular group or person is an affected interest. Not everybody who writes in or contacts the department is necessarily an affected interest. If a third-grade class in Hartford, CT, wants to write and they say they are an affected interest on the land in a ranch in New Mexico, it is very doubtful that any Secretary would determine that they were an affected interest under the language of our substitute. We have made it clear that the Secretary is given discretion as to look at whether or not a group is, in fact, affected. If they are affected, we provide they have an opportunity to protest. Now, the CRS report, which I know some are critical of, let me state I think they make a very good point here. They say a protest is similar to a predecisional appeal that gives the public an opportunity to object to a proposal, gives the agency an opportunity to change or modify its course before committing itself to a final course of action. That is all we are saying. We are not saying that someone should have legal rights as such, except to state their position and do so at a stage in the process before a final decision is made. That is not permitted under the underlying bill. It is permitted in our substitute. I think, clearly, it should be permitted. Again, it should be permitted for those who are determined to be affected interests--not for the so-called interested public, which is what the current Department of Interior regulations refer to. We have corrected that. We agree that is an overly broad category, the interested public. So we have said in the case of an affected interest, if you are determined to be an affected interest you should have a right to protest before they finalize the decision. The other area I wanted to particularly point out, I know my colleague had said that someone could raise an objection to our bill on the grounds that we did not specify that hunting and grazing are, in fact, permitted. Well, we did not. I point out that the reason we did not is that in our bill we made it very clear that our legislation is not an amendment to all of the different statutes that are being amended in the underlying legislation. The underlying legislation, by its very language, section 102, page 5, says, The Act applies to the Taylor Grazing Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act, Public Range Improvement Act, Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act, the National Forest Management Act. Since they are saying that all of those acts are modified or changed to the extent necessary by this, they then have to come back later in that same section 102, and say nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the Federal language from being used for hunting, fishing, recreation, watershed management, et cetera. We did not have that same proviso in there because we are not affecting those acts. Nothing in our bill affects those earlier acts. We are proposing very limited statutes which have the effect of correcting regulatory provisions that we had concerns about. That is a basic reason why we did not repeat that same provision that the Senator from New Mexico has in his earlier bill. I gather he wants to speak in response to that.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond to the questions because I think what has been raised is a classic red herring. In the West, many more people have been killed for water than for infidelity to their spouse, and I think this is obviously a hot button issue. We have provided as explicitly and as clearly as we can understand the English language that valid existing water rights are protected. We say on page 11, line 14, ``Valid Existing Water Rights.'' That is the title of the sentence, or the section. It says, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting valid existing water rights.'' Period. I do not know how to make it any clearer than that. In the previous sentence, we say, ``No Federal reserved water rights.'' We say, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed as creating an express or implied reservation of water rights in the United States.'' So we have covered the exact concern that the Senator from Idaho is raising. In the previous sentence we say: New water rights shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, or administered in connection with livestock grazing on public lands in accordance with State law. That is appropriate. Clearly that is what we intended the law to be. And we have covered valid existing rights in section (c) of that same section. I do not understand what the issue can be. If there is a more plain-English way to say that valid existing water rights are not affected than to say ``nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting valid existing water rights,'' I would like to hear it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what I said before was that we have the section, section 112, broken down into three subsections. The first section deals with new water rights. The second section deals with Federal reserved water rights. The third section deals with existing water rights. So we have covered all three. I do not understand what the problem is. We have covered existing water rights in section (c). We have covered new water rights in section (a). We have covered Federal reserved water rights in section (b). What is the problem?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, Mr. President, I think the Senator from Idaho is pointing out a problem that does not exist. I think we have made it very clear that with regard to existing water rights, with regard to new water rights, with regard to Federal reserved water rights, there is nothing in this bill and there is nothing intended in this bill that is to change the law with regard to it. That is exactly what we have said. That is exactly what we mean. There is no hole for the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to jump into. There is no ambiguity here that needs an interpretation. Nobody in the committee raised this issue. The Senator chairs the appropriate subcommittee. This was not raised. This language has remained unchanged through the markup. Nobody has raised this concern until right now on the Senate floor. I do not think it is a valid concern. That is my response.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond that there are a great many groups and individuals around the country very concerned about preserving hunting and fishing rights. To my knowledge, none of them have raised concerns about whether our legislation impinges upon those or our proposed substitute impinges upon those rights, or fails to adequately protect those rights. I think those concerns have been raised about the underlying bill. Senate bill 1459, not about our substitute. So I think this is a problem which is not real, in my view. Mr. President, I will conclude my comments by just going back to the basic point that I think needs to be understood by our colleagues. In putting together our substitute, which we are getting ready to vote on, we sent a letter to my colleague, Senator Domenici, in September of last year. It was signed by myself, Senators Dorgan, Daschle, Bryan, and Reid, all five of us, who have spoken here on this issue. We sent a letter saying that, in our view, the only way we should go forward and develop legislation that would do what needs to be done here is to identify the problems that exist in the new grazing regulations and then legislate corrections to those, legislate solutions to those, correct the specific problems that have been pointed out. Do not go beyond that and create new problems. I believe that we have done that in the substitute. We have tried to strike a balance between those who graze the land, the authority of those who graze the land, and the authority of those who want to use the land for other purposes. I believe that balance is very important to maintain. I fear that the underlying bill gives us an imbalance, which we will be back here trying to correct in future years, if the underlying bill were to become law. With that, I believe we have concluded debate on this. I yield the floor.