Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1561, the State Department Reorganization Act, and of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not need to reiterate for my colleagues the tortuous route that this bill has followed to make it to the floor today; I believe we are all aware of it. Let me just note why I feel this bill is important. This legislation was the first authorization measure to reach the floor of the Senate within budget targets, fulfilling the mandate the American people gave us last November. This bill is a promise kept: money is saved, redundant bureaucracies eliminated, and the ability of our Nation to conduct foreign policy enhanced. We will hear all sorts of arguments against this legislation. Let me just address a few that fall within the jurisdiction of my Subcommittee on East Asia. Several of my Democrat colleagues circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter last week on the China-specific provisions of the conference report. In it, they expressed concern that ``[s]everal provisions in this report are unnecessarily provocative to China and precipitate continuing destabilization of U.S.-Sino relations.'' Let me say here that I am a great supporter of improving relations with the People's Republic of China; I am supportive of the one-China policy. But I have examined the sections with which they were concerned, and find them essentially to be strawman arguments, without impact on our adherence to the one-China policy. Let me go through them one by one. First, they are concerned with section 1601, which declares that the provision of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3301 et seq.) supersede provisions of the United States-China joint communique of August 17, 1992. Frankly, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, I don't share their opposition to this particular provision. The Taiwan Relations Act, which governs our relationship with Taiwan, is a statute and as such is the law of the land. The only thing which could supersede it would be a treaty. The communique, however, is not a treaty; it was never presented to the Senate for its advice and consent. Rather, it is simply an official announcement of the intentions of the respective parties. Consequently, it is not binding on either party, and has no force of law in the United States. Section 1601 is therefore simply a restatement of legal fact. As such, I am at a loss to understand why it would be objectionable to the Chinese, objectionable to my colleagues, or a source of encouragement to pro-independence elements on Taiwan. Second, they fault section 1708 which supports the admission of the President of Taiwan with all appropriate courtesies. Mr. President, while I myself am not a fan of this section, I would note first that the section does not mandate the admission of President Li. Second, I would note that just this week President Lee said we would not seek to make such a visit. Third, they fault section 1606 which would according to them, and I quote, ``impose unnecessary new reporting requirements on the State Department to provide detailed information and political judgments on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong''. I find this the least compelling of their concerns. We regularly require the State Department to make these reports all the time; the Department probably prepares such a report on almost every country in the world save some of the smaller ones. We have a real interest in assuring that the People's Republic of China lives up to their agreements, and such a report would be extremely important that they do so in relation to their promise to protect democracy there after 1997. An annual report would be especially helpful to this body in following developments there. Their next complaint is that section 1603 would change the name of Taiwan's office here from Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office to Taiwan Representative Office. I fail to see how this simple name change can cause so much consternation. Finally, Mr. President, they oppose section 1303, regarding Tibet. I would note, however, that this section simply authorizes the President to appoint a special envoy; it does not require him to do so. If he finds the idea so objectionable, then he does not have to make the appointment.

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the comments. I do not think there is any question that we should understand how important that is to the People's Republic of China. It probably means more to them than it does to us and we need to recognize that. So my colleagues can see that these five sections, taken independently, are of little if any import. Some of my colleagues have said that, while that may be the case, taken together they are alarming. Well, Mr. President, if separately these sections equal zero, then they still equal zero when added together. I take exception to the argument of the Senator from Louisiana that United States-China relations were going along fine until we decided to admit President Li to the United States, and that these sections will simply make matters worse. Frankly, that's a statement I would expect to hear from the Chinese Ambassador here. What about their nuclear transfers to Pakistan? What about their failure to live to the intellectual property rights agreement? What about their pretensions in the Spratly Islands? What about human rights violations? What about their back-sliding regarding Hong Kong? Mr. President, the present state of affairs is hardly the sole fault of the United States. And these give sections are hardly going to cause a precipitous downturn in those relations. As the Chinese say, it takes two hands to clap. So again Mr. President, I rise in support of this proposal. I think it is one of the things that the voters said to us in 1994. They said we need to make some changes in the way the Federal Government operates; that the Government is too big, it spends too much, and that we should find better ways to deliver services, that we should find more efficient ways to use tax dollars. This bill is the way to do that. Mr. President, every other sector of our Government is facing difficult cuts and reorganization; the foreign policy sector should have to bear the same burden as any other. This is not about isolationism, though many Democrats would have the public believe otherwise in a hope to obscure the issue, not about usurping the role of the executive branch, nor is it about a vendetta aimed at a particular set of bureaucrats. I cannot commend Chairman Helms enough on his hard work and persistence on this legislation; I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Ten minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. I was a little surprised that the suggestion was that all of the problems were because President Li came here. There are some problems on the other side, agreements that have not been lived up to. I wonder if the gentleman would agree that that is what this bill is about, is to have agreements with both of these sides and to expect that they be lived up to?

Mr. THOMAS. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. With regard to the discussion that we are having, I wonder if the gentleman would agree that what we are talking about here basically is the bill before us, and some of the discussion has been about several of the components of that bill which I find do not place us on the side of being opposed to the one-China policy, and they do not place us on the side of being particularly supportive of one or the other of these parties, but rather indicate that we expect to stick with the agreements that are made on both sides.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to briefly address two events which transpired in Asia over the weekend, one which bodes well for the continued growth and vitality of democracy in Asia and one which, unfortunately, does not. First, as I'm sure my colleagues are by now aware, despite unprecedented military threats and vituperative media pressure from the People's Republic of China, the people of Taiwan have elected Lee Teng- hui as their President. The election, aside from its practical result, was important for several reasons. First, for the first time in its almost 5,000 year history, China --or, more precisely, a portion thereof--has elected its paramount leader in a free, fair, and open democratic election. With the election, the ideals of human rights and representative democracy--which some in Asia, especially authoritarian regimes, have argued are peculiarly Western inventions with little or no applicability in their region--have taken a dramatic step toward universality. Second, Taiwan's electorate clearly demonstrated to Beijing that its bellicose campaign of threats and intimidation was ill-conceived and ineffectual. Rather than diminishing support for President Lee, as Beijing and the PLA had hoped, the People's Republic of China's recent round of missile tests and live-fire military exercises seems only to have served to solidify his support; President Lee won with some 54 percent of the vote. In other words, the People's Republic of China's plans backfired, much as I and others of my colleagues predicted. I would hope that they come away from the past month having learned that the best course is not one of brazen threats, but open bilateral dialog across the Taiwan Strait. I wish to convey my personal congratulations to the Government and people of Taiwan, and hope to do so in person to President Lee when I travel to the People's Republic of China and then on to Taipei next week. Mr. President, in contrast the second issue I'd like to discuss today is not so encouraging. On Sunday at its second plenary session, China's Hong Kong Preparatory Committee--the body charged by Beijing with overseeing the transition of the British Colony to a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China in 1997--voted by a margin of 148 to 1 to scrap the elected Legislative Council and install in its place an appointed body. Members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council, or Legco, have traditionally been elected not by universal suffrage but by a narrow group of functional constituencies. In other words, the trade unions had a certain number of votes, the civil service had a certain number of votes, lawyers had a certain number of votes, et cetera. Last year, in a move to increase the representation of the average citizen on the Council, a number of changes were made by the colonial government in the way elections are conducted. Beijing objected to the changes in the election process, ostensibly because they were made unilaterally by the British; of course, Beijing overlooked the fact that they themselves had refused to seriously negotiate on the issue. However, most observers--correctly I believe-- felt that the real reason for Beijing's opposition was that the changes made the Legco even more democratic, a status that they would then be forced to acquiesce to after 1997. The reason that increased democracy is a problem for the People's Republic of China is fairly obvious; the government presently installed in Beijing is antithetical to democracy. Despite lip service to its promises that it would ensure the continuation of Hong Kong's rights and civil liberties after 1997, the People's Republic of China has taken a number of steps over the last 2 years to call that commitment to democratic norms into serious question. It's opposition to the reconstituted Legco is one of the more visible. Another is the fate of the lone dissenting vote, by Mr. Frederick Fung, in the 148 to 1 vote tally on the Legco question. As a result of his dissenting vote, the head of the Preparatory Committee--Lu Ping-- announced that because of his vote Mr. Fung should be disqualified from the transitional bodies planning Hong Kong's post-1997 government and from any governing role after the British withdraw. What does this petty and vindictive statement say about the People's Republic of China's commitment to democracy; that instead of tolerating dissent the Chinese will seek to punish those who express their opinions and fail to follow the party line. Actions and statements such as this are not, sadly, surprising. The People's Republic of China has made several moves in the past year to exclude pro-democracy figures from the transition process; it even prevented one pro-democracy legislator from entering China to attend a conference, solely on the basis of his being a critic of the Government in Beijing. I believe that moves like these call into question the People's Republic of China's commitment to the Basic Law, and its commitment to safeguard the rights of Hong Kong's citizens after retrocession. It would behoove them to remember that each move they make is under very close scrutiny by Hong Kong's--and the world's-- commercial community. How Beijing acts will be directly reflected in that community's confidence, or lack thereof, and its willingness to maintain its investments there. This is the People's Republic of China's reaction.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under the order I believe we are to vote. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes--1 minute for the Senator from Alaska, 1 minute for the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. THOMAS. Higher than yours.

Mr. THOMAS. This bill brings it up 40 percent.

Mr. THOMAS. Does the Senator recognize that under this bill the rate goes up 40 percent, under the bill as Senator Domenici presents it?

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are a couple of things I think are important here. One is the predication of this idea. This amendment is based on the idea that there is a subsidy here. Yesterday I reported on the Pepperdine University study, an unbiased study that indicates very clearly this is not a subsidy. If you come from this area, where we have 8 inches of rain instead of 40, you will find that this is not a subsidy and Pepperdine University says that Montana ranchers--this was in Montana--who rely on Federal lands do not have a competitive advantage over those who do not. Second, it seems to me we enter here into a great deal of class warfare which I think is unnecessary. Yesterday, the Rock Springs Grazing Association was mentioned as one of these corporate robbers. Let me tell you what the Rock Springs Grazing Association is. It was started in 1909 in southwestern Wyoming to stop overgrazing which was taking place in the Red Desert, which, by the way, is the largest grazing district in the whole BLM in this country. The association breaks down roughly this way: 550,000 deeded acres are in here. This is what is called the checkerboard; 450,000 are leased from private and 900,000 are Federal permits in the checkerboard. They are all intermixed. There is no fencing. You cannot use one from the other. There are 11,000 there. What is the association? It is 64 shareholders, 64 family ranchers, that is who it is. It is not a corporation. It is 64 family ranchers that use that. So I think, really, when we take a look at this thing, as I said yesterday, this is a unique circumstance. It is very easy to come from somewhere else and say, ``This is the way it is at home.'' Well, this is not home. This is a unique aspect where your State is 80 percent owned by the Federal Government. We do have some feeling about it. It is our economic future. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know we are talking here about the whole question of our bills. I do want to talk about how important it is that we have passage of this bill and I am pleased that, in the process of the discussion, it has been demonstrated that there is not a great deal of difference here. We have already talked about the fact that these fees do not amount to a great deal, in terms of money. But we are talking here, now, about trying to establish a long-term economy in our States. We are talking about stability in the area of grazing. We are talking about moving some of the decisions more close to the States and to the users. Of course this is public land. I understand that. That is why we are so careful and so clear in the Domenici bill, to say this is multiple use. There can be no question about that. This question of dominant use is simply not a valid observation. But we do need to begin to involve more closely, people who are in the area. For instance, Secretary Babbitt came out to the West all last year and the year before. We had these series of meetings. He talked to all these folks and, yet, came back with his proposal last year that was exactly the same as it was when it began. We need to involve, for instance, land-grant colleges in the development of the policy that is involved here. We need to involve State departments of agriculture. And we are there to do that. We need to make it a situation where communities can depend upon this economy. It is one that is very important. I think, most of all, what is not understood generally, and I know why--because it is unique to the West--is that these lands are interdependent. These are low-production lands, for the most part, these BLM lands. They do depend on winter feed. They depend on deeded land for winter feed. They depend on deeded land for water. Sometime earlier this afternoon someone was saying you could have 400 acres of base land and lease 100,000 animal units. That is not the case. You cannot do that. You have to have someplace to take care of this livestock in the wintertime. So we are looking for some balance here. I think we have worked at this, now, for more than a year. We have made considerable accommodations. Both the Senators from New Mexico have worked at this, and I salute both of them. We have some basic difference. One of them, I think, is bureaucracy. I think we are seeking to reduce bureaucracy. Frankly, I think the substitute increases bureaucracy. We do not need to deal with that. We need to deal with NEPA. It is there, clearly there. I am the chairman of the subcommittee that is taking a look at the NEPA process and we need to find ways to reduce some of that bureaucracy. I met with the new supervisor of the Black Hills Forest 2 weeks ago. They are in the midst of a forest plan. He has documents higher than his desk, the things they have done. The people on the ground are beginning to understand that we need to reduce that NEPA process. Not do away with the purpose, not do away with input, not reduce the opportunity for people to participate, but not to have that process in the minutia of the management of a grazing unit. We also need to do something with the forest. I think the Domenici bill treats it very well. It says ``substantially the same.'' Our folks feel very strongly about that. There is no real reason to have two unique opportunities here. We have not told them to be exactly the same. We said you should be substantially the same. So, I think we have made a great deal of progress here. Frankly, other than the water thing, the department does not want this because they like what they have. But I can tell you they have not moved very fast on the implementation of their regulations. If we do not make some changes now, a year from now, if they are still there, Babbitt is still there, you will see a real rush to change. I believe that very strongly. Now is our opportunity to soften some of those kinds of things that we think are difficult and troublesome. We have this opportunity. So I really feel very strongly about the efforts that we have made. We have accommodated the other side to a great extent. And now we have a few areas in which we have different views. I think the one we just talked about in water is a different view. I happen to have the idea that States rights are very important in water. We have part of that in the agriculture bill that is going on right now. The water, when you live in a State where much of the water comes from snow pack, and much of it on the forest, then you have to have some real strong State rights in water. We make some progress, we make some progress in that. I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I think we can pass it here in a very short while. I hope we do not accept the substitute and go back into this maze of NEPA regulations that are not necessary to have the proper outcome. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in general terms, it seems to me that what we have been doing in Congress for a year, year-and-a-half and continue to do is to try to find a way to cut through some of the kinds of regulations, maintain the effort without all of the difficulties, and one of the places--and I have worked very closely with it--is NEPA. I think we have to remember that NEPA was designed and developed as a process for major Federal action, major Federal action. That is precisely what we have done in the Domenici bill, is to hold that to major Federal action. Now, the problem that has happened in the past, particularly with the Forest Service--we did it this year; we had to go through with some legislation--was that it was uncertain, it was uncertain, so the lawyers over at Justice and over at the Department of Agriculture said to the Department, said to the Forest Service, ``Look, you have to do it. It doesn't say to in the law, but it is uncertain, and the Secretary may decide or may not decide.'' And that is how we ended up with all the NEPA things on grazing allotments. We have been through that the whole year long. This substitute continues with that kind of uncertainty, and it says you do not have to do it if the Secretary does this, if the Secretary does that. We will end up right back as the subject of lawsuits. Mr. President, that is precisely what we are trying to avoid, and the substitute puts us right back in that field where in the other one we have tried to make it clear that the NEPA requirement is there, the NEPA process is there for land use planning, the NEPA process is not there for those rather mundane, daily decisions that are made on grazing allotments and the kinds of things that in no stretch would constitute major Federal action. That is where we are. So I just think that the whole point of this thing is to try to do away with that ambiguity. And the fact is that this substitute puts it right back there. I do not understand what the sponsor was talking about on surcharge. There are two opportunities within the Domenici bill for subleasing. One, of course, is in the case of death or illness. The other is with a cooperative agreement, which we have had. You have to have an agreement with the agency to have subleasing. We want to continue with that. It is a very important part of grazing in our part of the country and our bill does that. This one does not talk about subleasing. It simply talks about surcharges. So I think that moves away from what we are seeking to do. It is a matter of conservation use. There is an opportunity for conservation use. I think, though, if you are going to have a land use plan which requires grazing, which is part of the community, and part of what upholds these communities is grazing, then to say maybe you do not need to have any grazing, that you dissociate base land--we went through our map yesterday. There is a very real relationship between base land and winter feed, for wildlife or livestock, and these leases. The idea that you can come in from Cincinnati and have a lease, here, with none of the other portions that go with it, is not realistic. That does not reveal much understanding of the way these lands are interdependent. So I think the Domenici bill, in these cases, deals both with conservation nonuse--it allows that, with an agreement with the agency--it allows for subleasing, and it deals with the surcharge. But most important of all, it clarifies this area of NEPA process. Mr. President, I feel very strongly that the substitute simply weakens this process that we have been through for so long a time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Just a couple of minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I guess I am sorry the Senator has suggested anyone who does not agree with him is a victim of contributions. I think that is not a very appropriate remark.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute, and I want to yield to my colleague from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, just for a moment, I, too, cannot resist the opportunity to make some comment on what we have heard over the last few minutes. I guess it is because I have heard it a half a dozen times since I came here to the Congress in 1989. Every year this same thing goes on, we go through this same business. Basically, the first decision you have to make is the question of, as the previous speaker said, ``highly subsidized grazing.'' Let me quote for you a study that was made by Pepperdine University. It was a comparative analysis of economic and financial conditions. It happened to be in Montana, between ranchers who have Federal lands and those who do not. These are just a few of the findings. Montana ranchers who rely upon access to Federal lands and grazing do not have a competitive advantage over other ranchers in the State. Livestock operators with direct access to Federal forage do not enjoy significant economic or financial advantages over ranchers who do not utilize Federal forage. It goes on and on. This is not my study; it is an academic study from Pepperdine University. The point of the matter is, there is a great deal of difference between what you buy in State lands and what you buy in private lands and what you get in public lands. The Senator was talking about comparing it to Arkansas. What do they get, 35, 40 inches of moisture a year? In Wyoming, we get 6 or 8. There is a substantial difference there. Out in the Red Desert, where much of this land is, it takes 100 acres for one animal unit year. That is what it takes. It is different. State lands you can fence. State lands you can--they are better quality lands. Generally they are small, isolated tracts that are enclosed. It is not comparable. The Senator was talking about $1.35. Our bill does not talk about $1.35, it talks about $1.85. It talks about going up from where we were. It has a formula based on the price and the value of cattle. It does not treat different people differently. The Senator keeps mentioning the Rock Springs Grazing Association, that it is a great corporation. It is not a great corporation. It is a combination of relatively small ranches. I keep hearing about it every year, the same thing. I just do not understand it. It is interesting, of course, that all those who talk about this come from nonpublic-land States. I guess that might have something to do with it. In any event, I oppose these propositions. I think the formula has nothing to do with the price of cattle. It has nothing to do with the idea of what it is you are buying. Anyone who thinks there is a comparative value between private leasing and public lands just has not taken a look at it. They just have not taken a look at it. Madam President, I am sure we will talk about this some more tomorrow, and should. But I want to tell you that this whole idea of trying to establish two classes of users is not even supported by the Secretary of the Interior over time. It has never been used before. The idea that the whole thing is subsidized simply is not the case. It is a matter of utilizing the resources on a multiple-use basis. Tell me how many private land leases are also shared with hunters and fishermen and leased to oil? They are not that way. That is not the way it is. So, it is interesting to me that we continue to have this same discussion every time this comes up. Fortunately, that position does not generally prevail. Madam President, we will pursue it some more tomorrow. For tonight, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici bill. I would like to give a little background on it. I think later in the debate it will be necessary for us to talk a little bit about the comments of the Senator from New Mexico in that I think they are exactly where we are in terms of wanting more bureaucracy, wanting the bureaucracy to have more and more input. That is precisely what we want to get away from. Let me just say one thing in terms of this idea that keeps rising up that grazing is the preferred use. Let me read from page 6 here, on line 14. Nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the use or the access of Federal lands for hunting, fishing, recreational, watershed management, or other appropriate multiple-use activities in accordance with applicable Federal and State law in the principal or multiple use. Not only is it there in this instance, it is there in a number of instances and has been the focus of our interest over the last several months. I really do not think there is any substance to that kind of an argument, although we continue to hear it. Mr. President, let me be a little broader. I think one of the things about this whole debate is that there is a unique aspect to western public lands. Most Members of this body are not as familiar with them. I think you have to start with the uniqueness of the West. You have to start with the uniqueness of the idea that Western States run anywhere--in my State from 50 percent Federal ownership, and in Nevada, I think, as high as 80 to 85 percent Federal ownership. I think you have to talk about that a little bit. I brought a map to give you some idea of the kind of complexity involved in the management of public lands. First of all, there are a number of kinds of public lands. The idea that public land is public land is not the case. Many people in New Jersey would say, ``Well, public land must mean Yellowstone Park or Teton Park.'' It does not. There is a substantial difference. We have the parks which were reserved and withdrawn for a special purpose by the Congress. We have the forest which was reserved by action of the Congress. You have Indian reservations. You have other kinds of lands that were withdrawn--wilderness in the forest. These things were all set aside for a specific purpose because of the uniqueness of that land. The remainder is basically what we are talking about here. We are talking about those lands that were residual lands, lands that were left in the State after the homesteaders came and took up the base lands, took up the lands, frankly, where the water is, where the winter feed is, took up the most valuable lands, and the others were left there. That is basically what we are talking about. Let me tell you from a standpoint of a westerner, if we do not have a multiple-use policy for the lands, we have very little economic future to look forward to. By ``multiple use,'' we are talking about hunting and fishing, talking about outfitting and mining, talking about oil, talking about grazing. These things have for a very long time been compatible with one another. Some of this map is hard to see. The colored part belongs to the Federal Government. The green color is the Forest Service, the purple is the park, and all of this yellow are BLM lands. We can see how interspersed they are. This is particularly unique. These are called the checkerboard lands. When the West was developed and the railroads were encouraged to be out West, they were granted 20 miles on either side of the railroad, and every other section belongs to the Federal Government. In between are private sections. For the most part, there are no fences there. You do not manage these separately. These are very unproductive lands. This land probably takes 100 acres for one cow unit to last for a year. This is not the kind of land that people think about when they think about a pasture in Indiana. When we were in the House, we went through this thing about the fees. The chairman of the committee was from Indiana. He had this pasture where the grass grew this big, and he could not figure out why the fee should not be the same for this land as it is for his land. It is quite different. What we have in terms of landownership patterns you have to take into account. Here is a blowup of the checkerboard land. Every other section here belongs to the Federal Government; the others are private. These are interspersed. The blue ones happen to be State lands. You can see, in order to manage this stuff, you have to have some of these local folks do it. Now, talking very briefly about the condition of the range, this is the figure put together by the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming. It talks about the percentage of acreage in a condition class. This green is called excellent and good; the red dotted line is poor. This starts in 1974 and goes up to 1993. This is the good and excellent here. This is the condition of the range. This is the poor down here. It has improved substantially. Let me give you another reason why that is the case. This is the big game population on public lands in Wyoming. We talk about the multiple uses being able to work together. Here is antelope. In 1962, we had 97,000 of those rascals running around; now we have 226,721. I got one last year. Now, deer, 87,000; go up to 250,000. Elk, 12,000 in 1962; now 35,000. You can see the percentage increase over a 28-year period. My point is that the range is in good shape. The range is carefully husbanded by these ranchers. Why? Not just because they are entirely gratuitous, but because their future depends on year after year usage of this resource. I must tell you, having grown up there, that this wildlife would not do well if there was not somebody out there using this land for something else and preparing water, often digging out a spring and damming it up so there is water available, not only for cattle or sheep, but also for wildlife as well. It is a very unique thing, Mr. President. I think we need to start with understanding that. Western cattlemen, western livestock people, of course, a very important part of our society, not only because of these families that live and work there but because these are the sustaining families for the small towns that are there. This is the economy for much of the West. This is a historic time now of low prices for cattle, as everybody knows. The considerable loss to predators has also been a problem and makes it much more difficult to make a living. Now we face, I think, excessive regulations put on by the Bureau of Land Management. The Senator from New Mexico mentioned the number of trips of the Secretary out there. He is right. I was involved in very many of those. For 2 years we had meetings, meetings, and meetings. When the regulations were put out, they were put out almost precisely as they were initially. You can have meetings until you are green in the face; that does not mean there will be any difference. That is a fact. That is where we are. We are seeking to make some changes here from this movement by the Secretary for more and more bureaucracy in Washington, to some movement where there is more impact of the people, more decisionmaking by the people who live there. I do not think there is any question that rangeland reform will drive families off the range, create some economic problems in our areas. We worry about that, naturally. Maybe the broader, more generic concern, however, is the maximum, ultimate best use of multiple resources. Grass is a renewable resource, one that you manage. This Public Rangelands Management Act is a great step forward. It is something we have worked on for over a year. We have taken it to our friends on the other side of the aisle; we have talked about it; they have come back; they have agreed to some things; we have put in much more than we have changed for ourselves. However, there are some changes in which we do not basically agree. One of them is the degree of bureaucratic involvement in this bill. We have established and very carefully established a relationship and a balance between grazing and hunting and those activities. Personally, I come from a place where hunting and fishing is a very major function between Cody, WY, and Yellowstone Park. There is grazing, but hunting and fishing is equally important from the economic standpoint. I understand that. We balance that. That is what this bill does. I think for too long over the last several years the grazing question has zeroed in on the fee. The Secretary does not even have a change in the fee. We have a fee. We have a simplified fee based on the value of the product, based on the average value of the livestock, and it raises the fee even in spite of the economic condition that livestock people are in. This is not a question, this time, about fee. It is a fee that is based on the product. Too often there are comparisons made between this land and this land, these services and these services. I am sure we will hear, ``Well, the State charges more, gets paid more, private gets paid more.'' Yes; they do. They also provide a great many more services. You can have exclusive use of State land, but you cannot do that with public land. There are differences. Someone said it is a little like the difference between a furnished apartment and an unfurnished apartment. That is exactly right. Mr. President, I think we have a great opportunity to move forward to do something that has needed to be resolved for a very long time, and I think this moves toward that resolution. And I think the bill, as it stands, is one that has been considered and approved by many people. It is time, certainly, for us to come to closure on it. I have been disappointed that each time we have tried to do something, we get a lot of disinformation from BLM. I do not think that is an appropriate role. We have been involved in that over a good period of time. So, Mr. President, I am sure we will be back to talk some more about the specifics of the issue that have been brought up. I do not believe that this limits public input. I do not think that is true at all. On the contrary, we are seeking to deal with issues like NEPA and to try and say the NEPA law requires that activity in relation to a major Federal action. Last year, we had a proposal in the Forest Service that every renewed grazing permit have a NEPA process. Ridiculous. If you ever heard of excessive bureaucracy, that is it. Indeed, the NEPA process takes place on the land use plan which takes up a number of allotments. That is the reasonable thing to do. I do not think there is anybody who would argue you should have a NEPA process for every renewable grazing lease. That was already seen to be not workable. Mr. President, I am glad we are talking about it here. As I said, this is kind of an opening statement for me. I want to come back, as we go forward, to talk about some of the specific things that were talked about here. Let me say, finally, that I have no doubt that this is a question about the livelihood of families in the West. This is a question of small ranchers who depend on this public land to go with their deeded land, to be able to sublease. They were able to do that in the past, and they can do it now only if the BLM agrees to that. That is what it says in the bill. That is the way it ought to be. So, Mr. President, I hope that we can move through these issues, and I hope that we can end up with a reasonable way to provide multiple use in the West, protect the environment, which all of us who live there want to do, and, at the same time, be able to use those resources so that those families in the West can make a living as they do over the rest of the country. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to comment just a moment on an effort we made last week and intend to make again tomorrow relating to the affairs in the Taiwan Strait. All of us know that there has been now for some time a series of threats, a series of missiles, a series of live-ammunition military maneuvers by the People's Republic designed, we believe and I believe, to intimidate the Taiwanese election that comes up this week. Certainly, our country and the world, indeed, has a great interest in what happens in this area, partly because of our efforts to improve our relationship with the People's Republic of China--a relationship that will be increasingly important as time goes by, increasingly important to the Pacific rim and to the Asian area, increasingly important in the area of trade; 1.2 billion people with an economy growing at 10 percent--partly because of our concern for Taiwan and the development there of a democracy, this election of the President, the first free election that has been held, one of the first areas of success of democracy in an Asian country; partly because of the agreements that we have made with Taiwan and China through the years, three communiques and the Taiwan Act that spells out where we are, spells out the fact that we have supported the one-China policy and continue to support the one-China policy, spells out the fact that basic to that agreement is the agreement that it be pursued in a peaceful way, and that it not be involved in the military action. So I think it is appropriate that we do have a statement from this Senate. We have put together a resolution. We put it together last week. It has sponsorship by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee as well as the ranking member, and is sponsored by the leader, Bob Dole. However, we were not able to bring it up by unanimous consent last week. We have now talked to those who were concerned about it, and hopefully we will be able to bring it up tomorrow and get it passed. The resolution basically, of course, deplores the notion and the activities of the Peoples Republic in these military actions, the idea that they have fired off missiles very close to Taiwan, close to both the ports of Taiwan, and now are involved in live-ammunition activities there. We have asked in the resolution for the People's Republic as well as Taiwan to come together to discuss these issues in a peaceful way. We also recognize our obligation, if there is military action against Taiwan by the People's Republic, that we will assist in helping them prepare for themselves to have the equipment to defend themselves. Hopefully, these activities are simply efforts to intimidate. I believe they are. I believe they are simply an expression of the concern that the People's Republic has had, and I hope that they will discontinue that kind of activity. I further hope the Taiwanese will go out of their way not to create the kind of tension that we have had. So, Mr. President, we intend to bring again, tomorrow, a resolution that will put the Senate on record in that regard. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.