[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                THE NEED FOR REFORM OF GRAZING POLICIES

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 21, 1994

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when the Clinton 
administration took office, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt 
declared that it was time to reform our many outdated policies toward 
public lands.
  One of the first major attempts was grazing. You all recall last 
year's fight over our attempts to raise grazing fees. Those efforts are 
supported by a large majority of people in the West and they were 
supported by a majority of the Members of this House and of the other 
body--but opponents of reform used the rules of the other body to 
defeat the will of the majority.
  I am inserting into the Record an editorial from the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch from September 1, 1994 which lays out, once again, the need 
for reform of our grazing policies.
  The forces fighting change are strong and smart and they certainly 
have incentives to fight--they don't want to give up the lucrative 
subsidies they have long enjoyed.
  But these reforms must proceed. We must ensure that taxpayers receive 
a fair return and that these lands are protected for future 
generations.

                           Home on the Range

       While the 1872 mining law can be seen as legalized 
     thievery, the federal law governing cattle grazing on public 
     land is relatively progressive. The Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, the foundation of federal policy, 
     explicitly recognizes the public interest in public land. 
     Unlike the 1872 mining law, which enables mining companies to 
     buy public land for a pittance, the 1976 grazing reform law 
     foreclosed the sale of public land to ranchers, denied that 
     ranchers had any natural or intrinsic right to graze on 
     public land and advocated good stewardship and multiple use 
     of public lands.
       So why, if the law protects the public interest so well, is 
     there still a problem? Why is public land continuing to be 
     overgrazed--and the environment degraded? Why do federal 
     grazing permits continue to be treated like ranchers' 
     personal property? Why do ranchers and environmentalists 
     continue to be at loggerheads? Why have Secretary of Interior 
     Bruce Babbitt's plans for grazing reform met with such stiff 
     opposition from all sides?
       Those questions have a variety of answers: history and the 
     role of cattle-ranching in opening the West; politics and the 
     so-called Sagebrush Rebellion of Western politicians in the 
     late 1970s and early 1980s that prompted the Reagan 
     administration to adopt a hands-off approach to grazing, and 
     the simple economics of modern ranching.
       The separation of public land and private property that 
     exists so distinctly in the law blurs in real life. In real 
     life, federal grazing leases are often treated as private 
     property. They are bought and sold along with ranches; 
     indeed, ranches with federal grazing permits are generally 
     worth more than comparable ranches without them. In addition, 
     permits to graze on public land can be sublet, with the 
     private lessor, not the federal government, making the 
     profit.
       Why are federal grazing permits so valuable? Because they 
     are so cheap. The charge per ``animal unit month'' (AUM) is 
     roughly $1.98, far below the market value and insufficient, 
     to the tune of about $52 million a year, to cover the 
     government's cost to operate the program, according to a 
     report to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
       The price of permits must be raised--as an incentive to 
     avoid overgrazing, to cover the costs of the program's 
     administration and to provide funds to enforce environmental 
     standards and to do ecological environmental standards and to 
     do ecological restoration. The question is, of course, by how 
     much. Mr. Babbitt has backed away from his original plan of 
     $4.28 per AUM and now supports a three-year phase-in to $3.96 
     per AUM. Ranchers backed a $2.43 AUM proposal.
       Because the holders of federal permits must provide 
     infrastructure for grazing--fencing and water sources, for 
     example--the federal rate should be somewhat below market 
     rate. Discounts, or subsidies, could be offered to ranchers 
     who abide by or exceed environmental standards or small 
     ranchers who might be forced out of business by a dramatic 
     increase in rates. (Right now, big companies are the major 
     beneficiaries of low fees.)
       Grazing reform is more than a matter of law or money, 
     however. It is also about strict land management and breaking 
     the stranglehold that the cattle interests have had on 
     policy. Mr. Babbitt suggests more local and state 
     involvement--of ranchers and environmentalists--in developing 
     environmental standards and guidelines consonant with 
     national goals of ecological restoration.
       People on both sides may balk, but the future of the West 
     might just depend on roping all sides into the debate.

                          ____________________