[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2397-S2408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PUBLIC RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I was saying, this piece of legislation 
is a piece of legislation that deals with grazing issues that are 
important issues to people who ranch and who graze cattle on public 
lands. I indicated previously that there is some truth on every side 
here on this issue, and that each side seems to stretch some here and 
there to make their point.
  I think there is a legitimate question with respect to some of the 
management practices, especially on the grasslands in North Dakota. I 
think there is a legitimate question about the management practices 
that create circumstances where a rancher who is grazing on public 
lands wants to move a water tank and months and months and months pass, 
and they do not get an answer. Some of these little issues that they 
ought to get resolved ought to be resolved. They ought not to wait 
forever for some answer. So ranchers get upset on that kind of 
management of public lands, and they have a right to be upset about 
that. We ought to resolve some of those problems and address some of 
those problems.
  Senator Domenici has offered a piece of legislation that has gone 
through a couple of different drafts. Senator Bingaman and I offered a 
substitute in the Senate Energy Committee on two occasions I believe; 
maybe one. But we offered a substitute. We said that there are some 
things that we think have merit in Senator Domenici's approach, and 
there are some things that we think need to be improved upon and 
changed.
  So we wrote a substitute that we think addresses the real problems 
that exist without causing some other problems. We are here wanting to 
solve problems--not create problems.
  I say this to those who argue, as some have in the recent editorials 
in the last day or two in the largest newspaper in our State, that this 
is a ``land grab'' by ranchers; that they want to seize control of 
public lands, period, end of story. That is not an accurate assessment 
of what is going on.
  I am prepared to support some legislation to address these issues, as 
I think the Senator New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, does and as others do 
on the floor who have spoken. We may want to address it in a slightly 
different way. But, nonetheless, all of us come here saying there are 
some legitimate problems that ranchers have, and we ought to address 
some of those problems.
  Those who make the charge--as was made a couple of days ago in an 
editorial in our largest newspaper that this is a ``land grab''--that 
it simply would turn the keys to the Federal lands over to the ranchers 
with no input from anybody else is wrong. I will not support that. That 
is not what our substitute says. Frankly, that is not what the Domenici 
bill says. We come at this sometimes from different ways, and we, 
because we offer a substitute, think the bill moves too far in some 
areas. But all of us believe these are multiple-use lands--public lands 
available for multiple use--and that they ought to remain that way.
  I really believe that hunters have a right to these lands. Hikers 
have a right to these lands. Environmentalists own these lands as well. 
These are multiple-use lands, and will remain multiple-use lands. And I 
would not support anything--not a substitute, anything--if someone 
brought a proposition to the floor that says this is not your land, and 
that this land belongs to ranchers. It is not my view. I will not 
support anything that supports that view. That is not what we are 
saying.
  The substitute offered in the Energy Committee by Senator Bingaman 
and I says there are some problems and let us address those problems. 
Let us not address those problems by creating more problems for 
ranchers. Let us not address them restricting any access for anybody 
else. Let us simply address them the way they ought to be addressed.
  I hope, as we talk through this set of issues in the next day or so--
and hopefully we will have a vote tomorrow on this, and we will have a 
vote I think on a substitute that Senator Bingaman and I will offer 
along with some others--I understand that there will be a vote on an 
amendment by Senator Bumpers on grazing fees. There may or may not be 
other Senators who come to offer amendments on the issue. But I hope 
when we get to the final stages of this process that most of us will 
understand that we are aiming for the same thing--we want to solve some 
problems. We do not want to create others.
  I would say to those in my State, North Dakotans, who are interested 
in this issue that these are multiple-use lands and will remain 
multiple-use

[[Page S2398]]

lands. I feel very strongly that hunters and others have an interest in 
these lands, and I will not do anything to restrict that interest. By 
the same token, I come to the Senate wanting to solve some problems 
that ranchers have. They graze cattle and have some problems with 
respect to the management structure. And I am interested in solving 
those problems.
  As we debate and discuss this, let us really deal with the facts on 
each side, and let us--each of us--represent what we want the answers 
to be to these problems. At the end of the day we count votes in the 
Senate. We do not weigh them. So whoever has the votes to advance their 
proposal, that is what public policy will be. And I hope, at the end of 
this, public policy will be one that says these are lands that belong 
to our country--all of the people of our country--and should be 
available for all of the people in our country to use. But some of the 
salt-of-the-Earth people in our country also are people who ranch, who 
work hard, who try to beat the odds, the weather, the prices, and they 
have some management problems, and we ought to address some of them. 
That is my interest in this legislation.
  I will return to the floor with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, 
offering a substitute, and we will have a discussion about that. I will 
also, when I return to the floor, join in some discussion I am sure 
with Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Burns, and others. While 
we might disagree on some parts of this bill we agree on others.
  I commend all of those who are involved in this discussion because I 
think that this is an interesting discussion about the use of public 
lands, and I hope that we will shed more light rather than cause more 
fog in the next day or so.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and I will return to the 
floor with Senator Bingaman and offer a substitute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Burns has been 
waiting a long time and wants to speak on our side. I am pleased that 
Senator Bumpers is here. If all goes well, as soon as he is finished, 
the Senator may get the floor and offer his amendment, debate it, and 
try to vote this evening.
  Is that all right?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it is immaterial to me when we vote. We 
can vote this evening or possibly tomorrow. I am not prepared to enter 
into a time agreement at this moment. If the Senator from Montana would 
like to proceed, my chief cosponsor, Senator Jeffords, will be here in 
about 2 or 3 minutes. If the Senator wants to proceed, that is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He will proceed now, and then Senator Bumpers will 
follow.
  Let me just talk to Senator Bumpers for a minute on the timing. I 
understand his amendment is an amendment to increase grazing fees. That 
is the one which he has given us. He may have others. I just wanted to 
tell him what I told the Senate when I did not think he could be here. 
The leader wants us to finish tomorrow because he has a commitment to 
Senators that there will be no votes on Friday. We will be in tonight, 
if need be rather late, and then come back on this, I think, at noon 
tomorrow.
  So we will give the Senator all of the time in the world because he 
is entitled to it. But I hope on his amendment that sometime later he 
might give us an idea when he might vote this evening so we could get 
one vote on this bill accomplished this evening.
  Mr. President, before I yield, let me say to Senator Dorgan that I 
thank him for the way he has handled himself here on the floor this 
afternoon. I think his comments were very well taken. I think there is 
a lot of excess language on both sides of this. I mean ranchers 
frequently say, if this happens, they are out of business; they are 
gone. Environmentalists say, ``If you do not do this, the public land 
is all going to be owned and confiscated by ranchers, and we will lose 
all of our rights.'' Frequently neither of those views are accurate.
  We are going to try our best to have a multiple-use bill when we 
leave the Senate, get one from the House, and send it to the President. 
We have no intention of taking away any rights--we do, however, want to 
protect grazing, and try to put it in a secured position. But we are 
not trying to take away any of the other rights. We are doing our very 
best to try to see that they are there.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. DORGAN. With respect to the schedule, of course, that is up to 
the leaders. I would suggest I do not think there is a circumstance 
where you are going to see a filibuster that succeeds on this 
legislation. I think there is a general understanding that this 
legislation will be resolved by the end of tomorrow, and I hope that if 
we get to a circumstance where someone wants to offer an amendment, and 
it is going to take us until 8 or 9 tonight, and we are not going to 
call people back for tonight, we could roll that vote first thing in 
the morning.
  So I would urge the leaders and the managers of the bill to consider 
that because I do not think this is a case where if we do not vote by 9 
o'clock tonight, we are not going to have the bill out of here 
tomorrow. I do not know of anyone who is going to stall the bill 
tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just make sure that the Senate understands that 
I do not intend, if we have some kind of understanding about how many 
amendments and we will finish tomorrow, to keep the Senate in until 9, 
if we have consent to debate it tonight and vote tomorrow. I thought we 
would get through the first amendment sooner than that, by 6 or 7. If 
not, I will talk to the leader about the Senator's idea.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friends from New Mexico for the 
leadership they have shown on this issue.
  It is a wonderful day to start the debate on this particular issue, 
the first day of spring. Even though the weatherman has not chosen to 
cooperate properly in greeting this day for the most part across the 
country, a little bit colder than usual, the Earth is starting to shed 
its winter chill and the frost is giving way to the warmth that lives 
within this great Earth. It is also the time of renewal, when those 
seeds that have laid in the Earth and those grasses that were dormant, 
are starting to show some signs of growth. It starts to give the Earth 
a different hue.
  It is also a pretty exciting time in livestock agriculture, too, a 
time for newborn calves and lambs, a special time of the year for those 
who are attached to the land in a very, very special way.
  It is a season that also gives us renewal. This transformation that 
we have, this promise of renewal every spring, every year, this 
renewable resource that renews itself, happens right before our eyes 
and it assures us that the future is now and will ever be.
  I realize it is hard to see the significance of the season by those 
who have never really experienced that special attachment to the land.
  In saying that, it is time for the Senate and this Congress to bring 
some common sense, some predictability, and stability to the folks who 
really deserve it, the people who are charged with the business of 
caretaker of our lands and our resources that come from those lands. 
They are good caretakers because it behooves them to be good 
caretakers. I just do not know of any good or successful rancher who 
loves and cares for his livestock and his land, who lives for the day 
that he will finally turn over the reins and the ownership of that 
ranch to the next generation, whether it be a son or son-in-law or 
daughter or daughter-in-law, who does not live for that. They teach 
their next generations how important this caretaking is. If we in this 
country are to hand to our children and to our grandchildren a better 
ranch and therefore a better world, where they can work, where they can 
sustain life, where they can recreate in an environment of clean air 
and clean water, then we must dedicate ourselves to the idea that 
Washington must, in a different way, make regulations and work with the 
local people to make sure it happens.

  After hour after hour of discussion both here in Washington and on 
the ground on this particular subject, it is time now to move forward 
with a rangeland bill that we can be proud of and that we know will 
work and has the support of everybody involved.

[[Page S2399]]

  If one could have written a rangeland bill that has all the 
principles of multiple use, maybe this is not quite perfection. If we 
were to write one that reflects the dedication to pursue sensible 
environmental policy, that preserved the gains that we have made in the 
last 50 years on our rangeland, then I would say this one probably is 
not perfection either, for, you see, those folks who are charged with 
the caring of this land, they became concerned about our range 
conditions a long time ago. They just did not start in 1980 or 1986 or 
1984 or 1990, and for sure not 1996.
  Range management was put together after World War II and after the 
Great Depression and great droughts of the dirty thirties.
  In this bill, as presented by Senator Domenici of New Mexico, we have 
taken a giant step to the resolution of a very, very contentious and 
emotionally charged issue, and at times it has defied common sense and 
good judgment because there are groups that probably have had to raise 
some money and this is probably a pretty good issue on which to do it.
  As we look at the future of these lands, we must be careful as to 
what the people who are actually the caretakers of these lands provide 
for the rest of America to enjoy, for it is in the best interests of 
these people to care for these lands. Without the continual 
regeneration of the grass and the land they care for, they have nothing 
to graze. They are out in the cold. They are out of business.
  We have heard that there are those who are concerned about wildlife. 
Please read all the journals of Lewis and Clark. Please read of the 
people who entered these lands long before there was a rancher there. 
Read in the journals how there was no wildlife at all, that they ate 
their horses in the dead of winter, and the only wildlife--and it was 
sparse--was along the rivers, the Missouri and the Yellowstone and the 
rest of them. That was in the north country. Those lands were not 
claimed during the homestead days. It was for one reason: There was no 
water. Very harsh land. But with people who cared and people with new 
and innovative ways to bring water into grasslands, there came the 
wildlife. I can give you all kinds of figures on the increase in 
antelope, deer, whitetail deer, muleys, elk, whatever you want to 
count. There are more of them now than at any time since the Great 
Depression.

  I am not going to do anything that is going to harm the habitat of 
wildlife or harm my way of life. I like to hunt. I am chairman of the 
Sportsmen's Caucus in this body. I am not going to do anything to harm 
that. I would ask these people, where are some of our supporters 
whenever hunters' rights come up? Where are they then? Are we playing 
with a double-bitted ax here?
  Section 102, paragraph (c) says:

       Nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the use of 
     and access to Federal land for hunting, fishing, 
     recreational, watershed management or other appropriate 
     multiple-use activities in accordance with applicable Federal 
     and State laws and the principles of multiple use.

  How much clearer must it be? It is even written in plain, everyday 
English.
  So, as we talk about this issue, we will all have a lot more to say 
about it. I agree with my friend from North Dakota, we have run into 
some problems. We have not been able to move a water tank when we 
wanted to. The decisions from BLM did not come fast enough, or 
decisions from the U.S. Forest Service did not come fast enough. But do 
we create two or three layers more of bureaucracy to make that 
decision? The best decisions are made at the local level. Do we have to 
call Washington to change a gate? I would say no, not and be good 
caretakers of the land, because if they delay the decision of moving 
the water tank, maybe they will delay the decision about moving some 
stock that should be moved. Maybe there is some real environmental 
damage that could be done because of the inability to make a decision 
2,100 miles away from where the grazing activity is taking place.
  The challenge that awaits this and every Congress from here on out 
will be the effect of how we manage public lands or the policy we set 
for those resources found on public lands. This bill seeks to provide 
an effective, reasonable management of our natural resources. Effective 
management means it will allow those close to the land, who have not 
only economic but also social involvement with a community, allow them 
to manage those resources, not as they see fit but as nature sees fit.
  The terms of this bill, to make grazing an acceptable practice in the 
management of our Federal public lands, is that asking too much? Do we 
just let the grass grow up every year? Some years you are going to have 
drought, and it is not going to grow up. But let us say we got a lot of 
growth last year, this year there is a lot of dead grass around, and it 
burns. It will burn. In its path you put at jeopardy life, property, 
even residences. I do not know how many people on this floor have ever 
faced one of those fires. They are not a fun thing. They are pretty 
scary. But the people who are caretakers of this land face that every 
day.
  Do you want to talk about prices of cattle? I can talk about that. I 
have a hard time relating $58 and $62 steers and heifers ready to be 
brought to market, and little T-bone steaks at Giant at $4.50 to $6 a 
pound. There is not too much relationship here. Packers say they are 
not making any money. You know how packers are.
  Cattlemen will be hurt, but we will not feel it here in this town 
because, in this town, April 15, the shrimp boat comes home and we will 
get our check. They will get theirs this fall. But it will be 35 
percent less than it was last year, and we think we are doing them a 
favor. Those who pay the bills in that community, who provide the 
services to local government--schools, roads, public safety--all of 
this comes out of that check when he sells the product this fall.

  So, as we talk about this, and we will bring up more points as we go 
along, I just want to remind folks what we are dealing with here and 
how delicate the balance is between good management on range and bad 
management.
  In 1979, I started a little activity in Montana called Montana Range 
Days. It started off with about 200, 250 people who would attend every 
year. We had super starters, 8-year-old, 9-year-old kids, identify 
plants, weeds, grasses; identify carrying capacity on range, capacity 
conservation, watershed--3 days sleeping on the ground out on the 
range. I kind of helped that get started. It is bigger now than it was 
in 1979, under the leadership of Taylor Brown, who took over the 
Northern Ag Network when I left that organization. So we are pretty 
familiar with rangeland and what they teach in the colleges, and how 
they teach management and things that can happen on a range.
  By the way, a range is not used for just about any other purpose. The 
only way we got to harvest that resource out there is through animal 
agriculture.
  So, we will talk about the merits of amendments and the merits of 
this bill. But I ask my colleagues to think and look, and really look 
at it objectively, without any outside influence, to see exactly who 
contributes what to a neighborhood, to a community, to a county, and to 
a State, and look at the practices and look how far we have come in the 
development of better range for everybody. There is a lot more to be 
hunted, there are a lot more fish in the rivers, because there has been 
good stewardship on our range, because it is profitable for a rancher 
to do so.
  The future of our public lands rests in our hands. We had an 
opportunity to make the future meaningful for all people, and I hope my 
fellow Members will work with us and vote with us to provide a 
sustainable and stable future for the land, for the livestock producer, 
and the people who enjoy those public lands.
  Let us look at the real merits of what we are doing here and the 
effect it has on people. I am just talking about people. I have heard 
it from the other side, ``We are the compassionate folks. We care.'' We 
will find out how much they care and the compassion they have for 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3556 to Amendment No. 3555

   (Purpose: To increase the fee charged for grazing on Federal land)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S2400]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3556 to amendment No. 3555.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike Section 135 of the substitute and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 135. GRAZING FEES.

       (a) Grazing Fee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall charge a fee for domestic livestock grazing 
     on public rangelands. The fee shall be equal to the higher of 
     either--
       (A) the average grazing fee (weighted by animal unit 
     months) charged by the State during the previous grazing year 
     for grazing on State lands in which the lands covered by the 
     permit or lease are located; or
       (B) (1) the fee provided for in section 6(a) of the Public 
     Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1905(a)) and 
     Executive Order 12548 (51 F.R. 5985): Provided, That the 
     grazing fee shall not be less than:
       $1.50 per animal unit month for the 1997 grazing year;
       $1.75 per animal unit month for the 1998 grazing year; and
       $2.00 per animal unit month for the 1999 grazing year and 
     thereafter; plus
       (2) 25 percent.
       (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) State lands shall include school, education department, 
     and State land board lands; and
       (2) individual members of a grazing association shall be 
     considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining 
     the appropriate grazing fee.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susanne 
Fleek, a fellow from the Department of the Interior, be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the debate on grazing legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3557 To Amendment No. 3556

   (Purpose: To increase the fee charged for grazing on Federal land)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which I 
send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3557 to amendment No. 3556.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted by the 
     Bumpers amendment insert the following:

     SEC. 135. GRAZING FEES.

       (a) Grazing Fee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall charge a 
     fee for domestic livestock grazing on public rangelands as 
     provided for in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands 
     Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1905(a)) and Executive 
     Order 12548 (51 F.R. 5985): Provided, That the grazing fee 
     shall not be less than:
       $1.50 per animal unit month for the 1997 grazing year;
       $1.75 per animal unit month for the 1998 grazing year; and
       $2.00 per animal unit month for the 1999 grazing year and 
     thereafter.
       (b) Determination of Fee.--(1) Permittees or lessees who 
     own or control livestock comprising less than 2,000 animal 
     unit months on the public rangelands during a grazing year 
     pursuant to one or more grazing permits or leases shall pay 
     the fee as set forth in subsection (a).
       (2) Permittees or lessees who own or control livestock 
     comprising more than 2,000 animal unit months on the public 
     rangelands during a grazing year pursuant to one or more 
     grazing permits or leases shall pay the fee equal to the 
     higher of either--
       (A) the average grazing fee (weighted by animal unit 
     months) charged by the State during the previous grazing year 
     for grazing on State lands in which the lands covered by the 
     permit or lease are located; or
       (B) the Federal grazing fee set forth in subsection (a), 
     plus 25 percent.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) State lands shall include school, education department, 
     and State land board lands; and
       (2) individual members of a grazing association shall be 
     considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining 
     the appropriate grazing fee.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is kind of bringing back memories 
to me here today. I remember fondly my first year in the U.S. Senate. 
After 14 years as a Member of the House of Representatives, I came to 
the Senate in 1991, excited to represent my State. Respecting the 
customs of this honorable institution, I worked to learn the rules and 
procedures of the Senate. It was not until September of my first year 
that I actually made a speech longer than 5 minutes on the Senate 
floor.
  During this first long speech--it was long, as many may remember, or 
maybe somebody remembers--I discussed the issue we are here debating 
today, that is grazing fees. At the time, in September 1991, I authored 
a grazing fee amendment that would have increased the fee from $1.97 
per AUM, or animal unit month, to $5.13 per AUM, in 5 years. We did 
this in response to a similar amendment which passed the House 
overwhelmingly during that summer, which would have raised the fee to 
$8.70 per AUM.
  The amendment I offered in 1991 failed, and the House proposal was 
removed in conference. The primary argument against this first grazing 
amendment was that such a fee would have bankrupt many small ranchers. 
We revisited the grazing fee issue 1 year later, in August 1992. Again, 
we offered a proposal which would have required those ranchers grazing 
on Federal land to pay their fair share of its use.
  This time, however, we exempted the small farmers, about which so 
much concern was expressed, those having fewer than 500 head. 
Therefore, the increase would only have affected the largest of the 
ranchers. This amendment also failed, but by a smaller margin.
  The opponents of the second grazing fee amendment argued that a 
grazing fee increase should not be included on an appropriations 
measure, but considered only during debate on grazing reform 
legislation.
  Today is the day when that opportunity has arisen again. I want to 
take this time to do what I have been told, and that is to bring it up 
on an appropriate piece of legislation and leave the small farmers 
alone. That is what my amendment does.
  I believe today it is time to finally change this longstanding 
inequity; an inequity because when you compare this to what private 
people have to pay or pay on State grazing lands, this is a real 
giveaway. I do not mind it for small farmers, but I do mind that the 
large corporate owners own 9 percent of the permits, but have 60 
percent of the AUM.
  Senator Bumpers' amendment requires that all ranchers operating on 
Federal land pay a fee equal to the State grazing fee. His amendment 
says they ought to pay at least what they have to pay to the State, 
forget about private lands, but at least they ought to pay what is paid 
for using State land.
  The second-degree amendment I just offered exempts all small ranchers 
and allows them to continue to pay the lower Federal fee that is 
presently at dispute here.
  Mr. President, my second-degree amendment will protect small family 
ranchers who currently rely on Federal lands to support their business. 
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to tour several western ranches 
and visit with small family ranchers. I empathize with them and 
recognize that out in the West, so much land is owned by the Federal 
Government and if you do not have an opportunity to utilize that land, 
you have no opportunity. During this visit, I gained great appreciation 
and respect for the lifestyle of these small farmers. I made many 
friends in Wyoming. These ranchers embody not only a piece of our 
Nation's history, but also a piece of our Nation's future.
  I realize that these farmers are facing a daily struggle to keep 
their ranches operating, a fact I have taken into consideration in 
drafting this amendment. Keeping with the theme of Senator Domenici's 
bill, my amendment protects these farmers. In fact, my amendment places 
a lower fee on these farmers than the fee contained in the pending 
bill.
  So if you want to look out for the small farmers, this is the 
opportunity to do it, better than even the underlying Domenici bill.

  On my amendment, the fee for small ranchers will be $1.50 per AUM, 
animal

[[Page S2401]]

unit month, in 1997. This is 20 percent less than the fee in the 
underlying bill--20 percent less.
  Instead, my amendment addresses the large ranchers who for years have 
been making millions off the public lands and costing taxpayers up to 
$200 million annually. Not only are these ranchers paying a grazing fee 
that is 60 percent less than what it was 10 years ago, but they are 
also the beneficiary of Federal programs for range improvements, 
predator control, and emergency feed programs.
  Mr. President, it is time to take a closer look at these large 
ranchers and start charging them an honest and equitable price for the 
land from which they are profiting. An interesting phenomenon has 
occurred in the Federal grazing program. Although the large ranchers 
hold only 9 percent of the Bureau of Land Management grazing permits, 
they comprise over 60 percent of the active use of animal unit months 
on public lands. Nine percent of the permit holders are big 
corporations owning 60 percent of the AUM's.
  Who are these ranchers? Let me give you some examples. One is Willard 
Garvey of Willard Garvey Industries, which recorded $80 million in 
sales in 1991. Wow, boy, do they need help from the Federal Government.
  One is J.R. Simplot, who has an estimated fortune of $500 million. 
Great one to give subsidies to. He was on the cover of Fortune magazine 
as one of the great entrepreneurs of our society, and we give him that 
kind of a break.
  Another is the Rock Springs Grazing Association that has over $1.6 
million in assets. I have a list of large ranchers, including Texaco, 
Getty Oil, Hilton--wow, boy, do they need help. I ask you, why is it 
that these large companies are receiving Federal subsidies when, in 
many cases, small family ranches operating on private lands at many 
times the cost receive nothing?
  My amendment is a first step in remedying this obvious disparity. My 
amendment will raise the grazing fee for large ranchers who have 
permits holding more than 2,000 animal unit months. It will raise it to 
a level equal to the grazing fee charged by the State. This is all we 
are doing. This is for the big guys, the large ones, the huge guys who 
do not need help. We say, at least you ought to pay what other farmers 
are paying to the State. Not only will this bring the Federal fee to 
fair market value--that is what is charged by private owners--but will 
also give the States more control over grazing in their own State. By 
creating a two-tier program, my amendment protects the lifestyle of the 
small ranchers in the West who are more than worthy of Federal 
assistance. By creating a two-tier program, we will help do what should 
be done, and that is to get equity over the expenditure of Federal 
funds.

  The amendment will retain a low grazing fee for over 90 percent of 
the ranchers leasing public lands. Over 90 percent of the ranchers will 
be getting this assistance. It will raise the fee for the remaining 9 
percent of the ranchers who operate the large and highly profitable 
ranches, and, in doing so, my amendment will raise approximately $13 
million annually in revenue; that is, we are really converting and just 
giving the money that was going to those huge ranchers out there, with 
the exception of $13 million which will go to help defer the cost of 
the program, to the small ranchers. That, I believe, is a fair deal for 
the taxpayers and a real benefit to those small family ranchers out in 
the West who need the assistance, whereas the large corporate ones 
certainly need no assistance.
  Mr. President, let me summarize. My second-degree amendment exempts 
small ranchers. Only large corporate interests who hold Federal grazing 
permits will be affected by the underlying Bumpers amendment.
  Again, remember that 9 percent of the permit holders are large 
corporate entities, or wealthy individuals, and they control over 60 
percent of the AUM's. And 91 percent of the ranchers holding permits to 
graze on Federal lands will pay less with my amendment than the pending 
legislation, and only those 9 percent, the very wealthy corporations 
and individuals, will have to contribute a fair cost of what they are 
getting at the State level, not at the private-lands level, which would 
even be higher.
  So let us vote for the small ranchers. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for my second-degree amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words in support of 
the basic bill we are debating, the Domenici bill. I appreciate the 
parliamentary position we are in; that is, the Bumpers amendment on 
fees pending with the Jeffords second-degree amendment pending. I want 
to direct my comments not to those specific amendments--the first- and 
second-degree amendments--but rather to the substance of the bill.
  I want to begin by reminding my colleagues what this debate is really 
all about, and also what it is not about.
  I want to begin by pointing out that, frankly, this bill 
fundamentally is about providing ranchers with grazing rules that are 
fair, grazing rules that are predictable, and grazing rules that are 
certain.
  The Domenici bill is also about assuring that where grazing does 
occur on Federal lands, it does not occur at the sacrifice of wildlife, 
it does not occur at the sacrifice of quality or public access. Namely, 
we honor the principle of multiple use. The goal, simply put, is to see 
that ranchers stay in business while assuring outstanding hunting and 
fishing. It is that simple. I might say, in my State of Montana this 
balance exists, and it exists today, and I want to see that balance 
continue.
  Let me add a word about what this debate is not about. This debate is 
not about protecting those few ranchers who abuse the land. As far as I 
am concerned, the holder of any grazing permit has the right to graze 
livestock on his public land. That is the right of that permittee. But 
that right comes with a responsibility, a responsibility to be a good 
steward of the land, good steward of water and wildlife and allotment. 
If that responsibility is not met, if the land is abused, then that 
permit should be ended, it should be terminated. Basically, that is 
what should be done, that is what should happen.
  In my State of Montana, there is a famous painting painted by the 
great cowboy artist Charlie Russell, who had the unique gift for 
capturing the life of the Old West on canvas. There is one Russell 
painting that comes to mind called ``Waiting for a Chinook,'' also 
known as ``The Last of 5,000.'' It was painted by Charlie Russell as he 
was sending a card and letter back to the owner of the ranch. The owner 
happened to be in New York City. This is a ranch he was associated with 
in Montana.
  It is a painting of a lone cow. It is a lone cow standing in the 
middle of a blizzard. Coyotes are circling and waiting for that cow to 
fall. It was a year when most of the herds in Montana were decimated. 
This pretty much sums up the challenges that we have faced as ranchers 
in Montana.
  Ranchers have to face the severity of Montana winters. They have to 
deal with predators, not only coyotes, but wolves. They have to deal 
with very wide swings in the cattle market cycles. While the Russell 
painting does not reflect it, today's ranchers have to deal with the 
challenge and frustration of Canadians pumping beef into the U.S. 
market and meatpackers manipulating market prices. So, taken as a 
whole, it all makes for a mighty uncertain livelihood.
  That is what S. 1459 is about. It is about giving ranchers a Federal 
grazing policy that is stable and fair, that will encourage ranchers to 
remain good stewards of both their private lands and the public lands 
where they graze. The bill provides the tools to set Federal policy in 
that direction. It gives ranchers the stability of 12-year permits. It 
is very important. It recognizes the investments that ranchers make in 
range improvements, also important, and protects individual water 
rights, equally important in the West.

  As I was listening to the Senator from Vermont talk about these big 
ranches of the West, there is one point the Senator from Vermont seems 
to forget--that it does not rain in the West. In Vermont, it rains a 
lot. Here you get about 40, 50 inches of rain. In my part of the 
country, west of the 100th meridian, the average rainfall is about 14, 
15, 16 inches a year. That is all year around, including snow and rain. 
That is why there are big ranches in the West. You have to have a lot

[[Page S2402]]

more space to graze your livestock because there is not a lot of rain 
for the grass to grow.
  The bill also, I might say, Mr. President, protects not only water 
rights, but it makes the Forest Service and BLM grazing rules much more 
uniform, also important, because ranches have one set of regulations on 
BLM land and a different set on Forest Service lands. It helps to 
assure that Federal grazing policy is basically the same whether it is 
BLM or Forest Service land.
  The predictability of this bill benefits not only ranchers, but all 
users of our public lands; that is, hunters, rock hounds, birdwatchers, 
hikers, you name it.
  There is a popular bumper sticker I frequently see on cars passing by 
as I am walking across my State of Montana. Let me tell you what that 
bumper sticker says. It says, ``Cattle, Not Condos.'' That is what 
would happen if our family ranches simply became too unprofitable to 
stay in business. The land would be subdivided. Wildlife habitat would 
be fragmented. Access to many of our favorite fishing holes would be 
cut off, as stream and riverfront lots are sold for cabin sites. We 
would lose the great sense of openness, wide open spaces that help make 
Montana the ``Big Sky State.''
  John Schultz of the Gran Prairie Ranch, near Grass Range, in Fergus 
County, summed it up when he wrote me, ``The recreationists and hunters 
use this land extensively * * *,'' that is the land that this rancher 
owns, private land as well as public land, ``* * * however, there is 
only one man who maintains the water and manages the grass so the plant 
population is diverse and in good condition. Not only do the livestock 
benefit, but the wildlife do as well.''
  The simple fact is that a strong, viable ranching industry is of 
benefit to all Montanans. It benefits the small communities that rely 
on the ranchers' business, and it benefits sportsmen who enjoy the 
outstanding hunting opportunities created by large tracks of 
undeveloped wildlife habitat. It helps provide the tax base for many of 
our rural communities, our schools, and our hospitals. That is what 
this bill is about.
  It is about establishing a Federal policy that helps us be good 
stewards of the land and remain economically viable. It is a policy 
that makes the Federal Government a partner rather than a pest.
  Let me go back to what this bill is not about. It is not about 
excluding the public from having a full say in how we manage our public 
lands. It is not about compromising on environmental protection.
  Critics of this bill maintain that the bill bars meaningful public 
participation when it comes to range improvement. That is not accurate. 
Under the bill, a simple postcard guarantees an interested citizen a 
seat at the table for virtually every decision affecting range 
management on our public lands. They will be given notice of all 
proposed permit actions and provided with an opportunity to comment and 
informally consult with BLM or Forest Service land managers before a 
decision is made. Following that decision, they have the right to lodge 
an administrative appeal. If they are still unhappy, they can take 
their grievance to Federal court. So under this bill the door is open 
to the public at virtually every stage of the process.
  This legislation also recognizes the progress that the current 
resource advisory councils have made in developing standards and 
guidelines for responsible grazing on our Federal lands. The work of 
these councils will continue to serve as the basis for setting grazing 
standards.
  Most importantly, these standards will be developed by Montanans, not 
Washington bureaucrats.
  The legislation also maintains high environmental standards for 
ranchers. Just listen to this. Today, over 70 percent of lands managed 
by the BLM in Montana are rated good to excellent --70 percent. That 
is, 70 percent of the BLM lands in the State of Montana are rated good 
to excellent. Less than 5 percent of the BLM land is in poor condition; 
that is, not great, could be a lot better, but it is not bad. So, 70 
percent good to excellent; 5 percent in poor condition.
  The legislation provides the tools, however, to assure that the 
conditions in the poor allotments are improved.
  On-the-ground decisions reflect sound science. The bill requires a 
permit-level review of monitoring data every 6 years to ensure that 
good stewardship is not only the goal, but is actually being practiced.
  In closing, I want to go back to what this bill is about. It is about 
putting into effect fair, balanced grazing rules that will allow our 
ranchers to make a living.
  It is also about recognizing that sportsmen and recreationists use 
the public lands. It is their right, too. That Federal policy must be 
one of mutual respect and accommodation for all legitimate uses of the 
resources. We have to work together, come together.
  That is what this bill does. It helps reduce the division, the 
acrimony, the dissension of all the groups that have been trying to 
deal with this policy. It helps bring people together. That is what 
this does. It goes a long way to strike a balance, which I think is 
very helpful to better and more sound Federal land policy. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Baucus for his 
cooperation. He has worked with us on trying to make the bill better, 
and clearly from the first bill we introduced, into the second draft 
and the final one we put in today, I think we improved it from 
everybody's standpoint. I want to say he has been consistent with us. I 
am very appreciative. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                Amendment No. 3556 to Amendment No. 3555

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to open my remarks by simply 
saying that this amendment is not vindictive, it is not designed to put 
small ranchers out of business, and indeed it would not. I consider it 
to be an eminently fair amendment.
  Mr. President, for the benefit of people who do not deal with this 
issue and really do not understand what this debate is about, let me 
start off by saying there are 270 million acres of land that literally 
belong to the taxpayers of America. Most of it, admittedly, is in the 
western States. However, some of it is in my State and your State. Mr. 
President, there are currently 270 million acres of land that are 
subject to grazing permits.
  How many permits? Twenty-two thousand. How much money do we get? Mr. 
President, we receive $25 million and change. Therefore, we are not 
here debating money. That is really not the issue here. There is not 
much difference in the amount of money between the bill of the Senator 
from New Mexico and the Bumpers amendment. I will tell you, however, 
where the difference is. The difference is in fairness. The difference 
is in who pays the fee and what happens to the money.
  Now, the principal thrust of my amendment and the second-degree 
amendment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], is to protect--
let me repeat, to protect--small ranchers. That is who the Senator from 
New Mexico says he wants to protect. He has a lot of small ranchers in 
New Mexico that are totally dependent for their livelihood on grazing. 
I want them protected.
  I do not want my intelligence insulted by continually talking about 
small ranchers when 9 percent of the permittees, bear this in mind, 
there are 22,000 permittees and 9 percent of those permittees control 
60 percent of the AUM's. What is an AUM? It is an animal unit month. It 
is the amount of forage needed to graze one horse, one cow, five sheep, 
or five goats for 1 month. An AUM is the basis on which farmers or 
ranchers are charged for grazing their cattle. They may start off with 
200 head and they may keep 200 head for 6 months and they will pay, 
today, in 1996, $1.35 for each month for each of those 200 head that 
graze on Federal land. If the rancher sells off 100 head on the first 
of July, his rent is cut in half.
  I was a drugstore cowboy, among other things before I came to the 
Senate. I had 125 cows and maybe 80 calves.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator graze those on the public domain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S2403]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. They were raised on private land. However, other people 
in Arkansas currently graze on Forest Service lands. Moreover, fees 
paid on eastern Forest Service lands, including Arkansas, are currently 
calculated using a formula that is different than the western Forest 
Service lands. The formula for eastern Forest Service lands is based on 
fair market value and is currently $2.50 per AUM. Additionally, any new 
or vacant permits on eastern Forest Service lands are competitively 
bid.
  When I was elected Governor of my State, I charged five times as much 
per AUM for my farm lands as the Federal Government receives now.
  I did not just fall off a turnip truck when it comes to cattle. I 
raised cattle for several years and I know something about it. I 
enjoyed some good times and some bad times. I will never forget back in 
the late 1960's, the story about two farmers meeting. My area of 
Arkansas is cattle and poultry farming. Two farmers met in the 
restaurant. One said, ``I lost $100 already this morning.'' The other 
said, ``How on Earth did you do that?'' He said, ``My cow had a calf.'' 
That is how bad prices were for cattle.
  Back to the point, not only do 9 percent of all BLM permittees 
control 60 percent of the AUM's, according to GAO, 2 percent of the 
22,000 permittees control 50 percent of all the land. Who are they? I 
will come back to that in just a moment.
  When I begin providing you with a list of the kind of people, and 
they are not exactly small ranchers, who control hundreds of thousands 
of acres of land and run thousands of acres of cattle, you will see 
that we are not talking about that small rancher that everybody in the 
Senate wants to protect. We are talking about billionaires, 
millionaires, and big corporations.
  What do they receive? At this very moment, they may be in a State 
that charges up to $10 per AUM for grazing cattle on State lands. They 
may have to pay $10 for per AUM on State lands. But if they get a 
permit from ``Uncle Sucker'' they pay $1.35 per AUM. Here are some of 
the fees that the States charge. I have been through this so many times 
on mining, and it is the same old story. Here is what the U.S. 
Government receives, $1.35 per AUM; Arizona, $2.16; Colorado, $6.50; 
Idaho, $4.88; Montana, $4.05; Nebraska, $15.50; New Mexico, $3.54; 
Oklahoma, $10; Oregon, $2.72; South Dakota, $7; Utah, $2.50; 
Washington, $4.55; and Wyoming, $3.50.
  Why in the name of God does the Federal Government charge $1.35 per 
AUM? What do the States know that we do not know? I tell you what the 
States know. They know what the value of their land is.
  The argument will be made, ``Senator Bumpers, you do not seem to 
understand the way BLM and the Forest Service hassle our people. It is 
just terrible how put upon they are.'' I know there is some truth to 
that. I know that some of these bureaucrats of the BLM and the Forest 
Service can be overbearing. I also know that most of those ranchers do 
not want them around, period.
  Now, the reason I am standing here is twofold: No. 1, I want a 
grazing bill that is fair, that protects small ranchers and no. 2, I 
want a grazing bill that restores the rangelands of this country.
  Madam President, I want you to look at this very carefully on why the 
States are so much smarter than we are when it comes to leasing their 
lands for cattle grazing.
  Even this Senator had enough sense not to charge $1.35 when folks 
were standing in line to pay me $10. Why do we continue to do this? I 
want you to look at this chart. Since 1981--incidentally, Madam 
President, in 1981, the U.S. Government was getting $2.31 for an animal 
unit month. The current PRIA formula takes cattle prices into 
consideration. The cattle prices are very low right now. That is one of 
the reasons that I want to make sure that we protect the small 
ranchers. They are having a terrible time surviving right now.
  It is interesting to look at the trend of the Federal fee level--we 
received $2.31 in 1980. In 1996, 15 years later, we are receiving 
$1.35. That is $1 less per AUM than we received in 1980.
  What is the trend with regard to fees charged on State lands? The 
States are not dummies. They did what any prudent landowner would do. 
They have raised their rates from an average of $3.22 per AUM in 1980 
to $5.58 per AUM in 1995. That translates into approximately a 50-
percent increase. What is the trend of the private sector? They are 
smarter than the States or the Federal Government, either one. In 1981, 
they were receiving an average of $7.83 per animal unit month on 
private lands. Today they are receiving an average of $11.20 per AUM. 
Look at poor old Uncle Sucker. Not much money involved, I repeat, but a 
big principle.
  Why would some of these billionaires not be clamoring for Federal 
lands? They did not get rich by being stupid. They are mining the 
Federal Treasury, too. Who are they? One of my favorites, Newmont 
Mining. Talk about somebody mining the Federal Treasury. Newmont Mining 
is one of the biggest gold producers in the country, mining on lands 
that they bought from the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre. They 
are mining billions of dollars' worth of gold on it and not paying the 
U.S. Government one red cent. They are not just satisfied with owning 
gold lands. They want some of these grazing permits. So what do they 
have? They control 12,000 AUM's. What are we doing? We are charging 
$1.35 per AUM to Newmont Mining Co., one of the wealthiest companies in 
the world.
  Who else? Incidentally, here is a good one. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. 
Packard. They started a good company. I noticed a while ago that their 
stock went down today. They are a big computer manufacturer. Everybody 
knows Hewlett-Packard. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard graze cattle on 
nearly 100,000 acres in Idaho. Why? Because it adjoins a ranch they 
own. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard pay $1.35 per AUM on that Federal 
land. Why can Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard not pay a fee that is at 
least a little closer to fair market value than $1.35 per AUM.
  There is a company called Nevada First Corp. How many AUM's do you 
think Nevada First has? They have 56,000. They are a subsidiary of the 
Garvey Industries Corp., with a net worth of $80 million. Then there is 
Anheuser-Busch. Everybody knows who Anheuser-Busch is. Sunday 
afternoon, I was coming back on an airplane, and my staff had given me 
a memo on this debate and a newspaper article about how much public 
land Anheuser-Busch controlled with grazing permits. I asked the 
gentleman sitting on my left, ``Do you work for Anheuser-Busch?'' He 
said, ``No.'' I said, ``In that case, I will let you read this.'' He 
handed it back to me and said, ``Surely, you are not surprised by 
that.'' I said, ``No, I am not surprised.'' We went on our separate 
ways.
  Anheuser-Busch, which ranks 80th in the top 500 corporations in 
America, holds four permits that total 8,000 AUM's. I have nothing 
against Anheuser-Busch. I have been a Cardinal fan all my life. That 
was all we could get on the radio when I was a kid. They are a good 
corporation, as far as I know.
  Then there is an organization named Bogle Farms. Bogle Farms has 
40,000 AUM's on two permits in New Mexico. In 1991, their net worth was 
$15 million.
  Dan Russell--I do not know these people--currently holds 10 permits 
covering 200,000 AUM's. The issue is not whether or not he is a 
rancher. The issue is whether, if he controls 200,000 AUMs, we should 
subsidize his cattle at the same rate that small ranchers pay.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. For what purpose?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to agree on a procedure.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield for that purpose.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the two rollcall votes scheduled to begin at 12 noon on Thursday, the 
Senate resume the grazing fee bill and the pending Bumpers amendment 
No. 3556, that debate on that issue be equally divided in the usual 
form, and at 2:00 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to 
the Bumpers amendment, without any intervening action or debate.
  I further ask that there be a minimum of 75 minutes, equally divided, 
prior to the vote in relation to the Bumpers amendment.

[[Page S2404]]

  I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the 
Bumpers amendment, Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object --and I 
know the Senator from New Mexico did not prepare this--but the first 
vote which is to occur at 2:00 p.m. is supposed to be after the two 
votes. But it anticipates an hour and 15 minutes. So I ask that it be 
changed to an hour and 15 minutes following the close of the second 
vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did that. I said: Further, that a minimum of 75 
minutes, equally divided, prior to the vote in relation to the Bumpers 
amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Second, there is one correction there. The first vote 
should be on the Jeffords amendment to the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. We did this on purpose. We want the first amendment 
to be on the Bumpers underlying amendment. If our desires prevail, then 
Jeffords goes with it. If not, you are here and you can do whatever you 
want.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, obviously, I cannot object to that. You have a 
perfect right to move to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is fair that we take both amendments down 
with a vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The reason I have strong objection to that--and I am 
going to talk a great deal about that--is that the Jeffords amendment 
is an amendment with which I agree. I like it. I like it in some 
respects better than I do my own. I want for the people of this body to 
understand that if they vote to table the Bumpers amendment, they will 
not get a chance to vote on the Jeffords amendment, which I think most 
of them would like to do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You may prevail on that, which means we will have a 
vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would not want to preclude the possibility of making a 
tabling motion prior to the Jeffords amendment prior to that time.
  I would like to add that to the unanimous consent agreement.
  Madam President, to ensure the Record is clear, I would like to make 
this statement as a part of the unanimous consent agreement; that is, 
that at any time prior to the expiration of the hour and 15 minutes, or 
immediately thereafter--Madam President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, today the Senate will have the 
opportunity to return a bit of market discipline to the Federal grazing 
program. At a time when the Congress is cutting assistance to the poor, 
to education, and to a wide variety of other vital services, we cannot 
ignore any potential sources of additional Federal income. The Federal 
grazing program must also begin to pay its own way.
  The fee contained in S. 1459 covers only a small part of the actual 
cost of the grazing program. The Bumpers amendment seeks to increase 
this fee to a level at least a bit closer to what would be the fair 
market value of grazing services by adopting State grazing prices. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, the 12 States they 
studied charge from about 1\1/2\ to 10 times as much as what is charged 
for grazing land under this Federal bill. While there may be small 
differences in the condition of some State and Federal grazing lands, 
any differences do not justify a fee disparity of 10 times grazing. 
Many of my colleagues are fond of saying that the States know best 
regarding most programs. Just return programs to the States, they say 
and programs will magically improve. Well, why cannot we look to the 
States when it comes to revenue, too? State programs are managed to 
bring in money to support their schools. They cannot afford to 
subsidize grazers at the expense of their children's education. As a 
result, no State studied charges anything like the Federal fee. By 
adopting the State level, we also insure that fees are appropriate for 
local conditions.
  Madam President, this amendment is simple. The rest of the bill is 
not. According to the statement of administration policy submitted on 
S. 1459, the bill severely limits the ability of public land managers 
to protect the land and its resources and manage lands for multiple 
use. The bill curtails most public participation in grazing management 
decisions and activities, and severely weakens the requirements for 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
  The bill also contains troubling water rights language which, 
according to the Department of the Interior, may bar transfer of water 
uses from Federal to private land and language which would prevent 
ranchers from taking land out of production for conservation uses. In 
other words, they have to keep it in grazing.
  Worst of all, the bill violates the spirit under which Federal lands 
are supposed to be managed--for multiple uses which benefit all of the 
people and not just a few, organized groups. Our public lands belong to 
all Americans, whether they hike, bird watch, or graze livestock. 
Whether they live in Wyoming or New Jersey. They should never become 
the exclusive province of any one use.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this Bumpers 
amendment, a fiscally conservative amendment, and later for the 
Democratic substitute that will be offered by Senator Bingaman which 
makes needed changes in the underlying bill.


                    Amendment No. 3556, As Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment 
to desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3556), as modified, is as follows:
       Strike section 135 and insert the following:

     SEC. 135. GRAZING FEES.

       (a) Grazing Fee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall charge a 
     fee for domestic livestock grazing public rangelands as 
     provided for in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands 
     Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1905(a)) and Executive 
     Order 12548 (51 F.R. 5985):
       Provided, That the grazing fee shall not be less than: 
     $1.50 per animal unit month for the 1997 grazing year; $1.75 
     per animal unit month for the 1998 grazing year; and $2.00 
     per animal unit month for the 1999 grazing year and 
     thereafter.
       (b) Determination of Fee.--(1) Permittees or lessees who 
     own or control livestock comprising less than 2,000 animal 
     unit months on the public rangelands during a grazing year 
     pursuant to one or more grazing permits or leases shall pay 
     the fee as set forth in subsection (a).
       (2) Permittees or lessees who own or control livestock 
     comprising more than 2,000 animal unit months on the public 
     rangelands during a grazing year pursuant to one or more 
     grazing permits or leases shall pay the fee equal to the 
     higher of either--
       (A) the average grazing fee (weighted by animal unit 
     months) charged by the State during the previous grazing year 
     for grazing on State lands in which the lands covered by the 
     permit or lease are located; or
       (B) the Federal grazing fee set forth in subsection (a), 
     plus 25 percent.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) State lands shall include school, education department, 
     and State land board lands; and
       (2) individual members of a grazing association shall be 
     considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining 
     the appropriate grazing fee.

  Mr. DOMENICI. May we make the unanimous-consent request now?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me just say that if we can get 
this, our leader has authorized me to say there will be no more votes 
tonight. But we have to get this first.
  I ask unanimous-consent that the following--let me do this.
  I stated the unanimous-consent previously. I ask that that unanimous-
consent which I stated, and which I send to the desk in writing to 
reaffirm, be granted at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, there will be an hour and 
15 minutes following the close of the second vote tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We set 75 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. OK. Fine. I accept that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now we can say in behalf of the majority leader that 
there will be no more votes tonight.

[[Page S2405]]

  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I just wanted to know. There will be no more votes. But 
will the discussion continue on this particular amendment tonight, or 
is it going to be continued also tomorrow?
  Mr. BUMPERS. No. The amendment will be the subject of an hour and 15 
minutes of debate tomorrow.
  Does that answer the Senator's question?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. In other words, you are winding up the debate pretty 
soon here.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We will debate tonight as long as anybody wants to say 
anything on this, and then we will shut the Senate down as soon as we 
run out of debate.


                      Amendment No. 3557 withdrawn

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Jeffords amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3556, as Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I do not want to belabor these rich 
folks too long. The last one that I want to point out to for the 
edification of my colleagues is the gentleman by the name of J. R. 
Simplot from the great State of Idaho. He is 86 years old and has 
obviously been a great entrepreneur. I do not know a thing in the world 
about him. I assume he is a very fine man. In 1991, Forbes magazine 
identified him as one of the wealthiest individuals in the United 
States. Furthermore, he is on the cover of Fortune magazine in November 
1995. Here is the magazine, if anybody would care to look at it.
  His sales that year were $3 billion. And Mr. Simplot, to his credit 
and to his ingenuity, controls 50,000 AUM's in Idaho, Oregon, and 
Nevada.
  Finally, a Japanese named Kaiku controls 6,000 AUM's on 40,000 acres 
of Federal land in Montana.
  What does our amendment do? I will not belabor the point because it 
is very simple. We make a distinction between that group of people that 
I showed you a moment ago. Look at this chart, colleagues. We make a 
distinction in what people in this category pay, and what people in 
this category pay.
  Ninety-one percent of the permittees under our amendment will pay 
just a little bit more than they would pay under the Domenici proposal, 
and in some years less than the Domenici proposal. Ninety-one percent 
of them will pay just a few cents more than Senator Domenici's bill 
requires.
  This other 9 percent, which control 60 percent of all the AUM's, will 
pay either the same amount as the small ranchers, plus 25 percent, or a 
weighted average of the State fees charged in the State in which the 
permit is located, whichever is higher.
  That is as fair as a proposition could be. You can accept this 
amendment and agree that these people have taken advantage of a 
generous Congress who passed this law and gave these permits to people 
thinking they were helping poor ranchers make a living. And now we find 
60 percent of this land and AUM's are controlled by the richest people 
of America. Even under our proposal, to require these rich people to 
pay the weighted average of what the State charges, will still be in 
most instances around 100 percent less than what the private sector 
charges for grazing.

  Madam President, why are we defending a system that promotes the use 
of the public lands for the wealthiest when it was intended for the 
poorest? Because it is an old law and we just simply have not been able 
to turn it loose and make it work the way it was supposed to.
  When I came here in 1975, I found out that the Federal Government was 
leasing Federal lands for oil and gas leasing by lottery, like a bingo 
game. If you won the lottery, you got the land for $1 an acre. When I 
began to raise questions about it, they said, ``We are trying to make 
sure those little mom and pop operations get some of this Federal 
land.''
  We started checking the little mom and pop operations, and guess what 
was happening? They were retirees in Florida. They were elderly people 
who were snapping up these lottery chances because they were advertised 
all over America by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. And if they did 
happen to win the lottery, what do you think they did with it? They 
took it to Exxon, and if Exxon thought it had potential, they paid them 
a fortune for it.
  That is what we did for mom and pop operators. We made people, who 
did not know what a drilling rig looked like, wealthy because we 
refused to change that old law. I just made my mining speech yesterday 
so I am not going to make that again, but how many times have I heard 
that old story about those poor little old mom and pop mining companies 
out there?
  It turns out, as I began to examine it, that we are helping the 
biggest corporations in the world--not the United States, in the world. 
Now, here is deja vu. If someone argues that the State's rates are too 
high, I will answer that they have people standing in line wanting 
these permits. And when then they say, ``But that mean old BLM hassles 
us. They make us sort of take care of the land.'' But you know 
something else that the BLM and the Forest Service do? They take 50 
percent of the rent and put it back into the land. How many landlords 
do you know that take 50 percent of the rent they receive and put it 
back into improvements of your apartment or your house? Fifty percent 
goes back to improve the very land where these cattlemen are running 
their cattle.
  Madam President, the Public Rangelands Management Act was passed in 
1978. As I stated earlier, the fee under that formula has declined. In 
1980, the fee was $2.36 and in 1996, the fee is $1.35. Our amendment 
would use the same formula and simply raise the minimum.
  My amendment requires 91 percent of the deserving ranchers to pay 
very little more than they are paying right now. In 1999, our rate 
would go to $2 and under Senator Domenici's amendment the fee would be 
$1.85--15 cents difference. Who is going to quibble about that? 
However, under our amendment these people, the wealthiest people in 
America, would have to pay more.
  Madam President, two quick points, and I will conclude and let others 
speak who wish to. Karl Hess, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 
which is not exactly a citadel of liberalism, no bleeding heart 
liberals over at Cato, simply believes that the Government ought to get 
fair value for its assets. Here is a statement by Mr. Hess:

       Domenici's bill is bad for ranchers, bad for public lands, 
     bad for the American taxpayer. It will not improve management 
     of public lands and it will not be a fix for the hard 
     economic times now faced by ranchers. What it will do, 
     however, is deepen the fiscal crisis of the public land 
     grazing program by plunging it into an ever-deepening 
     deficit. If western ranchers insist on supporting this bill 
     and the additional costs associated with it, they should be 
     prepared to pay the price. Tagging the majority of Federal 
     grazing fees to state grazing rates is one essential step in 
     that direction.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1459, the 
Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995. Rangeland reform is important 
both for the health of our public lands and the ranching industry in 
the Western States. I commend my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, for his work in bringing this bill to the Senate floor.
  Let me make clear up front, S. 1459 is not an attempt to weaken 
existing environmental laws applicable to grazing. All major 
environmental laws continue to apply as written. This bill provides for 
better rangeland management by establishing standards and guidelines at 
the State or regional level, so that rangeland policy can take regional 
differences into account. Nothing is more important to me than the 
preservation of these multiple-use lands for present and future 
generations. I would not, and could not support anything to the 
contrary.
  There continues to be debate about what is an appropriate fee for 
grazing on public land. It is important that the Government realize a 
fair return for the use of Federal lands. This legislation prescribes a 
new formula for calculating grazing fees. Under this formula, fees 
would rise approximately 30 percent over the present level.
  For those who make their living from the land, and who put food on 
the table for all of us, we want to offer some certainty for the 
future. We must protect rancher's private property rights, provide 
stability on grazing allotments,

[[Page S2406]]

and offer sufficient incentives for sound long-term resource management 
practices.
  Critics have suggested that S. 1459 provides for grazing and 
livestock activities as the dominant use on the allotments. That is 
simply not true. The bill explicitly provides that the public lands 
will continue to be accessible to all multiple-use activities.
  It has also been suggested that this legislation will curtail public 
participation in the decisionmaking process. The public's opportunity 
to participate in the NEPA and FLPMA processes is not affected by this 
legislation. It does, however, address the problem of who can appeal 
allotment management decisions by limiting appeals to persons who have 
affected interests. This will enable Federal land managers to review 
appeals more expeditiously and will shorten the delays in achieving a 
final implementation plan. This process will allow permittees and 
lessees to carry out their business without the heavy financial losses 
usually associated with lengthy delays.
  Most importantly, this legislation provides for periodic monitoring 
of rangeland resource conditions. The Secretaries of Agriculture and 
the Interior have the ability to amend allotment plans where resource 
conditions dictate. I believe that the bill therefore reflects a wide 
variety of environmental and user concerns; and I urge its favorable 
consideration.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the 
issue grazing fees on public lands. As I mentioned before in my opening 
statement, I believe there is a grave misperception about ranchers who 
utilize public lands. For those of you unfamiliar with ranchers or the 
ranching business, let me tell you that it is not a lucrative business. 
I believe it is this misperception that drives the efforts to try to 
hike up the grazing fees to unacceptable heights. Opponents of the new 
fee structure proposed in S. 1459, argue that ranchers don't pay fair 
market value. Well, I would like my colleagues to explain to the rest 
of us, how one can determine what fair market value is.
  For example, when doing a fair market value appraisal, appraisers 
compare the value of similarly situated pieces of property--they 
compare apples with apples. When opponents of the proposed grazing fee 
compare the prices charged to lease private or State lands with the 
grazing fees ranchers pay for BLM or Forest Service lands, however they 
are comparing apples with oranges. They simply are not the same thing.
  My friends from Arkansas and Vermont, are attempting to draw 
comparisons between apples--State lands, and oranges--Federal lands, to 
legitimize their logic. States fees are structured under an entirely 
different scenario than Federal fees. State lands are administered for 
completely different purposes and goals compared to Federal lands. To 
compare the fee dollars and cents on a chart is simply not fair.
  With their amendments, my colleagues are attempting to utilize the 
State fee structure to create a more fair return to the Government and 
taxpayer. However, as I have stated before, this logic is flawed.

  If we follow this rationale utilized in this amendment, by 
implementing the State rate fees, we might as well streamline the 
process and manage the public lands according to State management 
systems. Heck, if we charge a grazing fee according to State rates, 
manage the Federal lands like State lands, we might as well turn the 
whole operation and ownership over to the States. I suspect there are 
many Members in this body that would not agree with this type of logic.
  Furthermore, the grazing fee structure in the Bumpers amendment is 
fundamentally unfair to ranchers. This proposal does not fully consider 
the investment that ranchers already have made in building their lots 
and stock ponds. In addition, the profit margins for many ranchers is 
small, and thousands of ranchers have already fallen into bankruptcy. 
Raising the fees as this amendment proposes to do will drive even more 
ranchers into economic insolvency.
  Mr. President, the fee structure proposed by S. 1459 would establish 
a fair system. It is a very simple and straightforward method for 
calculating the grazing fee that would apply to western BLM and Forest 
Service lands.
  Quite simply, you would take the 3-year average of the total gross 
value of production of beef cattle for the 3 years preceding the 
grazing fee year--based on data supplied by the Economic Research 
Service of the USDA--and multiply that number by the 10-year rolling 
average of 6-month Treasury bills. That number would be divided by 12, 
the number of months in a year. The dividend would be the grazing fee, 
expressed in dollars per animal unit month. S. 1459 would increase the 
fee by an average of about 50 cents per AUM.
  Anyone who truly understands the grazing fees, will understand that 
there is only one agency that really attempts to compile data about 
private leased lands--it is the USDA's Economic Research Service--and 
that is why they are the source of the critical data used in this fee 
formula.
  Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about this misperception of 
grazing fees that has become a symbol representing unfair subsidies and 
environmental degradation. Fee increases are imminent, and most people 
here understand that. However, these increases must be carefully 
structured with appropriate data. S. 1459 achieves this, by 
establishing a grazing fee formula that protects the rancher while 
allowing for equitable returns to the Federal Government.
  I would like to abbreviate my comments because I know my colleagues 
want to get out of here at a decent hour this evening. I was over in 
the office listening to the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from 
Vermont, and I have to tell you I think they are just simply missing 
the target. I would ask my colleagues to oppose both their amendments.
  As I understand the Jeffords amendment in the second degree, is 
attempting to put corporate interests in the same category as the 
family rancher, who has spent years and years of hard work to make his 
ranch grow. I think that is a mistake. It seems to me that we are 
confusing the issue of large and small ranchers and real ranchers with 
corporate operations.
  I know in our State of Colorado we give special 100-year awards to 
ranchers and farmers. If the family has stayed with the land for 100 
years, we give them an award at our State fair every year to try to 
encourage them to stay on the land. Many of those ranchers have 
sacrificed a great deal and their families have sacrificed too in order 
to make the ranch grow.
  Some have done well over the years and invested in other things, but 
their primary income still comes from the ranch. This reality is a 
little different than the reality I have heard described by the two 
Senators and their amendments. I understand that the amendments that 
are being offered now are an attempt to try to get the corporate people 
out of ranching, and both Senator Bumpers and Senator Jeffords 
mentioned Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and a number of others, 
Simplot and Texaco, and so on.
  I think most of us recognize that there are corporations in America 
that have bought ranches or bought permits to use as some kind of a tax 
shelter. I understand that. Most of us understand that. That is not who 
we are trying to protect. I know the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] 
and I have a lot of friends who fall into the first category that I was 
trying to describe. Those people who have worked the land, stuck to the 
land and sacrificed to keep the land are the ones we are concerned 
about. We are not in any way trying to protect the big corporations 
from using ranching legislation as a tax writeoff.
  It would seem to me what they should introduce perhaps is an 
amendment to prevent nonranchers from buying permits, or to specify the 
criteria for permittees. It seems to me that is who they are trying to 
identify are those people who are abusing or misusing, if I can use 
their words, the system of ranching and the system of using permits.
  Now, I wanted to also respond to the Senator from Arkansas question 
of quote, ``Where does the money go?'' I will tell you where the little 
money ranchers gain in profit goes. It goes

[[Page S2407]]

onto Main Street. It goes into hardware stores, and it goes into the 
grocery stores, and it goes into the used car lot and everyplace else--
the banks, too, if there is some left over. Maybe it even goes for 
recreation or vacations. For the most part, however, usually the little 
that is left over goes back into the ranch to improve the ranch. I 
don't think people understand that ranching is the economic backbone 
for many rural communities in the West. When one rancher goes down, the 
whole community is affected. People up in the administration like to 
talk about the interconnectedness of ecosystems. Well, the rural 
ranching communities are a great example of an interconnected 
community. One element goes down, and the whole system crashes.
  It seems to me, knowing what I do, as a western Senator, about 
ranching, when you kill the ranching industry--you also kill Main 
Street. I believe a disproportionate increase in a fee could do just 
that, and there are many studies that have indicated that a fee 
increase would indeed have devastating repercussions for the rancher 
and the community. This is obviously a serious issue to many small 
towns in the West, in probably eight or nine States at the very least. 
A blind and politically driven fee increase would result in putting 
real hard-working people on the welfare lines, and destroying property 
tax bases in our region. I do not think that is what our goal ought to 
be.
  The Senator from Arkansas also mentioned one person in particular 
which he used to convince folks, in his catch-all kind of shotgun 
attack, that large ranchers are the same as corporate ranchers. That 
man was a man by the name of Dan Russell. I happen to personally know 
Dan Russell, although I do not know him well. I met him years ago, 
clear back in the 1960's. I disagree strongly with the Senator from 
Arkansas' characterization of his operation as some type of heartless, 
profit-driven corporate industry.
  Dan Russell's family has ranched for almost 100 years on both sides 
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California and Nevada, too. He 
probably made 98 percent of his money or more from ranching, although 
he has probably invested in other things, too. Yes, he did make money, 
but I do not think that is against the law and it should not be against 
the law.
  Dan Russell may have made money, but one factor that the Senator from 
Arkansas failed to mention is that Dan is known as one of the most 
community-minded people in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains. Dan's profit has been a profit for his community. If you go 
to Folsom, CA, a small town northeast of Sacramento, you find the Dan 
Russell Arena, which Dan donated. A lot of events are held there for 
the community. He is known as a civic leader and community-minded 
citizen who has made his money through real ranching, not because he 
had an interest in Texaco or something else. Dan's contributions to his 
local community should be commended, not condemned.
  I would now like to address the issue of fair market value. This 
issue comes up in this debate time after time. There is a great 
misperception about the fees for public lands, as if, somehow, ranchers 
in the West are ripping off the taxpayer because they do not pay the 
same amount for their AUM as a rancher in some other State that has to 
rent private land. I have private land. My wife's family used to have 
permits. I can tell you there is a big difference between private land 
and permits on public lands. The public land permits do not have the 
same sorts of benefits you could get on private land. Developments, 
improvements, anything you would not have to pay or provide on private 
lands, you have to pay for out of your own pocket on public lands. You 
get a lot more for your money with private rentals than you do with the 
permits. I think it is simply a bad comparison.
  I would like to illustrate the ludicrous nature of this comparison 
with a couple of examples. I live out West where, if you want to go get 
your own Christmas tree at Christmas, you can do it on public lands. 
You can get a $5 permit from the Forest Service and go cut a tree. 
Virtually any tree of any size that you can carry out of there, is only 
$5. Yet, if you go downtown to any city in America and you buy a tree 
on the lot, it will probably cost you $5 a foot. So how do you go about 
comparing the two? If you use the same rationale in the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas, we should start charging folks $5 
a foot for the trees on Forest Service land. I have a hunch though, 
that if you told everybody who wanted to go out in the forest and cut 
his or her own Christmas tree, many of whom have built traditions off 
of this practice year after year, that we were going to charge them $5 
a foot for any tree they pack out of the forest, they would probably 
get pretty darned angry about it. Is it fair? How about this example: 
In Denver, CO, if you go to the zoo to see eagles, hawks, coyotes, 
snakes, alligators, elk, and deer or whatever kind of animal, you pay 
$6. If you drive about 30 minutes from the zoo to the foothills of the 
Rocky Mountains, you could easily see a lot of these animals, and you 
wouldn't be charged a cent. Under the Senator from Arkansas' logic with 
fair market value, maybe we ought to charge anybody who wants to see a 
deer, who goes out in the forest, $6 to go out and look at deer. There 
would be a national uprising if we even suggested something like that.

  This business about fair market value is simply a classic case of 
apples and oranges. It does not fit and it is not fair.
  Finally, I would like to address another example that demonstrates 
the difficulties in ranching on public lands. Currently, under the 
rangeland reform regulations and the Bingaman substitute amendment, the 
permittees on public lands who have put money into improvements are not 
allowed to have any ownership over the investments they make. The 
ranchers simply have to put in that money themselves--there are no 
Federal grants to assist them--and they get very little in return in 
the end. Under the Domenici bill, there are real incentives for 
permittees to improve their allotments. Unless you provide real 
incentives for the rancher, the condition of the range will continue to 
be substandard. This is not the fault or responsibility of the rancher. 
It is the responsibility of the Federal Government. It just makes 
sense--people have to feel empowered, they have to feel like they have 
a stake in what they work on, in order for them to be proactive in 
improving the conditions.
  In any event, I did want to come down just for a moment and voice my 
opposition to both the Jeffords amendment and the Bumpers amendment. I 
think they are both just shots in the dark, and by trying to go after 
the big corporations they will create casualties amongst the hard-
working family ranchers of the West.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  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.

[[Page S2408]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Just for a minute I want to speak on the bill before 
us, and then I want to ask permission to speak as in morning business 
for about 7 or 8 minutes.
  Before I speak in morning business, most of the time I only speak on 
agricultural issues as they relate to the Midwest--the cattle, the 
pork, the production of corn, production of soybeans, and some wheat. 
But I think a lot of things that could be said on that issue can be 
said on this bill as well.
  Part of the problem that the Senators from the West are having comes 
from a lot of constituents who are legitimately expressing concern 
about the environment, legitimately expressing concern about the good 
management and a good economic return for the Federal Government on 
land that the taxpayers own, who do all this legitimately. But they 
forget, in the process, they are not appreciating what the consumer of 
America has in the way of production of food in America.
  I think too often the 98 percent of the people in this country who 
are not producing food--remember, that is 2 percent of the people in 
this country producing the food that the other 98 percent eat, or 
another way to put it, one farmer in America will produce enough food 
not only for Americans but for people outside of America to feed 
another 124 people--the 98 percent do not really appreciate the fact 
that food grows on farms, it does not grow in supermarkets.
  They are so used to going to the supermarket, getting anything they 
want anytime they want it and just pay for it. Every time you pay for 
it, you think you are paying for a very expensive item. But, in fact, 
food in the United States, not only being of the highest quality, is 
also a cheaper product in America than any other country in the world.
  The consumers of America spend about 9 or 10 percent of their 
disposable income on food. Look at any other country, and the 
percentage is in the high teens and low twenties, and in some of the 
countries of Eastern Europe, it could be 40 percent of income spent 
just on food.
  I know none of you is going to buy the argument when I say we are 
talking about subsidies for farmers. Just think of the subsidy that the 
consumers of America get from the efficient production of food in 
America that consumers in other places in the world do not get from 
production of food by their farmers.
  I do not expect anybody to buy the argument that the farmers of 
America are subsidizing the food bill of consumers of America by 40 
percent, but that is a fact, because we produce so efficiently, we 
produce such a high-quality product that it is just a little irksome 
for those of us who are involved in agriculture to sit around here and 
listen to this lack of appreciation of what the farmers do for the 
consumers of America, what 2 percent of the people do for the other 98 
percent, what we not only do in the way of production of food and 
fiber, but what we do to create jobs in America, because whatever 
starts out at the natural resources of America, whether it be on the 
row-crop farms of the Midwest or the grazing lands of the West, the 
start of that product there, when you trace that product from the farm 
through the consumer of America, you are talking about a food and fiber 
chain that is 20 percent of the gross national product of America.
  That is jobs for a lot of people other than the 2 percent of the 
people who are farmers. Quite frankly, a lot of income returned on 
labor is much greater than the return that the farmer gets for labor.
  So you can go ahead in this debate over the next day or two and have 
all the fun you want to about doing what you think is right for the 
environment or what you think is right for a return on investment for 
the taxpayers who have money invested in public land and give the 
farmers of America a bad time. We probably have to take it because we 
are such a small segment of the population, but I would like to see, 
once in a while, an appreciation from the people in the Congress of the 
United States, not only this body but the other body as well, for the 2 
percent of the people who provide a good product and a cheap product 
for the consumers of America.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________