[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.
____________________