[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 42 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2832-S2833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PROPOSALS TO INCREASE THE GRAZING FEE

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the 
amendment that was offered by my colleague, Senator Bumpers, to S. 
1549. Senator Bumpers' amendment would have substituted a two-tiered 
grazing fee for the new grazing fee formula in the bill. After serious 
consideration, I supported the motion to table the Bumpers amendment,

[[Page S2833]]

and thereby preserve the new increased grazing fee formula in S. 1459.
  The Bumpers amendment would create two grazing fee formulas. The 
first would apply to permittee who ``control livestock less than 2,000 
animal unit months [AUM]'' on public lands during a grazing year. This 
fee is intended to apply to small ranching operations, and would 
increase each year for the next 3 years. The second fee created by this 
amendment is targeted to larger ranching operations, which are 
comprised of more than 2,000 AUM's. This fee would be set according to 
higher amount of either the average grazing fee charged by the 
respective State, or, by increasing the aforementioned small ranch fee 
by 25 percent.
  The Bumpers amendment would increase the grazing fee each year for 
the next 3 years for smaller ranchers, and implement a substantial 
increase for larger ranchers. While the Bumpers amendment attempts to 
require larger--and therefore presumably better off ranching operations 
to pay more, I ultimately decided that the Bumpers proposal would have 
too injurious an impact on modest, family-run ranching operations in 
Arizona.
  I strongly believe in the longstanding principle of managing Federal 
lands for the multiple use of the public. This means that the many 
legitimate uses of public lands--recreation, wildlife preservation, 
grazing, hunting, and economic purposes--must be carefully balanced 
with each other. Our precious Federal lands must be properly managed so 
that they can be enjoyed by Americans both today, and in the future.
  When public lands are used for economic purposes, such as timber, 
mining, and cattle grazing, there clearly should be a fair return to 
taxpayers for the economic benefits gained from the land, and for the 
cost of administering these uses. In light of the massive Federal debt 
our Nation has piled up, the Congress must be especially vigilant in 
ensuring that fees imposed on individuals who are using public lands 
for commercial purposes, must be equitably set. With an astounding $5 
trillion debt growing larger every day, I think it is appropriate for 
grazing fees and mining fees to be adjusted.
  I strongly oppose, however, drastic hikes in such fees that would 
bankrupt hard-working ranching families. Nationwide, ranchers who graze 
cattle on public lands have an annual income of only $30,000 a year. 
These families do not have a huge profit margin that is being gained at 
the expense of the public. Indeed, the taxes they pay and the economic 
benefits they generate are extremely important to small towns in 
Arizona and throughout the West.
  The grazing reform bill I am supporting, S. 1459--Public Rangelands 
Management Act--would increase the existing grazing fee by 37 percent. 
In my view, that is a pretty reasonable attempt to address legitimate 
concerns of the public about what return the Treasury is getting from 
the lease of Federal rangelands. If we could reform Federal fees or 
reduce Federal spending pertaining to corporate entities which are 
similarly subsidized by taxpayers, our budget problems would be in a 
lot better shape. Ranchers will pay their fair share under S. 1459.
  The new, higher grazing fee in S. 1459 will afford greater stability 
to ranchers in my State who need to plan ahead for their family 
business. The fee in S. 1459 is based upon a 3-year rolling average of 
the gross value of beef production in the United States, along with 
interest rates from Treasury bills. This new formula will fluctuate 
according to market conditions, which I think is appropriate.
  While the sponsors of the Bumpers amendment state that it is targeted 
at large, corporate-owned ranching operations, I am deeply concerned 
that its higher, corporate fee hike could come down squarely on many 
family ranchers in the Southwest. It would have potentially crippling 
effects on family ranchers in States such as Arizona and New Mexico, 
especially.
  The reason the Bumpers amendment would hurt many Southwestern 
ranchers is that its formula would significantly impact ranchers whose 
grazing permits are comprised primarily of Federal lands, and on 
ranchers who graze cattle year round. Both of these factors apply to 
southwestern ranchers, due to large amount of land that is owned by the 
Federal Government. The Bumpers amendment's formula would apply its 
higher fee to ranching operations with more than 176 head of cattle, 
which is not a large, corporate operation by the standards of my State.
  Furthermore, the Bumpers amendment's higher fee was partly based on 
higher State land standards, which are not always readily comparable to 
Federal lands. Federal rangelands do not offer the same exclusivity of 
use to permittees as do State lands, and ranchers on Federal lands also 
bear higher costs for range improvements than do holders of private 
grazing permits.
  I find no evidence that that new fee will not cover the Federal cost 
of the program.
  Due to these factors, I opposed the Bumpers amendment, and voted to 
preserve the reasonable fee increase which is in the underlying bill. I 
commend Senator Bumpers for his objectives, however, and share his 
concerns that taxpayers must be fairly compensated for the economic use 
of public lands. I will continue my efforts to vigorously weed out 
unfair and unsustainable corporate subsidies. If S. 1459 becomes law, 
the Congress should continue to evaluate the grazing revenues it 
produces. I will be open at that time to considering whether further 
adjustments for corporate ranching operations are warranted.

                          ____________________