[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10584-S10598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 5353 to Committee Amendment on Page 25, lines 4-10
(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.
Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Arkansas withhold?
Mr. BUMPERS. Happy to.
Mr. GORTON. Do we have a special order to proceed to a particular
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the amendment of the Senator from
Arkansas.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment found on page 25 be laid aside and the amendment from the
Senator from Arkansas be considered.
Mr. BUMPERS. We object.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for the clerk to report
the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr.
Gregg and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 5353 to
the committee amendment on page 25 lines 4-10.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending Committee amendment ending on
line 4 on page 25, add the following:
SEC. . 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).
(b) Determination of Fee.--(1) Permittees or lessees,
including related persons, who own or control livestock
comprising less than 2,000 animal unit months on the public
rangelands pursuant to one or more grazing permits or leases
shall pay the fee as set forth in subsection (a).
(2) Permittees or lessees, including related persons, who
own or control livestock comprising more than 2,000 animal
unit months on the public rangelands pursuant to one or more
grazing permits or leases shall pay the fee as set forth in
subsection (a) for the first
[[Page S10585]]
2,000 animal unit months. For animal unit months in excess of
2,000, the fee shall be 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;
(2) individual members of a grazing association shall be
considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining
the appropriate grazing fee; and
(3) related persons includes--
(i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the
holder of the permit or lease; and
(ii) a person controlled by, or controlling, or under
common control with the holder of the permit or lease.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, grazing fees have been the subject of
many hot controversial debates in this body. The reason is that our
grazing fee policies are highly controversial. When I think about the
farm bill that we passed last year and the proponents of the farm bill
said that it was going to take the farmers off of welfare--they have
been receiving these commodity payments since the memory of man runneth
not, so we are going to give them some money each year for 7 years and
then that is the end of all farm subsidies. All farmers will be on
their own after that. No more welfare state for the farmers of this
country.
Mr. President, I have absolutely no objection to grazing on Federal
lands. What I object to is the amount of money we receive from the
people who graze livestock on public lands. Let me just start by saying
that we have about 27,000 permitees in this country who graze cattle on
public lands. That is on both Forest Service lands and Bureau of Land
Management lands. How much land is involved? It is 270 million acres.
What do we get? What does the United States Treasury get for the 270
million acres? We get $25.2 million--$25.2 million a year for 270
million acres of land.
I am not quarreling about how much land is grazed. I am not
quarreling with the permitting system where we grant permits to
ranchers so that they can graze cattle on it. I am not even quarreling
all that much about how little money we get out of it. My amendment
will only add $8 million a year to that $25 million. What I am
quarreling about is the welfare system that exists in the way we handle
our Federal grazing lands.
In short, we have 27,000 permits--I want my colleagues who are
sitting in their offices or in the Chamber to listen to these figures--
27,000 permits in this country. Some people have more than one permit,
so we actually have 22,350 operators who hold permits. Here is what I
object to and this is what my amendment is designed to correct: some of
the biggest corporations in America, corporations from the Fortune 500,
people who are billionaires--pay $1.35 per AUM [animal unit month] to
graze cattle on public lands. Mr. President, I am talking about 9
percent, look at this figure on this chart, 9 percent of the 22,350
permittees, 9 percent of them hold 60 percent of the 270 million acres
of land that we allow to be grazed.
What does that mean? Mr. President, 91 percent of the remaining
permittees control 40 percent of all of the AUM's. You do not have to
be a rocket scientist to look at this chart and know that we are being
grossly unfair to ourselves and we are allowing a form of corporate
welfare in this country that we should never permit. What would I do?
My amendment focuses on this 9 percent, the permittees controlling 60
percent of all of the AUM's. Let me digress a moment to describe what
that is. An animal unit month is the amount of forage needed to graze
one cow and her calf for 1 month, or one horse, or five sheep or five
goats. We will talk about cows because virtually all Federal lands are
grazed by cattle.
Nine percent of these people, many of whom are billionaires and the
largest corporations on the Fortune 500, control 60 percent of all of
this land. My amendment would require these 9 percent to pay the rate
that the State charges for grazing on State lands for any AUM's in
excess of 2,000. My amendment allows all permittees to pay the current
fee of $1.35 on the first 2,000 AUM's.
Today we charge, per AUM, $1.35 a month. You can graze one cow and
her calf for 1 month for $1.35 on public rangelands. Look at this. In
1981, that figure was $2.31. In 1995, it was $1.61. In 1996, it is
$1.35. My amendment would require that, if a permittee controls more
than 2,000 AUM's, that permittee must pay the average that the State
charges for State lands for all AUM's in excess of 2,000.
What's wrong with that? Somebody tell me, what's wrong with that? Why
is it that Colorado leases their lands for $6.50 an AUM and poor old
``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35? Why is it that even Arizona gets $2.18 per
AUM and poor old ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35? Look at this--Nebraska.
Nebraska gets $15.50 per AUM, and ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35. South
Dakota gets $7 per AUM on State lands in South Dakota, and the State of
Oklahoma gets $10. Washington State gets $4.55. The average for all of
these States where Federal lands exist--the average charged by all of
those States is well over $5, or between $5 and $6. That is the
average. ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35.
I see my colleague, Senator Gregg, who just came on the floor. He is
my chief cosponsor on this amendment. Our amendment allows every
permittee to pay the current rate of $1.35 on their first 2,000 AUM's.
We are not trying to change the basic rate. However, if you are
Anheuser-Busch, or Newmont Mining, or Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard, and
you have thousands of acres of land you are grazing, anything above
2,000 AUM's, you ought to be willing to pay what the State charges.
Mr. President, I was discussing this amendment with my staff in my
office this morning, and I said, ``You know, I used to be a trial
lawyer, and I know something about juries. Sometimes I got fooled about
what a jury would do. But I would not be fooled on this.'' If I were
arguing this to 12 jurors, peers of mine--12 jurors, tried and true--
they would not be out to deliberate this issue in minutes. Why do you
think people are always saying, ``What on God's green Earth is Congress
thinking about? Why do they permit things like this?'' I will tell you
why they permit it. The same reason we permit a lot of other things:
They have a lot of clout.
Do you see these States right here on this chart? I would hope to get
a Senator or two from one of those States. However, right now I don't
know who it would be. These people who control these grazing permits
have a lot of political clout. I don't blame them. If I were out there
running cattle on Federal lands for $1.35 a month, I can promise you I
would have some strong feelings about changing the law, too.
Look what has happened, Mr. President, since 1981. I invite all of my
colleagues to look carefully at this. In 1981, this green line
represents the average fees in these States charged to private persons.
If you rent land from me--incidentally, Mr. President, until 2 years
ago, I had a 400-acre farm, and I leased it for cattle grazing. From
the time I was elected Governor in 1970, I never farmed again. I leased
my land every year. That is a private lease, and the average is $7.88
an AUM in 1981. But in 1995, look at the trend. Private lease rates now
average $11.20, which is the amount a rancher pays if he or she leases
these lands in the private sector.
If a rancher leased State lands in one of these States right here in
1981, he or she paid $3.22 per AUM. In 1995, he or she would have paid
$5.58. That is the average of what all these States charge. But if a
rancher happened to be one of those lucky people that held a permit
from the Bureau of Land Management, in 1981, he or she paid $2.31. The
Federal fee was decreasing. In 1991, a Federal permittee paid $1.97. In
1995, a Federal permittee paid $1.61. In 1996, it is $1.35.
Here are lands being leased in the private sector, going up
dramatically in the last 16 years. The grazing fees charged on lands
leased in the private sector, going up dramatically since 1981. And
grazing fees on lands that poor old ``Uncle Sucker'' lets out have gone
down. I don't have this carried out, but it would be down about here,
$1.35 an AUM.
Even Senator Domenici's bill, which passed the Senate but which did
not go anyplace--nor is it going anyplace--even that bill would have
taken the price of AUM's up to $2.18. Now, of course, you understand
that is 9 years
[[Page S10586]]
from now, in the year 2005. No big deal. But at least Senator Domenici
would recognize that $1.35 per AUM is outrageous.
Here is an average of the 1995 fees. I mentioned this a while ago,
but I did not show you the chart. Today, this figure is not $1.61; it
is $1.35. Senator Domenici's bill was $1.97. In the State lands, the
average is $5.58.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was in the cloakroom, and I saw something fall down;
did it hit you?
Mr. BUMPERS. I am going to put it back up.
Mr. DOMENICI. But you are all right?
Mr. BUMPERS. That is about how important this debate has been
considered around here for the last 20 years.
For private lands, $11.20 is the average of what people are paying
private landowners to graze livestock on private lands. You are going
to hear a lot of people state, ``Senator, do you realize cattle prices
are awfully low right now?'' Yes, I know cattle prices are currently
low. I used to be a cattle farmer myself. Cattle prices got so low one
time in the late sixties, I heard a farmer say, ``I have already lost
$100 this morning.'' I asked, ``How come?'' He said, ``One of my cows
had a calf.'' I know that prices of cattle are not at an all-time low,
but they are very cheap right now. But they are not as cheap as this
bargain ranchers receive from the U.S. Government. Look at this. You
are going to hear the argument that the States--because I am saying we
should charge these wealthy corporate farmers who are getting this big
ripoff from the Bureau of Land Management, they are going to say,
``Well, prices are so low now. This is no longer a big bargain.''
However, remember that the private land lease rates and the State
land lease rates have continued to rise over the last 16 years. You
cannot argue with the trend. In addition, how many landlords have you
ever known who have said, ``I will put 50 percent of all the rent you
pay me back into your apartment. You pay me $500 a month, and I will
put $250 a month back into renovating your apartment and keeping it up,
buying new appliances, and so on.''
But that is what we do. That is what the Federal Government does. If
we received $1.35, that would be an outrage, but we turn around and put
improvements, fences, everything under the shining sun back into the
land. Fifty percent of $1.35 goes back onto the land. What a deal.
The Government only gets 37.5 percent and the States get 12.5
percent.
Mr. President, I am going to put a few charts up here to show you why
I am offering this amendment. There are some people who ought not to be
permitted to have huge, thousands and thousands of acres of grazing
permits for $1.35 an acre per cow. As I said, my amendment would let
them control 2,000 animal units at the $1.35 rate, and that is what it
is under the Public Rangelands Improvement Act right now.
I ask you, is a small fee increase which amounts to $8 million for
all of them--I am talking about 60 percent of the lands, 60 percent of
the 270 million acres of land we lease--is it too much to ask those
people to pay an additional $8 million a year? And it is not the money.
It is corporate welfare. How many times do you hear that term used
around here in the Tax Code. So I ask you, is this small fee increase I
am talking about really important to these people?
Anheuser-Busch, I understand they make a good beer. I am not a beer
drinker so I cannot attest to that. But in 1994, they were ranked the
80th biggest corporation in America--not just on the Fortune 500, the
80th biggest corporation in America. And what do they have? They have
8,000 AUM's, and under my amendment they would pay the State fee on the
additional AUM's above 2,000, or 6,000. They would have to pay a small
additional fee on the extra 6,000 above 2,000.
I do not believe that would bankrupt Anheuser-Busch. You are probably
talking about somewhere between $6,000 and $60,000 a year, or the
equivalent of a 15-second spot on Sunday afternoon at the football
game.
William Hewlett, who in this body never heard of Hewlett-Packard?
William Hewlett, 100,000 acres. My guess is that he is easily a
billionaire. William Hewlett is probably embarrassed to pay $1.35 an
animal unit month. He has permits for 100,000 acres. Why do I have this
nagging suspicion that this bill would not bankrupt him?
Newmont Mining Co., probably the biggest gold mining company in
America--British owned, if that matters to you. I do not believe
Britain would lease lands to run 12,000 cows on any of its land. I am
not making the case. I love England. They have been a steadfast,
reliable ally for almost 200 years. They have 12,000 animal unit
months, and I am saying that is 10,000 too many without paying
something extra.
J.R. Simplot, the Idaho potato billionaire--billionaire--50,000
AUM's. Think about 50,000 AUM's. That could run as high as 4,000 head
of cattle for 12 months at $1.35 a month.
And here is another corporation, Zenchiku, 6,000 AUM's and 40,000
acres.
Mr. President, I am not going to belabor this any further. I have
just made the case that we are allowing the biggest corporations in
America to run thousands of cattle on Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service lands.
You know something else. If a rancher leases lands for grazing on the
Ouachita National Forest in the great State of Arkansas, from whence I
come, you have to pay almost twice that much. If you lease grazing
lands on any of the eastern forests of the United States, you have to
pay $2.50 per animal unit month. They are not a big item in my State so
I do not really have a dog in the fight. All I am saying is this is
very little money, $8 million.
It is not right for 9 percent of the wealthiest people in America to
control 60 percent of all the grazing lands the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service permit to be grazed. That means the
other 91 percent, whom everybody here is going to stand up and defend--
people from the Western States are going to get up and say, ``Isn't
this terrible. Think about it. All these poor little old people out
there trying to graze.'' I do not touch them. This amendment has
nothing to do with them. They will still run cattle for $1.35 an animal
unit month. I am not talking about 91 percent of the permittees. I am
talking about the 9 percent who control 60 percent of 270 million acres
for a ravaged price of $1.35 an animal unit month.
Madam President, this amendment is favored by the Taxpayers for
Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group, Trout Unlimited, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the
Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club--and almost 260 million
people. I have not talked to all of them, but I can speak for them.
They favor this amendment, too.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I feel like we are coming back into a
familiar discussion. I do not know how many times just in the last 2
years I have heard the same thing. Fortunately, the Senator can use the
same charts, and that is good. That is a saving.
Let me tell you a little bit about the Sun family, ranchers in
Wyoming. There are about 20 members of this family. They have several
places they live on. They run more than 2,000 AUM's. However, when you
divide it up by the number of family members, they run about 168 head
of cattle per family. That is hardly the millionaires the Senator talks
about; characterizes as the West being full of corporations. I want to
tell you, come to Wyoming, come to Wyoming and show me all those
corporations.
Let me tell you a little bit about the Red Desert Grazing
Association. These are a number of ranches that go together in
association and their lease is one lease; and they have more than 2,000
animal units. But when you divide it up by the families involved, what
you are talking about are families, who make up the bulk of this
industry, trying to make a living with public lands. This idea of
trying to characterize it as being all these big corporations simply is
not accurate. It is not accurate. We have been through this before.
Let me tell you, No. 1, this is an appropriations bill. We talked
about this
[[Page S10587]]
when we talked about the bill of substance, the grazing bill, which
raised the price, which the Senator opposed. We talked about that in
the authorizing committee. That is where it is supposed to be
discussed. And the grazers--we were willing to raise the price when you
change some of the conditions under which grazing takes place. No, now
we are going to do it on the appropriations bill, where we do nothing
to change the conditions, but we will raise the price; raise the price
on family ranchers who make a living in this country.
Quite different than in the Senator's State, these lands were
homesteaded. The homesteaders took up the river bottoms, they took up
the water, they took up the shelter, they took up the winter feed. What
we are talking about here are the residual lands that were left, the
residual lands left out, away from the creek, the lands they can use in
the summer only if they develop the water, which is not true on your
land, Senator. So you cannot compare this with the private land in
Arkansas.
Come out to 7,200 feet in Laramie, WY, and take a look at it. It is a
little different, a little less valuable. Come out and see who takes
care of the fences. Do you take care of the fences, Senator, on your
farm? I think so. You do not take care of the fences on the public
land.
Do you provide water on your farm, Senator? I think you probably do.
You do not provide the water in the West. The guy who leases it
provides the water. It is not the same. It is not the same.
The Senate already voted on a very similar amendment earlier this
year; same thing. We are back on it again. Grazing on public land and
private land cannot be compared. Productivity--there are places in my
State where it takes more than 100 acres, for 12 AUM. It is very
unproductive land. It takes transportation there; you have to take care
of the livestock when it is there, you have to ride, you have to take
care of predators. Those are differences. Those are differences, and
they show up in the costs. Obviously, the price of cattle is very low.
These rates that you refer to, which we wanted to raise, are tied to
the price of cattle. That is why they are as low as they are. They were
higher than that when the price was higher, and they will be higher
again. They will be higher when our grazing bill passes.
You indicate the grazing bill is done. It is not necessarily so. The
things go together. You cannot pick out the price and say let us leave
the rest of this stuff, leave it the way it is, but we will raise the
price. I do not agree with that. I think it is wrong. There is a major
difference between private and public land. Private land pastures tend
to be self-sufficient. They have water, grass, fences. They are close
enough so everyone can watch them. There are no predators there.
Public lands are quite often dependent on privately-owned water. They
are not year-round pastures. You have to have private land to take care
of them in the winter; you have to have feed, you have to the water,
you have to have all these things.
You cannot compare that with private lands. Private lands tend not to
be intermingled; public lands quite often are. They are also multiple
use, you have to provide for hunters--and you should. There is access
for hunters, gates are left open. It is not the same.
There is a report that was put out by Pepperdine University, which is
not exactly a bastion of western grazing, that said a number of things.
They concluded at the university:
Montana ranchers who rely on access to Federal grazing and
forage do not have a competitive advantage over those who do
not. Livestock operators with direct access to Federal forage
do not enjoy significant economic and financial advantages by
using that.
As a matter of fact, the Pitchfork Ranch in Meeteetse, WY, has some
grazing. What do they get in return? They also run their pastures in
the winter, their hay in the winter. That is something of a tradeoff.
It is not unusual. They are not the same as private lands.
The study also showed that these Montana operators, compared to those
who used all private lands, realized less gross revenue per animal unit
month, incurred virtually the same operating costs, are subjected to
the higher costs of borrowed capital.
There are a number of other differences between public lands and
private lands. A lot of the public lands have very burdensome Federal
requirements, NEPA requirements, land use planning processes.
Basically, the States are quite different as well. They look to the
lessee to manage the land. It simply is not accurate to say these lands
should be the same. They are not the same. There is a good deal more
flexibility in private lands or State lands in terms of the management
than there is on Federal lands. On Federal lands they tell you how many
you can graze, when you can graze, when you are off, when you are on,
how many head of livestock we will run. There is an additional fee if
you happen to run leased livestock. It is not the same.
So, even disregarding the price level, I tell you there are a couple
of things that are not accurate. No. 1 is these are not corporate
ranchers by and large. No. 2, it is not fair to compare private land
leases with public land leases.
There are a number of things that ought to be changed. We worked very
hard this year to make some changes in Bruce Babbitt's grazing
requirements. I want to tell you something. Grazing is part of western
agriculture. Livestock is the largest endeavor in Wyoming as it is in
most of the Western States. Very many of the ranches there are not
independent, without public lands; nor are the public lands able to
produce without the private lands that go with it. It is not a matter
of just saying we will lease this, we will lease this--these lands are
interlocking. These lands do, in fact, go together. We have tried very
hard and will continue to try, and we will succeed, in making some
changes in grazing. But this is not the way to do it. This is the
annual ritual, going through this idea of corporate welfare. I suppose
the thing to do would be to start through everybody's corporate
welfare. I think there are a few instances that could be talked about
most everywhere. I do not think this is corporate welfare. I cannot
imagine that term being used in this instance.
Madam President, there are an awful lot of things that need to be
talked about, but we have talked about them many times. I am not sure
it is productive to continue to go on and on about the same things. Let
me just make a couple of points in closing.
No. 1 is that if we are to talk about grazing and grazing fees and
grazing regulations, we ought to talk about the package so that we can
make those changes that do need to be made. And almost everyone agrees
that they should.
No. 2. If you are going to make price comparisons, price comparisons
need to be made on the relative value of the product and not on a
comparison to something that is not comparable, and that is what they
are seeking to do here.
No. 3. We ought to deal with it in a committee of substance, a
committee that has jurisdiction. The Senator is on that committee. He
has been through this argument in the committee and is unable to get
support. He has been through this argument on the floor and unable to
get support, but we keep coming back. It is the fall ritual.
Finally, if we are going to try to deal with family farms and family
farmers--that is what we are in Wyoming, that is what we are in the
State of Texas, somewhat different in some places. Fifty percent of our
State belongs to the Federal Government. Arizona is even more; Nevada,
87 percent. I don't think that is the case in Arkansas.
So you need to take into account the fact that our economy depends on
the kinds of decisions that are made with respect to policy of public
lands. Bruce Babbitt has more to do with the future economy of Wyoming
than any person living in the State. That is a shame. I am sorry for
that.
So when we talk about changes we want to make, I hope you will take
into account these are family farmers, these are ranchers just like
yours, just like New Hampshire, trying to make a living, not wealthy,
not corporations, but trying to have multiple use of those resources so
that they do yield not only for them but for the communities that they
support.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, as they have in the
past, and continue to work for better ways of multiple use of
resources, but keep in mind they should be multiple use.
[[Page S10588]]
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first, I wish to recognize the fine
statement given by the Senator from Wyoming who expresses well his
thoughts and purposes on this issue. I am not in agreement, but I have
the highest regard for him as a Senator and respect the fact his
position is one sincerely and thoughtfully reached.
However, I join with my colleague from Arkansas in supporting his
amendment and my amendment to address this issue of how we bring into
balance the cost of grazing on public lands relative to the needs of
the cattlemen and the needs of the taxpayer. First of all, it should be
stressed that this is not a local issue solely. It is a national issue.
It is not even a western issue. It is a national issue. The 270 million
acres of land that are subject to grazing permits belong to all
Americans. They are America's heritage, all Americans' heritage.
The current grazing fee formula produces a fee that covers only a
small part of the costs of Federal grazing programs and is far below
the rate charged by Western States and private lessors. The current
Federal fee, as has been stated, is $1.35 animal unit month, AUM. This
level mirrors the floor set by Executive order during the Reagan
administration. The Department of Agriculture's Economic Research
Service predicts the $1.35 fee will remain the fee charged by the
Federal Government through the year 2005.
The current fee, $1.35, means it costs less to feed a 600-pound cow
on public lands than it costs to feed your pet dog, your pet cat or
even your parakeet, thanks to the subsidy paid for by the American
taxpayers.
Two percent--2 percent--of the 22,000 permittees control 50 percent
of the BLM acreage that is grazed. Two percent control 50 percent. So
we are not talking here about the small farmer, which was referred to
by the Senator from Wyoming. We are talking about the large cattlemen.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that the wealthiest 9 percent
of the ranchers graze cattle on public lands controlling 60 percent of
the grange land. So what this amendment does is try to address that
disproportionate allocation of assets to a very small number of
ranchers.
According to the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Research
Service again, under S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Managements Act,
which passed the Senate but unfortunately has stalled in the House, the
fee paid by ranchers would have increased to $1.63. I heard it
mentioned by the Senator from Arkansas that it actually might have been
$2.18. Whatever, it would have increased, and that is, obviously, a
significantly higher number than the $1.35 which is being paid this
year.
This increase, however, is still less than the Federal fee paid
between the years 1989 and 1994. We are actually working at a fee base
which is less than what was paid to ranchers back in the period 1989 to
1994, and even if the increases were put in place, it would still be
less than those fees that were charged just a few years ago.
The amendment which has been offered is a very simple amendment. It
raises the fee charged by the Federal Government to the country's
wealthiest ranchers--and I think this is important to stress--we are
talking about 9 percent who own--control--60 percent of the range. They
don't own it, it is owned by the taxpayers, those who graze more than
2,000 AUM's on Federal lands. It also maintains the current fee--and
this is important--the current fee which, remember, as we just
mentioned, is less than was charged a few years ago for a 5-year
period. It maintains that current fee for ranchers who have less than
2,000 AUM. So, for the smaller and the moderate-size rancher, he stays
the same, $1.35. For the larger rancher, it grows to a reasonable
number.
Under this amendment, therefore, 9 percent of the ranchers, those
operating 2,000 or more AUM's, would see an increase in the fee paid to
graze cattle on public lands, while 91 percent of the family ranchers,
the ones referred to by the Senator from Wyoming, their livestock fee
on Federal lands would remain the same, $1.35 AUM's.
Those companies and corporations which would be impacted are
significant, and the Senator from Arkansas went through a long list of
some of them. There is the billionaire rancher who owns more than
50,000 AUM's in Iowa, Oregon, and Nevada. There is Newmont Mining Co.,
a wealthy gold mining company, which controls 12,000 AUM's, and there
is Anheuser-Busch which controls 8,000 AUM's, the Japanese company,
Zenchiku which is involved here. It is ironic, the American taxpayers
end up subsidizing a Japanese company which owns Japanese farming
rights in the United States to ship beef back to Japan when we are
already running a significant trade surplus with Japan. That is the way
it works.
Remember, this amendment does not impact the small or moderate-size
family farmer, it impacts the big guys, that 9 percent that controls
more than 2,000 AUM's.
This amendment cannot and should not be construed as being a threat,
therefore, to the small rancher.
Under this amendment, small ranches, whose operating AUM's are less
than 2,000, will continue to have this $1.35 fee. Under the amendment,
these small ranchers will pay 43 percent less per AUM in 1997, and each
year thereafter, than they paid if they were ranching back in 1980.
Remember this, under this amendment, those small ranchers, medium-sized
ranchers, in fact, will be paying 43 percent less to ranch on Federal
lands than they paid in 1980. The point, however, is that the large
ranchers should not also be paying 43 percent less.
Thus, this amendment assures that the wealthier ranchers, those with
more than 2,000 AUM's, that billionaire rancher up in Idaho, Anheuser-
Busch, that Japanese company, will pay a fair fee for the right to
ranch on what is public land.
This chart I have here, ``Public Land Grazing Fees, 1980-1996,''
highlights a point I have just been making, that those ranchers on
Federal land in 1980 were paying $2.36. And with an inflation-adjusted
rate, it would have been $4.60, but actually today they are paying
$1.35. So, the difference between these two prices, if you have it
adjusted for inflation, would be the real difference in what we are now
spending to subsidize people on Federal lands as versus the 1980 rate.
What we are saying is that the small rancher can keep paying $1.35,
which is almost $1 less than what they paid in 1980, and we are not
suggesting that even the large ranchers should pay the inflation-
adjusted rate, $4.60; we are just saying that the larger ranchers
should have to pay a fairer rate. In many instances, that fair rate
would be significantly less than the $4.60 that should be charged if
there was an inflation adjustment from the 1980 rate.
The argument is often made by individuals who oppose this amendment,
the Federal Government should be able to set such a low rate with
regard to the use of Federal land for grazing due to the low quality of
the Federal land, if the Federal land on which the sheep and cattle are
grazing has little or no investment value and is of little value
generally.
I have another chart which I think pretty much dispels that argument.
This chart shows exactly the opposite. In 1996, the Federal Government
collected receipts worth $14.5 million based upon $1.35 AUM paid by all
ranchers. However, according to the Bureau of Land Management, the
Federal Government spent--spent--$58 million on rangeland management
and improvement. That is a net windfall of $43 million for all ranches
using the public lands.
This funding for ranchland management improvement has a direct effect
upon the land improvements. Improvements that are involved here include
the seeding, weeding, fencing, water collection on public land used by
wealthy ranchers. These are very conservative numbers taken straight
from the BLM. Some estimates of the annual loss to the Treasury, using
the current fee system, range up to $150 million. In fact, there was
one estimate of $400 million done by the Cato Institute.
But the practical implications of this is, if the land were worth
less, it has clearly got to be worth at least what you are investing.
If you are investing $58 million in it and you are only getting $14
million for that investment,
[[Page S10589]]
first, you are not doing very well on your return for investment, but,
second, it is fairly obvious that the value of the land is
approximately 4 times, 3\1/2\ times the value that is being charged for
it.
So the argument that this is valueless land or land of less value
than States' lands or private lands simply does not hold up to the
numbers, to the very simple numbers which come from the BLM. Grazing
fees are decreasing, even though the Federal Government collects only a
fraction of the moneys spent for rangeland improvement.
This chart here, which was referred to, I believe, by the Senator
from Arkansas, illustrates that only about 25 percent of grazing fees'
receipts collected go to the General Treasury. In fact, 50 percent of
these funds go back to rangeland improvement. That was mentioned
extensively by the Senator from Arkansas.
So not only do farmers, cattle ranchers receive a subsidized rate,
the fee does not even cover the cost of the Federal upkeep. These
ranchers pay much too little, causing the rest of the American
taxpayers to pick up the price, which is much too high.
The average private land fee charged per AUM since 1981 has increased
32 percent. I have another chart which shows this. The average private
land fee charged per AUM since 1981 has increased 32 percent, from
$7.88 in 1981 to $10.30, in 1995. The average State fee charged for
people to put cattle on State land has increased 49 percent, from $2.53
to $3.76.
The payment for leasing Federal land during this same timeframe, 1981
to 1996, has, as I mentioned before, decreased--decreased--43 percent.
That, simply, is not fair to the general taxpayer. Private grazing land
lease rates continue to remain substantially higher than the price
charged by the Federal Government, and, as I mentioned before, this is
not necessarily a function of the land being more valuable. Or, if it
is a function of the land being more valuable, it is not the fact that
the Federal land has not had a significant amount of investment put
into it--in fact, an investment which is about 3\1/2\ times the amount
of the fees raised.
This chart here shows the difference between the private and the
public grazing fee rate. The chart shows the amount of money the
Federal Government receives in grazing fees receipts over the last 6
years, $178 million, versus the amount of money the Federal Government
will receive in the grazing fees over the next 6 years. That is $178
versus $133 million. The Federal Government is estimating that it will
receive $45 million less, therefore, in grazing fee receipts over the
next 6 years than it received over the prior 6 years.
Is this for less grazing? I do not think so. It is because, for a
period in there, we were charging a rate that was much closer to what
is reasonable, and that rate has been cut.
Obviously, again, the taxpayers are taking the short end of the
stick. This makes absolutely no sense. In a time of tightening budgets
and higher deficits, we are on a pattern to collect less money from
these huge ranchers, and, unfortunately, the giveaway to the wealthy
ranchers is growing.
Why should the American taxpayers continue to subsidize only a select
few? Three percent of the Nation's cattle operators and 5 percent of
the sheep producers have Federal grazing permits. So 97 percent of
America's cattle operators, 95 percent of America's sheep producers do
not use Federal lands, so they are not getting the benefit of this
subsidy. Every other rancher, except those grazing cattle on public
lands, has had to keep up with the cost of inflation, paying higher
prices for corn, for grain used to feed their cattle. But the cost of
using the taxpayers' Federal rangeland is estimated to remain at an
all-time low, $1.35 per AUM, through the year 2005.
This chart, which is another way of stating the chart table that the
Senator from Arkansas displayed, shows the difference between what is
paid on private land and State land fees versus the $1.35 AUM's. While
the Federal Government allows ranchers to graze for $1.35, this chart
shows the Western States breakdown of the fees charged, and in every
case it far exceeds what we get at the Federal level.
Again, we heard the argument that is because this land is better
land; maybe it is better land. But the fact is, this chart shows beyond
any question of logic or debate, when you are putting $58 million back
into the Federal land for the $14 million you are taking out, you
clearly have an investment in the land which far exceeds the value that
is being charged for the lands, and thus you should at least try to
return a better investment of that for the taxpayer. The land may not
be as good for grazing, but at least from a standpoint of investment,
the dollar figure is 3\1/2\ times that rate.
This amendment seeks to increase the fee charged by the Federal
Government, to bring it in line with what the fair market value of land
should be. Under this amendment the largest ranchers--remember, we are
dealing with just the largest ranchers, that 9 percent of the ranchers
who control the large acreage, who control more than 2,000 AUM's--will
be charged the higher of the average State fee in which the Federal
Government is located or the Federal fee plus 25 percent. Small
ranchers and moderate-sized ranchers will continue to get the $1.35
rate, which rate remains 43 percent less than what they were paying.
This amendment is done on a sliding scale, meaning either the large
ranchers--the billionaire cattlemen, Anheuser-Busch, and the Japanese
corporation--get the first 2,000 AUM's at a lower rate, $1.35, and they
do not start to pay more until they exceed the 2,000, so if they have
2,050, only the last 50 will be charged the increased fee, which of
course will be some additional money. In the instance of Anheuser-Busch
where they have 8,000 AUM's, 6,000 of those additional AUM's exceed the
2,000, and will be subject to the higher fee.
Is that unfair to Anheuser-Busch? No, it is not, because the
taxpayer, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, is already
dramatically subsidizing the cost of Anheuser-Busch running its cattle
on public land or that Japanese company which has the 6,000 AUM's. Yes,
on the additional 4,000 AUM's they will have to pay a higher fee. Is
that unfair to the Japanese company? No, it is not, because the
taxpayer is already substantially subsidizing that Japanese company's
running of cattle on Federal lands.
What we are suggesting is that the taxpayer receive a percentage of a
better return on the investment that it is making in that public land
for the benefit of those cattle. It is not asking that a better return
come from the smaller or moderate-sized company, but is only asking
that the better return come from the larger--the millionaire cattlemen,
actually the multimillionaire cattlemen in this instance--and the
international companies. Some of the other companies that are involved
in this are Texaco, Hewlett-Packard, Getty, Union Oil, Hunt Oil, and
the Newmont Mining Corp.
The amendment is estimated to save the American people about $8
million in 1997 and $40 million over 6 years. By Federal standards in
this Senate that is not a dramatic amount of money. It is a lot of
money in New Hampshire. In fact, we could run a State government for a
considerable amount of time on $48 million.
The fact is it is important that we make this statement. These are
public lands. The taxpayer does have a right to expect a reasonable
return on their investment in these public lands. The fact that we have
targeted this amendment so it will just affect the wealthy, those who
have the wherewithal to pay the higher fee, does, I think on its face,
make it a fair amendment.
Thus, I join with the Senator from Arkansas and hope that the Senate
will favorably consider this amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand there is not a request for
any time this afternoon beyond what I use unless the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire wants to speak again this evening. I want to
state to the Senator from the standpoint of this Senator, and I have
not talked with Senator Gregg, I do not need a lot of time tomorrow
before the vote. I told the managing chairman 15 or 20 minutes on our
side tomorrow, 30 minutes max, is all I need before the vote. I want to
proceed with some dispatch.
First of all, fellow Senators, you all voted on this amendment last
year and you voted it down. I do not believe anything has changed, at
least not in the
[[Page S10590]]
general intent of the amendment. It is obvious to everyone that in the
West those who are engaged in cattle ranching have gone through the
worst of all possible times. Not only have they suffered a great
drought which is still affecting what they will graze and how they can
graze for the next 2 or 3 years, but cattle prices for some reason have
gone into the tank.
As a matter of fact, I was out in rural New Mexico and somebody
looked out at a ranch and said if you were here 2 years ago and there
were 500 head out there grazing, each one on average in gross receipts
would be worth $1,000. Today, you have 500 out there and they are worth
$500 each--the very same cow, the very same beef, the very same market
but it is only half of the price. So that cow that would have been
worth $1,000 in gross receipts is now worth half that amount, as you
drive through rural New Mexico where many, many, hundreds of small
ranches exist.
The second point, those who propose the amendment speak of 2,000
animal unit months and speak of those as if that is a very big rancher.
Let me suggest in the State of New Mexico and a few other States--we
are not alone--you graze cattle on the public domain and your own fee
simple land and any State land you might have, and you do that for all
12 months in a year, not for 3, not for the summer months, or not for
the fall months or not for the winter months, but all 12, so let us put
this in perspective. For my State, this means 167 head of cattle for
one year. That is what 2,000 animal unit months mean.
When they speak today of large ranchers, make sure everybody
understands in a State like New Mexico, 12-months a year of grazing is
a necessity because we have a great deal of public land that is
available on a yearlong basis. We are a water-based State. That is, the
water-on the ranch often, times serves as the base property. You graze
them there, and you keep them there--you do not graze them on your land
for 9 months and take them to the high country for 3 months where you
graze them on public domain or permits. Two thousand animal unit months
is 167 head of cattle grazed year round on a ranch in New Mexico or a
ranch in Arizona where you graze them 12 months a year. Is that a large
ranch? I assure fellow Senators there is not a rancher who can even
make a living on 167 head. These are small ranches, run by families who
for decades have had a small amount of acreage for their permits, and
they graze 100 to 167, 180, some of them only 50, to supplement their
incomes and stay close to the land and keep a culture alive.
Make sure we understand that while big corporate names are thrown
around, in a year-round grazing area we are talking about hundreds of
small ranchers who happen to be included in the definition that are
being discussed here on the floor as very large corporate ranches.
Second, my good friend from New Hampshire had a chart. I am sorry I
do not have any charts today. I will just recollect one. There was one
up there that says you only get about $14 million from grazing permits
on the public domain and that we spend in excess of $48 million--if
that is the number--and the Senator concluded, is that not a shame, is
that not a shame. We ought to collect more money for grazing because we
are spending $48 million on the public domain but that bridges one gap
that should not be bridged. For that conclusion assumes the $48 million
of taxpayers' money being spent on the millions of acres of public
domain, that it is all being spent for grazing permits. Quite wrong.
There are many other activities that yield money. In fact, timbering
yields money, recreation yields money for the Bureau of Land
Management, which has the weakest kind of land, since it was generally
the leftover lands. I contend that in almost every Western State the
total receipts from the public domain exceed what is paid out for the
purpose of land and resource management, and one of the only exceptions
is California where they have to spend a lot more money, and much of it
is not spent on grazing, incidentally, but rather maintaining other
kinds of activities on the public domain.
So while it sounds nice that we ought to raise the fees for grazing
so we will get closer to $48 million, which is the expenditure for
public domain, we must ask the question, how much does the public
domain actually spend on grazing, which may benefit other resources,
and how much does it collect from all sources? It comes much closer to
a break-even situation on what we spend versus what we take in when you
consider all receipts from the public domain.
Now, once again, the chart as it appeared, would imply that there is
automatically and of necessity and in some rational way a relationship
between private land and public land. Mr. President, there is nobody
who will tell you in the Bureau of Land Management, that their millions
of acres in all our sovereign States in the West are choice lands. In
fact, they will tell you, by a process of selection they are among the
least productive of lands.
The private lands, on the other side, are among the best of lands. As
a matter of fact, to compare what you pay for a 1,000 acres of Bureau
of Land Management land with what you pay for a thousand acres of
private land, is not reasonable. The best analogy I have been able to
come up with is something like this: What you pay for an apartment that
has no utilities, no furniture, no telephone, just a stripped-down
apartment, compared with the next guy over is renting a fully furnished
apartment, that has all utilities, and a telephone in it. Is the price
even because the size of the buildings are the same? Of course not. One
is without any add-ons that come from the landlord or owner, and one
has many, many positives added. Most private land is well-fenced, at
the cost of the owner, has water on it, at the cost of the owner, is
heavily vegetated by the very nature of it being private and part of a
homestead.
Let me go through, for a couple of minutes--I believe I tried my best
to account for what a 2,000 animal unit month ranch really is in my
State. It is a very small ranch. There may be some that are 10,000 and
20,000, but I guarantee you the overwhelming number of ranches in my
State are somewhere between 50 and 500, in terms of the number of head
that are raised on the public domain. Yet, many of those would exceed
the 2,000 animal unit months being referred to here because they must
graze all year round.
Having said that, let me give a little history of what is going on.
On May 25, 1995, I introduced S. 852, the Livestock Grazing Act. On
June 22, 1995, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
hearing on that bill. On July 19, they favorably reported the bill,
with modifications, for consideration by the Senate. Following that
markup, the cosponsors determined that there was not enough bipartisan
support for the legislation and that there ought to be some additional
changes. We initiated a number of discussions, exchanges and meetings
among Democrat and Republican Senators and the staff, trying to find
some common ground.
On November 30, 1995, the Energy Committee again took a look at the
grazing reform legislation and reported out as an original bill, S.
1459. On March 20 and 21 of this year, the Senate debated the issue of
grazing reform and ultimately passed a bill that would have increased
the grazing fee by about 40 percent, as well as to set new parameters
by which grazing would be administered on the BLM and Forest Service
land. During that 2-day debate, the Senate considered a Bumpers
amendment that was identical in concept with the one we are considering
today. The Senate wisely, in my opinion, rejected this amendment when
we were debating grazing legislation in its own right.
Mr. President, that grazing bill is still in the House. Negotiations
are taking place. It has a grazing fee increase, and it does not
attempt to set grazing fees based upon whether you are a little rancher
or a big rancher. As a matter of fact, even the Department of the
Interior, which has been heavily engaged in trying to get more
regulation of the public domain, has regularly been against a two-
tiered grazing fee for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is
that they contend it will be difficult to manage from an administrative
standpoint.
With this history, I see no reason for us to approve a rider on an
appropriation bill which is similar to an amendment which has been
turned down here in a debate on the floor of the Senate.
[[Page S10591]]
There is before us now an amendment which, once again, tries to draw
comparisons between the public domain, which belongs to the United
States, some of which is under lease, and State-leased land, and in
some cases the Bumpers amendment would set a fee for some ranchers at
the level of the fee charged for State lands in that State.
I want to call to the Senate's attention a Congressional Research
Service report entitled ``Survey of Grazing Programs in Western
States.'' In this report, Senators can see for themselves the diversity
of grazing programs and regulations that the States have employed on
State land. For example, in some States, a holder of a grazing permit
has the right to control public access to that tract of State land. So
in some States, if you hold a State permit, you can deny access to
everyone because your permit grants you exclusivity in all respects.
In others, all improvements constructed on State land are allowed to
be owned by the permittee. Still in others, State land under grazing
permits are dedicated solely to livestock production, and there are no
allowances made for the benefit of wildlife on those lands.
All of these conditions add to the value of the leased land from the
standpoint of a livestock producer, and these regulations are in stark
contrast to those on Federal land. We cannot expect a rancher to pay
the same for State and Federal grazing permits, if we are not willing
to allow the same regulations to be enforced.
So I would say perhaps the proponents of this amendment ought to
add--in the event we are going to charge the same fee--then we ought to
give the ranchers the same benefits and the same set of regulations
that the State land is governed by. I would think that is logical and
fair.
I can tell you for sure--and my good friend, Senator Gorton, would
agree with me--that you could not grant exclusivity to the public
domain for a rancher. They would talk about hunting, fishing, and
recreation. Yet in some States, the State property is leased for
grazing, and that is all it can be used for. They would like us to pay
that for the Federal land. I would merely say, let us add to it, that
all the State regulations would apply, or in other words, inhibitions
will apply to the Federal domain which couldn't pass muster here, the
Department of Interior, or anywhere.
For instance, in the State of Nevada, they set their fee on State
land by bidding it, meaning they are giving different values to
different forage, a different value of the grazing land. We have never
done that in the United States on the public domain. We have never gone
out and said, you ought to pay this much in the State of Oregon because
it is a little better grazing than you pay for in New Mexico, for we
would have a devil of a job trying to figure that out. Yet, that is the
way they figure it out on State land in the State of Nevada, which
would certainly not be relevant, nor would it work on the Federal
public domain.
I believe that this amendment was not a good idea when I alluded to
the dates that it was debated in the Senate earlier this year, and it
is no better today. When the Senate considered this amendment in March,
the Senator from Arkansas indicated, as he has today, that the
amendment was not intended to adversely affect small- and medium-sized
ranches. He indicated in his amendment that it would only impose higher
fees on ``corporate ranchers.''
Frankly, I do not see any difference between a corporate rancher that
is big and a sole proprietorship that is big, nor between a corporate
ranch that is small and a noncorporate subchapter S partnership that is
small. He indicated in March corporate ranches only, and the big ones
are the only ones that would get an increase. As we explained in March,
he has missed his intended mark, and for that reason, and that reason
alone, the amendment should be defeated. The Bumpers amendment would
set an arbitrary number of 2,000 animal unit months as a definition of
a corporate ranchers.
In New Mexico, for instance, an example comes to mind as to how it
would work exactly opposite from what is intended.
Among the top five property owners in my State is Ted Turner, hardly
someone who could be considered a family rancher. In New Mexico, Mr.
Turner owns a large ranch made up primarily of deeded land. It
surrounds an area of Federal land for which he holds grazing permits.
Under current grazing regulations, he can easily arrange his allotment
such that he would use only 1,999 AUM's on Federal land. This means
that he would qualify for the family rancher's fee, because he would
not meet the 2,000 animal unit month threshold. He could do this
because his ranch is made up mostly of deeded land, and he has the
flexibility to move animals from public to private without a major
impact on his operation.
Let me tell the Senate about another situation that is far more
common than Mr. Turner's. This side of the story involves smaller
ranching operations that actually do provide the primary source of
income for real families struggling to make ends meet. These ranchers
are more reliant on forage that is grown on Federal land, and some for
almost all of their forage. These ranches involve small amounts of fee
land, small amounts of State land, and large amounts of Federal grazing
land.
Additionally, a large number of these family ranchers graze their
livestock on Federal land 12 months out of the year. In other words,
they are not seasonal permits that are common in some other States.
Under this amendment, however, if a family owned and operated a ranch
that runs 167 cows on Federal land, it would be considered a corporate
ranch and subject to the higher fee. Actually, we have hundreds of
these kinds of ranches in the State of New Mexico. I do not know about
other States. Certainly, I do not know about Arkansas. But in New
Mexico, it is impossible to support a family on the income derived from
167 cows even if grazing fees are zero.
So I opposed this fee in March, and today my concern is still as
strong as it was, principally for family ranches in the State of New
Mexico. These concerns are compounded by the lasting impacts of severe
drought, from which they are beginning to recover, continuing low
cattle and wool prices, which do not seem to be moving, and continued
high feed costs. Many of the ranchers I described that would be
considered corporate ranchers under the Bumpers amendment would simply
be forced off the land where they have struggled to make a living for
generations.
Mr. President, I would also conclude by suggesting that it is very
easy when you have such a broad expanse of Federal land, with millions
and millions of acres, between the Departments Agriculture and
Interior, which are leased for grazing, and that have been leased for
years, it is easy to come to the floor and pick out some that are
really owned by giant American companies. But I believe that it is very
difficult to make the case that in this country we ought to treat them
differently than we treat others with similar acreage under lease.
Maybe we want to, but I believe we should not.
I believe you ought to treat a family corporation the same as you
would treat Budweiser in terms of a ranch that involves Federal grazing
permits. But, most importantly, I want to make sure that we do not use
this kind of tactic to inadvertently attack small and medium sized
family ranches in our States and which to some extent provide families
with a living, but for the most part are part of a tradition. The
family must stay with it. They get other jobs. They survive, and they
keep a culture alive.
I, for one, believe we should not let ourselves get carried away with
these ``Uncle Sugar'' checks that are shown on these diagrams. We ought
to look at the big, broad picture, and treat everybody the same. If we
want to change the law, change it for everybody.
We have about 5,000 permits in my State. I am far more concerned
about the fact that many of them are borderline right now in terms of
not being able to hold the permits because they cannot make a living
and make ends meet. That is really the case, if they borrowed money on
their home to stay on their ranch during these rather terrible times in
terms of prices and costs. To add to that an increase in fees, at this
point, seems to be an invitation to more and more bankruptcies among
them.
[[Page S10592]]
Frankly, the bill which would increase the fees 40 percent is still
pending in the House. It passed the Senate. It has been before the
committees in the House, and we are still working on trying to get that
out. If we get it out, we will have a chance to vote yes or no on the
increased fees that the Senate passed, but combined with a reform of
the grazing regulations. It should not this fee which the Senate has
already rejected.
It seems to me that we ought to give that normal process a chance. If
it does not work this year, it is obvious that a lot of work has to be
done next year and the year after. But I hope we do not burden an
appropriations bill with a change in the grazing fee this year under
the circumstances I have outlined and discussed with the Senate here
today.
I thank the Senate for yielding me time, and I thank the manager of
the bill--for I am not sure I will get a chance in the future--for the
excellent work he has done overall on this bill. I want to say that I
hope, and will work with him and others, to see if we can't get this
bill put into a final form and get it passed this year. I hope it is
not part of a continuing resolution. But if it is, I hope we are able
to get most of the work done so the continuing resolution will carry a
number of changes, and we will not simply be adopting last year's
appropriations.
I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I assume the Senator from North Dakota is
here on a different subject. Is that correct?
Mr. DORGAN. No.
Mr. GORTON. Then I will yield.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is an unaccustomed role for me to come
to the floor and speak in opposition to an amendment offered by the
Senator from Arkansas. I find so often I come to the floor to support a
number of his amendments, but I oppose this amendment. I think it is
not only bad timing but an inappropriate remedy to what the Senator
describes as a problem.
I would like to give some context for my feeling about this. I grew
up in southwestern North Dakota out near the Badlands in ranching
country. My father raised some livestock. We had some cattle. We did
not ever run cattle on public lands. We have never been a family that
had access to public lands and therefore the grazing fees that exist on
public lands.
I know something about the cattle business but not nearly as much as
those who are ranching full time in parts of North Dakota today. I know
a little about calving, about what ranchers go through. I understand
what the ranch families go through in the spring; 4 o'clock in the
morning, with it snowing and cold and running across muddy fields
trying to deal with a difficult calving situation to save some calves
and save some cows.
It is not an easy life. A lot of these ranchers have discovered, with
the bottom falling out of cattle prices in recent months, it is pretty
hard to make a living doing something they love to do.
The question today is not about whether ranching is a wonderful
lifestyle for those many hundreds of ranchers. In North Dakota, these
are really people who are the salt of the earth. These are wonderful
people who do it on their own and battle the elements and battle the
markets that they cannot control but try to control what they can on
their family ranch and try to make a living out of it all. They would
be, I suppose, perplexed about a lot of this public debate.
What has been offered is a discussion about what should the
appropriate grazing fees be on public lands. We see proposed a schedule
of what the private lands rent for, what the State would rent its lands
for, what grazing fees would be on State lands compared to what grazing
fees would be on Federal land.
I should start by saying we do not have much Bureau of Land
Management [BLM] land in North Dakota. Most of the grazing in North
Dakota is on the grasslands and that, of course, is managed by the U.S.
Forest Service. We do not have giant ranches. We do not have big
corporations that are ranching in my State. We do not have giant
ranchers that control land as far as you can drive in a pickup truck
with two tanks of gas. We do not have any of that. We have a bunch of
families out there who are struggling trying to raise some cattle and
make a living.
When these folks pay a grazing fee and have a permit to graze their
cattle on public lands, you cannot, in my judgment, appropriately
compare that to what private rent is on private lands or what the State
is proposing for grazing fees or charging for grazing fees on State
lands.
Now, why is that? Because if you are raising cattle, paying a grazing
fee on the grasslands in North Dakota, it is not just you paying some
rent on some land on which you are going to raise your cattle. That is
not what the transaction is about. It is true, these ranchers have paid
a fee then to put those cattle on that land to graze, but they have
other responsibilities too.
Those are multiple-use lands by law so there are recreational
responsibilities those lands have to bear. Somebody wants to
come hiking on those lands. Do you think someone is prevented from
hiking on the grasslands? Oh, no. The fact that someone else is grazing
their cattle does not prevent the multiple-use responsibility for
recreation on those lands.
What about mineral development? Is there an opportunity for mineral
development even though some rancher is grazing cattle on that land? Of
course, because that is part of multiple use.
What about the requirement for that land to be productive for the
raising of deer, whitetail deer, upland game? Well, that is part of the
responsibility under multiple use as well.
If that rancher wants to put a water tank on that land, the question
of where that rancher locates that water tank, is that up to the
rancher? It is on private lands, not on public land. That has an
impact. And that land is multiple use. It might be that water tank has
to be located near a woody draw where it is going to have a more
favorable impact on the production of certain kinds of animals, provide
a better habitat.
So these are lands with multiple-use responsibilities, and that is
not just a concept. That is in law. Every one of the users--minerals,
mining, oil, hikers, hunters, all of the users--impose their right to
the multiple use on these lands.
So are these different lands than the other lands that are being
compared? Of course they are. Do you think if you rent private pasture
land, you have to say, well, now, I have paid to rent this land and now
I have responsibilities with respect to where I put this water tank and
its effect on the production of deer? Do you have to think about the
fact that you have responsibilities to a mineral company, or I have
responsibilities to hikers? Simply not the case with private land. I
just make the point that I think these comparisons that we see are not
fair or accurate.
Let me make a couple of points about the specific amendment. This
amendment creates a threshold of 2,000 animal unit months. The formula
for AUM's does not mean much to people, I suppose, unless they are
involved in AUM's computations with the BLM or Forest Service and are
running cattle on public lands. But we are not talking here about big
operators or big ranchers when you talk about 2,000 AUM's. For someone
who is grazing cattle 12 months a year, you are talking about running
160, 170 cows, at which point you have used the 2,000 AUM's.
That is not a large ranch. That is not going to make much of a living
for someone out there struggling to make a decent living. So this
threshold of 2,000 AUM's and the implication that above that we are
talking about large ranchers, corporate ranchers, is simply not the
case. I know a number of people, a good number of people in North
Dakota who have more than 2,000 AUM's, and they are struggling, family-
sized ranchers desperately trying to make a go of it.
Cattle prices have fallen through the floor on them. Many of them are
hanging on by their financial fingertips. I think they would be most
surprised to hear that someone judges them to be anything more than a
small family rancher out there somewhere in western or central North
Dakota trying to make a decent living.
[[Page S10593]]
I mentioned that, in my judgment, we have discussed, debated, and
massaged this issue in several different ways over the last years, and
I suspect we will continue to do that. The Senator from New Mexico in
his recent discussion pointed out that the Senate has passed
legislation which does in fact increase grazing fees, and that it is
now awaiting action by the House.
It is not the case that those of us from areas where the Federal
Government has lands for which a grazing fee is charged have said there
shall be no increase in grazing fees. That is not the case. In fact,
legislation that has increased the grazing fees has been supported by
many of the people who have spoken today in opposition to this
amendment.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether this kind of amendment
offered today on this piece of legislation makes sense for the Senate.
And the answer is no. There perhaps should be from time to time a
review of exactly what should the grazing fee be, and when we have that
debate or review, I would always encourage us to compare apples and
apples, and it is not comparing like quantities by comparing private
rent for private lands and grazing fees on public lands. It simply is
not comparing like amounts.
So, we will go through this debate, and we will have a vote today.
This is a proposal on an appropriations bill offered now during the
last couple of weeks in the session. I think it is probably useful to
have the discussion once again, but I hope my colleagues will, as they
have on the previous occasion, decide to turn down this amendment.
There are other ways for us to productively debate, in a thoughtful
way, what should be the specific grazing fee that is appropriate for
all Federal lands in this country. We may even have some disagreement
about whether one rate ought to be charged for the largest corporation
in America and another rate for the smallest rancher in the country.
That is not something we will, perhaps, have agreement on generally
across all the political confluences in this Chamber.
But I think there will be a majority in this Chamber who believe that
this amendment is an amendment that purports to do something that it
would not accomplish. It purports to say it will increase the grazing
fee only for the largest corporate ranchers in our country when, in
fact, this will precipitously increase grazing fees for family ranchers
who are raising, in many cases, under 200 cows a year, grazing them the
full year, and who would not be expected, given the definition of this
amendment, to be included in it.
For those reasons I hope the Senate will turn this amendment down and
we will have, at another time on another occasion, further debate about
grazing fees. When we do, I hope we will compare, as I have indicated,
apples to apples, grazing fees on public lands to similar circumstances
in other areas. I think you will find the allegation that is made that
there is an enormous public subsidy on grazing fees is simply not true,
based on fact.
I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Washington for his
courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in turn I wish to commend the Senator from
North Dakota on a very thoughtful analysis of a problem which he
understands from firsthand experience. I agree with him in feeling this
proposal ought to be dealt with under different circumstances and trust
that will be the decision of the Senate.
Now, Mr. President, I do not believe that any other Member is going
to come to the floor this afternoon to propose an amendment to this
bill. If I am in error, I hope contact will be made with the
appropriate Cloakroom promptly. I also hope that, having thoroughly
debated this grazing fee amendment, we will be able to bring it to a
vote promptly tomorrow morning.
I understand the majority leader wants to call the Senate into
session at 9:30 tomorrow morning, or at least to return to this bill at
9:30 tomorrow morning, and would like to vote at about 10 o'clock. That
proposition is still being cleared. I expect the leader on the floor
when the Senator from Arkansas has completed his remarks on this bill,
and we will determine between now and then whether or not we can have a
brief additional debate on this proposal tomorrow morning, vote on it,
and move on to another subject relevant to this bill.
Seeing the Senator from Arkansas here and knowing he wishes to speak
again on this subject, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it would be my hope, as far as voting on
this is concerned, that we could vote immediately after the caucus
tomorrow. I do not know what other amendments Members may wish to offer
on this bill. I assume, based on what I am hearing, there are several.
I just have about 5 minutes worth of remarks here and we can move on
to something else, if there is something else to be taken up. I hope we
will have some more amendments offered in the morning that we can
dispose of and perhaps stack votes until after the caucus.
I think it would redound to the benefit of both sides if we could,
for example, set the amendment aside, take it up for 20 or 30 minutes
of debate at 2:15 tomorrow, immediately after the caucus, 20 minutes
equally divided or some such thing as that, or maybe 30 minutes equally
divided, and we could vote at 2:45. I think there are several Members
who may miss this vote if we do not do that.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. GORTON. The request made by the Senator from Arkansas seems, at
least to this Senator, to be a reasonable one. The only frustration we
may suffer is whether or not we can get anyone to come tomorrow morning
to use 3 hours that ought to be devoted to a substantive debate on this
bill.
So, perhaps with the requests of both of us, we would be able to do
exactly that and no time will be lost at all, if there is a serious
debate on another contested amendment or, for that matter, if we deal
with myriad amendments--I must have 30 or 40 of them here--that I know
something about. If we can use tomorrow morning to deal with them,
whether they are ones that can be agreed to or ones that will be
debated, then we will not have lost any time at all in acceding to the
suggestion of the Senator from Arkansas.
He can use such time as he wishes now, and we will see whether we
cannot work that proposition out for tomorrow.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his always generous and
thoughtful accommodation of other Senators. As I said, I am willing to
set this amendment aside until 2:15 tomorrow at the conclusion of the
few remarks I have to make here. That will give the managers and
perhaps the majority leader an opportunity to badger and cajole other
Members to bring amendments to the floor if they have them. We can take
that up in the morning, then, debate other amendments, and come back to
this at 2:15 tomorrow and maybe have 20 minutes or 30 minutes, by
agreement.
I just wanted to challenge some of the things I have heard from the
opponents of this amendment.
No. 1, the Senator from Wyoming pointed out that there are grazing
associations which several members belong to under one permit or one
name. The association would control more than 2,000 AUM's, and
therefore they would lose the advantage of their association. The truth
of the matter is, our amendment specifically exempts those people. So
the statement of the Senator from Wyoming was totally incorrect. If I
may, I will just read the amendment:
For the purposes of this section, individual members of a
grazing association shall be considered as individual
permittees or lessees in determining the appropriate grazing
fee.
That takes care of that argument.
The Senator from New Mexico said this amendment was precisely the one
we voted on in March. That is totally incorrect. The amendment I
offered in March on this subject provided for a $2 fee for all
permittees on the first 2,000 AUM's. In this amendment, we do not raise
the fees for those people who have control of less than 2,000 AUM's one
penny. They are not affected at all.
No. 3, the Senator from New Mexico said that people do not just graze
cattle for a few months and send them to the high country, they graze
them 12 months a year and therefore he concluded that 2,000 AUM's
really only
[[Page S10594]]
amounts to about 165 head. That is true if you graze 12 months. But the
truth of the matter is, more permittees graze less than 12 months than
graze 12 months. In the colder climates, ranchers take their cattle off
of the lands so they do not have to pay even $1.35 a month for them in
the winter months when there is no grass for them to eat. They put them
in feed lots. They put them someplace so they do not have to pay $1.35
a month.
Finally, let me just say, the Senator from Wyoming said most ranchers
are not corporations--and he is absolutely right. They are not
corporations, and we do not bother them. My amendment has absolutely no
effect on 91 percent of the 22,350 permittees in this country. We do
not touch them. It is designed to protect all these little family
farmers that I have heard discussed here this afternoon. As a matter of
fact, that is all I have heard from the opponents of this amendment,
about how tough these little cattle farmers are having it.
That is true, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this
amendment. If you think Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and Newmont
Mining Co., are family farmers you ought not be in the U.S. Senate. If
you cannot distinguish between family farmers and the kind of people
that I am trying to reach here and take off corporate welfare, you have
no business being here.
I daresay I have heard this grazing fee debated for 22 years. I will
have been here, at the end of this year, 22 years, and I have heard
this matter debated, I have heard every argument I heard this afternoon
in spades, thousands of times. Every single argument is designed to
obfuscate the issue.
The issue is not the little farmers who are not affected by this
amendment. The issue is the 9 percent of the wealthy people in this
country, the big corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch, who control 60
percent. If you think it is right for 9 percent of some of the biggest
corporations in America to control 60 percent of the 270 million acres
of Federal lands we let out for grazing, vote against the amendment. If
that is your sense of equity, if that is your sense of fairness, vote
against this amendment. But for God's sake, do not come over here and
make these silly, facetious arguments about these little family farmers
that we are trying to bankrupt.
Even Hewlett-Packard, even Anheuser-Busch, only have to pay $1.35 for
the first 2,000 AUM's under my amendment. We do not even charge anybody
an additional fee until you get to 2,000. And what do we charge them
then? The same rate that the State charges where the land is located.
The Senator from New Mexico made an argument about how this is
designed, about how much more they are going to pay. What would they
pay under this amendment? They would pay exactly what they have to pay
if they leased lands from the State of New Mexico. If the Senator from
New Mexico leased lands from the State of New Mexico, he would pay
$3.54 an acre, and you do not get nearly as good a deal you get from
the Federal Government, because the State reserves all water rights. In
addition, the State does not put 50 percent of the rent they get back
into range improvements.
I know what is going on here, and you do, too. The merits of this
argument have nothing to do with the way people are going to vote here.
The politics of it are what is causing the debate here, and that is the
reason politicians of this country have the approval of about 28
percent of the people. They know exactly how we vote and why we vote.
You put this debate on national television and I promise you I will get
98 percent of the votes of the American people, but not in the U.S.
Senate.
In Oklahoma, you have to pay $10 for an AUM if you rented State
lands. I have already shown you what the private sector charges. The
private sector charges a lot more than the States do. It is only
``Uncle Sucker.'' And I am not trying to balance the budget. This does
not amount to anything, so far as money is concerned. What it amounts
to is fairness, and the American people have a right to expect at least
minimal fairness on how their land is used.
Mr. President, if I were to change my amendment to 4,000 AUM's, and I
may do that, if I changed it to 10,000 AUM's, I would not get one
additional vote, and you would hear the same arguments about the poor
little family ranchers out there. The poor little family ranchers
represent 91 percent of all the permittees. They are not touched by
this. Nobody wants to get up here and say, ``I think the Government
ought to be subsidizing Anheuser-Busch.'' Nobody is going to say, ``I
think the Government ought to be subsidizing Newmont Mining.''
So what do we talk about? The 9 percent of the permittees who fall in
that category? No. We talk about the 91 percent of the little family
farmers who are not even affected by this. So the whole thing is
designed to confuse, obfuscate and give people an excuse for violating
their own conscience when they vote.
Do you know how many people are affected in the State of North
Dakota? You heard my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, a
moment ago, one of the best friends I have and one of the finest
Senators in the U.S. Senate. Do you know how many people in North
Dakota are affected by this amendment? Thirty-four, 2 percent; 2
percent of all the ranchers in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota
are affected by this amendment--2 percent--and you would think the
world was coming to an end.
Who are they? They are the wealthiest people who graze livestock on
Federal lands. In South Dakota, you would have to pay $7 an acre to
graze on State lands. I am talking about 2 percent of the farmers in
Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota. What did you hear in the
debate? Not about the 2 percent. You heard about the 98 percent who are
totally unaffected by this amendment.
Oh, it's discouraging. I've got about as good a track record, I
guess, at losing amendments as anybody in the Senate. I must say that
doesn't bother me much. I get frustrated. Offering an amendment like
this--the merits are absolutely undebatable. Oh, you can debate it, but
the truth of the matter is the merits of the amendment are unsalable.
Just look at the list.
In California, you are talking about 8 percent of the permittees, a
total of 53. California, with 33 million people and 53 of them are
affected by my amendment.
Colorado, 70 permittees, or 5 percent of all the people who graze on
Federal lands, 5 percent of them, 70 of them, and you would think we
were debating the welfare bill here.
Oregon and Washington, together, the two States together, Oregon and
Washington, 136, 8 percent of all the permittees.
Nevada and New Mexico are the two States that have the most. Nevada
has 262 ranchers that would be affected, and then they have about 420
who wouldn't be. But getting back to the merits of the case, we are not
talking about enough money. You know what, take the money out. I wish
there was some way you could take the money out of it because it
doesn't amount to anything. It doesn't amount to an ant hill, $8
million a year. We get $25 million a year from 22,350 permittees, and
this would raise an additional $8 million.
That ain't going to balance the Federal budget.
I wish we would take the money completely out of it and just simply
say we are not going to give anybody grazing rights on Federal lands
that exceed 2,000 AUM's. That will satisfy me. Forget the $8 million.
Forget the increased costs. I may offer that amendment, incidentally,
something close to it, because I would like to hear people come in here
and moan and groan and make the same speeches they just got through
making if you set it at 10,000 AUM's.
Mr. President, I have covered about everything I can think to cover.
I listened to the debate a while ago of all the various Senators, the
arguments made. As far as I am concerned, they are all friends of mine.
They are all fine Senators. But the arguments are so specious, I cannot
believe it. I will probably lose again. I think we lost by three votes
last time. We will probably lose by three to five again.
But I am telling you something else, completely aside from the money,
completely aside from the equity. I defy anybody to stand up and say,
when they are up for reelection this fall--go back home and make the
same argument to the constituents that you made here on the floor, but
be truthful
[[Page S10595]]
about it. Tell those people that you voted to allow big corporations
like Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and Newmont Mining, people like
Mr. Simplot out of Idaho--he is probably a fine citizen; I have nothing
against him; if I were in his position and getting a couple thousand
acres for little or nothing, I would probably take it, too--but go home
and tell the people that you voted to defend those people on this
issue, and tell them what the issue was. Tell them that 91 percent of
the ranchers in this country who graze livestock on Federal lands would
have been unaffected. The only people who would have been affected
would be the billionaires and the big corporations. Tell them you voted
to defend those people and to give them lands for $1.35 even though the
States they live in would charge exponentially more.
The Senator from Montana just came on the floor. The State of Montana
would charge you $4.05 for an AUM in Montana. But ``Uncle Sugar'' will
let you have it for $1.35. And if you charge a nickel more than that,
for example, what they charge in the State of Montana, the weeping and
wailing begins. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we are on rewind again. We have been down
this little debate before. It never ceases to amaze me how we can
compare apples and oranges and oranges and tangerines, and then we
compare everything else with rocks.
It is easy for me to go home and explain this vote for the simple
reason that the majority of people that live in Montana, that live in
the West, where there is a large prevalence of Federal lands, they
understand that.
When I first went to the State of Montana, I did not have a real good
understanding of public lands and the policies on those public lands
and how those policies were developed. I did not have a real keen
interest in what is regarded in the West as water rights. Where I was
raised in Missouri, we did not file for--if you put a well down, we did
not worry about water. It seemed like it came down every river, and our
wells were full all the time. We enjoyed anywhere from 35 to 45 inches
of rain every year, so water was not a big issue where I came from as a
young lad growing up on a small farm. But when you live there for a
while, and these issues come up, then all at once your interest grows
in it and on the development of that public lands policy.
I do not think we want to get into a class warfare type thing. I know
if I was a rancher in the State of Montana, I would like to have the
opportunity to grow bigger if I could and do it, and do it the way that
most of them did. So whenever we start comparing State lands and
private lands and BLM land, it is not even a close or a fair
comparison.
I have been to the Senator's State of Arkansas. I would like to have
some of the grazing land that they have in their great State. I would
like to range some cattle there and graze some cattle there, because I
know what it will do and the season it takes. I was raised in Missouri,
so I know what the cost is and how much they will gain on the kind of
forage that they have. It is a little bit different as you move West,
where the soil thins, and so does the forage. In some places there is
hardly any forage at all.
The BLM lands are the lands that were sort of left over, because when
this country was settled, they did not have the technology or the way
to develop water supplies and to deal with everything that you are
going to have to have on that range to run livestock. I will tell you
something else along with that. In the old days, there was not any
wildlife out there either, because everything it takes to sustain
wildlife on those ranges it takes to sustain livestock. That is why we
have more whitetail and mule deer, more antelope and more elk now than
we have had since the Great Depression.
The improvement in those ranges has been done in part by the
individual permittee, the person who held the permits, because he was
the one that had to lay out the money to build the pipelines, to build
the reservoirs, and to create in some places where there has never been
water but there is now, to where that resource, that resource called
grass, the only way it can be harvested is through the cattle or sheep.
But as our technology grew and our ability to develop those water
resources on semiarid to arid land, we made use of more of that country
than had ever been used before. Then we all at once started developing
another little organization after World War II looking at the ranges
and the condition of the ranges and knowing that the future of
agriculture, especially animal agriculture, west of the Mississippi is
going to depend on how well we take care of our resources. There was an
organization that was founded and had as much to do with the
improvement of the range. It is called the Society for Range Management
[SRM]. They started having neighborhood meetings and they started
bringing new practices and they said not only do we have to do a better
job in our grazing, but we have to do a better job in our water
management and our soil management.
We have to watch out for wind erosion. We do not have to watch out
for wind erosion in this part of the country. We have to watch out for
water erosion. Sometimes it sounds like it is going to rain here, wash
us all right down the Potomac River. That is the forecast anyway. We do
not have to worry about that out there. We have to worry about it maybe
sometimes in the spring of the year when the runoff goes off, but it
does not last very long. But we have wind erosion. In order to prevent
wind erosion, you have to keep pretty good forage on that land.
So we had to go to different grazing. We grazed some a long time; we
grazed some a very short time. But through those practices and trial
and error and with that organization, the range improvements in the
West have been phenomenal over the last 50 years. One has to remember,
you do not change the direction. You do not improve land, you do not
improve anything in just 1 year, put a big Band-Aid on it and it is
fixed, because it takes a long time. I will admit, the Homestead Act
probably did as much damage in the West to the resources there as any
law that we ever had, although it did move our public lands into
private hands and started building the farms and the ranches across
this country. But they also plowed up some country that should never
have had a plow stuck in it. That all had to go back into rangeland.
Some of those scars still exist today, but we are dealing with that. It
takes time. Mother Earth heals, but sometimes it takes a long time.
Those lands never were held in private hands. They were always in the
Government. They were the leftover lands. In the State lands, they lump
everything together. In some places, you have great tracts of timber
and some sections of State lands and farmland which produces a nice,
great profit to the rancher who farms that land. It is either wheat,
barley, or grain, and that returns a nice little check to the Treasury
without any livestock ever being on it. That is part of that rent. That
is part of that scheme of $4 over there.
What we are talking about here, we cannot compare private lands,
public lands, and State lands. Take a county like Garfield County, MT.
I heard the organizations that are sponsoring this amendment or
endorsing this amendment, and they do not want cattle on these lands.
This is the bill to move them off the land. To a county like Garfield
County, whose tax base for personal property taxes has to be in
livestock because there is very little out there to tax, it pays for
schools, roads, public safety. All those things are paid for by animal
agriculture in the vast amount of the counties east of the mountains in
the State of Montana.
The Government does do very well when you take into account all of
the multiple uses on that land, grazing included. And I saw the
comparison of my friend from New Hampshire. If I am investing $50 some
odd million, whatever the figure is, and only get a return on $14
million, I think I would look at how I am operating my business. Maybe
the secret is not the grazing fee, maybe it is in the way that we are
operating our land or our business. Maybe there is a better way. Also,
if I was doing it that way--and some of the hoops that the Bureau of
Land Management has to jump through were created by laws here in this
body. When I went to Montana, only the BLM managed all the land in
Montana, with around perhaps 30 or 35 people, and now there are
[[Page S10596]]
500 people there. I would take a look at that. Maybe we have an
organization that is a little on the bloated side when it comes to
managing our public lands.
Do not be fooled by the comparison of the lands because there is no
comparison. We are trying to pass a rangeland reform bill. The cloud of
a Presidential veto is over that bill as we work with it here in this
body. Now you tell me that is trying to solve some of the problems that
we have in developing public lands policy, because if it is not just
exactly the way we want it, we are just going to veto it. That does not
tell me that this administration or Mr. Babbitt is trying to get along
with the folks who are dependent on the use of public lands, multiple
use of those lands in the West.
Keep in mind any commercial development, along with the recreation
and the access to those lands, is very important to all Americans, all
Americans, as they are the benefactor of this, even as we speak today.
Not very many of us have a hungry night, for we have a wonderful way of
producing food and fiber in this country.
I know we will have more to say on this issue later, but take a look
and see what we are doing. The comparisons just are not there.
Regarding this, I suggest we reject this amendment. It has been
rejected before, and it was rejected basically on common sense--common
sense. Sure, we can make a case where maybe it ought to be $10--or, to
be fair, go to $20. Take them all off the land. Who needs them? It is
just a handful of people. Not very many. America, who needs them? I
think we need them. They are very important to my State. They are very
important to this country.
Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator from Montana would be willing to
engage in a short colloquy. I just ask this question: Is the Senator
opposed to any limit? In other words, Hewlett-Packard or Anheuser-Busch
maybe has 8,000 AUM's. Mr. Simplot has 50,000 AUM's. Do you have any
objection to Mr. Simplot paying a grazing fee to run 50,000 animal unit
months at $1.35?
Mr. BURNS. I have to say to the Senator that you just cannot single
out a few people to say whether you would like that or dislike it. That
is the way it is set up for all of us.
Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, we single out rich people with a little higher
tax rate than we do poor people.
Mr. BURNS. I wonder some days, I wonder about the wisdom of that on
occasion. Every time we try to single out somebody to pay higher fees
or put them under a different set of laws, then somebody else who is
running under the same conditions--everybody gets hurt. In other words,
those people did not get big from being dumb, so there are other ways
to get around it. I think it limits a little man growing.
What is wrong with the little guy starting out and wanting to grow?
Is that not the American way?
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator wants Anheuser-Busch to grow?
Mr. BURNS. I sure do not want to lose them as a viable corporation.
They do a lot of business in my State. They buy my barley. They are not
just a one-faceted company. They pay a lot of personal property taxes
in my county, the county government.
I was a county commissioner before I came here. I know about those
checks. They foot the bills on a lot of education. They buy a lot of
pickups, and they buy a lot of services in counties. Once it leaves or
once that has eroded, that business has a hard time coming back.
Senator, we cannot live on just tourism or recreation alone on that
land, because recreation will not pay for it. They will not pay you
$1.36 an AUM.
Mr. BUMPERS. I take it the answer is no, there is not any limit that
is too high for the Senator to oppose?
Mr. BURNS. I have to think about that, but I do not think you can
single out people and put them in a class over here and have another
class over here. I do not think I like that very much.
Mr. BUMPERS. You understand, of course, that some of the biggest
corporations, and these billionaires who own hundreds of thousands of
AUM's, if they had to pay more or if they gave it up, that would make a
little room for some of the little ranchers that I watch all these
tears shed for around here.
Would the Senator agree?
Mr. BURNS. I think if it becomes unprofitable for them, it would be
unprofitable for a small man, too. I do not think that will open up the
availability of more of those permits to a smaller rancher.
Mr. BUMPERS. So the Senator sees no inequity in the fact that the
State of Montana leases its lands at $4.05 an AUM and the Federal
Government receives $1.35? That doesn't bother the Senator?
Mr. BURNS. If you had some preference, you would rather lease private
lands for even more than that, Senator, because we know the services
that go with it. The cattle will be ridden and we will get gain on the
cattle. That is not guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed on the public
lands. We will get control. The State lands are a little better lands.
Like I said, you cannot compare these lands. You are comparing apples
and oranges.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I take it from the Senator's comments
that the fact that Montana gets $4.05 an acre and the U.S. Government
gets $1.35 an acre, the Senator sees nothing wrong with that. In the
private sector in Montana, people who lease private lands to ranchers
receive $11 per AUM. The Federal Government gets $1.35, and the Senator
sees no inequity in that.
Amendment No. 5353, As Modified
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment
is so modified.
The amendment (No. 5353), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the pending Committee amendment ending on
line 4 of page 25, add the following:
SEC. . GRAZING FEES.
(a) Grazing Fee.--Notwithstanding any other provisions 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).
(b) Determination of Fee.--(1) Permittees or lessees,
including related persons, who own or control livestock
comprising less than 5,000 animal unit months on the public
rangelands pursuant to one or more grazing permits or leases
shall pay the fee as set forth in subsection (a).
(2) Permittees or lessees, including related persons, who
own or control livestock comprising more than 5,000 animal
unit months on the public rangelands pursuant to one or more
grazing permits or leases shall pay the fee as set forth in
subsection (a) for the first 5,000 animal unit months. For
animal unit months in excess of 5,000, the fee shall be 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;
(2) individual members of a grazing association shall be
considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining
the appropriate grazing fee; and
(3) related persons includes--
(i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of the
holder of the permit or lease; and
(ii) a person controlled by, or controlling, or under
common control with the holder of the permit or lease.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment originally required that
anybody who held more than 2,000 AUM's would have to pay whatever the
State charged for lands in that State on any AUM's in excess of 2,000.
I have the very distinct impression it would not make any difference,
as the Senator from Montana just confirmed, how high the limit went. I
think he would find it difficult, if not impossible--I detect
impossible--to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I will give
everybody a chance because they say 2,000 AUM's is only 166 head. So we
will get it up to 400 with 5,000 AUM's. That is what my modification
does.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I don't remember, but I
believe Yogi Berra says, ``This is like deja vu all over again.'' It
really is. I am so saddened that my friend and colleague from Arkansas
likes to engage in the typical class warfare game that
[[Page S10597]]
his side of the aisle oftentimes likes to play over issues where they
project that there is some big evil creature out there profiteering off
of what is the public's interest or the public's resource and,
therefore, we ought to stop them.
If that were true, I would be standing not only beside my colleague
from Arkansas, but I would be supporting his legislation. That has
never been the case. What is the case is that the environmental
community of our country, for well over two decades now, have tried to
find a reason to change the character of the western public grazing
lands for a variety of reasons. And through that, they have searched
for a variety of arguments that somehow would ring solid with our
citizens, that would say that public policy that directs our public
lands somehow is misdirected, that the Congress has failed in its
responsibility to the American people and, therefore, we ought to
change public grazing land policy.
I certainly don't hold the edge on the knowledge on this issue. But I
am one of a few Senators on this floor that once leased public grazing
lands from the BLM and from the Forest Service. My family ranching
businesses did that for years. We are no longer in those businesses.
There is no conflict of interest with this Senator. But I represent
thousands of cattlemen in my State who do graze. Of our agriculture
industry in the State of Idaho, which is the number one total receipts
industry in my State, cattle is the largest segment of agriculture. It
isn't potatoes when it comes to dollars and cents in total sales; it is
cattle. Eighty percent of those cattle have to graze on public land at
least some time during the year. The reason is that 63 percent of my
State is owned and managed by the taxpayers of this country, the
Federal Government, the public domain, the people's estate, however one
wants to describe it.
So, in other words, Washington, DC, has more to say about running
Idaho than Idaho has. The largest segment of our agriculture industry,
therefore, has to rely on Federal public policy to survive. Sometimes
it's good, sometimes it's bad. There is one thing Idaho appreciates,
though, and that is its large expanse of public lands. We don't want it
to be private per se. We have found that there is a tremendous heritage
there that speaks to the public lands, that enjoys them, not just for
cattle grazing, but for access--hunting, fishing, and for the quality
of the environment that my State of Idaho has.
My grandfather, a good number of years ago--a good number of years
ago--homesteaded in Idaho--then just a State. At that time there was no
BLM, there was no Taylor Grazing Act. He was a grazer, a rancher, a
sheep rancher. He found out that the great big interests out of the
Southwest, out of Colorado, large ranching combines, that owned
thousands of acres and tens and thousands of head of cattle, would
sweep across the western lands, including Idaho, grazing them at will.
Large sheep operations did the same. He and other ranchers across the
West joined together and appealed to the Congress to create the Taylor
Grazing Act, to control and limit grazing.
In the late 1800's, a U.S. cavalry officer, stationed in Idaho, wrote
in his diaries that the public rangelands and the western rangelands of
Idaho were depleted by over 80 percent from overgrazing. That was
before the turn of the century. That is when my grandfather and others
of western heritage said, ``This had gone too far in an uncontrolled
fashion, and we ought to do something about it.'' Congress created the
Taylor Grazing Act. Out of that, they directed their interests back to
the States and back to the local rancher and not the large national
interests or regional interests. They created committees. They created
local control, and they began to turn the western grazing lands around.
Now, few remember that history or that heritage. Today's memory
doesn't even want to realize that, before the turn of the century,
western grazing lands were already in trouble because they had been
overgrazed by largely no control whatsoever, until the Congress of the
United States stepped into this vast domain of public lands and said we
have to do something about it. And they did. And if you will remember a
couple of years ago, Mr. President, when Secretary Babbitt was trying
to find a reason to change public grazing policy, because the
environmental community had wrestled him to the ground and said,
``cattle-free by '93,'' and ``you have to change this policy.'' In his
effort to try to find a reason, he asked the staff of the Department of
Interior to find worse-case scenarios. In a memo that I divulged on
this floor--a secret memo--they said, in essence: Mr. Secretary, that
is hard to do because the western grazing lands are in better condition
than they have been in 100 years.
So why do you want to eliminate grazing? Why do you want to tighten
it down? Well, in a few instances, there are problems. There are some
riparian areas critical to wildlife habitat and water quality that need
to be administered differently. That is true in my State, as it is true
in other public land grazing States across the Nation. There isn't a
Senator on this floor that wouldn't suggest that these lands be managed
in a responsible fashion, not just for grazing, but for wildlife
habitat, for archeological values, for outdoor recreation, for water
quality, for all of the reasons that we have in the public domain.
But we in Idaho and the West say that, amongst all of those reasons,
grazing should be equal, and it should have, by character of the Taylor
Grazing Act that created these grazing relationships with private
people, some level of priority.
Why? Because a big chunk of the economy of Idaho depends on access to
that land. We have incorporated that for over 100 years into the
economic base of our State, and if we had known that the Federal
Government was going to sweep in and change the character of local
economies, maybe we would have fought over a hundred years ago when we
came into the Union to make all of those States private land instead of
a large portion of them remaining federally owned public lands. But
that didn't happen. It has not happened.
Idaho has a wonderful public land heritage, and we want to keep it
that way. But we sure want to try to maintain a working, cooperating,
sharing relationship with the Federal land management agencies that
says there can be some grazing, mining, logging, water quality, and
environmental integrity and all of those combinations of multiple
balanced uses that are so critical to the character of the western
public land States. That part is what the Bumpers amendment is not all
about. It does not understand, nor does it share, that relationship
that has existed for well over 100 years.
When we talk about the character of the West and wanting to preserve
it, this is an amendment that would dramatically change the character
of the West. For the people who come to Idaho today, because Idaho is
what it is and has been for so long, part of that which they enjoy is
the ranching heritage, along with the great outdoors and the beautiful
landscapes and the pristine air. For over 100 years we have grazed
Idaho actively, and it is still a beautiful State.
Several years ago, I, along with others who have primary
responsibility in the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources for
this issue, began to recognize there needed to be some adjustment in
grazing fees; that somehow the formula currently being used by the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service was not working well.
Mr. President, you know the struggle we went through. We offered a
variety of amendments and a variety of bills. We passed a grazing
reform bill through the Senate this year. Senator Pete Domenici,
Senator Craig Thomas, certainly Senator Conrad Burns, who has just
spoken, myself, and others were involved in crafting that. We
introduced one that was not liked at all by a variety of interest
groups.
We went back to the drawing boards, and we invited all interests--
sportsmen, wildlife enthusiasts to environmentalists--to make
recommendations for change. Why? Because we didn't like the ranch form
regulations that Secretary Babbitt was shoving through because we felt
that in the long term it would badly damage the relationship of the
grazer to the public land, and after taking information from all of
those groups, we made between 27 and 30 changes in our legislation
before it passed through the Senate with a bipartisan vote.
Why this amendment, then? I think the Senator from Montana said it
well.
[[Page S10598]]
It is somehow the big versus the small, and that does not seem to work
very well. A blade of grass is a blade of public land grass and ought
to be worth the same to anybody who wants to buy it. Certainly, when we
sell trees off the national forests we do not say to the great big
Weyerhaeuser's or Louisiana Pacific's, or any of the big timber
companies, ``You have to pay a premium because you are big,'' and to
the small timber operator in my State of Idaho, ``You are small and you
are little and you pay less.'' We don't do that. We offer it to up to
bid. But in the instance of grazing, because grazing is tied with the
ranch, we have said you will pay a fee determined by the Congress. That
is what we have tried to do in a fair and equitable way, and I think we
have accomplished that, because not only are we trying to get a
reasonable amount of money from the public resource for the public
Treasury, but we are still trying to reflect the relationship that was
crafted back in the teens with the creation of the BLM Act, or the
Taylor Grazing Act, when we said that ranches ought to have a
relationship to that public land to be able to graze it under
reasonable conditions. That kept the local economy together. That kept
the main streets of Grand View, or Twin Falls, or Oakley, or Buhl, or
any of these small Western agricultural ranching communities, together
because they didn't own the vast lands. Those were owned by the public.
But there would still remain a relationship between the ranching
community, the economy, and the land. For a long time that was the
right relationship, but now we have wanted to make changes.
The Bumpers amendment makes the kind of change that dramatically
alters big and small, because the one thing that has never been talked
about in all of this was all of my small ranchers have been marvelous
stewards of the land throughout this time. They are the ones who gave
the time. They are the ones that put in the water systems. They are the
ones that have largely made the public range what it is today by
investing millions of hours of person time and millions of dollars of
their own money on public lands to improve them not just for grazing,
but for wildlife habitat. Yet, that seems to not be recognized today in
this kind of amendment, the big versus the small, the rich versus the
not-so-rich, which should never become a factor in the uniform
management of and the selling of public resources. Yet, that is what
the Senator from Arkansas attempts to do. And it is wrong, Mr.
President, it is just plain wrong. We do not treat any other public
resource--renewable or nonrenewable--that is up for sale that way.
Let us compare it. You go to a national park. You pay a fee to go
into a park. Do they ask you at the time you drive through the park,
``Are you a millionaire,'' or, ``Are you poor?'' If you are a
millionaire, you pay $10,000 to enter the national park, and if you are
not so rich, you pay the daily fee.
We do not do that when somebody enters the public resource buildings
of the national treasures of the Nation's Capital. There is a fee
charged, and that happens in some instances but not many. Yet,
taxpayers pay millions of dollars annually to keep these beautiful
buildings up. Do we say to the rich, ``You pay more,'' and to the poor,
``You pay less''? No, we do not do that. But that is what the Senator
from Arkansas does on grazing.
When we provide coal resources, oil resources, they go to the highest
bidder, and they go to the finder. Then we have a national fee that we
charge per ton or per gallon. Do we say to the Standard Oil's of
America, ``You pay more,'' and to the small stripper well producers in
Kansas, ``You pay less''? No, we do not. We expect a reasonable and a
balanced fee.
I don't know how, Mr. President, to make another comparison that the
public would understand. How about two apartments, one side by side,
and one is furnished and one is not furnished. That is what the Senator
from Montana was talking about. Certainly, the one that is furnished
you would pay more for.
So when the Senator from Arkansas talks about State lands, in many
instances, the State lands are a better quality grazing land. The
services on them are treated differently. Certainly, it is true of
private grazing. I know; I used to lease out private grazing. We took
care of the cattle. We fixed the fences. We sold to them. We made sure
that the water facilities were operating, and the person who put the
cattle on the land never came back to see them sometimes until 2 or 3
months later when they wanted to pick them up. So we were able to
charge more because we offered a service. But when the rancher leases
public grazing land, BLM or Forest Service land, none of those services
are offered. You ride for the cattle, and you care for the cattle. You
pick up all of those extra expenses.
That is a part of the reason that the formula over the year has
reflected some of disparity of difference, and it is unfair to make
those comparisons. But I am afraid that some of my colleagues, who have
an entirely different mission in mind than just getting for agriculture
a fair price for the public resource, want to change the story. And, in
changing it, they know that the consequence of their action would be
disastrous to the public grazing lands as we know it.
I hope, Mr. President, that Senators will once again join with us in
rejecting this amendment. This Senate has done its duty. We have
crafted a compromise, bipartisan grazing reform bill with a fee
increase in it which is fair and equitable to all, and passed it
through the Senate. Now, to have this kind of an end run on an
amendment that divides--that says to the rich this, says to the less
rich this, that says we create different levels and different fees for
different blades of grass grazed by different cattle, it does not make
sense.
It will not work. We do it nowhere else when we deal with public
resources, and we certainly ought not do it with grazing.
So I hope that the Senate will reject this amendment at the
appropriate time and continue to work with the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to accomplish the grazing reform that we need,
because there is no Senator who would suggest we need none.
As a Senator who represents a western public lands State, I will tell
you that I helped lead the reform this year. We did not stand back,
because we wanted to make sure that the reform was reflective of not
only national interests but that unique relationship that was crafted
with the Taylor Grazing Act decades ago between the public lands State
and the public domain and the public resource and the grazing industry
and the citizens of the States involved.
That is the issue at hand here. I hope the Senate will honor its
historic commitment in these areas to maintain balance and to maintain
reasonable return for the public resource.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that debate on this grazing fee
amendment has been concluded for the day. I have one short correction
from last week that I now ask unanimous consent be printed in the
Record separately from the debate on the grazing fee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Clarifications of Committee Report
Mr. GORTON. Last Friday, during debate on the Interior appropriations
bill, I put a list of clarifying items into the Congressional Record.
They were incorrectly identified as amendments to the committee report.
So that there is no misunderstanding, these were clarifications of, not
changes or amendments to, the committee report.
____________________