[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.

                          ____________________