[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10653-S10656]
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 the consideration of the bill.


                    Amendment No. 5353, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes equally divided remaining prior to a motion to table the 
Bumpers amendment.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues the 
difference between this amendment and my amendment that you voted on 
earlier this year. In March, I offered an amendment that increased the 
Federal grazing fee for all permittees and those who controlled more 
than 2,000 animal unit months paid a higher fee. This amendment is 
different. I have raised the ante to provide that, unless a permittee 
controls 5,000 animal unit months, he is totally unaffected by my 
amendment. In fact, any permittee who controls less than 5,000 animal 
unit months pays the present grazing fee.
  Let me go back. What is an animal unit month? When you lease lands to 
graze cattle on Federal lands, you lease it by what is called an AUM, 
or animal unit month. That is the amount of grass it takes to feed one 
cow and her calf for 1 month. Some ranchers, for example those in 
southern Arizona and New Mexico, graze 12 months a year. However, most 
of the permittees only graze 4 or 5 months because there is not any 
grass in the winter months. So you can calculate, based on the current 
rate of $1.35 an AUM, how much a permittee is paying.
  Why is this important? It is not the money. It is the principle. Mr. 
President, grazing occurs on 270 million acres of our Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management lands, all Federal lands belonging to the 
taxpayers of this country--270 million acres. 97 percent of the people 
who hold grazing permits on those 270 million acres, and there are 
22,350 total operators, are unaffected by the Bumpers amendment. Even 
the other 3 percent, who are the really big boys, are unaffected on the 
first 5,000 AUM's.
  In other words, if you have 6,000 AUM's on your permit, for the first 
5,000 you would pay the same rate you are paying right now, but on the 
extra 1,000 you pay whatever rate you would have to pay if you leased 
State lands in that particular State where the lands lie.
  What does that amount to? It means, for example, that the average on 
State lands is $5.58. In Colorado the rate is $4.04. So you pay the 
difference in Colorado lands for every AUM over 5,000, and you would 
pay $4.04.

  Who are these people? Who are these 3 percent that have these AUM's? 
I will show you. I want you to bear in mind we passed a rather harsh 
welfare bill here just recently. The poorest of the poor in this 
country took it on the chin, and yet here is the biggest corporate 
welfare ripoff going on in America.
  Who are these people that have more than 5,000 AUM's? And can they 
afford to pay more? If they lease State lands, they pay $5.58. If they 
lease private lands they have to pay $11.20. If they lease Federal 
lands it is $1.35. Can they afford it? Here is Zenchiku, a Japanese 
corporation, 40,000 acres, 6,000 AUM's. Newmont Mining Co., the biggest 
gold mining company in the world, 12,000 AUM's. William Hewlett of 
Hewlett-Packard, 100,000 acres and 9,000 AUM's. Anheuser-Busch, one of 
the 80 biggest corporations in America, 8,000 AUM's. So I ask you, can 
these people--J.R. Simplot, in Idaho, an Idaho billionaire, a 
multibillionaire that controls 50,000 AUM's. Can Mr. Simplot, who is 
worth billions, afford to pay maybe $2.50 more for all his cows above 
5,000?
  Mr. President, this national ripoff has been going on for almost 50 
years. In March the offer I made to the Senate was anything above 2,000 
AUM's, and I lost by three votes. So yesterday I amended my amendment 
to make it 5,000 hoping I could at least cause three people to change 
their minds about this. It is a terrible thing for us to continue to 
allow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 6 minutes has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe Senator Craig will be down here shortly. I 
ask that the Chair inform me when I have used 5 minutes, if you would, 
please, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first of all, there are very different ways in which 
the public domain is used from the standpoint of grazing permits. It 
happens in a State like mine we have 5,000 permittees. The overwhelming 
number are small ranchers. And they use, for the most part, the public 
domain for 12 months out of the year.
  So the amendment that Senator Bumpers is talking about uses this big 
number, 5,000 animal unit months, which is really about 400 head of 
cattle if you graze on the public domain for 12 months out of the year. 
So it sounds like a monster, but in States like mine it is a relatively 
modest cattle ranching operation.
  Second, to say to those who ranch on the Federal land, ``You may be 
asked to pay the same as the State fee for this land,'' not only 
invites a fee schedule that is different from State to State, but the 
State leases its land on completely different rules than the Federal 
Government.
  Yesterday, in a few minutes on the floor, I suggested that if the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas would like to make the public 
domain in a sovereign State subject to the same inhibitions and/or 
restrictions that the State land has, then maybe some consideration 
might be given to charging a State fee.
  Let me give you a major example. In one of the States, the State land 
cannot be used for anything other than grazing, if you lease it for 
grazing, everyone else is denied access to that land. You cannot get on 
it for recreation. You cannot get on it for hunting and fishing. But we 
have decided on the public domain that we lease our land under 
completely different conditions. We lease for grazing, and it is still 
open to hunting and fishing and to the building of habitat for wild 
game and for fish.
  So the argument that there is some kind of advantage and some kind of 
reality and some kind of logic to saying, let us charge what the 
State's charge is, ignores the fact that the State leases its land 
under completely different rules, regulations, conditions, and 
inhibitions.
  Additionally, we do not need two sets of fees. We do not need a fee 
for the rancher in northern New Mexico who has 200 head of cattle and 
up the road

[[Page S10654]]

for somebody who has 600 head of cattle a different fee schedule. That 
is subject to manipulation. Even the Department of the Interior, when 
we suggested it before, said it will not work to have two separate sets 
of fees. I am not here defending large versus small, but clearly, we do 
not need that. I gave some examples yesterday of how that might work. 
It would come out with very large corporations being able to pay the 
lower fee and very small, independent operators with 450 head having to 
pay a higher fee.
  Last, but not least, an amendment comparable to this was introduced 
last year. It failed. We took a comprehensive bill to the House. That 
bill changes some of the rules and regulations and increases the fee 
about 40 percent. We believe you need to change the rules and 
regulations before you increase the fees. That is pending between the 
House and the Senate. And to come along on an Interior appropriations 
bill and change the fee schedule, as recommended, does not seem to this 
Senator to be the thing to do at this time.
  So when the time is up, I will move, on behalf of all of those who 
have supported the grazing reform and the defeat of a similar 
amendment, I will move to table it. I hope that the Senate will respond 
by letting this matter lie where it is, an argument now between the 
House and the Senate on a comprehensive reform bill which also will 
provide for very significant increases in grazing fees. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Bumpers amendment to raise grazing fees on public lands. The future 
of many livestock producers in Utah and elsewhere in the country is 
threatened by this amendment.
  I am not aware of any cattle producers in Utah who will be making a 
profit this year. At the same time as Utah ranchers are facing dismally 
low prices for their cattle, they have been hit with a devastating 
drought. On top of this, economic conditions in Canada and Mexico have 
flooded our United States market with their cattle.
  Ranchers who have grazed these lands for generations are being forced 
to pull up their stakes and close up shop. With the cattle industry in 
such bad shape, many agricultural lenders, aware of the possibility of 
increased grazing fees on public lands, have become increasingly 
unwilling to lend to livestock producers. An increase in grazing fees 
now could be devastating.
  This amendment would exempt ranchers from higher fees who have 
permits for fewer than 5,000 AUM's, or animal unit months. Animals are 
numbered and accounted for by animal unit months. An AUM represents a 
unit of forage that is normally consumed by one cow and her calf or 
five sheep over a 1-month period. Unlike many States, Utah public lands 
are grazed in the summer and the winter. A rancher owning as few as 500 
head of cattle and grazing them for 10 months would need 5,000 AUM's. 
Such a rancher would be subject to these higher fees. Especially hard 
hit by this amendment would be Utah's beleaguered sheep grazers, a 
large proportion of whom would be faced with these higher fees.
  Grazing fee increases will accomplish little more than to drive many 
family ranchers out of business. Of course, some private land owners 
charge more than the Federal Government for grazing on their lands. 
Private owners provide services which public lands do not. The Federal 
Government does not stock water ponds, provide fences, or provide 
roads. Ranchers using the public lands must provide these things for 
themselves at their own expense.
  Mr. President, this amendment will not result in increased revenue 
from public lands. It will more than likely decrease revenue as 
ranchers who can no longer afford to use public lands find other 
options or go out of business.
  I might add, Mr. President, that there are few other options for 
grazing land in Utah. The BLM controls 22 million acres of land in our 
State. The Federal Government controls 70 percent of our State.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote to maintain what is not 
only an important part of our Western heritage, but an important sector 
of the economy of many Western States. The next time my colleagues sit 
down to a nice juicy steak or to a hamburger with their kids at the 
local fast food restaurant, I hope my colleagues will remember that 
some rancher worked hard to produce it and may have even lost money for 
this effort.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the 
Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have certainly enjoyed over the years 
the spirited debates in which I have engaged with my good friend from 
the State of Arkansas. He is a most passionate and articulate 
representative of his constituents and he is certainly a credit to 
them. In the debate over raising grazing fees on ranchers who use the 
public lands, however, I find myself pining for a new subject. We have 
oft been down this road before. We have heard it all; about how those 
rotten billionaire ranchers are ripping off the American people; about 
how they are overgrazing and ruining the lands; about how we should 
have a progressive fee system that would hit some ranchers hard and 
leave others alone; about the inequity of rates charged for Federal 
versus State lands. It is all ``old hat.''
  Mr. President, I commend Senators Thomas, Craig, Domenici, Burns and 
all the others who have spoken out against this poor idea. I would be 
hard pressed to express my objections more cogently than they have 
done. Let me just underline a few concerns that those of us from 
Western States share with regard to this issue.
  And these concerns are many. Indeed, I dare say that I cannot see one 
virtue in this amendment. To begin with, let there be no doubt about 
it: This amendment is not an effort to inject fairness into public 
lands grazing. Rather, this is the effort of interests who want nothing 
more than to get private ranchers off of public lands. ``Cattle free in 
93'' was the clarion call during the last Presidential election of 
those who hold this view. Fairness? What is fair about it? As my good 
friend and colleague from the State of Idaho has pointed out, if it is 
fairness this amendment is after, then all parties should be paying the 
same rate, rather than pitting one class against the other. Of course, 
those of us on this side of the aisle are not surprised by this pitch: 
It is just such attempts to engender class warfare that those on the 
other side of the aisle have excelled at for lo these many years. 
Fairness? What is fair about penalizing success? What is fair about 
discouraging small ranchers from becoming successful ranchers? The 
supporters of this amendment moan that the taxpayers aren't getting 
their money's worth out of our ranchers. How much money do they think 
will be returned to the Treasury when many of these ranchers go out of 
business because they have been barred from these lands--and again let 
me stress: This is most assuredly their ultimate goal.
  Environmentalists are forever trying to sell the American people a 
quick Persian rug about ``enviro dollars,'' and all of the money just 
waiting to be generated by tourism. Good heavens. In Western States 
like mine the tourist season on these lands is only a few months long 
at best. And has it occurred to no one what tourist jobs pay? Unless 
you own the motel you are probably making five bucks an hour changing 
bed sheets. Colonial Williamsburg, just a couple hours drive south of 
here, is one of the healthiest tourist enterprises in the country, yet 
there are people with 15 years seniority there who topped out long ago 
at eight or nine dollars an hour. The chimera of Tourism as a 
substitute for natural resource use on our public lands is one of the 
great hoaxes perpetrated on the American people by environmentalists. I 
guarantee you that tourism will not return more money to the Treasury 
than grazing lease holders.
  But perhaps most offensive about the effort to rid our public lands 
of private ranchers is the fact that Western States are owned to an 
enormous degree by the Federal Government: My State of Wyoming--52 
percent; Idaho--63 percent; Nevada--a whopping 87 percent. What are the 
people of the West to do but use these lands? Eastern States are not 
owned by the Federal Government to near this degree. Nor is the State 
of Arkansas, as my friend from Idaho has pointed out.
  Fairness? What is fair about charging the same to graze on BLM lands 
as that charged on State and private

[[Page S10655]]

lands? BLM land users have to furnish their own improvements; fences, 
culverts, water tanks. They must contend with public access to their 
herds. They have tighter restrictions on what predators they can and 
cannot control and a host of other differences.
  Mr. President, this amendment is neither fair nor prudent. We have 
defeated it before and I encourage my colleagues to defeat it again. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on our side and on Senator 
Bumpers' side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes, 53 
seconds remaining; the Senator from Arkansas has 3 minutes, 42 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield all of my time to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me echo again what the Senator from New 
Mexico has just said. This is a fascinating precedent being established 
here in this amendment by the Senator from Arkansas, precedent in the 
way we would sell public resources.
  Never before have we said to a large timber company, ``You're going 
to pay a premium for the tree because you're larger,'' and to the 
smaller timber producer, ``You'll pay less.'' We have never said to a 
rich person who walked into a national park, ``You're rich, so you'll 
pay more.'' And we have never said, therefore, to the poor person, 
``You will pay less.'' We have always established what we believed was 
a fair market price for the value of the public resource. That is your 
job, Mr. President, and that is mine.
  This past year we made every effort to accomplish that. We debated it 
long and loud in the committee that the Senator from Arkansas and I are 
members of. We agreed and disagreed; and we came back again and 
structured another provision to reform. It had a fee increase in it for 
all parties who would lease the public's grass.
  But what the Senator from Arkansas is saying is, ``If you're rich, 
this blade of grass for your cow will cost you more than if you are 
less rich.'' You and I both know that deciding who is rich and who is 
not rich is very arbitrary. Sometimes you can own 1,000 head of cattle, 
and owe the bank $5 million, and have a net worth of nearly zero. That 
happens in the cattle business on occasion. I doubt that the Senator 
from Arkansas would call that rich, because if that individual rancher 
liquidated, there may be nothing left, especially after estate taxes 
and all of those kinds of things.
  But the important issue here is that the Senate heard the need from 
the public to raise the grazing fees and to reform grazing, and we 
did, and the Senate acted.

  I do not know where the Senator from Arkansas is coming from at this 
moment other than for the political sound bite for the up and coming 
campaign, because it is precedent setting, very precedent setting, to 
argue that we will divvy up the blades of grass of the public domain by 
who is rich and who is poor, and we will use that as a determination. 
We have never done it in any other way of selling a public resource, 
and we all recognize the importance of marketing public resources to 
get a fair and effective return to the Treasury.
  Mr. President, that is what this Senate did. I think we ought to be 
proud of that work. Now, to attempt an end run around that effort, an 
end run that is precedent setting and totally unbalanced, is, without 
question, in my opinion, the wrong way to go. It divides the grazing 
communities of the West. It should not be allowed to do that. It 
totally rearranges what has been a historic arrangement that has 
stabilized the West and brought good stewardship to the public lands.
  The stewardship now recognized by the Department of the Interior has 
resulted in better conditions on Western grazing lands than in the last 
100 years. We, as trustees of that public domain, ought to be proud of 
that because we have insisted that stewardship go forward.
  Now, that stewardship is a product of the relationship of the 
permittee--that is, the rancher who has the permit that leases the 
grass that grazes the cattle--that stewardship resulted in the quality 
of the rangeland we now have. If you break it up into a rolling crap 
shoot of a kind that has been proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, 
that stewardship goes away. No longer do you have the kind of longevity 
in grazing that goes from generation to generation with the clear 
recognition that that has produced quality stewardship, quality 
rangeland, quality wildlife habitat, and by the Department of Interior 
managers' own admission, the best conditions in rangelands in 100 
years.
  Mr. President, I hope we could table this amendment. I think it is 
wrong. I think it is unfair to divide the rich and the poor and 
establish that kind of an argument. If we do that, I think you and I 
will want to come back here and say to the millionaires that walk into 
our national parks, ``You are rich, you pay more; for those on food 
stamps, if you can get to the parks, you pay less.''
  That that should not be the way we do it, but that is what is being 
proposed here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from 
Arkansas has 3 minutes and 42 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
is not about rich and poor, but about marketplace economies and 
capitalism, which made this country great. Basically, what we have here 
is a program which essentially allows people to take advantage at an 
extraordinarily low rate, a subsidized interest, paid for by the 
taxpayers of America.
  Mr. President, $58 million a year is spent on this land. The United 
States gets back $14 million. What we are suggesting is that for those 
people who use this land excessively, who have a large number of AUM's 
that exceed the 97 percent of the people who are not going to be 
impacted, just the top 3 percent of the people using this land, who use 
it to such an extensive rate, that those people should pay a rate that 
is a higher rate.
  Today's rate is 43 percent less than what was paid in 1980. What we 
are suggesting is a rate which does not even account for what the 
inflation increase would be had that 1980 rate not been brought 
forward. It is a reduced rate, even by the simple terms of reflecting 
back to the 1980's and adding inflation.
  We are suggesting a rate much closer to fairness, to equity, that 
gives to the taxpayers of this country, all of whom happen to own this 
land--it is not just owned by folks in the West--a reasonable return on 
the investment they are making.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico and the 
Senator from Idaho alluded to what fair market prices are. If you live 
in Idaho--the Senator from Idaho mentioned he tried to establish a fair 
market price--the price is $1.35 AUM if you lease lands for grazing 
from the U.S. Government. But if you lease lands for grazing from his 
home State of Idaho, you have to pay $4.88 for the same thing, and in 
New Mexico, it is $3.54.
  The average that States charge for the same thing we get $1.35 for is 
$5.58. Why are the States so much smarter than we are? If you rent in 
the private sector, the national average is $11.20.
  The Senator from Idaho said we are trying to separate the rich from 
the poor. Nothing of the kind. These people I am talking about--
Anheuser-Busch, Newmont--I do not think they argue they are poor, they 
cannot afford to pay more, for example, than what his State would 
charge. If they are poor, if people who have 5,000 AUM's, which is all 
this amendment covers, if they are poor, who are these 97 percent below 
them? We do not touch anybody except people like Anheuser-Busch, 
Newmont Mining, William Hewlett, J.R. Simplot, the biggest 
corporations, wealthiest people in America.
  I do not blame them. I would get land for $1.35 before I would lease 
it from the State of Idaho for $4.88, or lease it from somebody who 
owned land for $11.20. All we are trying to do is say, if you want this 
land, fine, we will give you 5,000 AUM's at this ridiculously low 
price. If you go above that, you will have to pay a little more.

[[Page S10656]]

  We all know what this is. I heard all of this debate yesterday about 
all these poor little ranchers. The poor little ranchers out there are 
not touched under this amendment. They can graze 418 head every month 
for 12 months. Most permittees do not graze livestock on the Federal 
lands for 12 months. Most of them only graze about 5 months a year, so 
you have to have 1,000 head on most of this land before you even get 
touched by this. If you have 1,000 head, you ain't poor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arkansas has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Bumpers amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll on the motion to table.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as 
follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table amendment No. 5353, as modified, was 
rejected.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
amendment itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And the yeas and nays have been ordered 
on H.R. 3816, the energy and water appropriations bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote now 
on the amendment.
  Mr. President, this vote having been 50 to 50 on the motion to table, 
and the order having been that we vote on or in relation to the 
amendment, it seems at least to this Senator that the logical course of 
action would be to vote now on the amendment and then to vote on the 
energy and water bill thereafter. As a consequence, I ask unanimous 
consent that we proceed to vote on the Bumpers-Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I think it would be well to debate this 
amendment awhile longer. I am not prepared to vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request of the Senator from Washington?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________