[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9734-H9764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FORAGE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The unfinished business is the 
question of agreeing to the resolution (House Resolution 284) on which 
the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277, 
nays 139, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 545]

                               YEAS--277

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen

[[Page H9735]]


     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cubin
     Dixon
     Edwards
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     McDade
     McDermott
     Metcalf
     Pelosi
     Schiff
     Smith, Adam
     Weldon (FL)
     Wise
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1055

  Messrs. NEAL of Massachusetts, RODRIGUEZ, SHERMAN, and TIERNEY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MATSUI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 284 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2493.

                              {time}  1056


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2493) to establish a mechanism by which the Secretary of Agriculture 
and the Secretary of the Interior can provide for uniform management of 
livestock grazing on Federal lands, with Mr. Nussle in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2493, the Forage 
Improvement Act of 1997. This bill, introduced by my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Bob Smith from Oregon, implements needed changes 
to current grazing laws and regulations. Congressman Smith has expended 
a great deal of effort in trying to address concerns from all sides of 
the grazing issue and is to be commended for not only tackling an issue 
which, in the past, has been very heated and controversial, but also 
for assembling a bill which is balanced and does no environmental harm 
whatsoever.

  H.R. 2493 implements actions that will benefit the rancher dependent 
on our public lands, benefit the U.S. Treasury, and, most importantly, 
will greatly improve the rangeland resources over much of the West.
  I would like to point out a couple of important areas that this bill 
addresses This bill codifies a new grazing fee formula which sets an 
equitable and fair value on forage for both the rancher and the U.S. 
Government. In fact, if applying the new fee to the current market, 
there would be a grazing fee increase of 36 percent from $1.35 to 
$1.84, thus the Government benefits. The rancher benefits by getting a 
fee formula that is averaged over a longer time period and is easy to 
figure out and track, thus gaining economic stability for the industry.
  Another important part of H.R. 2493 is that it would allow flexible 
management agreements between the Government and ranchers that will be 
based on performance instead of prescriptions. These agreements will 
only be available to those ranchers who have demonstrated good land 
stewardship for 5 years or more. The agreements lead to innovative 
approaches to grazing management and help retain good rangeland 
conditions.
  H.R. 2493 also increases the focus of science-based monitoring 
programs for the rangeland conditions. It is simply impossible to make 
good land management decisions without knowing the condition of the 
land. Recently it has become apparent that the Federal Government, for 
numerous reasons, have not paid enough attention to the monitoring 
function, thus decisions, sometimes bad ones, have been made because of 
the lack of good monitoring data. This bill sets up a monitoring 
program which is based on scientifically proven protocols which will 
ultimately lead to better decisionmaking and improved rangeland 
resources.
  Congressman Smith has done an outstanding job in crafting a bill 
which implements needed grazing reforms while avoiding any negative 
environmental effects.
  I support H.R. 2493, and urge all my colleagues to also add their 
support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2493. As I mentioned, this is a bill that has been worked on very hard 
by the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture and of course myself have worked through this legislation. 
I believe it goes far toward the stability of the grazing activity that 
takes place on public lands, protecting the lands environmentally, 
providing for the owners of those lands the base allotments, so they 
can continue their efforts to try to protect the environment through 
sound management of the

[[Page H9736]]

grazing forage areas on our public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act, was introduced 
by my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Congressman Bob Smith. 
Congressman Smith should be applauded for laboring tirelessly on 
putting together a bill that keeps the controversy out and the common 
sense in regarding grazing practices on our public lands. Congressman 
Smith has worked extremely hard to bring together the many sides of the 
grazing issue and has assembled a bill that helps the rancher whose 
livelihood depends on public land grazing without doing any harm to the 
rangeland resources. In fact, implementing this bill will ultimately 
improve the rangelands across the west.
  Controversy and confrontation on grazing of the public lands have 
been raging for years. It is clear that changes in current grazing laws 
and regulations are not only long overdue, but are absolutely necessary 
in order to resolve many of the grazing issues. H.R. 2493 makes these 
needed changes.
  For example, this bill will bring economic stability to those 
ranchers who use Federal land for grazing while at the same time 
generate additional revenue for the Federal Treasury. This will be 
accomplished by implementing a new grazing fee formula which is easy to 
understand, simple to track, and which charges a fair price to the 
rancher who buys access to forage from the Federal Government.
  Furthermore, the changes found in H.R. 2493 will improve rangeland 
conditions by increasing the focus on science-based monitoring. For far 
too long and for a variety of excuses the Federal Government simply 
hasn't done its job in assessing rangeland condition through 
monitoring. Congressman Smith's bill puts the emphasis back to what 
actually exists on the ground through a monitoring program that is 
science-based and which follows established protocols. This program 
will greatly enhance the decisionmaking process and help establish 
rangeland goals that are good for the land and achievable.
  Moreover, H.R. 2493 will establish a program of management 
flexibility to those ranchers who have demonstrated good land 
stewardship. This will help to keep the grazing lands in good and 
excellent condition.
  This is a good bill whose time has come. It does nothing to harm the 
environment. In fact, it will improve rangelands across the West. It 
treats the Western land grazer honestly and fairly. And in return, the 
U.S. Treasury makes more money and gets an improved rangeland resource.
  I urge all my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2493.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, this is a country of laws, not of 
men. And with respect to the issue of pasturing on public lands by 
grazers, we have been operating under the rule of men. It is time, I 
think, to return to the question of laws, and that is exactly the 
purpose and the reason that we are here today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been operating in the past under the rule of 
one pen. Now we must operate, it seems to me, with the consent of 
Congress, which is the way we do business in this country.
  A little historical reference about this bill. It is a very delicate 
issue; one that we have been discussing for many years since I have 
been a Member of Congress. But this is a little different this year 
because we have agreed now among many factions to bring a bill that has 
wide support and that has been discussed and rehearsed by many, many 
people in this country, including such divergent areas of 
environmentalists, of grazers, ranchers, interested people, senators, 
representatives. For a period of the last 4 months, this may be the 
widest traveled bill in America because it has been to every corner and 
every State and it has been examined by every person who has an 
interest in this whole discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, in the past, ranchers who graze more than 270 million 
acres of public land, primarily in 16 States in the West, have been 
under great stress. Often there have been contradictory agency 
regulations that they have had to live with, even different regulations 
between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
  The rangeland reform issue brought 2 years ago, and much of it struck 
down by a judge's decision, was a frightening thing to the people who 
depend upon public lands. So, Mr. Chairman, here we are with a group of 
people, very insecure, wanting direction as to how they may proceed to 
live with their families on public lands in the West.
  Many of my colleagues well remember the issue of the last session 
when a bill was passed by the Senate, came to the House, and, of 
course, was under great scrutiny by everyone and failed to come to the 
floor, and so did not pass. So this again has upset people in the West 
because we have no guidelines, it seems, until we pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a very moderate list of requests in this bill. 
We have come back from the idea of wanting everything to pass at one 
time to a basic idea that we need two things for the stability and the 
predictability of people in the West who depend upon public lands. 
Basically this bill is about a fee that is fair to the public grazers, 
and it is a fee that is fair to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, also there is tenure in this bill; in other words, not 
extended tenure, but existing rulemaking tenure of some 10 years. If 
participants follow the guidelines of the Bureau of Land Management and 
Forest Service every year, they have the opportunity to graze for 10 
years with a renewal.
  From this bill, we have struck many, many controversial issues. Just 
to name a few, the resource advisory councils, which were really a 
program promoted by Secretary Babbitt, came under great controversy 
simply because during the resource advisory council programs we wanted 
a majority vote of the resource council and the Secretary demanded a 
consensus; in other words, unanimous consent where one person could 
stop any kind of advisory council to the agencies.
  Because it was controversial, we struck it from this bill. So it is 
existing law. We may have resource advisory councils, but they are 
certainly up to the various communities and the States. They are not in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of problems identifying allotments and 
base properties, and because it was controversial, we decided that we 
would not touch that and we would rely on existing law, which has been 
following several court cases in this country as far as definition of 
those two items.
  There was a question of public access across private land and, 
frankly, we decided we would not touch that one either because that 
raises another argument, and so we dropped it out of this bill.
  Now, we have left here, again, a very modest attempt to bring reason 
and stability to the West. It affects not one environmental law in this 
country. It produces nothing that would affect the environment at all. 
Grazing allotments are run and directed by the managers, the range 
managers. The number of sheep and cattle that are offered on public 
lands are highly regulated and counted each year.
  So if there is a discrepancy, then we ought to arrange to have the 
public managers correct it. But it is not a part of this bill. It does 
not give the environmentalists any advantage. It does not give the 
grazers any advantage. It is a fair and reasonable offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend this bill to my colleagues, and I ask for 
their support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, what remaining time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, to conduct the rest of the 
debate on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. It is my understanding under the rule that we have 
unanimous consent 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
Committee

[[Page H9737]]

on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture and our time is divided 
and I control 15 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2493, the Forage 
Improvement Act of 1997. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith], the distinguished chairman of the House Committee 
on Agriculture, for his hard work on this bill and for his sincere 
efforts to address the concerns of other Members.
  Mr. Chairman, while very narrow in scope, this bill contains positive 
and necessary improvements to the current system for the management of 
grazing on Federal lands. I strongly support the requirement to use 
sound, verifiable science to monitor resource conditions and trends on 
grazing allotments. This bill allows Federal agencies to coordinate 
with ranchers to perform the monitoring or to hire a qualified 
consultant to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that we should base all environmental 
policy decisions on sound, verifiable science, and this provision is an 
extremely important step forward in that direction.
  Additionally, this bill creates a grazing fee which provides 
stability and continuity for ranchers while returning a fair sum to the 
U.S. Treasury. It does this by ensuring the receipt of an equitable 
price for the product purchased by the rancher from the Government.
  This bill raises grazing fees by 36 percent, and there are those who 
would argue that this is not enough of an increase and is just a 
government subsidy. But the fact of the matter is it is difficult to 
compare exactly all the intangibles associated with leasing public or 
private lands. They both contain their own unique qualities. Critics of 
this bill would do just as well to compare an apple to an orange.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not lose sight of the fact that this bill will 
return fees to the U.S. Treasury that are an increase of 36 percent. 
For those who say this bill does not increase fees enough, similar fee 
increases for other Federal programs would hasten the elimination of 
the Federal deficit.
  Finally, this bill requires the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management to administer grazing programs in a coordinated way. This 
was done to ensure that ranchers would be treated in the same manner by 
either agency. This just makes good sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill, a reasonable compromise, 
and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I 
am a Westerner. I think this legislation is bad for the West.
  Mr. Chairman, I have traveled in the West and I have seen firsthand 
the overgrazed streams whose banks have been trampled and shorn of 
vegetation. This is one of the reasons that we have endangered salmon 
in the Pacific Northwest. Our fish have few healthy streams to spawn 
in. The overgrazing of our public land has an enormous public impact, 
and that is why this bill is being opposed by taxpayer groups and 
opposed by environmental groups.
  Sports and commercial fishermen in the Northwest once provided $1 
billion of income, but now the fishermen and fisherwomen of my district 
are out of work and the tackle manufacturers and the people who rely on 
tourism, they are losing money because there is no fish left to catch. 
To add insult to injury, those same constituents of mine are being 
asked to pay taxes to underwrite the below-market grazing fees.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2493 masquerades as a grazing reform bill, yet it 
puts grazing before the environmental health of our public rangelands. 
It turns grazing privileges on Federal lands into private property 
rights, and it expands grazing on public lands by including Forest 
Service lands.
  For anyone who doubts the national ramifications of this legislation, 
this is not just a western issue. I have in my hand two editorials, one 
written by the Washington Post, ``Subsidies for Big Ranchers,'' and the 
other written by the Herald Journal of Logan, UT. The Utah Herald 
Journal points out, and I quote, ``The vast majority [of ranchers]--98 
percent,'' and, Mr. Chairman, I repeat, 98 percent of ranchers, ``don't 
even have access to public land and yet somehow they manage to stay in 
the black.''
  Now, who does have access? I go off the quote and come back in. 
``They include at least three Forbes billionaires, four oil and mining 
companies, and one national brewery,'' and I end the quote.
  These are not small farmers. This bill provides corporate welfare to 
huge, huge agricultural interests.
  The Washington Post, as I say, says it is a subsidy for big ranchers 
and it urges us to vote the bill down.
  So, Mr. Chairman, both Easterners and Westerners agree that this bill 
is bad for the American taxpayer, bad for commercial and sports fishing 
groups, and bad, above all, for the environment. If it were not bad for 
the environment, not bad for our taxpayers, why would the taxpayer 
groups oppose it? Why would the environmental groups oppose it?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, join those groups and vote ``no'' 
on this ill-advised legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no, I repeat, there is no reference to private 
property rights in this bill. None. It conveys nothing. It yields 
nothing. There are eight large corporations that the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse] mentioned. There are 23,000 medium-sized ranches 
that depend upon this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support 
of the Forage Improvement Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I come at this bill from a little bit different 
perspective than most folks that will be here speaking today because I 
am from the Southeast, I am not from the West. But my perspective is to 
ensure that the rights of hunters and fishermen all across this country 
are protected in this bill. And I will say to the critics of this bill 
who believe that it does not protect hunters and fishermen that they 
are wrong.
  As vice chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am one of 
the strongest advocates of multiple use of Federal lands.

                              {time}  1115

  I want to make sure that our sportsmen and sportswomen have the 
opportunity to hunt and fish on Federal lands. The compromise that the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], my chairman on the House Committee 
on Agriculture, has struck ensures that multiple use is protected. By 
working with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] on this issue, we 
have made sure that this bill is sound legislation for all of our 
sportsmen here to support. There is no better evidence of that than the 
chairman himself, who is an avid sportsman, an avid hunter and 
fisherman.
  I urge my colleagues on the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to 
support this bill. I would say to my other colleagues, if they support 
farmers and ranchers and they support sportsmen and sportswomen in 
America, support this bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. As the other vice 
chairmen of the sportsmen's caucus, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleague.
  Grazing on public lands has been a contentious issue, as we know, for 
the last 20 years. The laws regulating grazing as administered by the 
Forest Service and the BLM have evolved to the point where it has 
become very hard to make a living as a public lands rancher. Our 
ranchers legitimately need this legislation.
  The way fees are currently structured, ranchers simply are not able 
to plan financially from year to year. It is important to point out 
that this bill is much more moderate and narrow than past grazing 
reform proposals. I think the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith], and the ranking

[[Page H9738]]

member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] should be commended for 
the way they have reached out to make this bill more acceptable to 
people.
  It is time to support this modest bill which takes us in a small but 
extremely important step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
Fundamentally, the issue here is in terms of raising beef, raising 
sheep or goats as the case as this land is being used.
  I would point out to my colleagues that this only affects, in 
essence, a dozen States. They will say 16, but quite candidly, it is 
only about a dozen States. Even within those States, we would find that 
the forage that is provided on public lands in California is 10 
percent. Other Western States it may range as high as into the 30's.
  Even within those States, public lands represent 50 percent of the 
forage. But the fact is that it takes place on 250 million acres that 
are under permit in terms of grazing so, indeed, this is important. But 
what does it mean in terms of production for farmers? It means less 
percent of the beef. So other farmers, others that are raising beef, 
they are not doing it in the thousands of animals in Minnesota, they 
are doing it in the hundreds.
  The fact is that many of these operations are very large corporate 
farmers that have gained control. In fact, if we look at who has the 
control of this, less than 10 percent of the permittees control over 60 
percent of the permits, over 60 percent of the forage, to put it more 
precisely. So this is a sop.
  What is wrong here is that we have a system that is not being 
properly priced in the market. That leads to two things. First of all, 
it is unfair to the taxpayer. It is unfair and it leads to abuse and 
dependency in terms of these lands.
  Most of these 250 million acres are ephemeral lands. They are 
marginal lands. That is why they generally remain in public ownership 
in many cases, not all. Some have other resources, other qualities that 
are wonderful. But the fact is they are marginal.
  There are places in California where we have 2,500 acres for a single 
animal. In fact, I think the high there, in testimony that I saw, was 
like 3,400 acres, which is extreme. These hot desert areas, very 
fragile lands, we have the cows out there competing with the desert 
tortoise. I think it is wrong. I think that these cows end up with more 
miles on them than the old Chevrolet. The fact is that they become, 
when we put these animals on these lands, they become the dominant 
species.
  What this bill does is to take what are in essence the BLM rules that 
provide for subleasing, transferring one's permits to somebody else, 
with a premium payment. It eliminates the premium payment so BLM can 
continue to do that without the premium payment and it transfers that 
which is forbidden by the Forest Service today, to permit them to in 
fact transfer those permits.
  This is an out-of-whack bill. Even with the changes that are being 
proposed by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert], it still does not get to the essence of 
what is the problem here. It is not addressing the problem. It is a bad 
bill. It should be defeated on this floor. It should be amended. I hope 
we can do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to correct the record. Indeed, cows are competing with 
tortoises. I wonder how much the gentleman would pay if he were grazing 
tortoises.
  The other question and the point I want to make here is simply that 
according to GAO figures, 47 percent of the permits have 100 animals or 
less; 38 percent have 100 to 500 animals; 15 percent of the permits 
have more than 500 animals. This is not exactly a huge corporate 
stealing program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Forage 
Improvement Act.
  As my colleagues consider this proposal, I urge them to consider the 
underlying values that are represented in this bill. What are those 
values?
  Simply speaking, Mr. Chairman, the values are fairness, 
predictability, and stability. In the West, our Federal Government owns 
huge blocks of public lands. In my State of Montana it owns about 30 
percent of the lands. We expect those lands to be managed in a 
responsible fashion, responsible to the taxpayers, and responsible to 
the people who use those lands.
  There are some important facts, though, that my colleagues need to 
understand as they consider this bill. First, our rangelands are in 
good condition; repeat, our public rangelands are in very good 
condition. Second, rangelands need to be grazed. Grazing produces 
healthier grass. It reduces fire hazards and it increases the capacity 
of the land to sustain wildlife. Interestingly, cooperative grazing 
management with producers and local managers working together today we 
have healthier grass and substantially more wildlife on our public 
lands.
  Third, grazing on the public lands is very important in sustaining 
local economies, local communities and in sustaining family farms and 
ranches. If the range is healthy and it is sustaining wildlife, why do 
we need this bill?
  Mr. Chairman, the answer is that under this Secretary of Interior, 
the administration has embarked on a radical new experiment in range 
management. They have thrown out 120 years of range management science. 
The administration has ignored local communities and it has written off 
family farms and ranches in the West. This bill is a moderate effort to 
restore predictability and stability to these communities and to these 
producers. How? By raising grazing fees in a predictable fashion with a 
predictable formula based on the price of cattle and interest rates. It 
creates a good return to the Treasury and it is based upon the ability 
to pay. It also brings stability by requiring range management to be 
based on proven science rather than special interests politics and most 
important, the bill is fair.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Vote ``yes'' on the Forage 
Improvement Act.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  To continue my debate with my colleagues, as I said earlier, this 
affects a dozen or so States. Most of the beef raisers and others 
raising sheep and goats need to rely upon the marketplace in terms of 
what is happening. Obviously, it is not my intent or the intent to 
eliminate grazing from Western lands. That is of course the red flag 
that is raised, but that is not the purpose. In fact, I think that we 
want and need a collaborative and cooperative partnership with our 
Western colleagues in terms of trying to achieve the objectives.
  The fact is that as we look at this that the receipts from the BLM 
are only about half of what the cost is of the grazing programs. In 
fact, in looking at fiscal year 1995, it is estimated grazing receipts 
will amount to about $16.4 million, and the amount that was spent in 
managing those programs was in fact $47,400,000. That does not include 
the range improvements which amounted to about $10 million trying to 
take care of this.
  What does this bill do to BLM's and to the Forest Service's ability 
to monitor? We heard about sound science. We heard about objectivity. 
We heard about doing this on the basis of the facts, not on the basis 
of politics. But then this bill suggests that if I am a BLM land 
manager, that I have to provide 48 hours' notice to the permittee to go 
on and to in fact look at this.
  Remember this is public land. We are going to permit for someone to 
use it and we are suggesting that the manager of that land has to give 
48 hours' notice so that we can go and determine whether or not in fact 
the monitoring of the cattle, if the sheep are properly being 
controlled in terms of how they are using these various allotments that 
are out there, this is one of the problems with this bill.
  In fact, the way it is designed, and it needs to be modified, it has 
entirely skewed the program in a different direction with regard to 
what the impact is. As I said, it provides for subleasing, something 
that the Forest Service does not provide today. This extends the

[[Page H9739]]

subleasing, which I believe leads to the very large permittees where 
they are transferring these permittees around. Sixty percent of the 
AUM's are controlled by less than 10 percent of those that hold the 
permits. It does not deal with number of cows. We are talking about 
AUM's; we are talking about the amount of forage that is being used.
  Mr. Chairman, during this debate there are going to be suggestions 
that most States, even in the West, charge 2 to 3 times as much as the 
proposed increase here, which is not 30 percent. It is closer to about 
15 percent. But the fact is that we are talking about AUM's here. We 
are comparing apples to apples in terms of what the States charge. All 
the States tend to charge a great deal more than the Federal 
Government, than this bill even proposes to. We hope to rectify that 
with the Klug and Vento amendments.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I join this debate with my colleague from Minnesota, as 
one that represents a State that has very little, if any, Federal lands 
involved in this. I have spent several years analyzing whether or not 
this is a fair rental as far as the competitiveness with other 
ranchers. It is not just my judgment that causes me to support the bill 
today. It is cattlemen from all over the United States that have 
agreed.
  Yes, maybe it is not a perfect formula. I do not know that anyone can 
devise a perfect formula. But to continue to suggest that the only 
valid formula for charging rental rates has to be with private lands is 
an erroneous assumption. That is comparing apples and oranges and it is 
not relevant to this debate.
  Also we need to understand, yes, there are a few large enterprises 
that are involved. But 81 percent of the Forest Service permittees are 
part of small- to medium-sized family ranching. The amendment that the 
gentleman will offer, when we get to the amending process, would make 
it very difficult for these individuals to make a living in ranching in 
the real world.
  Therefore, I encourage all of our colleagues to listen carefully, 
particularly when you are concerned about environmental concerns. This 
bill is very important in this aspect. It is suggesting that we rely on 
sound science. This bill institutes a program of scientific range 
monitoring to ensure that land managers make their decision on the 
basis of current reliable data and not merely one's judgment. What we 
are debating today is one's judgment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the Record here again and talk about 
the facts. The facts are that indeed this is an increase of 36 percent 
from a $1.35 to $1.84 per animal unit month.
  Mr. Chairman, do not be fooled by the fact that the gentleman states 
that we only retrieve half the cost from the grazing fee. That is not 
true.

                              {time}  1130

  If you believe the Government is efficient by adding up all the costs 
and then saying, well, ranchers ought to pay the cost of administering 
the grazing fee, then I think you are on the wrong track. The facts are 
that the grazers pay almost the cost but we are also paying the NEPA 
cost. So I think that is a public policy, not a rancher's issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. 
Emerson].
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Forage 
Improvement Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] 
for his strong leadership and his good commonsense effort to fix our 
Nation's grazing laws.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is good for our public lands and for those 
who depend on public lands for their livelihood. By reinforcing and 
clarifying the partnership between ranchers and Government, and by 
emphasizing better science as part of the process, the bill promotes 
sound grazing practices.
  The fact is that America's farmers and ranchers are our best 
conservationists, and they are committed to working with the Government 
and other citizens in caring for the land.
  This legislation is important to the future of family ranching 
operations. All of agriculture, including the ranching community, faces 
great market and weather uncertainties from year to year. Our 
Government should not add to this natural volatility by forcing 
confusing and conflicting grazing rules on our ranchers.
  H.R. 2493 provides the stability in Federal policy that is long 
overdue. I urge a yes vote to support responsible public lands 
policies.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Apparently, my colleague is confused. There is some confusion about 
what the increase is in this bill. I am just going on the basis of the 
CBO. I think, for purposes of debate, I would quote and read from the 
document.

       Using ERS's most recent data for the total gross value of 
     production and projecting changes in cattle price and 
     interest rates, CBO estimates that the proposed new formula 
     would result in grazing fee averaging about 20 cents more per 
     AUM over the 1998 to 2000 period in the western States in the 
     grazing fee based on current law.

  And I might say, in terms of the cost figures that I used, these are 
directly from the BLM figures. It indicates consistently, from 1991 to 
1995, nearly a threefold cost in terms of the grazing program versus 
the receipts that come into it. So it is consistently 2-to-1, 3-to-1 
more in terms of what we are spending. So there is a subsidy, in 
essence, here, and that is what we are facing.
  No one is saying we are going to go to cost with this. But the fact 
is that we have got to recognize that in terms of where we are at. If 
we put this on a fair market value, if we put it on a cost basis, 
clearly it would be to the benefit of the environment and to the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento] gets his numbers. In the bill, the AUM charges $1.84, not $1.55, 
as he is quoting. It is a $6 million increase to the Treasury from 
grazers across this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Forage Improvement Act. 
I think it is a very well-reasoned and responsible bill that will bring 
some order to the bureaucratic empire of Byzantine complexity that we 
call Federal land management.
  I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], 
chairman of the full Committee on Agriculture, for his leadership on 
this issue. At a time when the White House, the Congress, and State 
governments are working to downsize and streamline all of our 
governmental bureaucracies and delivery systems, this bill goes a long 
way toward coordinating the administration of Federal land management 
activities. The current, complicated regulation of Federal lands, by 
both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, leads 
to a maze of confusing and often conflicting regulations for the 
administration of livestock grazing.
  I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's field office downsizing and streamlining. I 
know the conflicts that can arise from the contradictory regulations 
and the overlayering bureaucracy of this massive delivery system. This 
is only one department, Mr. Chairman. I can only imagine the 
conflicting and confusing delivery system of the Federal land 
management when two departments are involved in this situation. 
Chairman Smith is to be commended for even taking on this reform issue.
  I was amused over the weekend as the Washington Post, certainly an 
expert in western land management, tried to explain why Congress should 
defeat this bill. It is a sad commentary on our time, I think, that 
this same newspaper that has encouraged reform of our Federal programs 
comes out against a bill that streamlines bureaucracy, emphasizes sound 
science practices, and a new grazing fee formula is implemented in the 
bill.
  I think it is important to know that this legislation actually 
increases grazing fees, as has been suggested, and it does it with a 
new formula that is easy to understand, easier to track, and charges a 
fairer price. This bill is reform at its best, Mr. Chairman. I would

[[Page H9740]]

encourage all Members to vote for this worthy piece of legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the sponsor of the bill on what page of his 
bill does it state $1.86? I look through the bill. I find on page 36 
the calculation, but I do not find that. My source of information is 
not the bill, it is the calculation carried out. I can read the 
calculation into the Record, but I do not want to confuse an already 
confused issue.
  What I am quoting is what the CBO says. In any event, we all agree 
that there is an increase here. A 20-cent increase is hardly going to 
begin to make up. That would yield about $20 million a year. The costs, 
of course, are closer to $50 million a year in terms of managing this 
program.
  Furthermore, I point out one of the problems with this bill is that 
it had no hearings in the Committee on Resources. It had no 
consideration in the subcommittee. The subcommittee has been very 
assiduous in terms of hearing most of the measures that come before us, 
but somehow this bill during this term received no consideration in 
that subcommittee. No markup. It went directly to the full committee 
and was marked up without hearings in that instance.
  It has just been 6 weeks since this bill has been introduced. So if 
there is confusion about it in my part or the author's part, I can well 
understand it. I think it could have benefited from a full hearing of 
what some of the radical changes are in this bill. Again, we are seeing 
substantial changes on the floor to accommodate some of the concerns of 
Members.
  In fact, of course, as I look at the list of opposition, I notice 
that the Trout Unlimited Group remains opposed to this bill. I have 
heard some allude here that they are members of the sportsmen caucus. I 
respect them for that. I do a little hunting and fishing myself when my 
schedule permits it.
  But the fact of the matter is that this is opposed by the groups that 
I have here, Trout Unlimited, it is opposed by the National Wildlife 
Federation, and most of the environmental groups I think that we would 
look to, and, of course, it is opposed by some of the taxpayers' groups 
that are concerned about the constant drain in terms of revenues with 
respect to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is neither fair to the American taxpayer nor 
is there a good sound policy for Federal land management. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support of H.R. 2493, the Forage 
Improvement Act of 1997. If you take away all the rhetoric, you will 
find that this bill has been written in the spirit of compromise and 
collaboration. There is nothing in it that attempts to roll back any 
existing laws.
  There are so many issues that Western cattlemen will still face after 
this bill passes that will continue to threaten their businesses. Yet, 
this bill will try to provide some degree of certainty sorely lacking 
in public land ranching. One of the most important is a requirement of 
scientific monitoring of resource conditions and trends on grazing 
allotments.
  This monitoring will allow the agencies to coordinate with ranchers, 
to perform the monitoring, and, more importantly, it will be based on 
regional criteria and protocols. This would help guarantee that the 
ranchers' business will not be vulnerable to regulations that have no 
basis in science or that were created in Washington without input from 
professionals in their own State who understand resource issues at the 
local level.
  Currently, all the agriculture across this Nation is having to defend 
itself against an onslaught of potential restrictions that lack quality 
data. This bill will help the Western rancher, at least, to defend 
himself when he is accused of abusing the one thing he is in need of 
the most on public lands, the forage. It will also provide the 
cattlemen and agency land managers a valuable management tool to make 
sound judgments and to better predict the future.
  Let us dispense with all the cheap shots that are being levied at 
this bill and let us move forward. Nobody loses with this and the 
Western cattlemen can attempt to put a little more certainty into their 
families' lives.
  What we do here in Washington ought to be based on science, it ought 
to be based on common sense, and it ought to be user-friendly to the 
people of this country, and in this instance particularly the ranchers 
who make their living and their lives by using these public lands for 
grazing their cattle.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] 
personally. I think his statement and many others you will hear are 
from States that have no public land, no grazers. And I especially want 
to thank him for stepping up and to refute this idea that this only 
affects a small number of States. We are here together to represent 50 
States. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Cooksey], who of course has a lot of public lands.
  Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] for yielding.
  I, too, rise in strong support of the Forage Improvement Act, H.R. 
2493, by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. Mr. Chairman, first let 
me congratulate my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, for his hard work on this bill. This bill is a consensus 
bill that will benefit everyone involved, from the taxpayer to the 
livestock producer to the conservationist.
  The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has collaborated on this bill 
with State and national livestock industry groups, individual 
producers, and environmentalists to bring predictability to our 
ranchers' plans for forage use.
  As a physician, I rely on sound science to prescribe solutions, and I 
appreciate legislation that follows the same approach. The Forage 
Improvement Act will institute a program of scientific range monitoring 
on which land managers can rely. Decisions can be made on the basis of 
current and reliable data. This is important. Good science will predict 
not only the livestock producers, but also the public and the 
environment.
  This bill provides incentives to ranchers who demonstrate they are 
responsible stewards of the land which allows them to enter into 
cooperative allotment management plans with the Department of the 
Interior. We all can agree that a renewed commitment to the scientific 
monitoring and decision-making will benefit everyone.
  Another important reason to support this bill is that it streamlines 
the regulations of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. If 
the rules are easier to understand, the result is that they will be 
adhered to. Uniformity and coordination of management is needed to 
straighten out the current morass of regulation. Less bureaucracy is 
always better.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this bill because ranchers, 
just like the farmers in my district, need predictability under Federal 
rules and regulations. We will always have uncertainty in the weather, 
but we cannot have uncertainty from the Federal Government when 
ranchers are deciding on how best to use their land, whether to seek 
financing or even to sell their ranch.
  Let us pass this bill and make it easier for those who are supporting 
their families with long hours and a noble calling. Let us streamline 
the bureaucracy that exists and use sound science for the benefit of 
everyone.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H9741]]

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
Forage Improvement Act. I think that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] needs to be complimented in his efforts to reach out to people 
in the environmental community and stakeholders, as well as Federal 
Government, in order to try to find a way that we can put to rest an 
issue that has been very contentious in its consideration in past 
Congresses.
  I think what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has done is to 
embody some of the proposals that the Department of the Interior has 
been trying to utilize to ensure that we have greater cooperation from 
people throughout the community, as well as environmentalists so that 
we can ensure that the interests of the taxpayers and interests of the 
public trust is maintained.
  I think he is also moving forward in a responsible manner, too, by 
asking that we revise the formula in which we calculate the price per 
AUM and that this bill will result in an increase of almost 36 percent 
in the price of rangeland. And that means benefits that are going to 
accrue to the taxpayers.
  What is also important is, I think, he is putting it in a place in 
which we are going to have more of a collaborative effort to ensure 
that the public lands are used in a manner which is going to benefit 
all of us.

                              {time}  1145

  I am certain that the effort of this legislation is going to ensure 
that our public lands that are devoted to rangeland are going to be in 
better condition, that they are going to ensure that there will be a 
financial return to them. They will also provide benefits in 
maintaining much of this land in open space.
  Once again, I just want to reiterate that I commend the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. I think this legislation is a balanced and 
responsible approach to dealing with grazing on public lands.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources, and their effort on behalf of responsible 
use of publicly owned land. The fact that such a bill is necessary is 
just one of many problems that arise with this issue of Federal 
ownership of property.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns more than one-third of the 
2.3 billion acres in the United States. It owns 63 percent of the 13 
Western States. For a country founded in large part due to the high 
regard placed on the private ownership of property, this is a curious 
thing. One has to wonder how the United States of America assumed all 
this property given that article 1, section 18, clause 17 tells us 
Congress has the power:

       To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever 
     over such district (not exceeding 10 square miles) as may, by 
     cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, 
     become the seat of government of the United States, and to 
     exercise like authority over all places purchased by the 
     consent of the legislature of the state in which the same 
     shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, 
     dockyards and other needful buildings.

  Does that sound like a mandate to own 725 million acres of land? As 
with so many other areas of policy in Government, we have gotten very, 
very far away from the intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in 
our chief governing document, the U.S. Constitution, which each Member 
of this body takes an oath to uphold. With Federal ownership, you are 
bound to get them wanting to manage it this way and us wanting to 
manage it that way. Private property ownership is clearly the superior 
route. The Founding Fathers clearly saw Federal ownership of land as 
the exception rather than the rule.
  Having said that, the least that we can do as Federal legislators is 
to give the taxpayers who use that federally owned land, their 
federally owned land, some regulatory relief. This bill does that. That 
is why I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Forage Improvement Act. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] should be commended by all in this 
body for bringing this well thought out, bipartisan piece of 
legislation to the floor of the People's House.
  As a Congressman who still tries to earn an honest living as a cow/
calf operator in western Oklahoma, or in truth I should point out, 
because of my responsibilities, whose wife is a cow/calf operator in 
western Oklahoma, I know firsthand the value that predictability and 
stability brings to those of us in the livestock industry. The 
legislation under consideration by the House today provides a uniform 
and consistent grazing policy that represents great progress toward 
enabling western ranchers the ability to plan for forage use.
  This is a good bill. Yes, it raises grazing fees 36 percent. Yes, it 
requires coordination between the BLM and the Forest Service. Yes, it 
mandates scientific monitoring of grazing conditions. And yes, it 
creates authority for Government and ranchers to enter into cooperative 
management plans.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan, it instills cooperation, 
increases Federal revenues, and mandates sound science. It is a good 
piece of legislation that deserves passage in this House.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. LaHood], who is also a member of the committee.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan bill. I want to compliment the chairman of the 
committee, who has tried to work with all parties to fashion a bill 
that makes sense. It is a little bit comical to see some people come 
trotting out here with ideas about the fact that this maybe does not 
meet all of the budget considerations they want or the environmental 
considerations, when in reality the chairman has worked for 7 months 
with every group in this town to fashion a bill that makes sense in a 
bipartisan way, and he deserves credit for that, and he deserves 
support for it, because the bill gives added stability in being able to 
plan for the future. With more stability, ranchers will be able to 
continue to be good stewards of the land, which is what I guess 
environmental groups want and should want.
  This has been a 7-month consultation with many, many groups. It 
contains new cooperative management authority for agencies and ranchers 
and will allow more flexibility for ranchers for them to continue 
achieving rangeland management goals. If there has ever been a 
bipartisan bill come on this floor that represented all sides, this is 
it. I encourage the support of all of the Members on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. To the gentleman 
in the well I would say if this is such a wonderful bill which was 
introduced September 17, why were there not hearings in the Committee 
on Agriculture? Why were there not hearings in the Committee on 
Resources? It is not a 7-month bill. It is more like a 7-week bill that 
never had any hearings. That is why we are concerned. The sound science 
in this bill puts science in a straitjacket in terms of changing the 
AUM's, changing the procedure for the Forest Service.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. The point of fact is that the chairman has worked with a 
lot of different groups over a long period of time. This is not a 7-
week bill. This bill has taken an extended period of time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. As 
usual, the gentleman is misleading the body. We did have hearings in 
the Committee on Agriculture, as witnessed by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm], the ranking member. So the idea we did not have 
hearings is wrong. This bill was referred to two committees. We took it 
to the full committee of the

[[Page H9742]]

Committee on Resources. That is all. There were hearings, so let us 
clear the record.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Blunt].
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this bill and 
appreciate the chairman's leadership in bringing really a complex set 
of facts together here. Under this bill, the current complicated system 
of regulations will become easy to understand and simple to track. Both 
the Federal Government and the livestock producer will benefit when 
these regulations are understood. For the first time, ranching families 
will be able to go to borrow money with some certainty about what their 
future looks like and it will make a big difference to them. The fee 
structure is changed and modernized and beneficial to the taxpayer as 
well. This is really a very family farmer, rancher-oriented bill. We 
have more cattle in our State than any State except Mr. Stenholm's 
State of Texas. We do not have any grazing land in our State. Not a 
single Missouri farmer will benefit from the grazing land provisions of 
this bill. But our folks will benefit from stability in the livestock 
production system that this bill creates. I am strongly in support of 
it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I do this for 
purposes of confirming what the chairman said regarding the hearings 
that were held in the Committee on Agriculture and the subcommittee on 
this bill and also to reiterate what I know the gentleman from 
Minnesota totally agrees with. This is an issue that has been discussed 
for many, many years.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I did not misstate 
the record with regards to the Committee on Resources. There have been 
many oversight hearings in grazing but not on this bill. If this bill 
was introduced after the hearings, I think that the record would be 
clear with regards to that, but there were not hearings on the specific 
issue that is before us.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for that clarification. Again, I was only speaking of the Committee on 
Agriculture and also speaking of the fact that I have participated in 
this debate for years, as the gentleman from Minnesota has.
  What the chairman has done this year is attempted, as the gentleman 
from Georgia earlier spoke to, to reach out to people who are willing 
to compromise and to find an acceptable middle ground to a question 
that has proven to be irresolvable over the years. What we have today 
is the best good-faith compromise to reach an agreement midway between 
extreme views. This is what the bill before us today is all about.
  We talk about the grazing fees. I think it is important for all 
Members who may not be as familiar with this, the grazing fee is merely 
for the forage and represents a small part of the overall cost of 
Federal lands ranching. Ranchers are responsible for fences, for water, 
for seeding and other improvements, keeping track of the livestock, 
along with anything else required by the agencies. That is where the 
real costs are. That is why ranchers from Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and 
other States do not have the objection as stated by the gentleman from 
Minnesota to this because based on the total cost, there is a 
reasonable certainty or a semblance of fairness as best that can be 
done in any formula. Also regarding the wildlife question, I find it 
fascinating when we see from 1960 to 1980 the increases of antelope, 
elk, and deer on these same lands that are being so misused by the 
livestock industry.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
yielding me this time. I must say with all due respect to the chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture, he has worked tirelessly on this piece 
of legislation. He has worked night and day to make sure that all 
factions of concern, all issues of concern have been addressed. I 
appreciate his efforts in that. We do have some amendments yet to add, 
but I just really appreciate the chairman, and this demonstrates what 
leadership really is all about, the ability to work with many different 
groups of people.
  I want my colleagues to picture this. Two thousand miles away from 
here in southern Idaho and dozens of other rocky and rugged places in 
this country, ranchers eke out a modest living and put food on our 
plates. These families like this, this is a picture of Mr. Dick Bass, a 
rancher in Idaho. This is a face on this whole problem. Mr. Bass is 
also a county commissioner, a husband, a father, and a good American 
who pays his taxes and pays fees to the Federal Government for the 
privilege of being able to graze on the public lands. He has worked 
tirelessly with other county commissioners and other ranchers to bring 
California bighorn sheep, in cooperation with the Idaho Fish and Game, 
to all of southern Idaho. And now that wildlife project has been so 
successful that we are now exporting California bighorn sheep out to 
other States.
  They care about the land. They have improved the land since it was 
ravaged at the turn of the century. These cattlemen love the land and 
love their work. These guys have been out working in the far reaches of 
their ranches for days. Lately they have come in to send faxes to us to 
ask in very articulate and well-reasoned letters, citing many points 
about their concerns, but all they really ask is just let us keep 
making a living.
  We have got to remember that the West has been ravaged with the 
shutdown of logging, with the overregulation on our lands. It is 
driving people from the lands. Do not drive the very shepherds that are 
keeping our lands healthy and vibrant. This has been the concern of the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. I share that concern with him. The 
gentleman from Oregon has brought a piece of legislation that brings 
financial stability into the industry and that has been very needed.

                              {time}  1200

  But he also realizes, as I do, that these people have continued to 
battle hard weather and all kinds of bad wildlife, but they choose to 
stay there and be the kinds of shepherds of the land that we need, that 
America needs, and our industry needs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 2 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and that he 
be allowed to yield it as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill with the 
manager's amendment.
  I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman 
Smith, for his openness and willingness to stand up to people who 
should be his allies to get a workable bill. The gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith], the chairman, has always been responsible and candid and 
open minded.
  Whenever I or my staff had a discussion with the gentleman from 
Oregon, Chairman Smith, negotiations were friendly and productive. I 
appreciate that, because I know that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] has taken grief he does not deserve for trying to do the right 
thing: Searching for the sensible middle ground.
  As for me, my position has not wavered since negotiations began in 
June. We made clear from the beginning what our concerns were with this 
bill, and once those concerns were addressed, we supported it. Our 
position has not changed.
  We have never linked grazing issues to those in other bills, and we 
have never paid any attention to anyone else who tried to assert such 
linkage.

[[Page H9743]]

  Let us turn to this bill. We have come up with a fair agreement, an 
agreement that helps ranchers while ensuring that the bill does no 
damage to the environment.
  Our goal in negotiations has been to ensure that public land is never 
treated as if it is owned by private parties. Our goal has been to 
ensure that Federal officials have the ability to protect the integrity 
of public lands. Those goals have been met.
  The manager's amendment makes changes in every section of this bill. 
It alters or drops problematic definitions which implied there was a 
private property right in Federal land. It drops the section on access. 
It drops the section on resource advisory councils, which are working 
so well. It clarifies the agency's role in monitoring and subleasing.
  The manager's amendment does all that while still providing ranchers 
with stability, a new fee formula, and the privilege of conveying their 
grazing permit when they sublease their base property, as long as the 
Secretary approves.
  This is a good deal that should enable us to pass grazing legislation 
for the first time in many years. But I hope it is just the first step. 
We have succeeded in ensuring that this legislation allows no damage to 
be done to the environment. I hope some day we can pass legislation 
that will be fair to ranchers, while being environmentally positive.
  Ranching groups and environmental groups have been working for 
several years behind the scenes to develop such a grazing regime. That 
is as surprising as it sounds. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to 
support the manager's amendment and its passage. I urge support of the 
base bill of the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to rise in support of this 
legislation, H.R. 2493. I know how hard the gentleman has worked to 
bring together those in the grazing industry that are very important to 
their livelihood, those in the environmental community, those 
Representatives from the West, to fashion a bill that addresses a 
problem that has gone unaddressed in past Congresses and in this 
Congress.
  It is time that this Congress move to pass meaningful legislation 
dealing with grazing rights, and do it in a fashion that does not 
offend the environmentalists in America and does not disadvantage those 
people in the cattle and the sheep industry in the West.
  This bill does not do that. And that is important. It is important to 
farmers in the Midwest, that we keep our agricultural and our livestock 
industry healthy and viable in this country.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. I am glad to 
support this bill, and I hope my colleagues will also.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
again reiterate my opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an enormously important bill. I appreciate that 
my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, has worked 
with various groups, but the fact is at the end of the day, all the 
environmental groups are against it, some of the sports groups are 
against it, and some of the taxpayer groups are against it, because 
balance is not in this bill. This bill is not a balanced bill.
  I regret that it did not have the type of hearings after the fact 
when it was written and introduced and passed so quickly that it is 
here and has not had the type of debate within committee.
  So many questions are still confused with regard to it. There are 250 
million acres of land under permit. The fact is that we have 30,000 
permittees out there, but over half of them are very large. Half of the 
forage goes to the largest, less than 10 percent of the group.
  There has been a reiteration of sound science. What is the science 
about increasing the number of sheep and goats per AUM? Where is the 
science that supports that? That is in the bill. Science is put in a 
straitjacket in this bill. Where is the science that says you cannot 
come on the land for 48 hours without notifying the individuals so you 
can monitor it. That puts a straitjacket on the land managers and the 
scientists we charge to manage the land.
  What is the science that suggests that the fact is you are going to 
extend subleasing in the Forest Service where it does not exist today? 
Where is the science that says you eliminate the surcharge in terms of 
subleasing? Where is the science that suggests you throw out all of the 
regulations with regard to the Forest Service?
  This sets up a whole new scheme in terms of rules and regulations. 
Where it lands, nobody can say. The fact is, yes, we have problems 
today, because this 250 million acres today is greatly competed for and 
has a multiple use in terms of recreation and many uses that did not 
exist when the basic grazing laws were written in the 1930's.
  The fact is, these are important issues, laws like the Endangered 
Species Act. You can make a joke about the desert tortoise, but most of 
us would agree some of these ephemeral areas probably should not be 
grazed or should be closely monitored when they are.
  But this bill does nothing to improve the dollars and cents given to 
the BLM and the Forest Service, but puts substantially new 
responsibilities on them, and the end consequence is the environment is 
going to pay, not just in dollars and cents here, in the terms of there 
is a $20 million increase here, $5 million in grazing fees, when we 
spend maybe twice or three times that much, some say $400 million more 
in terms of enforcing grazing permits.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill and should be defeated.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so again to correct the record. The gentleman has 
expanded beyond the truth here. The point is that 76 percent of the 
grazers are individuals, 8.5 percent are partnerships, and 10.8 percent 
are corporations. This is no corporate boondoggle.
  Beyond this, this does not turn additional sheep and goats on the 
range. That is only a billing procedure. This has nothing to do with 
the number of sheep and goats turned out on the public ranges.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Dakota is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman for yielding me 
this time and credit him and the distinguished ranking minority member 
here, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], with putting together a 
bill that I think does address a lot of the concerns raised.
  There have been a great number of hearings over the past several 
years on this very subject. I come from cattle country in western South 
Dakota. It is an area where you have to be tough to make a living. Out 
there, toughness is a prerequisite. I also happen to be an avid bird 
hunter, an outdoorsman, that appreciates the perspective that sportsmen 
bring to this particular debate.
  I believe the chairman has worked with all of those groups in a 
balanced way to come up with a commonsense approach that injects 
science into the equation and addresses the issue of fees in a way that 
provides stability for the ranchers who use these lands. It is based 
upon an objective set of indices, which I think yield stability to the 
people who are trying to make a living in the business of agriculture, 
particularly in the business of raising cattle and livestock, so they 
can make a living at this.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which I think accommodates a wide range 
of concerns. It is something that I hope all of us in this Chamber will 
be able to support.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this 
legislation, I rise today in support of H.R. 2493, the Forage 
Improvement Act of 1997, sponsored by colleague Bob Smith.
  Congress has tried numerous times over the past several years to 
enact comprehensive reform of our Nation's rangeland grazing policy on 
Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Forest Service. The administration and the House of Representatives 
tried to increase grazing fees on public lands in 1993, and the Senate 
attempted to address some grazing fees issues in the fiscal year 1994 
Interior appropriations bill. Grazing reform resurfaced again in the 
Senate Interior appropriations bill in 1996, and the Senate did pass a 
reform bill on March 21, 1996, only to die in the House.

[[Page H9744]]

  I support the Forage Improvement Act of 1997, because I firmly 
believe that the Federal grazing permit system is simply too outdated 
and does not reflect the current needs of ranchers, communities, and 
the environment. Management of our public lands remains in limbo as the 
issue has been bounced back and forth from the House to the Senate to 
the administration. H.R. 2493 is the first step in the direction of a 
streamlined approach to managing nearly 270 million acres of rangeland 
in the United States.
  I believe that grazing fees should be increased to reflect the value 
of the land that is being used. The formula provided by H.R. 2493 will 
result in an increase in grazing fees of between 15 and 30 percent over 
existing levels. This is a good start in leveling the playing field.
  Participation in land use decisions by ranchers, local communities, 
public officials, and environmental advocates is also essential. That 
is why I support the manager's amendment offered by Mr. Smith which 
deletes any language in the bill which would have altered the current 
processes of these Resource Advisory Councils, currently in place under 
an Executive order by Secretary Babbitt.
  What we need to be successful in achieving comprehensive grazing 
reform this Congress is an approach where the viewpoints of all parties 
are taken into account from the very start. I believe that H.R. 2493 
tried to incorporate this comprehensive and cooperative nature, and 
provides much needed and long-delayed reform of our Nation's rangeland 
system.
  I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2493. This 
is a fair bill that will not only help small to mid-size family 
ranchers, but end at last the contentious debate that has surrounded 
this policy since its inception in the early 1900's.
  Under current law, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management charge fees for grazing and each agency promulgates their 
own regulations. H.R. 2493 coordinates the efforts of the two agencies 
so that our citizens will not have to forage through a multitude of 
regulations.
  This bill increases local involvement in the Resource Advisory 
Council by modifying the makeup of the council to include 
representatives from the community. The council would represent broad 
interests by including those who use the lands for grazing to persons 
interested in developing the land and from recreational users to state 
and local elected officials.
  H.R. 2493 codifies a new fee formula that, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, will not decrease the Federal Government 
receipts. In fact, this bill will increase the current fee for ranchers 
by 36 percent which will amount to approximately $6 million more for 
the Federal Government over the next 5 years.
  This bill will not limit access to public lands and will not change 
any environmental laws that are so important in protecting the natural 
habitat and beauty of our public lands. In fact, allowing grazing on 
these lands has had a positive impact on our environment because 
ranchers have every incentive to protect and enhance the land and its 
natural habitat, and they have a proven track record. Moose, deer, and 
elk populations have increased by over 500 percent since 1960 on these 
lands.
  Maintaining and supporting ranching communities is important for our 
economy and our environment. Without the protections to the wildlife, 
urban development would slowly move to devastate these vast rural and 
environmentally sound areas. The bill will provide security for 
ranchers and their families and I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, nothing better symbolizes the 
heritage of the Western United States than cattle grazing on the open 
range, and with over 6.5 million cattle on farms and ranches, the Big 
First District has more cattle than any other congressional district. 
The cattle rancher still stands as a picture of the American 
independence, battling long odds and mother nature and enjoying the 
rewards of a hard day's work.
  This heritage is why the bill before us is so important. To say that 
the life of the rancher is filled with uncertainties is an 
understatement. Just this past week in Western Kansas, we had our first 
blizzard of the season. For some cattlemen, it was devastating. One 
rancher north of Dodge City lost 200 out of a herd of 242 yearlings. 
Across the State, cattle losses are estimated at nearly 20,000 head.
  As Members of Congress, we cannot change the weather and we cannot 
control the markets, but we can and should provide stability in the 
terms and rates for ranchers grazing on Federal land. The bill before 
this chamber does just that--guarantee that Federal grazing lands are 
managed in a way that will ensure their healthy existence for 
generations to come. This legislation will assist the American rancher 
do what he or she does best, feed the world, and it does so in a way 
that helps preserve the family farm and ranch.
  The Forage Improvement Act is good policy for the rancher, the 
taxpayer, and important for the long-term health of this Nation's 
grazing lands. In addition, this bill represents the right way to 
develop policy through consensus and bipartisan work, not through 
administrative fiat.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
important measure.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, the American people want responsible Federal 
Government and bills that make sense. We should all be pleased with the 
Forage Improvement Act of 1997, because it improves Federal management 
responsibilities and will result in a more effective grazing policy.
  Currently, management of Federal grazing responsibilities fall under 
the purview of both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
the Interior. The bill would allow the Secretaries to work together to 
provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on Federal lands.
  So what is there to fear from this legislation? Nothing. Nothing in 
the act will affect grazing in any unit of the National Park System, or 
National Wildlife Refuge System, or on any lands that are not Federal 
lands, or on any lands that are held by the United States in trust for 
the benefit of Indians. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit 
or preclude the use of, and access to, Federal lands for hunting, 
fishing, recreational, watershed management, or other appropriate 
multiple use activities in accordance with applicable Federal and State 
laws and the principles of multiple use. And, nothing in this act shall 
be construed to affect valid existing rights, reservations, agreements, 
or authorizations under Federal or State law.
  What the act does do is to require that to the maximum extent 
practicable, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
Interior shall provide for consistent and coordinated administration of 
livestock grazing and management of Federal lands consistent with the 
laws governing such lands.
  The bill is a common-sense measure that will result in coordinated 
resource management. By increasing consultation, cooperation, and 
coordination between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 
affected State or Federal agencies, private land owners, and users of 
Federal lands, the bill will ensure that focused land management needs 
can be addressed in an effective and amicable manner. I wholeheartedly 
support the Forage Improvement Act of 1997, and urge my colleagues to 
vote for the bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2493, the 
Forage Improvement Act, which was recently pushed through the Resources 
Committee without being the subject of hearings.
  I have worked on and studied grazing issues for many years. We have 
had debates often in many different contexts since I've served in 
Congress. The issues are not simple; they are complex. Congress is 
charged with determining not just what is best for the local economies 
of the American West, but also what is best for the ecology of our 
public rangelands and the taxpayers of this country--in essence, 
balanced and fair policy, fiscally and environmentally. H.R. 2493 does 
not fulfill these challenges.
  For instance, H.R. 2493 could attach a property right to grazing 
permits. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act and the Supreme Court have stated 
clearly that grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right. 
Changing grazing policy in this manner would require the taxpayers to 
compensate livestock operators when the Federal Government undertakes 
activities such as wildlife management and watershed restoration. That 
is not something that I think a majority in this Congress supports. 
This is a dramatic change which portends a significant impact upon the 
future of public land with such permits in effect today and tomorrow.
  This bill also greatly strengthens the hand of livestock operators at 
the expense of the ordinary citizen. This bill provides environmental 
consultants hired by these operators a greater authority in ecological 
assessments than private citizens who are concerned about the adverse 
effects of grazing in the specific allotment. This bill also expands 
the opportunity of ranchers to sublease their permits to include Forest 
Service as well as BLM lands. Currently, ranchers can sublease their 
cheap permits to others for much higher rates. This Congress should be 
eliminating this significant taxpayer ripoff, not expanding it.
  The biggest fiscal problem with H.R. 2493, however, is that it 
doesn't come to grips effectively with the subsidization of grazing 
fees and the fee structure. This year, it will cost livestock operators 
on BLM lands $1.35 per month to feed a single cow and its calf--or 
$1.35 per animal unit month [AUM]. But it will cost the taxpayers as 
much as $10 in some higher cost areas to provide the services necessary 
to administer such permits per AUM. In the case of family ranch 
operators who need Federal permits to survive, in an effort to 
recognize and preserve a smaller operator's way

[[Page H9745]]

of life, this may be justified policy. But in the case of wingtip 
cowboys like Metropolitan Life and the Anheuser-Busch Co., both of 
which hold significant Federal grazing permits, I would think we could 
all agree that taxpayer subsidization is simply not warranted.
  The continued grazing policy path of subsidization and distortion of 
market forces concerning the use of Federal lands for grazing invites 
environmental problems, short-changes administrative funding, and 
builds a ranching dependency that leads to the abuses evident in the 
practices of these corporate cowboy operators.
  I will offer an amendment later on that begins the process of fixing 
this problem. 9 percent of the permittees control 60 percent of the 
forage on public lands on BLM lands and the number are similar for 
national forest lands. The other 91 percent are smaller ranchers--all 
with allotments that allow the grazing of less than 2,000 AUMs. My 
amendment would not change the current fee structure in H.R. 2493 for 
those family ranchers, and perhaps help them preserve their ranches. 
But the privileged few who control most of our public rangelands would 
have to pay more of their way. My amendment would require that 
permittees controlling more than 2,000 AUMs on Federal lands pay either 
the average fee charged by the State in which they operate, or the fee 
in this bill plus 25 percent. That way, we recognize family ranchers 
and the wingtip cowboys will pay a greater share, still subsidized but 
not as much. Additionally, I'm going to offer an amendment to maintain 
the traditional 5 sheep, 5 goats per AUM. The bill increases this by 33 
percent to 7 sheep or goats per AUM, without explanation nor 
justification. I oppose H.R. 2493, even with the token improvements the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee intends to make. I agree with him 
that we owe it to smaller ranchers and the American people to make our 
federal grazing program more efficient. We disagree on how to do this. 
I believe we need to put the reform in this so-called reform measure. 
My amendment, and others if passed would do just that.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, we should not pass this bill. In fact, we 
should not be considering it at all.
  Bringing this bill forward is not a step toward better management of 
the public lands or even toward greater certainty for ranchers who 
graze livestock on those lands. Instead, it merely revives old 
quarrels. It threatens to undermine important gains achieved through 
the hard work of consultation, cooperation, and census-building by 
suggesting that it may be possible to return to an earlier, less 
inclusive approach to land management.
  For example, to debate this bill means reviving the old quarrel about 
grazing fees, especially since the bill's fee formula seems to have 
been developed without very extensive consultations and brought forward 
with only the sketchiest of explanations or justifications. To take 
just one example, neither of the two committee reports on this bill 
explain the basis for redefining the term ``animal unit month'' with 
respect to sheep and goats, even though the effect is to dramatically 
increase the amount of forage that can be purchased for the same fee. I 
would like to know why we're being asked to decide that sheep and goats 
actually eat less each month than we used to think.
  I'm sure this part of the bill, and the other questions about fees, 
will be debated at length, as indeed they should be. But what concerns 
me more is the way the bill would reshape the Resource Advisory 
Councils and the way in which it would make it harder for the BLM and 
the Forest Service to do their important and difficult job of managing 
lands that belong to all the American people.
  All of us who took part in past grazing debates remember how heated 
they were. Those of us from the west also remember that they came to be 
part of an often-partisan rhetoric about what some of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle liked to call the ``War on the West''.
  But those of us from the west--and from Colorado in particular--
remember something else, as well. We remember that when the debate here 
in Washington led to stalemate, Secretary of the Interior Bruce 
Babbitt--a westerner himself--came back to the west. We remember that 
in Colorado and throughout the west he met with the governors, the 
local officials, the livestock operators, and the public. We remember 
the discussions, the negotiations, the give-and-take. And we remember 
that out of that process has come a chance for a new start, a chance to 
put aside the old suspicions and to replace the old quarrels with a new 
structure of cooperation.
  The Resource Advisory Councils [RACs] are central to that structure. 
Already they have achieved some notable successes, not just in Colorado 
but in other western states as well. The key to those successes has 
been the fact that they rest on inclusiveness and consultation, and 
have consensus as their goal.
  But this bill originally threatened to deform the councils by 
replacing a search for consensus with deal-making and bloc voting and 
by setting the stage for limiting the views and interests to be 
represented by membership of future councils. This would be exactly 
wrong. We shouldn't do it.
  I'm glad Chairman Smith has just agreed to strike the bill's 
provisions regarding RACs. That's an improvement, in that it removes a 
bad provision, but it's not enough to salvage this legislation.
  We also shouldn't make it harder for BLM and the Forest Service to 
properly manage their lands for multiple uses. But the bill would do 
that, too--by encouraging subleasing and by restricting proper 
monitoring of grazing practices, among other things. Again, these are 
steps backward, as is the bill's redefining of the term ``allotment'' 
in a way that suggests an intent to change the legal status of grazing 
from a permitted use of public lands into a property right--contrary to 
the clear language of the Taylor Grazing Act and other applicable law, 
and contrary to well-settled precedent.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I regret that this bill is before us. It would be 
better for everyone--and especially for westerners--to have allowed the 
new processes of consultation and consensus-building to have continued 
to work without this distraction. But, since the new majority has 
chosen instead to bring this bill forward, we should do the right 
thing. We should reject it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Resources printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 3 hours, and shall be 
considered as read before consideration of any other amendment.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2493

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Forage 
     Improvement Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Rules of construction.
Sec. 3. Coordinated administration.

            TITLE I--MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 101. Application of title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Prohibited condition regarding grazing permits and leases.
Sec. 104. Monitoring.
Sec. 105. Subleasing.
Sec. 106. Cooperative allotment management plans.
Sec. 107. Fees and charges.
Sec. 108. Resource Advisory Councils.

                        TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 201. Effective date.
Sec. 202. Issuance of new regulations.

     SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Limitation on Application.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to affect grazing in any unit of the National 
     Park System, in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System, in any unit of the National Forest System managed as 
     a National Grassland by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), 
     on any lands that are not Federal lands (as defined in 
     section 102), or on any lands that are held by the United 
     States in trust for the benefit of Indians.
       (b) Multiple Use Activities Not Affected.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to limit or preclude the use of 
     Federal lands (as defined in section 102) for hunting, 
     fishing, recreation, or other multiple use activities in 
     accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and the 
     principles of multiple use.
       (c) Valid Existing Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to affect valid existing rights, reservations, 
     agreements, or authorizations under Federal or State law.
       (d) Access to Nonfederally Owned Lands.--Section 1323 of 
     Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3210) shall continue to apply 
     with regard to access to nonfederally owned lands.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATED ADMINISTRATION.

       To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall provide 
     for consistent and coordinated administration of livestock 
     grazing and management of Federal lands (as defined in 
     section 102), consistent with the laws governing such lands.
            TITLE I--MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON FEDERAL LANDS

     SEC. 101. APPLICATION OF TITLE.

       (a) Forest Service lands.--This title applies to the 
     management of grazing on National Forest System lands, by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under the following laws:
       (1) The 11th undesignated paragraph under the heading 
     ``surveying the public lands'' under the heading ``UNDER THE 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' in the Act of June 4, 1897 
     (commonly known as the Organic Administration Act of 1897) 
     (30 Stat.

[[Page H9746]]

     35, second full paragraph on that page; 16 U.S.C. 551).
       (2) Sections 11, 12, and 19 of the Act of April 24, 1950 
     (commonly known as the Granger-Thye Act of 1950) (64 Stat. 
     85, 88, chapter 97; 16 U.S.C. 580g, 580h, 580l).
       (3) The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
     528 et seq.).
       (4) The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
       (5) The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     472a et seq.).
       (6) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (7) The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 
     U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
       (b) Bureau of Land Management Lands.--This title applies to 
     the management of grazing on Federal lands administered by 
     the Secretary of the Interior under the following laws:
       (1) The Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the Taylor 
     Grazing Act) (48 Stat. 1269, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315 et 
     seq.).
       (2) The Act of August 28, 1937 (commonly known as the 
     Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant 
     Lands Act of 1937) (50 Stat. 874, chapter 876; 43 U.S.C. 
     1181a et seq.).
       (3) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (4) The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 
     U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
       (5) The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et 
     seq.).
       (c) Certain Other United States Lands.--This title also 
     applies to the management of grazing by the Secretary 
     concerned on behalf of the head of another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government under a memorandum of 
     understanding.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Allotment.--The term ``allotment'' means an area of 
     Federal lands subject to an adjudicated or apportioned 
     grazing preference that is appurtenant to a base property.
       (2) Authorized officer.--The term ``authorized officer'' 
     means a person authorized by the Secretary concerned to 
     administer this title, the laws specified in section 101, and 
     regulations issued under this title and such laws.
       (3) Base property.--The term ``base property'' means 
     private or other non-Federal land, water, or water rights 
     owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee to which a 
     Federal allotment is appurtenant.
       (4) Consultation, cooperation, and coordination.--For the 
     purposes of this title (and section 402(d) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d))), 
     the term ``consultation, cooperation, and coordination'' 
     means to engage in good faith efforts--
       (A) to discuss and exchange views; and
       (B) to act together toward a common end or purpose.
       (5) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means lands 
     outside the State of Alaska that are owned by the United 
     States and are--
       (A) included in the National Forest System; or
       (B) administered by the Secretary of the Interior under the 
     laws specified in section 101(b).
       (6) Grazing permit or lease.--The term ``grazing permit or 
     lease'' means a document authorizing use of Federal lands for 
     the purpose of grazing livestock--
       (A) within a grazing district under section 3 of the Act of 
     June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the Taylor Grazing Act) (48 
     Stat. 1270, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315b);
       (B) outside grazing districts under section 15 of the Act 
     of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the Taylor Grazing Act) 
     (48 Stat. 1275, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315m); or
       (C) on National Forest System lands under section 19 of the 
     Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known as the Granger-Thye Act 
     of 1950) (64 Stat. 88, chapter 97; 16 U.S.C. 580l).
       (7) Land use plan.--The term ``land use plan'' means--
       (A) a land and resource management plan prepared by the 
     Forest Service pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604) for a unit of the National Forest System; or
       (B) a resource management plan (or a management framework 
     plan that is in effect pending completion of a resource 
     management plan) developed in accordance with the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.) for Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (8) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest 
     System'' has the meaning given such term in section 11(a) of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), except that the term does not 
     include any lands managed as a National Grassland under the 
     Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).
       (9) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the 
     National Forest System; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Federal 
     lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior under the 
     laws specified in section 101(b).
       (10) Sixteen contiguous western states.--The term ``sixteen 
     contiguous Western States'' means the States of Arizona, 
     California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 
     Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South 
     Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

     SEC. 103. PROHIBITED CONDITION REGARDING GRAZING PERMITS AND 
                   LEASES.

       The Secretary concerned may not impose as a condition on a 
     grazing permit or lease that the permittee or lessee provide 
     access across private property unless the condition is 
     limited to ingress and egress for Federal personnel engaged 
     in authorized activities regarding grazing administration on 
     Federal in-holdings.

     SEC. 104. MONITORING.

       (a) Monitoring.--The monitoring of conditions and trends of 
     forage and related resources on Federal lands within 
     allotments shall be performed only by qualified persons from 
     the following groups:
       (1) Federal, State, and local government personnel.
       (2) Grazing permittees and lessees.
       (3) Professional consultants retained by the United States 
     or a permittee or lessee.
       (b) Monitoring Criteria and Protocols.--Such monitoring 
     shall be conducted according to regional or state criteria 
     and protocols selected by the Secretary concerned. The 
     monitoring protocols shall be site specific, scientifically 
     valid, and subject to peer review. Monitoring data shall be 
     periodically verified.
       (c) Types and Use of Data Collected.--The data collected 
     from such monitoring shall include historical data and 
     information, if available, but such data or information must 
     be objective and reliable. The data and information collected 
     from such monitoring shall be used to evaluate--
       (1) the effects of ecological changes and management 
     actions on forage and related resources over time;
       (2) the effectiveness of actions in meeting management 
     objectives contained in applicable land use plans; and
       (3) the appropriateness of resource management objectives.
       (d) Notice.--In conducting such monitoring, the Secretary 
     concerned shall provide reasonable notice of the monitoring 
     to affected permittees or lessees, including prior notice to 
     the extent practicable of not less than 48 hours.

     SEC. 105. SUBLEASING.

       (a) Prohibition on Subleasing Grazing Permit or Lease.--A 
     person issued a grazing permit or lease may not enter into an 
     agreement with another person to allow grazing on the Federal 
     lands covered by the grazing permit or lease by livestock 
     that are neither owned nor controlled by the person issued 
     the grazing permit or lease.
       (b) Treatment of Lease or Sublease of Base Property.--The 
     leasing or subleasing, in whole or in part, of the base 
     property of a person issued a grazing permit or lease shall 
     not be considered a sublease of a grazing permit or lease 
     under subsection (a). The grazing preference associated with 
     such base property shall be transferred to the person 
     controlling the leased or subleased base property.

     SEC. 106. COOPERATIVE ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) Written Agreements for Outcome-Based Standards.--An 
     allotment management plan developed under section 402(d) of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1752(d)) may include a written agreement with a qualified 
     grazing permittee or lessee described in subsection (b) (or a 
     group of qualified grazing permittees or lessees) that 
     provides for outcome-based standards, rather than 
     prescriptive terms and conditions, for managing grazing 
     activities in a specified geographic area. At the request of 
     a qualified grazing permittee or lessee, the Secretary 
     concerned shall consider including such a written agreement 
     in an allotment management plan. An allotment management plan 
     including such a written agreement shall be known as a 
     cooperative allotment management plan.
       (b) Qualified Grazing Permittee or Lessee Described.--A 
     qualified grazing permittee or lessee referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a person issued a grazing permit or lease 
     who has demonstrated sound stewardship by meeting or 
     exceeding the forage and rangeland goals contained in 
     applicable land use plans for the previous five-year period.
       (c) Inclusion of Performance Goals.--A written agreement 
     entered into as part of an allotment management plan 
     developed under section 402(d) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)) shall contain 
     performance goals that--
       (1) are expressed in objective, quantifiable, and 
     measurable terms;
       (2) establish performance indicators to be used in 
     measuring or assessing the relevant outcomes;
       (3) provide a basis for comparing management results with 
     the established performance goals; and
       (4) describe the means to be used to verify and validate 
     measured values.
       (d) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Activities under this 
     section shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 107. FEES AND CHARGES.

       (a) Grazing Fees.--
       (1) Calculation.--The fee for each animal unit month in a 
     grazing fee year for livestock grazing on Federal lands in 
     the sixteen contiguous western States shall be equal to the 
     12-year average of the total gross value of production for 
     beef cattle for the 12 years

[[Page H9747]]

     preceding the grazing fee year, multiplied by the 12-year 
     average of the United States Treasury Securities six-month 
     bill ``new issue'' rate, and divided by 12. The gross value 
     of production for beef cattle shall be determined by the 
     Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture in 
     accordance with subsection (d)(1).
       (2) Limitation.--The fee determined under paragraph (1) 
     shall be the only grazing fee applicable to livestock owned 
     or controlled by a person issued a grazing permit or lease.
       (b) Definition of Animal Unit Month.--For the purposes of 
     billing only, the term ``animal unit month'' means one 
     month's use and occupancy of range by--
       (1) one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, 
     seven sheep, or seven goats, each of which is six months of 
     age or older on the date on which the animal begins grazing 
     on Federal lands;
       (2) any such animal regardless of age if the animal is 
     weaned on the date on which the animal begins grazing on 
     Federal lands; and
       (3) any such animal that will become 12 months of age 
     during the period of use authorized under a grazing permit.
       (c) Livestock Not Counted.--There shall not be counted as 
     an animal unit month the use of Federal lands for grazing by 
     an animal that is less than six months of age on the date on 
     which the animal begins grazing on such lands and is the 
     progeny of an animal on which a grazing fee is paid if the 
     animal is removed from such lands before becoming 12 months 
     of age.
       (d) Criteria for Economic Research Service.--
       (1) Gross value of production of beef cattle.--The Economic 
     Research Service of the Department of Agriculture shall 
     continue to compile and report the gross value of production 
     of beef cattle, on a dollars-per-bred-cow basis for the 
     United States, as is currently published by the Service in: 
     ``Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Cost of 
     Production--Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy'' (Cow-
     calf production cash costs and returns).
       (2) Availability.--For the purposes of determining the 
     grazing fee for a given grazing fee year, the gross value of 
     production (as described above) for the previous calendar 
     year shall be made available to the Secretary concerned, and 
     published in the Federal Register, on or before February 15 
     of each year.
       (e) Treatment of Other Fees and Charges.--
       (1) Amount of flpma fees and charges.--The fees and charges 
     under section 304(a) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734(a)) shall reflect 
     processing costs and shall be adjusted periodically as such 
     costs change, but in no case shall such fees and charges 
     exceed the actual administrative and processing costs 
     incurred by the Secretary concerned.
       (2) Notice of changes.--Notice of a change in a service 
     charge shall be published in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 108. RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) Joint establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture and 
     the Secretary of the Interior may jointly establish and 
     operate a Resource Advisory Council on a State, regional, or 
     local level to provide advice on management issues regarding 
     Federal lands in the area to be covered by the Council.
       (2) Establishment by single secretary.--If the Federal 
     lands in an area for which a Resource Advisory Council is to 
     be established are under the jurisdiction of a single 
     Secretary concerned, that Secretary concerned shall be 
     responsible for the establishment and operation of the 
     Resource Advisory Council.
       (3) Exception.--A Resource Advisory Council shall not be 
     established in any State, region, or local area in which the 
     Secretaries jointly determine that there is insufficient 
     interest in participation on a Resource Advisory Council to 
     ensure that membership can be fairly balanced in terms of the 
     points of view represented and the functions to be performed.
       (4) Treatment of existing advisory councils.--To the extent 
     practicable, the Secretaries shall implement this section by 
     modifying existing advisory councils established under 
     section 309(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1739(a)) for the purpose of providing 
     advice regarding grazing issues.
       (5) Consultation.--The establishment of a Resource Advisory 
     Council for a State, region, or local area shall be made in 
     consultation with the Governor of the affected State.
       (b) Duties.--Each Resource Advisory Council shall advise 
     the Secretary concerned and appropriate State officials on--
       (1) matters regarding the preparation, amendment, and 
     implementation of land use plans within the area covered by 
     the Council; and
       (2) major management decisions, while working within the 
     broad management objectives established for such Federal 
     lands in applicable land use plans.
       (c) Voting.--All decisions and recommendations by a 
     Resource Advisory Council shall be on the basis of a majority 
     vote of its members.
       (d) Disregard of Advice.--If a Resource Advisory Council is 
     concerned that its advice is being arbitrarily disregarded, 
     the Resource Advisory Council may request that the Secretary 
     concerned respond directly to the Resource Advisory Council's 
     concerns. The Secretary concerned shall submit to the Council 
     a written response to the request within 60 days after the 
     Secretary receives the request. The response of the 
     Secretary concerned shall not--
       (1) constitute a decision on the merits of any issue that 
     is or might become the subject of an administrative appeal; 
     or
       (2) be subject to appeal.
       (e) Membership.--
       (1) Numbers.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior (or the Secretary concerned in the 
     case of a Resource Advisory Council established by a single 
     Secretary) shall appoint the members of each Resource 
     Advisory Council. Such appointments shall be made in 
     consultation with the Governor of the affected State or 
     States. A Council shall consist of not less than nine members 
     and not more than fifteen members.
       (2) Representation.--In appointing members to a Resource 
     Advisory Council, the Secretaries or the Secretary concerned 
     (as the case may be) shall provide for balanced and broad 
     representation of permittees and lessees holding a grazing 
     permit or lease and other groups, such as commercial 
     interests, recreational users, representatives of recognized 
     local environmental or conservation organizations, 
     educational, professional, or academic interests, 
     representatives of State and local government or governmental 
     agencies, Indian tribes, and other members of the affected 
     public.
       (3) Inclusion of elected official.--The Secretaries or the 
     Secretary concerned (as the case may be) shall appoint as a 
     member of each Resource Advisory Council at least one elected 
     official of a general purpose government serving the people 
     of the area covered by the Council.
       (4) Prohibition on concurrent service.--No person may serve 
     concurrently on more than one Resource Advisory Council.
       (5) Residency requirement.--Members of a Resource Advisory 
     Council must reside in the geographic area covered by the 
     Council.
       (6) Grandfather clause.--A person serving on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act as a member of an advisory council 
     established under section 309(a) of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1739(a)) for the 
     purpose of providing advice regarding grazing issues shall 
     serve as a member on the corresponding Resource Advisory 
     Council established under this section for the balance of the 
     person's term as a member on the original advisory council.
       (7) Subgroups.--A Resource Advisory Council may establish 
     such subgroups as the Council considers necessary, including 
     working groups, technical review teams, and rangeland 
     resource groups.
       (f) Terms.--Resource Advisory Council members shall be 
     appointed for two-year terms. Members may be appointed to 
     additional terms at the discretion of the Secretaries or the 
     Secretary concerned (as the case may be). The Secretaries or 
     the Secretary concerned (as the case may be), with the 
     concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the Council 
     is located, may terminate the service of a member of that 
     Council, upon written notice, if--
       (1) the member no longer meets the requirements under which 
     the member was appointed or fails or is unable to participate 
     regularly in the work of the Council; or
       (2) the Secretaries or the Secretary concerned (as the case 
     may be) and the Governor determine that termination is in the 
     public interest.
       (g) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--A member 
     of a Resource Advisory Council shall not receive any 
     compensation in connection with the performance of the 
     member's duties, but shall be reimbursed for travel within 
     the geographic area covered by the Council and per diem 
     expenses only while on official business, as authorized by 
     section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (h) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Except to the extent 
     that it is inconsistent with this title, the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the Resource 
     Advisory Councils.
       (i) State Grazing Districts.--Resource Advisory Councils 
     shall coordinate and cooperate with State Grazing Districts 
     established pursuant to State law.
                        TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 201. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. ISSUANCE OF NEW REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (1) coordinate the promulgation of new regulations to carry 
     out this Act; and
       (2) publish such regulations simultaneously not later than 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. It shall be in order to consider the amendment printed 
in House Report 105-355, if offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] or his designee. That amendment shall be considered read, be 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent 
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman may 
accord

[[Page H9748]]

priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been 
printed in the designated place in the Record. Those amendments will be 
considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Oregon

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Oregon:
       Page 27, line 6, strike ``appurtenant to'' and insert 
     ``associated with''.
       Page 27, lines 18 and 19, strike ``to which a Federal 
     allotment is appurtenant'' and insert ``with which a Federal 
     allotment is associated''.
       Page 27, beginning on line 20, strike paragraph (4) (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
       Page 31, beginning on line 4, strike section 103.
       Page 31, line 15, insert ``resource'' after ``of''.
       Page 31, beginning on line 16, strike ``of forage and 
     related resources''.
       Page 32, beginning on line 9, strike subsection (c), and 
     insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Types and Use of Data Collected.--
       (1) Use of previously collected data and information.--In 
     addition to using data collected from monitoring conducted 
     under the authority of this section, the Secretary concerned 
     shall consider data and information collected before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, if available, so long as the 
     historical data and information is objective and reliable.
       (2) Application of criteria and protocols.--The Secretary 
     concerned shall not accept monitoring data that does not meet 
     the requirements of subsection (a) or (b).
       (3) Use of data.--The data and information collected from 
     such monitoring shall be used to evaluate--
       (A) the effects of ecological changes and management 
     actions on resources over time;
       (B) the effectiveness of actions in meeting management 
     objectives contained in applicable land use plans; and
       (C) the appropriateness of resource management objectives.
       Page 33, beginning on line 14, strike subsection (b) and 
     insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Treatment of Lease or Sublease of Base Property.--The 
     leasing or subleasing of the entire base property, or lease 
     of a quantity of base property sufficient to meet the base 
     property requirement of the Secretary concerned, of a person 
     issued a grazing permit or lease shall not be considered a 
     sublease of a grazing permit or lease under subsection (a). 
     The grazing preference associated with such base property may 
     be transferred to the person controlling the leased or 
     subleased base property if the transfer is approved by the 
     Secretary concerned. All terms and conditions of the existing 
     grazing permit or lease shall bind the person controlling the 
     leased or subleased base property.
       Page 34, line 5, strike ``developed'' and insert ``or a 
     grazing permit or lease.''.
       Page 34, strike lines 18 through 21 and insert the 
     following: ``management plan or a grazing permit or lease''.
       Page 35, line 3, insert after ``plans'' the following: 
     ``and in that person's grazing permit or lease''.
       Page 35, strike lines 4 through 9, and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Inclusion of Performance Goals.--A written agreement 
     authorized under subsection (a) shall contain performance 
     goals that--
       Page 35, after line 19, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
       (d) Application of Other Laws.--All requirements of law 
     applicable to an allotment management plan and a grazing 
     permit or lease under section 402(d) of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)), 
     including the prohibition against extending the term of an 
     existing grazing permit or lease, shall apply to a written 
     agreement entered into under subsection (a).
       Page 36, beginning on line 16, strike paragraph (2).
       Page 39, beginning on line 9, strike section 108.
       Page 46, line 10, insert after ``take effect on'' the 
     following: ``the first day of the first grazing season 
     beginning after''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As has been indicated, Mr. Chairman, this bill has been an 
accumulation of views over the past months from across this great 
country, and, as indicated by the speakers you have heard already in 
general debate, this is widely supported in areas of the country that 
have no public lands. I am very appreciative of that support, because, 
again, this indeed is a Western issue, and, as some say, many do not 
have a dog in this fight. But many have stepped forward, and we have 
done it on a bipartisan basis.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the ranking member on the 
Committee on Agriculture, has assembled a group of Democrats who are 
supporting this bill enthusiastically.
  So this is not a question of separating the West from the rest of the 
America, nor is it a question of separating one party from another, nor 
is it a question of separating environment from grazing. I think we 
have here a coordinated effort, as evidenced by those speakers who have 
eloquently identified this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a compromise of sorts. I object to it, because 
I do not think it is a compromise that embraces the major flaws in the 
bill. It does eliminate the restructuring of the RAC's, and that is 
good, but the fact is that some of the underlying problems still 
persist.
  For instance, we had talked about the fact that this bill tended to 
build a confusion about a property right with regard to an amendment. 
On page 27, the definition is less than clear than existing BLM 
definitions. This takes us back. The word associated with this type of 
compromise, it is going to be decided by a court. You are not 
clarifying something here; you are, in fact, moving it to the issue 
where someone will try to establish a property right based on this new 
language.

                              {time}  1215

  They eliminate some definitions that are confusing. They still have 
confusion with regard to monitoring, as I said, Mr. Chairman, earlier. 
The 48-hour provision remains in this bill. This would have prohibited 
agencies from conditioning grazing permits or leases, or a permittee 
permitting access against private property, it eliminated that agency, 
but with monitoring there are still problems. It is only a marginal 
improvement in terms of what is going on.
  It is changing. They say they are for sound science, except they are 
writing into law the fact that you have to take into consideration some 
of the history, some of the other factors. This, again, is going to be 
open to interpretation as to what the rules and regulations are in the 
actual practice that evolves.
  I think it is questionable. If you are trying to clarify something 
and provide the type of clarity that the proponents suggest or try to 
embrace here, it is important. Fundamentally, much of what has been 
discussed here is behind a facade of the venerable cowboy, but the fact 
is that many of these cowboys today are wearing wing-tipped shoes. 
Sixty percent of the forage is controlled by 10 percent of the 
permittees. That is the language we have.
  The amendments we plan to offer will, indeed, address that, or 
provide the opportunity to address that in terms of trying to deal with 
the corporate cowboys that are, in fact, ripping us off. This amendment 
simply does not go far enough in terms of what it has done.
  The cooperative management agreement that is talked about ties 
cooperative management agreements to the grazing permit or lease, 
changes only of marginal improvement. The underlying section continues 
to be seriously flawed. It goes far beyond what agencies do and it is 
inconsistent with FLPMA and the Taylor Grazing Act. Agencies do not 
allow grazing use over and above mandatory terms and conditions of the 
permit lease, as section 106 would do.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment as a compromise simply does not make it. 
That is why I am rising in opposition.

[[Page H9749]]

 There are some things in it that are better than what is in the bill, 
but this is not a compromise, in my judgment.
  Frankly, if this bill had been worked out and worked on for so long, 
why is this compromise being offered today on the floor? The fact is, 
this is a last-minute effort to try to put a veneer of compromise and 
balance on this bill, which remains unbalanced.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], in 
attempting to continue the good-faith efforts toward meeting some of 
the concerns that have been raised by those who oppose this bill.
  It is my understanding that this amendment that I offer has been 
agreed to by all interested parties, and would basically do three 
things. In section 102 of the bill, it would strike the definition of 
the term ``allotments,'' in section 102 of the bill it would strike the 
definition of the terms ``base property,'' and in section 3, or in 
section 105 of the bill, it would strike subsection (b), which deals 
with the treatment of lease or sublease of base property.
  I offer this, again, in a good-faith effort to meet some of the 
objections which the chairman has agreed to, and it is my understanding 
all of the parties have agreed to this language.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] 
ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment? Is that what the 
gentleman had intended to do?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has not offered 
an amendment yet. If the gentleman intends to offer an amendment, that 
may be done at the end of the debate on the amendment offered by Mr. 
Smith. That has not yet been done.
  Mr. VENTO. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Do I 
misunderstand that the gentleman was offering or attempting to offer 
the amendment at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. He has not offered the amendment as of yet.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the Chair.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, to 
clear up any misunderstanding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are 
debating my amendment, and when time runs out, there will be 
opportunity for further amendments to my manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say again that some of the opposition that the 
gentleman states to this bill is clarified in this amendment that is 
about to be presented, which basically is silent on the question of 
property right. It does not convey a property right nor does it deny a 
property right, so we go back to existing law, and we go back to court 
cases. That is all. The same point about monitoring.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman does not trust Mr. Glickman, the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and Mr. Babbitt, the Secretary of the 
Interior, who have all the responsibility for monitoring, then who 
should we really trust? So I think the gentleman is a little off base 
in the question of monitoring, and certainly he is off base on the 
question of the property right.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just note to the gentleman on page 27 that the 
amendment the gentleman is offering right now changes the definition of 
``allotment'' and changes the definition of ``base property'' to 
include allotment as ``associated with.'' I think is the point.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The gentleman must read the amendment 
forthcoming.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate that. I was about to explain that I was 
catching up with what is to be offered beyond that. What was in the 
bill I was accurate about. What was in the amendment right now I am 
accurate about, right now with regard to ``associated with.''
  These definitions have a great confusion with regard to property 
right, and it would end up in court. I appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman is going to further perfect the manager's amendment with the 
Stenholm amendment, but I want to just point out that I think I was 
accurate, and tried to be accurate. The fact is we have enough 
differences of opinion that we do not have to argue about that which is 
factually correct.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman will 
support the bill, in that case.
  Mr. VENTO. I do not think so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentleman that I 
understand that the amendment to be offered also will eliminate 
subleasing on Forest Service lands. In my time during general debate, I 
tried to structure my arguments based on the fact of what was in the 
initial manager's amendment, and now I understand the gentleman is 
going to change it and take some of those provisions out. I must say 
that they represent improvements. I commend the gentleman for that.
  But there are still significant differences that we have with regard 
to monitoring. I still have significant differences with regard to 
where we need to go in terms of how we manage this 250 million acres of 
land. We intend to pursue those during the time of offering the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


Amendment Offered by Mr. Stenholm To The Amendment Offered By Mr. Smith 
                               of Oregon

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer the perfecting amendment to the 
amendment that I discussed and explained in the general debate on the 
chairman's part.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Smith of Oregon:
       In lieu of the amendments relating to page 27, line 6, page 
     27, lines 18 and 19, and page 33, beginning on line 14, 
     insert the following amendments:
       Page 27, beginning on line 3, strike paragraph (1).
       Page 27, beginning on line 14, strike paragraph (3).
       Page 33, beginning on line 14, strike subsection (b).

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take any additional time. I 
explained the amendment during general debate on the previous 
amendment. I do believe it is agreed to by all of the parties, that it 
is a perfecting amendment. I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to check through this. This 
strikes both the definitions on section 102 on allotment on base 
property, and then further strikes the new (b), the new (b) that was in 
the amendment, is that correct, under section 105?
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. So there will be no subleasing of Forest Service 
allotments, and there will be no new definition of ``allotment'' or 
``base property''; is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is my understanding, but I would ask the chairman 
to confirm it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  It is exactly as identified. The problem here has been all along that 
there

[[Page H9750]]

are some who believe that this language conveys a property right, some 
who believe it does not. In an effort to reach agreement on this bill, 
we did not feel that this was the time to settle the question of the 
property right, so we dropped the definition so that the debate can 
continue through the courts, if necessary, and will be, about the issue 
of property right. This is no longer an issue in this bill. We do not 
go back, we just rely upon court decisions and interpretation as we 
know it today.
  The other part of this bill, indeed, we drop the question of the 
subleasing, not that subleasing is still illegal when you sublease a 
priority right. However, interpretation will be continued, as it has 
been, by the Bureau of Land Management and by the Forest Service as 
they have existed before this bill arrived.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just point 
out that this does not change this, that currently when there is a 
sublease there is a surcharge by BLM in terms of that sublease. They 
put a surcharge on it in terms of their activities. This bill 
eliminates that surcharge. These amendments do not modify that 
surcharge. That still remains. Is that correct? He said this vitiates 
the surcharge.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, it is current law. We go back to current law. It is just not 
addressed in this bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my perfecting 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand going back to current law means BLM will 
be able to continue to charge the surcharge in terms of subleasing. 
That is my understanding. There will not be subleasing on the Forest 
Service, there will be, of course, current law with regard to BLM.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Subleasing of a permit is against the law. You 
cannot sublease a permit. You can sublease base property with the 
permit, and that is what we are talking about. We go back to current 
law.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10 printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows.

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Vento:
       In section 107(a), strike paragraph (2) (page 36, lines 16 
     through 20) and insert the following new paragraph:
       (2) Determination of fee.--
       (A) Small producers.--The holder of a grazing permit or 
     lease, including any related person, who owns or controls 
     livestock comprising less than 2,000 animal unit months on 
     Federal lands pursuant to one or more grazing permits or 
     leases shall pay the fee as calculated under paragraph (1).
       (B) Large producers.--The holder of a grazing permit or 
     lease, including any related person, who owns or controls 
     livestock comprising 2,000 or more animal unit months on 
     Federal lands pursuant to one or more grazing permits or 
     leases shall pay the fee as calculated under paragraph (1) 
     for the first 2,000 animal units months. For animal unit 
     months in excess of 2,000, the fee shall be the higher of the 
     following:
       (i) The average grazing fee (weighted by animal unit 
     months) charged by the State during the previous grazing year 
     for grazing on State lands in the State in which the lands 
     covered by the grazing permit or lease are located.
       (ii) The Federal grazing fee as calculated under paragraph 
     (1), plus 25 percent of such fee.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was described in a Dear 
Colleague. What it attempts to do is to differentiate between the 
family rancher, providing that the existing fee formula that is in this 
measure would prevail, which is, as I pointed out, a substantially 
subsidized operation with regard to the amount that BLM or Forest 
Service spends or expends, and the amount of fees that are retained.
  Of course, much of those fees go back to the grazing councils and 
back to the States. So the fact is that the Federal Government, if we 
look at the scoring of this, has actually even a greater cost that is 
associated with it. As I pointed out, many attribute nearly $400 
million to the cost of managing the 28,000 grazing permits on the 
various allotments.

                              {time}  1230

  The 250 million acres of land that we have grazed. And I would say to 
my colleagues that this affects the National Forests, it affects the 
Bureau of Land Management lands, it affects almost all the lands within 
the National Forests, whether they be wilderness, whether they be areas 
of special environmental concern in terms of the BLM. All of these 
lands are grazed. And as a matter of fact, some of the most outrageous 
consequences of that are viewed in some of these hot desert areas in 
some of the Southwest States where, of course, much of the land 
retained in Government ownership does not have the water, is land of 
quality that is not desirable for other purposes, and the consequences 
when overgrazing and abuses have occurred in the past, but do not 
always occur but they have in the past, these lands take a long, long 
time to heal.
  Mr. Chairman, the tragedy, I think, of this issue is not just the 
money, the dollars lost to the taxpayers, but it is the consequence to 
these ecosystems which are so important for both recreation, for the 
maintenance of biodiversity, and other purposes.
  Today this amendment I am offering will continue the type of 
assistance in this bill for those that have less than 2,000 animal unit 
months, 2,000 AUM's. This will take care of the family farms. This 
gives them that opportunity to have this lower subsidized fee, but for 
those above that size, and that only constitutes about 9 or 10 percent 
of the permittees that control 60 percent, 60 percent of the forage, 60 
percent of the forage or the AUM's are controlled by that group.
  In numbers we can look at that. With the 28,000, we realize that we 
are only talking about less than 3,000 of those and these are the 
corporate cowboys. Many times in a competitive marketplace it can be 
argued that family ranchers who are struggling ought to benefit. I 
think that argument can be made. But under this bill the way it is 
structured, the same benefits go to giant corporations, to oil 
companies, to insurance corporations who run operations five times the 
size of family farm ranches and pay the same low subsidized rate.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not fair to the family ranchers or the American 
taxpayer. This Vento amendment will make these corporate cowboys pay 
their fair share. The megaoperators, those with the 2,000-plus animal 
unit months or cow-calf groups, will pay either the State permit fee 
which is charged in the various States, and we are comparing apples and 
apples because we are talking about AUM's. So no matter what the other 
services, we are talking about the animal unit months. They pay that 
fee that is paid in that State.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that many times the Federal lands only 
comprise about 10 percent in the case of California, 30 percent in some 
other States that are public lands States. And they would either pay 
that rate or 25 percent above the subsidized rate that goes to these 
family farmers.
  These corporate cowboys are hiding behind, as I said, the sod of that 
revered cowboy and those ranch families. I think that we ought to strip 
that away and actually cause them to pay a little more. They would 
still get a subsidized rate, but not as great.
  My amendment preserves the fee formula for the small and middle 
operation ranchers and families. For large scale livestock operators 
the days of taxpayer subsidized grazing would be over. These large 
operators comprise less than 10 percent of the permittees, but control 
over 60 percent of the forage.

[[Page H9751]]

  Mr. Chairman, the abuses of the Federal grazing program are numerous, 
but there are a few notorious examples. One is a Japanese company, a 
foreign company, operating in Montana, raising over 6,000 cows for the 
purpose of selling specialized beef for a foreign market. In reading 
articles about this, Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out that they will be 
willing to pay a higher fee, these Japanese operated companies; they 
would not object to paying that higher fee.
  A national oil company grazed over 10,000 cows on Federal rangelands 
in 1990, and a national life insurance company grazed over 12,000 cows 
on Federal lands in 1990.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. VENTO was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, by passing the Vento amendment, we can still 
guarantee equitable treatment for small ranchers and taxpayers who it 
is estimated pay as much as $400 million a year to continue the total 
Federal grazing program. The numbers that we see, of course, come in at 
about $60 million or $70 million to manage the program, and the 
receipts are somewhere less than $25 million, even under this bill. So 
it is a three-to-one ratio, according to the BLM and the Forest 
Service.
  A vote for the Vento amendment will take the corporate cowboys off 
the grazing haywagon, off the taxpayers' back, and put some real reform 
into this forage bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this whole question of fees is always controversial and 
charges are made back and forth, and I maintain that this fee is not a 
subsidy to anybody. The livestock industry in this country has never 
asked this Congress or the American people for one dime and I doubt if 
they ever will.
  However, we do plan a new formula, and I oppose the Vento amendment 
because it destroys the idea that this formula will be in place and 
people can be confident in it.
  The formula, by the way, was developed by a professor at New Mexico 
State University, and it changes the manner in which we measure the 
amount of money that the Federal Government should receive from an 
asset, a capital asset, like its lands.
  The way it is done, and I think very effectively, is to measure the 
production of an animal on public lands. The way that is done is to 
determine the value of production of a cow, calf, a bull, and 
replacement heifers, which by the way is published every year by the 
Agricultural Economic Program. The value then is divided by the 6-month 
Treasury note.
  The 6-month Treasury note is a measurement in the United States as to 
how much and at what cost the Federal Government would pay for money. 
We use the 6-month because it is the highest of most of the Treasury 
bills.
  Mr. Chairman, we then apply this formula over a 12-year period so we 
take the hills and valleys out of the production of animals on public 
lands and the hills and valleys out of the 6-month Treasury note.
  Therefore, this capital asset now is treated like every other asset 
of the United States. It is treated like every other capital asset that 
it returns to the Treasury, the equivalent of a 6-month Treasury bill.
  That is the formula that we are trying to place. The result of that 
formula will require an additional $6 million of money from those 
people who graze on public lands. That will increase the AUM cost from 
currently $1.35 per animal unit month to $1.84 per animal unit month. 
And that, then, of course, that fee will be adjusted each year 
according to the figures amassed.
  It is a simple way to place the formula. It is a fair return to the 
Government, and I want to ask the people in this room, and those 
listening, how many industries in America would come to the Congress 
and ask for a 36-percent increase in their cost of doing business? The 
livestock industry is doing that.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Klug to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Vento:
       Insert at the end of the amendment the following new 
     amendments:
       Strike line 25 on page 35 and all that follows through line 
     15 on page 36, and insert the following:
       (a) Basic Fee.--The basic fee for each animal unit month in 
     a grazing fee year shall be equal to the rate charged for 
     grazing on State lands in the State in which the Federal 
     lands covered by the grazing permit or lease are located.
       Page 37, beginning on line 22, strike subsection (d).

  Mr. KLUG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, we are going to pick up on the argument that 
just went on between the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and that is whether there is a 
subsidy involved to Western ranchers.
  Let me point out that in a 1991 General Accounting Office report done 
on the subject, quote, and this is talking about the grazing program, 
``It does not achieve an objective of recovering reasonable program 
costs because it does not produce a fee that covers the Government's 
cost to manage the grazing program.''
  In other words, Mr. Chairman, it costs us a lot more money to run 
this program than we take in because of it. And I would argue that on 
the face of it, Mr. Chairman, that that therefore represents a subsidy.
  I can remember when I was a freshman in Congress, about the time that 
the GAO report was done, when the Government Operations Subcommittee I 
was involved in took a look at ski programs across the United States 
and looked at the amount of money the Federal Government got where it 
leased lands to ski companies versus the amount of money that State 
governments got where it leased land to ski companies. Consistently 
across the board we negotiated poorer deals than the States did on land 
that was adjacent to one another. The same kind of ski lifts, the same 
kind of companies. We got shortchanged.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment today simply piggybacks off the apparent 
ability of States to do a better job negotiating than we can by saying 
that we are going to tie Federal fees to State fees.
  Now, what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] wants to accomplish 
and what the cattle industry wants to accomplish is certainty. I 
understand that because it is tough to do business when prices go up 
and prices go down, when costs go up and costs go down.
  Frankly, it is the kind of problem, Mr. Chairman, that my dairy 
farmers in Wisconsin have. They are not sure from month to month what 
production costs are going to be.
  In this case we will do two things. We will deliver certainty because 
they already know what the fees are that are established at the State 
level, and we will return a higher value to U.S. taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, again I hate to keep beating the same drum over and 
over. It costs us $42 million to run this program. We now collect $5.5 
million. And under the best scenario under the language offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], we will collect only $2 million 
more, which means we are still losing $35 million on the deal.
  Mr. Chairman, if instead we substitute language which says we are 
going to charge the State fees, we make more money. For example, under 
the bill we are debating right now the current fee that will be 
established will be $1.60. The lowest State fee is Arizona, which is 
$2.18. Remember, this Federal legislation now says $1.60, which is only 
a slight increase.
  Mr. Chairman, in the State of Nebraska it is more than $22. If we sum 
those all up across all the places where grazing is allowed on BLM land 
or State land, the Congressional Budget Office says that gross revenues 
under this formula would increase $30 million annually; $24 million 
would be the Treasury's net revenues.
  We do not completely break even and a number of my colleagues from 
the West would make the argument that

[[Page H9752]]

the one reason we can never break even on BLM land, just like on Forest 
Service land, is because those operations are run so much more 
inefficiently than they are run in the private sector. I would grant 
that that is true.
  But I would also suggest that while I may not have a dog in this 
fight from Wisconsin, I do have a dollar invested in this fight and 
every single one of my taxpayers does, and it makes a lot more sense to 
me that rather than making $7.5 million on the program, we make $30 
million on the program, which means we still do not break even but we 
get a lot closer to our goal.
  The Federal Land Policy Management Act mandates a reasonable return 
on the dollar for Federal taxpayers. Now, we have managed to accomplish 
that in the oil industry and the coal industry and the gas industry, 
but we have not done it in grazing.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also point out a couple of other dynamics in the 
industry. Ninty-eight percent of cattlemen in this country and 97 
percent of sheep farmers in this country do not have access to Federal 
land. They can still stay in the business regardless of when these fees 
are. And of the 23,000 permit holders, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
absolutely right, there are some extraordinarily egregious cases. There 
are three Forbes billionaires who get subsidies from the Federal 
Government in order to graze on federally owned land. There are four 
oil and mining companies, and there is, intriguingly, one brewery which 
also gets subsidies as a result of this.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we need to return a fair price to 
the U.S. taxpayer. Obviously, the cattle industry and the sheep 
industry manage to flourish and prosper on State lands all across the 
West. I am convinced they will continue to flourish because they will 
have new certainty on Federal lands in the West. But I can also tell my 
colleagues that it is time we ask them to pay a fair price for the 
services we provide.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, both of these amendments, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] make an awful lot of sense.
  Clearly this legislation in the last half-hour has been improved by 
the amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. But 
now we are down to the crux of the program, which is whether or not the 
taxpayers of this country are entitled to have the costs of this 
program covered by those who benefit from it.

                              {time}  1245

  The problem we have in the existing program is that, in effect, the 
benefits or the formula, the new formula offered in this legislation is 
simply arbitrary. It does not reflect what the real cost of doing 
business is or what the real potential for profit is or the qualities 
of the lands, which are related to those across the Federal grazing 
program. The fact of the matter is, as pointed out by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], it appears that the States for comparable 
lands are able to much better negotiate with the ranchers, with the 
grazers on the basis of the value of those lands. Those are the people 
who are competing right alongside of the people who have Federal 
allotments that have a much lower cost in terms of the AUM for those 
lands.
  When the Federal grazer goes to sell their cattle, they do not sell 
it at a lower price because they had a lower price of production. They 
all go to the same auction. They all go to the same purchaser, to the 
slaughterhouse, however the purchaser is decided, and a price is 
published or bid and they do not ask whether you are a Federal cow, a 
State cow, or a private sector cow. And therefore, what we see is a 
subsidy that flows to the Federal cow, the Federal grazer, in this 
case, as opposed to that which goes to the person farming or grazing on 
private sector land and/or grazing on State lands that are in the same 
area, same vicinity and comparable for that production.
  This has historically been a problem in the West. It certainly 
happens in my State of California where we have Federal water and we 
have State water. Federal water or State water will grow tomatoes; one 
is a Federal tomato and one is a State tomato. But when you go to Hunt 
Foods or Libby-McNeil, they do not ask if you are a Federal tomato or a 
State tomato. They say, this is what we are paying per ton of tomatoes. 
There is, in fact, a subsidy.
  I think that for the moment, just as we had to finally make a 
decision that we were going to let the States start collecting 
royalties on some oil and gas because they were more efficient than the 
Federal Government, I think here we ought to think about and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] suggests we should be pegging the 
Federal return to the taxpayer based upon what the States charge 
because they seem to be much more efficient in getting that return to 
their taxpayers for this land.
  Again, the formula that is presented by the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith] does not take into account the differences in the quality 
of the land, the land in Nebraska, the land in Colorado or up in the 
northern corner of California or the land in Arizona. Some cows eat 
creosote and have to go 40 miles an hour just to stay alive. Other cows 
are standing around in high clover. And there is no distinction. But 
there is a distinction when we get to the State leasing of these lands.
  I think this is a fair, nonprejudicial way to allocate these 
resources. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] points out, even 
this will not recover to us the full cost of doing business. But we can 
work on that. We can continue to work on the efficiencies and the costs 
of this program by the agencies that are running it.
  First of all, we have got to stop the hemorrhaging of subsidies that 
flow out of this program and deprive the taxpayer of that return. This 
Congress over the last several years, in efforts to balance the budget, 
has assessed fees on multiple users, even in the granddaddies of all 
the water projects out in California. We now every year update the cost 
of doing business. We charge more and more as the cost goes up. No 
longer do we just pass that on to the taxpayer and those irrigators 
have to absorb that.
  That is a decision we made a number of years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, 
as we decided to try and reduce this Federal deficit. We should be 
doing the same with respect to the Federal grazing program and, with 
the inclusion of this amendment, we have a very substantially improved 
bill beyond those improvements provided by the Stenholm amendment and 
the recent changes by the chairman of the committee. Without it, 
without this amendment or the Vento amendment, this is clearly a 
seriously flawed program with respect to the interest of the national 
taxpayers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with the gentleman from California's 
statement that says when a rancher brings a calf to the market, the 
market does not differentiate whether it is grazed on State land, 
Federal land or private land. As I stated during the earlier debate, 
the general debate, if I were convinced that this was a subsidy for 
Western ranchers that accrued an unfavorable advantage to them over my 
Texas constituency, I would not be standing here today arguing, as I 
am, because it would be rather foolish politically or economically.
  I have spent years trying to ascertain what a fair grazing rate is. I 
have listened to those that make the argument today on behalf of the 
taxpayer that it should be much, much higher. But then I have also 
spent the time analyzing that many times those who have not taken all 
of that time really are trying to compare apples and oranges. Because 
as I stated before, there are other costs of a rancher doing business 
on Federal lands that do not accrue to a private owner. For example, 
the owner of the land usually furnishes the fences and fencing is a 
very, very expensive endeavor. I rise in opposition to the Klug 
amendment.
  I come at it, and I do not question sincerity of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] at all. He believes there is a subsidy. I believe 
there is not. I believe the facts are on my side. This is for 
colleagues to make that determination.
  One of the things that I do in the base bill, the Vento amendment, 
though, the 2,000 animal unit divided by 12 months, that is 167 cows 
per year. Now, there are very few if any real

[[Page H9753]]

working ranchers that can survive on this low threshold of gross 
receipts. So the intent of the amendment that is being amended is one 
of which I really ask our colleagues to take a look at it, because it 
displays a lack of true knowledge of the cattle industry today.
  Also in the Klug amendment, having these grazing fees based upon 
State land rates, I think, would be an administrative nightmare. If we 
think the Tax Code is complex, currently let us take a look at the 
administrative cost. Imagine, two Federal agencies trying to implement 
a minimum of 11 different fee structures depending on location. I know 
the intent is good. At first blemish, it makes some sense. But then 
when you get down to the administrative cost, I find it interesting 
that some of the objections are dealing with the cost already of the 
BLM and the Forest Service in administering the program.
  If we go back and study the reams of studies and papers that have 
gone into this, it gets into what we all commonly call an accounting 
gimmick, how we allocate costs. We have a BLM and we have a Forest 
Service in order to manage Federal lands, one use of which is grazing. 
But there are other uses. Wildlife, public use and the rancher only 
gets the use of the grazing and in return he puts an investment back 
into that land and it is a considerable amount of investment that they 
have to put into Federal land.
  So I think when we look at the administrative nightmare of the Klug 
amendment, charging different State-based fees is going to be unfair, 
unless we come at the conclusion that somehow these Western ranchers 
are receiving a subsidy. I do not believe that the facts will bear that 
out. I encourage opposition to both the Klug and the Vento amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed out in my underlying 
amendment that 2,000 was not enough, 2,000 AUM's was not enough for a 
family ranch to make a living. I would point out that 91 percent of the 
permittees have less than 2,000 AUM's so 91 percent of them cannot be 
wrong, can they? Does the gentleman want to tell them that they should 
not be in business? Is that the point?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, no, that is not the point that I was 
making in the debate. What I am saying, when we start picking arbitrary 
numbers, we begin to get into all kinds of problems with the industry 
which we are discussing today. That is my only point.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my 
point is that I am trying to differentiate in terms of a family ranch 
in terms of, the gentleman disagrees and we disagree about the subsidy. 
That is fine. But in terms of the fact that they are in fact in 
business and furthermore, of course, on the gentleman's time, I would 
point out that this formula in the bill is completely arbitrary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
formula is completely arbitrary in terms of what the costs are with 
regard to BLM. It looks at what the revenue is raised by beef over a 
12-year average and then what the 12-year average is for a 6-month T 
bill and then multiplies it out and says that is our return. But that 
does not have anything to do with what the cost is to the BLM or to the 
management side of this at all.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with that. My concern 
or my opposition to what the gentleman, both gentlemen are attempting 
to do, lies in the fact that nearly 50 percent of Western lands are 
owned by the Federal Government. Fully 50 percent of the Nation's 
marketable lands, 20 percent of the calves go to feed lots or are 
raised in Western public States. My concern is that we do not disrupt 
normal marketing arrangements, normal business practices in something 
as significant to the cattle industry as these areas are.
  If I were convinced, as the gentleman is convinced, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is convinced and others are convinced, that 
there is an unfair subsidy, I would not be standing here arguing that. 
I am of the opinion there is not an unfair subsidy. I disagree with 
those that have come to different conclusions. That is my concern and 
why I am participating in opposing the gentleman's amendment and the 
Klug amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the premise that we could 
disagree on whether there is a subsidy involved here or not. But if I 
can, let me respectfully disagree on what essentially is simpler for 
the Federal Government to administer.
  Here is what happens. We find out what the State rate is, and on 
Federal lands in those States the Federal Government charges it, versus 
this share is equal, this is the committee report language, the share 
is equal to the average rate of return on 6-month Treasury bills. The 
averages are calculated over a 12-year period corresponding to the 
normal cattle market cycle, thus stabilizing prospective annual rates 
of change in the calculated grazing fee.
  You are essentially setting up a very convoluted formula that is 
based on a rolling price of beef which has nothing to do with the costs 
of running the program on Federal lands.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Klug, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he 
may have a lot of objections to the amendment, but I think simplicity 
simply says we charge on the Federal lands what we charge on the State 
lands. We do not have to have a program that is going to put us through 
all kinds of calculated relationships based on beef prices in the 
future, beef prices in the past and T bill prices 12 years ago. For 
simplicity's sake and for administrative costs, I think it is simpler 
to charge on Federal lands what we charge on the State land, period, 
and here is the bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out to 
our colleagues that the State fees that we are discussing are set based 
on the Federal charges and are as tainted by the current law that we 
are implementing. So therefore it is not nearly as simple because we 
are talking about changing something of which we are already basing on 
the Federal structure.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. I rise in support of the Klug amendment. I believe the 
changes made to the grazing fee formula in this bill will not really 
change things at all.
  Under this bill the Federal Government will still be using the 
taxpayers' hard-earned money to subsidize grazing for giant companies 
who do not need a government handout. This is corporate welfare and it 
is just plain wrong.
  It cost the Federal Government, which means the taxpayers an average 
of nearly $6 per animal unit month just to administer the grazing 
program. The Government currently charges a grazing fee at the rock-
bottom price of $1.35 per AUM. And if the Government had utilized the 
new formula proposed in this bill for this grazing year, that fee would 
have increased to only $1.84 per AUM. That is far short of the $5.81 
per AUM it costs the taxpayers to run this program.
  Even worse, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new 
formula would increase grazing fees an average of only 20 cents per AUM 
during the next 4 years. This is not change, and it is not fair to the 
American taxpayers.
  Who benefits most from the grazing program? A small number of large-
scale ranchers who comprise less than 10 percent of these holding 
grazing permits, but yet they control more than 60 percent of the land.
  To help this, to help end this Government handout, my good friend 
from Wisconsin has offered an amendment that would make Federal grazing 
fees comparable to those charged by the State. State grazing fees are 
consistently higher than Federal grazing fees and closer to the rates 
charged by the private sector. As a result, the Klug

[[Page H9754]]

amendment would allow the Government to generate an additional $30 
million a year in revenues to help offset the cost of administering 
this program.

                              {time}  1300

  This is a step in the right direction. I do not think anyone can 
argue with the fact that the Government's grazing policies need to be 
reformed. There does need to be more uniformity in how Federal agencies 
administer grazing programs on public land. But if we are really to 
reform the program, we should not be leaving grazing fees essentially 
unchanged.
  This Congress has made significant progress toward reducing waste and 
spending money more wisely. But the new grazing fee formula contained 
in this bill misses the mark.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Klug amendment. A vote for this 
amendment will show America that Congress has committed to taking a big 
bite out of corporate welfare, not the taxpayers' wallets.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to again look at this question of fees 
with respect to State lands and with respect to the Vento amendment. 
First of all, I chased the tail of that baby for a while. In fact, I 
offered at one time to the livestock industry an opportunity to hold 
harmless the Federal Government in the management of its grazing 
practices, which would have meant that the fee would be determined by 
the cost of managing the grazing program on the Department of the 
Interior and Forest Service lands. I withdrew that effort simply 
because I would never catch up.
  Now, anybody who thinks that the Federal Government is an efficient 
operator would please step forward. I see none. The point is that if 
they load up the cost, as they have in the Department of the Interior 
and the Forest Service, if they load up the cost in managing the fee, 
they can argue they will never have a fee that will compensate for the 
cost of the Government doing business.
  Therefore, we come now to the question of what is proper and what is 
a fair return to the Government? I insist that this new formula is much 
fairer and returns an additional $6 million to the Treasury for the 
purposes of grazers grazing public lands. The State land idea is wrong. 
We are comparing apples and oranges here. The State lands in every 
State are in much better condition and much higher quality than the 
Federal lands. They are, in many cases, pulled together in an operating 
unit so that there is less cost of operating from State lands. We 
cannot compare State lands and Federal lands in the same breath, and we 
should not have a fee on the State lands the same as Federal lands.
  The question is many times argued about private lands here. And I 
ask, where is the subsidy? And I submit to my colleagues, there are 
four studies that I have outlined here on the board within the last 5 
years that indicate that it costs more to do business on public lands 
if you have a public grazing permit than it does on private lands.
  I would much prefer and any livestock person would much prefer to 
spend $10 on AUM in a good private pasture than I would a $1.84 in the 
rocks and the brush. Why? Because you get a fully equipped department 
with the private land. Many times the management, we get the water 
provided, we get the fences provided, and it costs much less money.
  And then you say, why, then, do not people who graze on public lands 
rent private pasture? Simply is, it is not available. The answer is, it 
is not available. Ninety percent of the lands owned by the Federal 
Government in the State of Nevada, 50 percent in the State of Oregon, 
go down the line, there is not the availability of private land or that 
is where we would be. I would much prefer to turn my cattle out in 
Virginia at $10 or $15 in AUM than to graze them in my part of the 
State of Oregon, where you are right, we do have problems, the cows 
need wheels to go from water hole to water hole. So this idea that we 
are comparing State and private pasture to the public lands by the 
Federal Government is a dead wrong idea.
  Now, the fair share is this. And let us again address the corporate 
demons. These people are talking about 8, 8 permittees out of 23,000. 
And when they say that great corporate pork, well, there are eight of 
them. But 23,000 families are out there depending on us and depending 
upon a fair bill. Let us keep them paying their bills. Let us keep them 
on the public lands. And for goodness sake, let us get a fair return by 
turning down the Klug amendment and the Vento amendment and adopting 
this very fair new proposal and program, which returns an additional 
amount of money to the Treasury.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Klug amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment looks familiar. It is one I offered in 
full committee when we marked up the bill. And fundamentally I support 
what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is doing. I think if we 
cannot do this, it would be good to do what I am proposing at least. 
But this is a better amendment, frankly, in terms of trying to deal 
with the cost of grazing on our public lands.
  As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], we have got the Millers 
agreeing, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the fact is that 
we spend nearly $6 an AUM and receive under this bill, under CBO's 
suggestion, that over the next 5 years it will be about 20 cents, in 
fact, 20 cents more than what the fee is, $1.55 per AUM. But if we had 
had this fee in effect over the last 20 years, in 15 of those years we 
would have gotten less back per AUM, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office and there is no base fee or floor in the formula so it 
could sink very low.
  So, in fact, if we took this formula, this is not an improvement in a 
formula, this is a change without benefit in terms of what it does and 
in fact may lower the AUM fee on public lands. It certainly continues 
the existing type of below-market type of fees in the West. And the 
fact is, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is pointing out, 
that many of these States have similar lands, and, of course, such 
States are charging on the basis of an animal unit month, the amount of 
forage that it takes to raise an animal, calf-cow combination, for 1 
month, the same measurement and definition in this bill.
  So we are comparing apples and apples. The bill's proponents can go 
through all the machinations that they want, those who are advocates 
for this, but we are comparing the exact type of value that is being 
conveyed by the State and Federal AUM. No one has demonstrated that it 
is any different. I think it is ridiculous in some cases to raise cows 
and to put land to this particular use when, in fact, it takes 2,000, 
3,000, 3,700 acres to raise a cow. Those cows do end up with more miles 
than your old Chevrolet. But the fact is that is what ranchers chose to 
do. And the fact is that the way this formula works, it gives them that 
AUM for $1.55 a month according to CBO under this new formula.
  As I said, in the last 20 years, 15 of the years they would have got 
lower fees. This proposal that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
has made that I proposed gives you some options. It says, let us try to 
get closer to what the cost of management of the program is.
  The fact is that the formula of this bill is a completely arbitrary 
formula. It suggests, if you have the cows out there, this is the price 
of beef. Then the Federal Government is entitled to whatever the 
average beef price is for 12 years, a 6-month T-bill rate for 12 years. 
So it just returns a certain amount of money to us. The fact is it 
costs us three times that amount to run the program, three times that 
amount just to manage the 28,000 grazing permittees.
  We can argue the Federal Government is inefficient, but the fact is 
that this type of discrepancy, the answer is not to continue to charge 
below-market prices. We need the resources so that we can, in fact, run 
the programs in an efficient and effective way. But the land managers 
are being denied that today.
  In fact, if we look at the dollars spent in terms of the BLM 
programs, we find that they have not substantially increased for this 
purpose and

[[Page H9755]]

that I think, frankly, those public land managers do a pretty good job 
considering the limited resource in the area that they have. We are 
talking of over 250 million acres of Federal land that are given over 
to this particular purpose.
  The Klug amendment will say that a State land, State-leased allotment 
right along the side of a Federal allotment would be paying, in 
essence, the same. In other words, when they go to market, there is no 
difference. And we are talking about animal unit months, the amount of 
forage. So the parity here is nearly absolute, as absolute as lands can 
be. But we look specifically at the lands to see what their productive 
capacity is. That is what is involved in terms of this management.
  As for complexity, there is no complexity. Those that were shaming 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for complexity here have not 
really looked at the complexity in this entire program in terms of 
measuring AUM's and the ephemeral nature of some of these areas and the 
weather and seasonal changes. There is a lot of management 
responsibility that is conveyed to the BLM in terms of managing these 
lands properly.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say again the 
suggestion that somehow the State grazing fees only apply to superior 
land is just a misnomer.
  The fact is, in Arizona, in California, in Colorado, the State lands 
very often are right next to the Federal lands. They are carved out of 
the same lands. They were put there in an arbitrary fashion. And the 
quality is very much the same. But in Arizona are we going to pay 
$2.18, and under this formula we are going to pay $1.55? In California, 
we are going to pay $500 a year minimum. Under this we do not know what 
we are going to pay. In Colorado, we pay $6.50 to $7.17. And under this 
we pay $1.55.
  The point is this: It is sort of like new math. Joe and Moe are both 
ranchers. Joe farms on Federal land, and Moe farms on State land. Joe 
and Moe send their cows to market. They get the same price. Joe on 
Federal land gets more money back than Moe on State land. What is that 
called? That is called a subsidy. We have to end it right now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think the Klug amendment is an improved 
amendment to mine. I would urge the Members to vote for it and then to 
vote my amendment up, as amended, or as it is. It gives us some options 
in terms of looking at family and ranchers. And I think that ultimately 
the end result is that when you subsidize and create this kind of 
dependency with these types of reduced or suppressed prices, that do 
not reflect what the costs are to the Government, we call it a subsidy.
  I think we ought to stop the subsidy for all. If we cannot do it for 
all, we ought to at least do it for the 9 percent of the permittees, 
the corporate cowboys, that control 63 percent of the forage, 63 
percent of the forage by 9 percent, and try to retain it then for the 
family ranchers that some may feel deserve a subsidy. Frankly, I have 
my view on that. But I would hope we can support the Klug amendment. 
But if we cannot, at least let us cut it out for the corporate cowboys.
  Mr. Chairman, the Klug amendment only addresses the fee issue because 
that is the only thing Congress needs to address at this time. The 
current grazing fee is $1.35. Mr. Smith's bill would raise that by 20 
cents.
  This amendment would set the Federal grazing fee at the level each 
State charges for grazing on State lands. Every Western State charges 
more than the Federal Government, with several charging six times as 
much. Many of these State lands are of the same character as the 
Federal lands and the services provided are similar or identical.
  The amendment is consistent and equitable, certainly more so than the 
fee formula contained in H.R. 2493. The bill's fee formula Members may 
recall is similar but even more egregious than the one that some 
Members tried to get enacted in the 104th Congress. It is a formula 
that is not based on fair market value or sound scientific principles. 
Terms are imprecise and confusing. Perhaps the proponents of the bill 
could explain exactly how they arrived at a formula that provides that 
the grazing fee shall equal the 12-year average of the total gross 
value of production for beef cattle for the 12 years preceding the 
grazing fee year, multiplied by the 12-year average of the U.S. 
Treasury securities 6-month bill ``new issue'' rate, divided by 12.
  More importantly, the bill's fee formula is flawed in its 
application. If the formula had been in place the past 20 years, the 
grazing fee would have been less than the flawed PRIA formula fee for 
15 of those years. Under the bill, ranchers would pay less in fees than 
they did in 1980.
  Public land ranchers presently pay from 4 to 7 times less than 
ranchers who graze cows on private and State lands. The free market is 
allowed to work on private lands, yet on public lands a confusing 
Federal formula keeps public land grazing fees artificially low. The 
result? Public land ranchers, who produce just 2 percent of the beef 
consumed in the United States, have a decided economic advantage over 
ranchers who use private or State lands.
  I am not aware of ranchers packing it up based on the grazing fees 
States charge. This amendment is a simple, direct way to address the 
grazing fee issue and I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Ranching on lands that are managed by the Federal Government is very 
different than ranching on lands that are managed by the State 
government. In fact, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
that, indeed, ranching on State land, you deal with primarily one 
agency. When we are ranching on Federal lands, we are dealing with the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the Department of Energy, Parks from time to time, 
and now the tribes have more say in the governing of public lands. It 
goes on and on and on.
  The fact is is that ranchers are responsible for their own fences on 
public lands, watering, seeding, keeping up wildlife, improvement of 
wildlife ponds, keeping track of all the livestock when there are 
visitors on the land, recreationists who leave gates open, keeping 
track of what people are doing on the allotment. It is a whole 
different ball game.
  This is a very thoughtful formula. And, in fact, people like me, who 
represent people from the West, as does the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith], I personally feel like the good chairman has been far too 
generous with the Federal Government. But this is what we have agreed 
to. And I appreciate his concern. But a 36-percent increase in the 
animal-unit per month for every single animal? That is a huge cost of 
doing business.
  Let me tell my colleagues some of the other things that are different 
about managing on Federal lands and grazing on Federal lands instead of 
State lands. Let me give my colleagues an example.
  In Idaho, and some of the Western States, we understand that 
sagebrush competes with grass. Out there on the arid western lands, 
this is 20-mile-an-hour cow country, at best. A cow has to graze at 20 
miles an hour all day long just to get enough to eat. Now we have our 
Federal land managers out there planting more sagebrush, which competes 
with the grasslands.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt the 
thought of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], but at this 
moment she just brought to mind the reality that just a few years ago 
we had a serious debate on this floor regarding desert lands in the 
West and some people were suggesting that maybe those lands would not 
be bad for grazing. There was an amendment on the floor which opposed 
grazing, which eventually passed.
  The same two gentlemen on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento] strongly opposed the grazing on that land, when it was obvious 
that not only would it be difficult land for grazing in terms of 20-
mile-an-hour grazing, nonetheless, logical use of that land. It was

[[Page H9756]]

imposed by exactly the same people, who, from what I can tell, want no 
grazing anywhere, and especially they are ready and willing to hurt the 
small farmer who is hurt most by the adjustments they are discussing 
here.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from California. I do want to 
say that with this fee increase, we really will be succeeding in 
running our cattlemen off the land. We have got to remember, this is 
the part of America's heritage and culture they write songs about, they 
copy their styles of dress back here in the East, they run their same 
kind of rigs back here, they make movies about them, they sing songs 
about them, and yet this body is willing to cut that part of America's 
heritage and culture loose. I say no. America is great because America 
is different. We are different than Madison, WI, or in Mr. Vento's 
district in St. Paul. It is very, very beautiful, but even the 
gentleman from Minnesota said these public lands are different. They 
are arid. He understands that. Why is that debate different now than it 
was then?
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. HILL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am sure the 
gentlewoman is aware of the fact that there was a study in Montana, as 
a matter of fact, on this very subject, about the difference between 
State lands and Federal lands and management. One of the things that 
this study looked at is why is it that State lands are more productive 
and why is it that State lands cost less to administer than the Federal 
lands. They found that the State of Montana did a better job of 
managing its lands for lower cost. In addition to that, the lands were 
more productive because the objective of the management of State lands 
in Montana was to maximize the economic return. That is not, as I think 
the gentlewoman knows, the objective of management to Federal lands. It 
also discovered that the State provided fencing, it provided water, it 
provided a lot of additional amenities that the Federal Government does 
not provide.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair, my colleague from Iowa who is 
presiding over the debate this afternoon, and I thank my colleagues 
from the West under the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, my good friend from Oregon. I appreciate the spirit of the 
overall legislation. I rise in strong support of that, but take issue 
quite frankly with the amendments offered by my colleagues from 
Minnesota and Wisconsin.
  It is important to remember a couple of things when we talk about so-
called public lands, Mr. Chairman. Public lands are not public parks. 
They are not public libraries. They are not public museums. Indeed, Mr. 
Chairman, a better definition is federally controlled land. Indeed, I 
would direct the attention of all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to Gila 
County, AZ, where less than 5 percent of the land in that county is 
owned by any private entity.
  I listened with great interest to my colleague from California talk 
about the State of Arizona, the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, 
admitted to this Union on Valentine's Day, 1912. Something to remember 
is that one of the conditions for statehood was that Arizona had to 
surrender vast amounts of its territorial lands to the Federal 
Government as a condition for statehood. When we talk about the 
territorial lands, the lands surrendered to the Federal Government, we 
are talking about the most choice land. Indeed, if I had a dispute with 
my colleague on the other side from California, as he tried to lump 
together Arizona and other States in dealing with this and the appeal I 
would make to my colleague from Wisconsin, is that we are not talking 
about the same land. We are not saying that it is the same property, 
even if it is property adjacent, because the Federal Government had the 
right to select the acreage that it took from the territory that became 
the State. And it changed the whole situation there.
  So indeed my colleague from Oregon is quite correct. When the Federal 
Government was given the pick of the land, there is a fundamental 
difference in that property. But I would also appeal to those in think 
tanks who love to talk about socialist cowboys or to those who would 
claim that somehow these are evil subsidies or corporate welfare, 
remember the history, Mr. Chairman. Do you not believe that if the 
ranchers of the West had the opportunity to buy private property as 
exists east of the Mississippi River, that they would gladly surrender 
the current situation for a portion of land?
  Mr. Chairman, knowing that sadly sometimes policy debates are 
displaced by political consideration and a deliberate misunderstanding 
of what I am saying, let me be very clear on this point. I am not 
asking that all federally controlled land be put up for sale. I am not 
saying that. But I am saying that with the vast amount of land owned by 
the Federal Government, you better believe that ranchers and farmers 
would love to have the opportunity to have that land in private 
ownership. And we are forced into this situation because of the history 
of our Nation, because of the fact that the Federal Government insisted 
in territories like Arizona that became States that a majority of that 
land, or a significant portion of that land, be under the control of 
the Federal Government.
  That brings us here to this debate today. That is why we need to 
reject the proposed amendments and embrace the overall legislation 
brought to the floor by my colleague from Oregon, because we have 
worked to fashion a reasonable compromise. Indeed, the gentlewoman from 
Idaho had it right when not everything in the legislation is exactly to 
the liking of our constituents. But we have hammered out in the spirit 
of compromise to go the second mile with those east of the Mississippi 
River who are suburbanites, with those who believe that they can 
capture the issue and so misframe it as to perpetuate the myth that 
those who make their livings off the land are not good stewards of the 
land. Quite the contrary is true, Mr. Chairman. And because of 
conditions that exist today, because of the presence of the Federal 
Government, because of the history of the settlement of the West and 
the long and rocky road to statehood for many of the territories west 
of the Mississippi River, we are brought to this situation here today.
  For all those who talk about subsidies, for all those who call this a 
form of corporate welfare, Mr. Chairman, they are dead wrong. Support 
the underlying legislation. Reject the proposed amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may 
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that 
may be ordered on the underlying amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] without intervening business or debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 219, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 546]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)

[[Page H9757]]


     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cubin
     Deutsch
     Gonzalez
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Moakley
     Schiff
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1344

  Messrs. RIGGS, CRANE, ADERHOLT and SKAGGS and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WEXLER, DAVIS of Florida, COX of California and ANDREWS and 
Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 546, the 
Klug amendment to H.R. 2493, I was unavoidably detained in meetings. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                              {time}  1345

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce this vote to not less than 5 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 212, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)

[[Page H9758]]


     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Schiff
     Scott
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 547 to H.R. 
2493, I was unavoidably detained in meetings. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DeLAY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in asking how 
long we hold the votes open, again.
  The CHAIRMAN. This was a 5-minute vote. Five minutes is the length of 
time that this vote was supposed to be held open.
  Mr. DeLAY. In order to accommodate Members' schedules, should Members 
try to make the votes as quickly as possible?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Speaker has made various statements on many 
occasions regarding this policy. I think Members are well aware of the 
policy.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13 as 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       In section 107(a), strike paragraph (2) (page 36, lines 16 
     through 20) and insert the following new paragraph:
       (2) Fee for foreign-owned or controlled grazing permits or 
     leases.--In the case of a grazing permit or lease held or 
     otherwise controlled in whole or in part by a foreign 
     corporation or a foreign individual, the fee shall be equal 
     to the higher of the following:
       (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 the State in which the lands 
     covered by the grazing permit or lease are located:
       (B) The average grazing fee (weighted by animal unit 
     months) charged for grazing on private lands in the State in 
     which the lands covered by the grazing permit or lease are 
     located.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as Members are now aware, we 
have just experienced two very close votes on whether or not the 
Federal Government ought to continue to subsidize grazing on Federal 
lands that are owned by the public, and continue that subsidy in a 
completely arbitrary fashion.
  The question in the two previous amendments, first of all, was 
whether or not the Federal land grazers ought to pay at least those 
prices that are charged for rental of that land and the grazing of that 
land that the States charged for comparable lands within their borders, 
and in a very, very narrow margin, apparently the House decided that 
was not the case.
  In the second amendment, the decision was whether or not, if we are 
going to subsidize these people in an arbitrary fashion to the tune of 
some $30 million a year that this program loses, should we subsidize 
also some of the largest corporations in this country, and should we 
also subsidize some the richest people in this country.
  On a much narrower vote the decision was somehow, unbelievably so, 
that yes, we could continue to pour taxpayer dollars to the richest 
corporations and the richest individuals. I do not think that is how we 
got to a reduced deficit, but somehow we are going to continue it.
  In this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the question is this for us: Do we 
think we ought to continue to pour Federal subsidies to those 
corporations that are foreign-owned, to those corporations that are 
grazing on Federal lands but are foreign-owned and operated here.

                              {time}  1400

  Should we continue to subsidize grazing operations that are 11,000 
acres in size, 6,000 acres, 4,000 acres owned by the E.M. Remy Co. out 
of Switzerland, the Zenchiku Livestock Co. of 7,000 acres from Japan, 
Two Dot Ranch out of France and Switzerland, and it goes on and on. 
Should we be using taxpayers' dollars to subsidize these foreign 
operations?
  Mr. Chairman, if that does not give my colleagues reason to pause as 
they cast their two previous votes to end these subsidies, we might 
want to understand that in some instances we are subsidizing foreign 
mining operations that are mining on their base properties, have gotten 
Federal allotments, are taking hundreds of millions of dollars off of 
Federal lands for which they pay no royalties to the taxpayers, and 
then the taxpayers are giving them additional subsidies for the grazing 
of the cattle.
  Mr. Chairman, when will my colleagues stop insulting the American 
taxpayer with this kind of program? They could not do it, they could 
not bring it upon themselves to say we ought to just charge what the 
States apparently are able to charge in a much more efficient fashion. 
So they could not stop the taxpayers' subsidy there.
  They could not bring it upon themselves when we just singled out the 
top 7, 8, 9 percent of the users of this land who are among the largest 
and richest corporations and individuals in this country. They could 
not stop it there. Can they stop it here?
  Mr. Chairman, they are using these taxpayer dollars to subsidize 
foreign corporations, some of whom are, in fact, double-dippers. They 
are dipping into the Federal Treasury because they are mining on 
Federal lands, but they do not provide any royalties for the billions 
of dollars that they take off in silver and gold, and then they get to 
dip to graze the cattle, which is incidental to their mining operation.
  Mr. Chairman, at some point, at some point this body has got to 
understand that they are insulting the intelligence of the American 
people if they believe that they accept this or they think this is 
acceptable, because it is not and that is what we have to do.
  Mr. Chairman, these foreign firms that I am asking to end the subsidy 
for are in the top 4 percent of the size of these cattle operations. 
These are not the ``Mom and Pops'' that some people said that they 
wanted to save in the last amendment from an increase in cost. This is 
not the family farmer; these are the big fellows who are owned by 
foreign corporations, who have decided they can come here and raise 
cattle with subsidized dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to put an end to that. I think we 
ought to understand that this is a subsidy to which they are entitled, 
with no limits under the current law. My amendment would end that 
subsidy. They would simply have to pay the State rates or the private 
rates. We are not gouging them. We just ask that they pay what the 
State charges for comparable lands within their boundaries.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, without getting into the question of trade with foreign 
countries, let me read for the record a quote from the Taylor Grazing 
Act, and I am quoting: ``Grazing permits shall be issued only to 
citizens of the United States or to those who have filed the necessary 
declaration of intention to become such, or required by naturalization 
laws, and to groups, associations, or corporations authorized to 
conduct business under the laws of the State in which the grazing 
district is located.''
  Well, Mr. Chairman, obviously if there are operations, foreign 
operations, they have to follow the law of this country and of the 
Taylor Grazing Act, so they have to be citizens.
  If this is a direct assault at, let us say, the Japanese, then maybe 
we

[[Page H9759]]

ought to remind ourselves that Japan takes about $1 billion of beef 
every year, maybe it is a $2 billion market. I would suggest that if we 
are going to close the borders of America around this issue, then we 
indeed are going to cause international concerns.
  Foreign countries, whomever they may be, the people must be citizens 
to have this permit. But if they are targeted, they will obviously 
retaliate. So I see no reason for this amendment. It has no place in 
this discussion. We have had the discussion about fee increases. This 
is mischief. There is no purpose in it, and I suggest we oppose it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I could not help but react to 
the remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] regarding the 
earlier two amendments that were just referenced. Indeed, in that case 
there was a very strong bipartisan vote in opposition to those 
amendments. I would hope that the same kind of logic and sense would 
apply to this amendment and we would get the same kind of bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of the amendment that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has just outlined. I want to 
make an appeal to Members of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Member of the House of Representatives, proud to 
serve here and I think, Mr. Chairman, you know that I have said on more 
than one occasion that respect for the House includes being able to win 
and also understand what losing is all about, being defeated.
  The last two amendments did not come out the way I voted. I 
understand that and I accept that. But, Mr. Chairman, what I am hoping 
is a basic sense of fairness can prevail. Those votes were close. 
People were paying strict attention to what it was they were voting on. 
And I think we have to give the best possible motivation and express 
goodwill toward one another with respect to our votes.
  So my appeal on asking Members to vote for this amendment is one 
based on fairness. With all due respect to the previous speakers, this 
is not a question of closing borders; this is a question of whether we 
are going to extend the same privileges explicit, I would say, Mr. 
Chairman, in the last two amendments to foreign-controlled 
corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this can be reduced to an argument 
about whether or not we are treating our western brothers and sisters 
fairly or those in the majority of areas where the grazing takes place. 
It is one thing for us to involve ourselves in a discussion as to what 
is the appropriate legislative approach on grazing land. It is another 
thing to subsidize foreign-controlled permittees. I do not see how we 
can make an argument based on fairness, based on fairness to the 
American taxpayer, that would allow us to do this.
  All the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is 
saying is that if businesses come in and make these investments as a 
foreign-controlled permittee, that they should not be allowed to have 
the benefit of the American taxpayer dollar. This is not an assault on 
anyone overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be very interested to see what kind of argument 
would be made when we look at the kind of laws that apply against 
Americans being involved with owning land and being able to extract 
minerals or to engage in other kinds of agricultural business in other 
countries.
  Mr. Chairman, we are always the ones that are expected to do the 
producing for others in terms of fairness. What we are asking for is 
fairness for the American taxpayer here. Surely those who in good 
conscience made their votes on the other two measures can look to that 
same conscience to see, is this really the intent of those who favored 
the law as it is presently applied? Is it really the intent that these 
foreign-controlled permittees should be involved in this way?
  Mr. Chairman, this is far from mischief. I do not think it is fair to 
characterize it that way. This is a fundamental question about what we 
have as a legislative foundation for the application of these laws. We 
have had our arguments, we have had our discussions as to whether the 
existing law and how it is applied, Mr. Chairman, is fair and 
appropriate. Surely it is a legitimate question. Far from being 
capricious or mischievous, it is a legitimate question as to whether 
the law ever intended this.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, that as Members come to vote on this particular 
amendment, can they in good conscience say that it was the intent and 
is the intent of this legislation to subsidize the foreign-controlled 
permittees? I think an honest evaluation, a fair evaluation would come 
to the conclusion it is not. And therefore I ask that we vote favorably 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
in the spirit of what has been accomplished here today in terms of the 
legislative process.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we were allotted 3 hours of general debate 
under the 5-minute rule. Can the Chairman inform me as to the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 hour and 30 minutes remaining in overall 
consideration of amendments under the rule.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that no matter, the Taylor Grazing Act, as 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], our chairman and friend, related 
to us, obviously did not anticipate that foreign nationals would indeed 
be awarded the Federal grazing permits and allotments.
  Here it is not just a matter of a son of an immigrant as an example 
that was not naturalized and had not achieved citizenship yet having 
that particular option, but what is assumed here is that these are 
actually corporations and entities that are being treated as a person 
but are really, in essence, subsidiaries or actually the basic holding 
company of an international organization registered abroad. And, of 
course, when we go through the laundry list of who this is, and the 
system of these operations, we readily recognize that we are looking at 
vertical integration. They want to raise the beef themselves on U.S. 
public lands at low rates, subsidized rates, and in fact then process 
it and remove it to their home market.
  So it is, I believe; and I think the numbers indicate that the cost 
of managing the grazing program on our Federal lands is nearly three 
times the cost, at least three times the cost of what is actually 
received by virtue of these fees.
  Lost in all of this debate, of course, is the question of whether or 
not on a multiple use pattern that these 250 million acres of land, 
wilderness, forests, BLM lands, whatever the designation that they have 
on them, what is left behind is their use and what the conflicts and 
problems are with such use. Whether this is the highest and best use.
  Mr. Chairman, we could or should be able to agree that, at least in 
terms of this benefit, that those who control these lands ought not to 
be in the hands of foreign nationals and if such entities control such 
lands they ought not to receive the subsidized rates but rather pay the 
higher State rates.
  A month ago, Mr. Chairman, on this floor there was a debate about the 
voluntary conservation designations that went on with regards to some 
of our parks and some of the other areas, like the biological reserves 
that were discussed which were used for research, and all of this was 
voluntary. Here today we have actually the control of Federal lands in 
a sense through this allotment and permit process, which represents a 
direct seasonal control by a foreign entity in terms of these lands. 
That is really what this is about. They are controlling the grazing 
allotments and fees, are basically controlling and regulating these 
lands, given the same responsibilities, the same stewardship 
responsibilities and other responsibilities that are accorded to U.S. 
citizens and U.S. entities and receiving the same bargain basement 
subsidized rate.

[[Page H9760]]

  Mr. Chairman, we have our disagreement about the subsidy going to 
them. We have our disagreement about the subsidy going to the 
corporations, corporate cowboys, the welfare cowboys. We have our 
disagreements, but I would think that there would be more consensus 
about whether or not this ought to extend beyond the borders to other 
countries and to other nonnationals that are under this bill and under 
the law, the way it is practiced, actually have that benefit. We should 
stop passing on this benefit, the subsidy at least at the United States 
of America border.
  I think if we go back to 1937, I think the intention of Congress, the 
intention, was that this would be a benefit, that these lands would be 
available to the general public, to U.S. citizens, not to foreign 
national corporations or foreign nationals for their benefit, to be 
part of an integrated conglomerate.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Members that this is a good amendment. 
I do not know that it is going to correct everything in this bill, but 
at least it would make a statement about what I think is one of the 
most egregious problems of foreign nationals exploiting these lands for 
their benefit.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in favor of the 
amendment that has been offered to this bill by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  The purpose of the gentleman's amendment is very simple. It is not to 
restrict grazing on Federal lands at all. What the gentleman from 
California would do is simply ensure that foreign corporations who are 
using Federal lands and grazing on those Federal lands, grazing cattle 
and other animals on those Federal lands, pay the market price for 
those grazing rights, either the highest of the State or the private 
fee, or grazing on either State or private land.

                              {time}  1415

  This is a very reasonable amendment. It is something that should be 
supported by every Member of the House. Let us make it clear. We do not 
object to grazing on Federal lands that are suitable for grazing. We 
are in favor of that. Often grazing is compatible with most Federal 
lands. It can be in fact beneficial to some Federal lands. So we are 
not opposed to grazing on Federal lands.
  We simply want to ensure that the American taxpayer is not taken to 
the cleaners by foreign corporations that are grazing their animals on 
Federal land at bargain basement prices, often one-third or one-fourth 
of the market value to graze on either private or State lands. That is 
what the Miller amendment would do.
  This amendment simply recognizes that there are major foreign 
corporations from Switzerland, from France, from Japan, that are using 
vast acreage in the West, thousands of acres to graze their cattle and 
their animals and that grazing is being subsidized by the American 
taxpayer.
  It is high time that this practice be put to an end. What is the 
reason for it? There is no good reason for it whatsoever.
  When Members talk about the thousands of small ranchers on Federal 
lands, they are not talking about major corporations such as Zenchiku, 
which runs a huge cattle operation on Federal lands in Montana and the 
Interior Department inspector general noted in a recent report that 
there was no limit on the grazing privileges and benefits provided to 
foreign corporations.
  Why would the Members of this House, whether they come from the West 
or the East or the South or wherever they come from, why would the 
Members of this House want to go back to their districts and say, I 
just voted to ensure that foreign corporations can come here and graze 
their animals on Federal land and you all are going to have to pay for 
it, you all meaning the American citizens, the American taxpayers? That 
does not make any sense. I do not think anybody wants to do that. So 
the Miller amendment, again, does not restrict grazing on Federal land, 
not at all.
  What it does is this, it says that if you are a foreign corporation, 
you want to come here and graze cattle on Federal land, you have to pay 
the market price. You have to pay the fair market price. It is a very 
capitalist amendment, as a matter of fact. It says, no subsidizing by 
the American taxpayer of grazing privileges for foreign companies.
  Let us put these subsidies to an end. Let us make sure that the 
American taxpayer is not asked once again to bear the cost of grazing 
by major foreign corporations who are wealthy beyond the dreams of most 
Americans. Let us make sure that they pay the fair market value to 
graze their animals on Government land that is owned by all the people 
of this country. Let us all support the Miller amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I just want to say that this, I can understand the emotional appeal 
of this argument, but the fact is that America has always had her 
borders open to those people who would be willing to work their trade, 
whether they are a corporation or not. A corporation can be two people. 
But being a corporation is not a bad thing in America. People who have 
come to this land have been encouraged to work and that is what we need 
to encourage them to do, Mr. Chairman.
  We need to encourage them to work their trade, whether their trade be 
running cattle or repairing shoes or being an accountant, whatever, 
that is part of reaching the American dream. I just do not believe that 
we should start cutting people out of their trade simply because they 
want a part of the American dream, they wanted to come to America and 
they wanted to work.
  The visionaries who wrote the Taylor Grazing Act, which all of us 
rely on so much, clearly state in that act, and this is existing law, 
that grazing permits shall be issued only to citizens of the United 
States or to those who have filed the necessary declarations of 
intention to become such as required by the naturalization laws and to 
groups, associations or corporations authorized to conduct business 
under the laws of the State in which the grazing district is located.
  That is very clear, Mr. Chairman. Why and how have we become a 
country that allows a lot of immigration into the State and then puts 
them in a category where we support them and they do not work? I think 
that this should be a nation that continues to hollow out the abilities 
and the visions and the opportunities for people to come to America and 
work their trade.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the 
previous speaker. This amendment is not about whether or not people or 
corporations get to come to the United States to work their trades, 
which sounds very noble. This is an amendment about whether or not 
those corporations, when they come to America to work their trade, 
ought to continue to receive a Federal subsidy. It is just that simple. 
This is about whether or not on the Federal lands that are owned by all 
of the people of the United States in which people lease those lands 
for the purposes of engaging in grazing, whether or not those Federal, 
those foreign corporations ought to pay their way. This is simply about 
whether they should pay their way.
  The notion that somehow this is not done because of the Taylor 
Grazing Act, the fact of the matter is, the IG's report points out 
that, specifically with respect to the Japanese corporation, that it is 
a Japanese-owned company that is operated in Montana. So this is being 
done. They ought to just pay their way. That is all we are asking. Just 
pay what grazers pay the State of California, the State of Colorado, 
the State of Idaho for the use of those lands and end the Federal 
subsidies to those people who are among the very largest of the grazers 
within this program.
  This is not about being against people who come here and work hard. 
It is about large corporations that have their own wherewithal coming 
here and being entitled to a Federal subsidy. That is what has got to 
stop. There is no showing, there is no showing that these corporations 
need this subsidy in terms of viability.

[[Page H9761]]

  In Idaho, we would just say that this foreign corporation should pay 
$4.88 instead of $1.55. We would say that in Montana they should pay 
$4.05 instead of $1.55. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  I think clearly the American people understand it. I hope that their 
representatives in Congress understand it. This is just one subsidy too 
far for the American public.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. It is bad enough that foreign mining companies get public 
lands for $5 an acre. The grazing program allows them now to graze 
their cattle on Federal lands at bargain basement rates.
  Why should the American public subsidize the grazing activities of 
such foreign mining corporations as Australia's Newmont Gold and 
Canada's Barrick Goldstrike. When they talk about the thousands of 
small ranchers on Federal lands, they are not talking about the 
Japanese land and livestock company Zenchiku, which runs a huge cattle 
operation in Federal lands in Montana. Low Federal grazing fees are 
being used to prop up the cattle operations of such foreign firms as E. 
M. Remy of Switzerland and Two Dot Ranch Inc. of France and 
Switzerland. All the foreign firms cited range in the top 4 percent of 
the size of the cattle operations grazing on Federal lands.
  The Interior Department Inspector General noted in a 1992 report that 
there was no limit on the grazing privileges and benefits provided to 
foreign operators. We have the opportunity to change these policies 
now. It is time to end the exploitation of public resources and the 
rip-off of the American taxpayer.
  The Miller amendment makes foreign grazing operators pay the higher 
of either the State or private lease rates in the State in which the 
Federal permit or lease is located. Let us end this piece of corporate 
welfare for foreign firms and adopt the Miller amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me 
because in excoriating the problems with foreign operations, I did not 
point out, we do not intend to exclude them with the Miller amendment. 
What the purpose here is, is just the option that they would pay the 
same rate as is paid at the States. This would treat them differently 
than domestic corporations. Domestic individuals are treated in a 
favorable way by this formula and by this bill.
  We do not believe that benefit should be extended to these foreign 
operations which really represent an integrated control in terms of 
coming into this country, setting up. Next they will have the timber 
leases. I mean if we carried this out, we could basically have all of 
our natural resources controlled by foreign entities at these bargain 
basement prices. Whatever we feel about the type of corporate welfare 
we provide, we want to limit it apparently to American companies and 
American individuals.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I urge our 
colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Miller amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Vento:
       Page 37, line 2, strike ``seven'' both places it appears 
     and insert ``five''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change what is in the 
bill. In other words, an AUM, an animal unit month, which is defined as 
a cow-calf unit in terms of providing feed for a month, historically 
under the law has provided for the equivalent of five sheep or five 
goats to be the equivalent of a cow-calf combination for an animal unit 
month. This measure changes the AUM's from five to seven. In other 
words, it would be seven sheep or seven goats for an AUM.
  Of course, by increasing the number of sheep or goats per AUM from 
five to seven, that change would effectively decrease the cost of 
grazing sheep and goats by almost one-third, by almost 33 percent. This 
is a taxpayer giveaway basically, yet another reduction in revenue 
terms of the bill. As I said, there is disagreement.
  My view is that this bill will take the AUM's to $1.55 based. That is 
not my estimate. That is the Congressional Budget Office. Some Members 
have said they disagree with that, which would be more like a 15-
percent increase, not the 36-percent increase that the proponents of 
this have advanced as to what the bill would accomplish.
  I could talk about that later. But the fee per AUM established under 
the bill, regardless of the type of livestock grazed in the forage 
area, needs to sustain a fixed number of sheep and goats, and would be 
unchanged by the definition, but owners of sheep and goats could 
purchase fewer AUM's to support the same number of animals under the 
new definition in the bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Some producers might increase the size of their sheep and goat herds 
in response to lower effective costs for grazing on public land because 
the grazing fees are only a fraction of the total cost for grazing on 
public land, or to raise sheep and goats. However, the CBO expects a 
net drop in the number of AUM's associated in a decrease in offsetting 
receipts. They are saying this will lose over half a million dollars. 
This particular change, this definition, CBO says, will lose $600,000 
per year.
  But more importantly is that besides having an arbitrary formula for 
establishing what the cost is for cow-calf combinations on the 250 
million acres of public range that are managed under this law, besides 
that, this is another arbitrary change in terms of what is taking 
place. This is simply a gift pack to those that are raising sheep and 
goats on the public range.
  I would suggest, as I said, that most of these grazing species, 
whether they be cows, burrows, or horses, on public lands that are 
being grazed end up being the dominant animal in terms of that 
particular ecosystem. In fact, very often predators have been destroyed 
historically to, in fact, make it safe for those cows, those goats, and 
those sheep. So they do become the dominant species. And they 
completely, shape the range by the grazing behavior.
  In some cases, these grasslands and other areas can absorb that type 
of abuse as to what is the carrying capacity. But other areas are very 
fragile. In terms of extending this, I think we end up doing great harm 
in terms of many of those fragile ecosystems, those ephemeral types of 
lands that are used for grazing. And in that 250 million acres I might 
say, Mr. Chairman, a goodly part of it is very fragile land. And while 
it was looked upon as wasteland in the past, today we recognize that 
those ecosystems and the biodiversity that occurs there is enormously 
important. Some are the habitat to our spectacular types of species, 
some of which, unfortunately, today remain threatened or endangered. 
All of those are potential conflicts that need to be resolved.
  I know of no basis for the change that is provided here. As I implied 
earlier in my comments with regard to the formula in this bill, it is a 
completely arbitrary formula, it has nothing to do with what the costs 
of managing the program, of monitoring the program. It has nothing to 
do with the cost of the BLM or Forest Service, who spend nearly three 
times as much as they take in fees in terms of trying to manage and to 
monitor this program.
  This definition simply is a gift to those who have the permits for 
such allotments. We would probably have a tendency to emphasize more 
sheep and goat AUM's on public lands based simply on the fact that we 
are reducing the cost by one-third and actually having a preference for 
goat or sheep by virtue of the definitional change of that. That may 
well have a profound effect on the public range as there grazing 
pattern and impact is different.
  I know of no analysis of this. Unfortunately, since we did not have 
hearings on this proposed change, we could not discuss this in the 
committee and raised these types of questions or heard answers from the 
administration or the land managers.

[[Page H9762]]

  I urge the adoption of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, to stop this AUM 
definition change.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as usual, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
recognizing his lack of background in livestock and sheep, has 
misquoted and mistaken this argument. The facts are, Mr. Chairman, that 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been overcharging sheep and goat 
producers who graze on public lands for these many years. And why is 
that?
  It is simply because that in 1950 the comparison between a cow and a 
sheep was 920 to 140 pounds. Today, the comparison is 1,120 to 147 
pounds. That means, Mr. Chairman, that an animal can only consume 
forage equivalent to its weight.
  Now, this does not affect in any way the stocking rate of sheep and 
goats to the ranch. If this amendment stays in the bill, it means that 
the stocking rate is continually organized and orchestrated and managed 
by the BLM and Forest Service if there are those permits available. 
Therefore, it only affects the billing rate. And the billing rate, to 
be fair to sheep producers, ought to be 7 to 1 and not 5 to 1.
  Therefore, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, in 1994, pointed out and argued the point that we should 
change the formula since the weight differential has changed. The bill 
does change the formula in fairness to the sheep and goat producers. 
And I point out again that the bill, when it passes, will increase to 
the Federal Treasury $6 million a year. It will increase sheep and goat 
producers who graze on public lands by 15 cents or more per animal-unit 
month.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we oppose the Vento amendment 
and exact fairness for the sheep and goat producers of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 244, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--244

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Danner
     Fowler
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Linder
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1455

  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, PETRI, BONO and RODRIGUEZ changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me 
say first that I want to commend the chairman of the committee and his 
ranking member and the entire team on the Committee on Agriculture that 
did such a good job with producing a bipartisan bill. They worked 
together with Members across this House. I want to also thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who worked on this bill. I 
believe we have here a very broadly based bill that does a number of 
very important things.
  I feel particularly good about this because this summer we had a 
western States tour that went through Utah and Idaho and Montana and 
Wyoming that met with ranchers, that looked at problems of the Bureau 
of Land Management, that looked at challenges that we face in making 
sure that family ranches and family farms can survive. I want to 
recommend to Members from all over America that we need to work on that 
kind of tour here at home. We talk about trips overseas, but I think 
frankly sometimes to get our rural Members to go to urban areas, to get 
our urban Members to go to rural areas, to get Easterners to visit the 
West and Westerners to visit the coast, this kind of educating 
ourselves about our own country and talking with people in a practical 
way about the realities of their life changes Members' understanding of 
issues that may just be theoretical here in Washington, DC.

[[Page H9763]]

                              {time}  1500

  This bill, the Forage Improvement Act, first of all, from the 
taxpayers' standpoint, raises the fee on public land footage by 36 
percent and has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as 
something which gains revenue for the American people, but it does so 
in a way that actually helps the ranchers.
  It makes sense for the rancher to pay the higher fee, because it also 
creates greater flexibility and cooperation by allowing the Secretary 
to enter into cooperative allotment plans with those ranchers who prove 
they are responsible stewards of the land, so we begin to eliminate 
some of the red tape and eliminate some of the more, frankly, Mickey 
Mouse regulations.
  It streamlines an entire set of regulations between the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, trying to give the American 
people one set of rules and regulations, rather than what are often not 
only overlapping, but conflicting sets of rules and regulations.
  It provides for the application of sound science. Again, those who 
have been looking at our public lands know that we have had a 
tremendous increase in populations of species. We have actually had, in 
some areas, an explosion of population. We need to base our 
environmental policies and our conservation policies on an approach 
that starts with sound science, with finding out from biologists and 
botanists what is really happening, and then basing it not on theories, 
not on ideologies, but on what we learn from the scientists directly 
involved.
  I believe this bill is a significant step in the right direction, and 
I believe it offers the hope of greater stability and greater sound 
economic management for family ranches across the West.
  So I again want to commend the gentleman. I think this is a very 
important building block toward a healthy agricultural base for the 
United States. I think it streamlines the government, improves the 
yield to the taxpayer, increases the opportunity for the farmer, and 
does so in a way that is environmentally sound and is based on sound 
science.
  I urge every Member to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1270, the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  The United States' 109 nuclear power plants, located in 34 states 
including my home state of Illinois, are running out of storage space 
for spent nuclear fuel. By early 1998, a quarter of our reactor sites 
will have exhausted their storage capacity.
  The passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act will result in long-
awaited changes to our Nation's used fuel management policy. This bill 
will finally begin to utilize the financial contributions of millions 
of Americans who have paid over $12 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund 
for the specific purpose of creating a national repository for spent 
fuel. Illinois has the most spent fuel of any other state--4300 metric 
tons located in seven spent storage facilities throughout the state. 
Residents of Illinois have paid more than those from any other state 
into the Nuclear Waste Policy Fund by contributing $1.4 billion. They 
deserve to have their money used for the purpose it was intended--a 
permanent and safe national repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
allows for such a removal.
  The bill replaces the mandatory flat fee of one tenth of a cent per 
kilowatt hour with a discretionary annually adjusted fee. While the 
bill permits a maximum of 1.5 tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour in 
peak disposal site construction years, it also requires the annual fee 
average no more than one tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour between 1999 
and 2010. Further, under this bill user fees cannot be diverted to 
unrelated federal programs.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill I, like many of my 
constituents, continue to be concerned about the transportation of 
nuclear waste. I am pleased this bill directs the Department of Energy 
to take all steps necessary to ensure that it is able to safely 
transport spent nuclear fuel to the repository. The Department of 
Energy also will be required to notify states through which waste will 
be transported and to provide those states with technical assistance 
and funding to train public safety officials. I support the Schaefer 
Manager's amendment which includes important provisions designed to 
minimize transportation through populated areas. The Manager's 
amendment also provides for the establishment of preferred rail routes 
for waste transportation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and I am pleased spent nuclear fuel 
will finally be removed from the temporary storage facilities in my 
state and into a safe national repository where it belongs.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Few policy decisions will 
have a more significant impact on our environment and the safety of our 
communities than this bill before us today. High-level waste is a 
daunting responsibility which must be afforded the most stringent and 
thorough deliberation. The determination to transport nuclear waste 
through 43 States, affecting 52 million people, should not be mandated 
by political motivations. The potential cost, in terms of the loss of 
life and the impact on our environment is too great to dictate 
arbitrary deadlines. If the scientific community is not yet prepared to 
support the political rhetoric coming from this floor, how can we feel 
qualified to preempt their authority and expertise?
  When we in Congress fail to meet our deadlines on appropriations 
bills, we pass a continuing resolution, and extend the time afforded us 
to pass informed legislation. With the passage of H.R. 1270, we will be 
directing the Department of Energy to abide by a deadline which they 
are not adequately prepared to implement. By doing so, we will endanger 
our environment and the constituents of almost every Member in this 
House. As conscientious legislators, we must grant the Department of 
Energy the same latitude to make informed decisions that we allow 
ourselves. To do anything less would be the ultimate form of hypocrisy.
  The scientific feasibility of the Yucca Mountain site has not yet 
been determined, and when every significant environmental and citizen 
organization is in opposition to this bill, we must at least 
acknowledge that there are serious concerns which have not been 
adequately addressed. In good conscience there is simply no way we can 
place this deadly material in untested canisters and ship it on poorly 
maintained railways, through ill prepared and unaware communities, 
until every issue is resolved and every precaution is taken. If we pass 
this legislation we have failed our community, we have failed our 
Nation, and we have failed ourselves. I strongly urge all my colleagues 
to vote against this dangerously flawed bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? If not, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nussle, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2493) to 
establish a mechanism by which the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior can provide for uniform management of 
livestock grazing on Federal lands, pursuant to House Resolution 284, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 182, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               YEAS--242

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning

[[Page H9764]]


     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cubin
     Danner
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1524

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________