Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues the difference between this amendment and my amendment that you voted on earlier this year. In March, I offered an amendment that increased the Federal grazing fee for all permittees and those who controlled more than 2,000 animal unit months paid a higher fee. This amendment is different. I have raised the ante to provide that, unless a permittee controls 5,000 animal unit months, he is totally unaffected by my amendment. In fact, any permittee who controls less than 5,000 animal unit months pays the present grazing fee. Let me go back. What is an animal unit month? When you lease lands to graze cattle on Federal lands, you lease it by what is called an AUM, or animal unit month. That is the amount of grass it takes to feed one cow and her calf for 1 month. Some ranchers, for example those in southern Arizona and New Mexico, graze 12 months a year. However, most of the permittees only graze 4 or 5 months because there is not any grass in the winter months. So you can calculate, based on the current rate of $1.35 an AUM, how much a permittee is paying. Why is this important? It is not the money. It is the principle. Mr. President, grazing occurs on 270 million acres of our Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, all Federal lands belonging to the taxpayers of this country--270 million acres. 97 percent of the people who hold grazing permits on those 270 million acres, and there are 22,350 total operators, are unaffected by the Bumpers amendment. Even the other 3 percent, who are the really big boys, are unaffected on the first 5,000 AUM's. In other words, if you have 6,000 AUM's on your permit, for the first 5,000 you would pay the same rate you are paying right now, but on the extra 1,000 you pay whatever rate you would have to pay if you leased State lands in that particular State where the lands lie. What does that amount to? It means, for example, that the average on State lands is $5.58. In Colorado the rate is $4.04. So you pay the difference in Colorado lands for every AUM over 5,000, and you would pay $4.04. Who are these people? Who are these 3 percent that have these AUM's? I will show you. I want you to bear in mind we passed a rather harsh welfare bill here just recently. The poorest of the poor in this country took it on the chin, and yet here is the biggest corporate welfare ripoff going on in America. Who are these people that have more than 5,000 AUM's? And can they afford to pay more? If they lease State lands, they pay $5.58. If they lease private lands they have to pay $11.20. If they lease Federal lands it is $1.35. Can they afford it? Here is Zenchiku, a Japanese corporation, 40,000 acres, 6,000 AUM's. Newmont Mining Co., the biggest gold mining company in the world, 12,000 AUM's. William Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard, 100,000 acres and 9,000 AUM's. Anheuser-Busch, one of the 80 biggest corporations in America, 8,000 AUM's. So I ask you, can these people--J.R. Simplot, in Idaho, an Idaho billionaire, a multibillionaire that controls 50,000 AUM's. Can Mr. Simplot, who is worth billions, afford to pay maybe $2.50 more for all his cows above 5,000? Mr. President, this national ripoff has been going on for almost 50 years. In March the offer I made to the Senate was anything above 2,000 AUM's, and I lost by three votes. So yesterday I amended my amendment to make it 5,000 hoping I could at least cause three people to change their minds about this. It is a terrible thing for us to continue to allow.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Idaho alluded to what fair market prices are. If you live in Idaho--the Senator from Idaho mentioned he tried to establish a fair market price--the price is $1.35 AUM if you lease lands for grazing from the U.S. Government. But if you lease lands for grazing from his home State of Idaho, you have to pay $4.88 for the same thing, and in New Mexico, it is $3.54. The average that States charge for the same thing we get $1.35 for is $5.58. Why are the States so much smarter than we are? If you rent in the private sector, the national average is $11.20. The Senator from Idaho said we are trying to separate the rich from the poor. Nothing of the kind. These people I am talking about-- Anheuser-Busch, Newmont--I do not think they argue they are poor, they cannot afford to pay more, for example, than what his State would charge. If they are poor, if people who have 5,000 AUM's, which is all this amendment covers, if they are poor, who are these 97 percent below them? We do not touch anybody except people like Anheuser-Busch, Newmont Mining, William Hewlett, J.R. Simplot, the biggest corporations, wealthiest people in America. I do not blame them. I would get land for $1.35 before I would lease it from the State of Idaho for $4.88, or lease it from somebody who owned land for $11.20. All we are trying to do is say, if you want this land, fine, we will give you 5,000 AUM's at this ridiculously low price. If you go above that, you will have to pay a little more. We all know what this is. I heard all of this debate yesterday about all these poor little ranchers. The poor little ranchers out there are not touched under this amendment. They can graze 418 head every month for 12 months. Most permittees do not graze livestock on the Federal lands for 12 months. Most of them only graze about 5 months a year, so you have to have 1,000 head on most of this land before you even get touched by this. If you have 1,000 head, you ain't poor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, we single out rich people with a little higher tax rate than we do poor people.

Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator from Montana would be willing to engage in a short colloquy. I just ask this question: Is the Senator opposed to any limit? In other words, Hewlett-Packard or Anheuser-Busch maybe has 8,000 AUM's. Mr. Simplot has 50,000 AUM's. Do you have any objection to Mr. Simplot paying a grazing fee to run 50,000 animal unit months at $1.35?

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his always generous and thoughtful accommodation of other Senators. As I said, I am willing to set this amendment aside until 2:15 tomorrow at the conclusion of the few remarks I have to make here. That will give the managers and perhaps the majority leader an opportunity to badger and cajole other Members to bring amendments to the floor if they have them. We can take that up in the morning, then, debate other amendments, and come back to this at 2:15 tomorrow and maybe have 20 minutes or 30 minutes, by agreement. I just wanted to challenge some of the things I have heard from the opponents of this amendment. No. 1, the Senator from Wyoming pointed out that there are grazing associations which several members belong to under one permit or one name. The association would control more than 2,000 AUM's, and therefore they would lose the advantage of their association. The truth of the matter is, our amendment specifically exempts those people. So the statement of the Senator from Wyoming was totally incorrect. If I may, I will just read the amendment: For the purposes of this section, individual members of a grazing association shall be considered as individual permittees or lessees in determining the appropriate grazing fee. That takes care of that argument. The Senator from New Mexico said this amendment was precisely the one we voted on in March. That is totally incorrect. The amendment I offered in March on this subject provided for a $2 fee for all permittees on the first 2,000 AUM's. In this amendment, we do not raise the fees for those people who have control of less than 2,000 AUM's one penny. They are not affected at all. No. 3, the Senator from New Mexico said that people do not just graze cattle for a few months and send them to the high country, they graze them 12 months a year and therefore he concluded that 2,000 AUM's really only amounts to about 165 head. That is true if you graze 12 months. But the truth of the matter is, more permittees graze less than 12 months than graze 12 months. In the colder climates, ranchers take their cattle off of the lands so they do not have to pay even $1.35 a month for them in the winter months when there is no grass for them to eat. They put them in feed lots. They put them someplace so they do not have to pay $1.35 a month. Finally, let me just say, the Senator from Wyoming said most ranchers are not corporations--and he is absolutely right. They are not corporations, and we do not bother them. My amendment has absolutely no effect on 91 percent of the 22,350 permittees in this country. We do not touch them. It is designed to protect all these little family farmers that I have heard discussed here this afternoon. As a matter of fact, that is all I have heard from the opponents of this amendment, about how tough these little cattle farmers are having it. That is true, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. If you think Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and Newmont Mining Co., are family farmers you ought not be in the U.S. Senate. If you cannot distinguish between family farmers and the kind of people that I am trying to reach here and take off corporate welfare, you have no business being here. I daresay I have heard this grazing fee debated for 22 years. I will have been here, at the end of this year, 22 years, and I have heard this matter debated, I have heard every argument I heard this afternoon in spades, thousands of times. Every single argument is designed to obfuscate the issue. The issue is not the little farmers who are not affected by this amendment. The issue is the 9 percent of the wealthy people in this country, the big corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch, who control 60 percent. If you think it is right for 9 percent of some of the biggest corporations in America to control 60 percent of the 270 million acres of Federal lands we let out for grazing, vote against the amendment. If that is your sense of equity, if that is your sense of fairness, vote against this amendment. But for God's sake, do not come over here and make these silly, facetious arguments about these little family farmers that we are trying to bankrupt. Even Hewlett-Packard, even Anheuser-Busch, only have to pay $1.35 for the first 2,000 AUM's under my amendment. We do not even charge anybody an additional fee until you get to 2,000. And what do we charge them then? The same rate that the State charges where the land is located. The Senator from New Mexico made an argument about how this is designed, about how much more they are going to pay. What would they pay under this amendment? They would pay exactly what they have to pay if they leased lands from the State of New Mexico. If the Senator from New Mexico leased lands from the State of New Mexico, he would pay $3.54 an acre, and you do not get nearly as good a deal you get from the Federal Government, because the State reserves all water rights. In addition, the State does not put 50 percent of the rent they get back into range improvements. I know what is going on here, and you do, too. The merits of this argument have nothing to do with the way people are going to vote here. The politics of it are what is causing the debate here, and that is the reason politicians of this country have the approval of about 28 percent of the people. They know exactly how we vote and why we vote. You put this debate on national television and I promise you I will get 98 percent of the votes of the American people, but not in the U.S. Senate. In Oklahoma, you have to pay $10 for an AUM if you rented State lands. I have already shown you what the private sector charges. The private sector charges a lot more than the States do. It is only ``Uncle Sucker.'' And I am not trying to balance the budget. This does not amount to anything, so far as money is concerned. What it amounts to is fairness, and the American people have a right to expect at least minimal fairness on how their land is used. Mr. President, if I were to change my amendment to 4,000 AUM's, and I may do that, if I changed it to 10,000 AUM's, I would not get one additional vote, and you would hear the same arguments about the poor little family ranchers out there. The poor little family ranchers represent 91 percent of all the permittees. They are not touched by this. Nobody wants to get up here and say, ``I think the Government ought to be subsidizing Anheuser-Busch.'' Nobody is going to say, ``I think the Government ought to be subsidizing Newmont Mining.'' So what do we talk about? The 9 percent of the permittees who fall in that category? No. We talk about the 91 percent of the little family farmers who are not even affected by this. So the whole thing is designed to confuse, obfuscate and give people an excuse for violating their own conscience when they vote. Do you know how many people are affected in the State of North Dakota? You heard my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, a moment ago, one of the best friends I have and one of the finest Senators in the U.S. Senate. Do you know how many people in North Dakota are affected by this amendment? Thirty-four, 2 percent; 2 percent of all the ranchers in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota are affected by this amendment--2 percent--and you would think the world was coming to an end. Who are they? They are the wealthiest people who graze livestock on Federal lands. In South Dakota, you would have to pay $7 an acre to graze on State lands. I am talking about 2 percent of the farmers in Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota. What did you hear in the debate? Not about the 2 percent. You heard about the 98 percent who are totally unaffected by this amendment. Oh, it's discouraging. I've got about as good a track record, I guess, at losing amendments as anybody in the Senate. I must say that doesn't bother me much. I get frustrated. Offering an amendment like this--the merits are absolutely undebatable. Oh, you can debate it, but the truth of the matter is the merits of the amendment are unsalable. Just look at the list. In California, you are talking about 8 percent of the permittees, a total of 53. California, with 33 million people and 53 of them are affected by my amendment. Colorado, 70 permittees, or 5 percent of all the people who graze on Federal lands, 5 percent of them, 70 of them, and you would think we were debating the welfare bill here. Oregon and Washington, together, the two States together, Oregon and Washington, 136, 8 percent of all the permittees. Nevada and New Mexico are the two States that have the most. Nevada has 262 ranchers that would be affected, and then they have about 420 who wouldn't be. But getting back to the merits of the case, we are not talking about enough money. You know what, take the money out. I wish there was some way you could take the money out of it because it doesn't amount to anything. It doesn't amount to an ant hill, $8 million a year. We get $25 million a year from 22,350 permittees, and this would raise an additional $8 million. That ain't going to balance the Federal budget. I wish we would take the money completely out of it and just simply say we are not going to give anybody grazing rights on Federal lands that exceed 2,000 AUM's. That will satisfy me. Forget the $8 million. Forget the increased costs. I may offer that amendment, incidentally, something close to it, because I would like to hear people come in here and moan and groan and make the same speeches they just got through making if you set it at 10,000 AUM's. Mr. President, I have covered about everything I can think to cover. I listened to the debate a while ago of all the various Senators, the arguments made. As far as I am concerned, they are all friends of mine. They are all fine Senators. But the arguments are so specious, I cannot believe it. I will probably lose again. I think we lost by three votes last time. We will probably lose by three to five again. But I am telling you something else, completely aside from the money, completely aside from the equity. I defy anybody to stand up and say, when they are up for reelection this fall--go back home and make the same argument to the constituents that you made here on the floor, but be truthful about it. Tell those people that you voted to allow big corporations like Anheuser-Busch and Hewlett-Packard and Newmont Mining, people like Mr. Simplot out of Idaho--he is probably a fine citizen; I have nothing against him; if I were in his position and getting a couple thousand acres for little or nothing, I would probably take it, too--but go home and tell the people that you voted to defend those people on this issue, and tell them what the issue was. Tell them that 91 percent of the ranchers in this country who graze livestock on Federal lands would have been unaffected. The only people who would have been affected would be the billionaires and the big corporations. Tell them you voted to defend those people and to give them lands for $1.35 even though the States they live in would charge exponentially more. The Senator from Montana just came on the floor. The State of Montana would charge you $4.05 for an AUM in Montana. But ``Uncle Sugar'' will let you have it for $1.35. And if you charge a nickel more than that, for example, what they charge in the State of Montana, the weeping and wailing begins. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator wants Anheuser-Busch to grow?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it would be my hope, as far as voting on this is concerned, that we could vote immediately after the caucus tomorrow. I do not know what other amendments Members may wish to offer on this bill. I assume, based on what I am hearing, there are several. I just have about 5 minutes worth of remarks here and we can move on to something else, if there is something else to be taken up. I hope we will have some more amendments offered in the morning that we can dispose of and perhaps stack votes until after the caucus. I think it would redound to the benefit of both sides if we could, for example, set the amendment aside, take it up for 20 or 30 minutes of debate at 2:15 tomorrow, immediately after the caucus, 20 minutes equally divided or some such thing as that, or maybe 30 minutes equally divided, and we could vote at 2:45. I think there are several Members who may miss this vote if we do not do that.

Mr. BUMPERS. That is about how important this debate has been considered around here for the last 20 years. For private lands, $11.20 is the average of what people are paying private landowners to graze livestock on private lands. You are going to hear a lot of people state, ``Senator, do you realize cattle prices are awfully low right now?'' Yes, I know cattle prices are currently low. I used to be a cattle farmer myself. Cattle prices got so low one time in the late sixties, I heard a farmer say, ``I have already lost $100 this morning.'' I asked, ``How come?'' He said, ``One of my cows had a calf.'' I know that prices of cattle are not at an all-time low, but they are very cheap right now. But they are not as cheap as this bargain ranchers receive from the U.S. Government. Look at this. You are going to hear the argument that the States--because I am saying we should charge these wealthy corporate farmers who are getting this big ripoff from the Bureau of Land Management, they are going to say, ``Well, prices are so low now. This is no longer a big bargain.'' However, remember that the private land lease rates and the State land lease rates have continued to rise over the last 16 years. You cannot argue with the trend. In addition, how many landlords have you ever known who have said, ``I will put 50 percent of all the rent you pay me back into your apartment. You pay me $500 a month, and I will put $250 a month back into renovating your apartment and keeping it up, buying new appliances, and so on.'' But that is what we do. That is what the Federal Government does. If we received $1.35, that would be an outrage, but we turn around and put improvements, fences, everything under the shining sun back into the land. Fifty percent of $1.35 goes back onto the land. What a deal. The Government only gets 37.5 percent and the States get 12.5 percent. Mr. President, I am going to put a few charts up here to show you why I am offering this amendment. There are some people who ought not to be permitted to have huge, thousands and thousands of acres of grazing permits for $1.35 an acre per cow. As I said, my amendment would let them control 2,000 animal units at the $1.35 rate, and that is what it is under the Public Rangelands Improvement Act right now. I ask you, is a small fee increase which amounts to $8 million for all of them--I am talking about 60 percent of the lands, 60 percent of the 270 million acres of land we lease--is it too much to ask those people to pay an additional $8 million a year? And it is not the money. It is corporate welfare. How many times do you hear that term used around here in the Tax Code. So I ask you, is this small fee increase I am talking about really important to these people? Anheuser-Busch, I understand they make a good beer. I am not a beer drinker so I cannot attest to that. But in 1994, they were ranked the 80th biggest corporation in America--not just on the Fortune 500, the 80th biggest corporation in America. And what do they have? They have 8,000 AUM's, and under my amendment they would pay the State fee on the additional AUM's above 2,000, or 6,000. They would have to pay a small additional fee on the extra 6,000 above 2,000. I do not believe that would bankrupt Anheuser-Busch. You are probably talking about somewhere between $6,000 and $60,000 a year, or the equivalent of a 15-second spot on Sunday afternoon at the football game. William Hewlett, who in this body never heard of Hewlett-Packard? William Hewlett, 100,000 acres. My guess is that he is easily a billionaire. William Hewlett is probably embarrassed to pay $1.35 an animal unit month. He has permits for 100,000 acres. Why do I have this nagging suspicion that this bill would not bankrupt him? Newmont Mining Co., probably the biggest gold mining company in America--British owned, if that matters to you. I do not believe Britain would lease lands to run 12,000 cows on any of its land. I am not making the case. I love England. They have been a steadfast, reliable ally for almost 200 years. They have 12,000 animal unit months, and I am saying that is 10,000 too many without paying something extra. J.R. Simplot, the Idaho potato billionaire--billionaire--50,000 AUM's. Think about 50,000 AUM's. That could run as high as 4,000 head of cattle for 12 months at $1.35 a month. And here is another corporation, Zenchiku, 6,000 AUM's and 40,000 acres. Mr. President, I am not going to belabor this any further. I have just made the case that we are allowing the biggest corporations in America to run thousands of cattle on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands. You know something else. If a rancher leases lands for grazing on the Ouachita National Forest in the great State of Arkansas, from whence I come, you have to pay almost twice that much. If you lease grazing lands on any of the eastern forests of the United States, you have to pay $2.50 per animal unit month. They are not a big item in my State so I do not really have a dog in the fight. All I am saying is this is very little money, $8 million. It is not right for 9 percent of the wealthiest people in America to control 60 percent of all the grazing lands the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service permit to be grazed. That means the other 91 percent, whom everybody here is going to stand up and defend-- people from the Western States are going to get up and say, ``Isn't this terrible. Think about it. All these poor little old people out there trying to graze.'' I do not touch them. This amendment has nothing to do with them. They will still run cattle for $1.35 an animal unit month. I am not talking about 91 percent of the permittees. I am talking about the 9 percent who control 60 percent of 270 million acres for a ravaged price of $1.35 an animal unit month. Madam President, this amendment is favored by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Trout Unlimited, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club--and almost 260 million people. I have not talked to all of them, but I can speak for them. They favor this amendment, too. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am going to put it back up.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, grazing fees have been the subject of many hot controversial debates in this body. The reason is that our grazing fee policies are highly controversial. When I think about the farm bill that we passed last year and the proponents of the farm bill said that it was going to take the farmers off of welfare--they have been receiving these commodity payments since the memory of man runneth not, so we are going to give them some money each year for 7 years and then that is the end of all farm subsidies. All farmers will be on their own after that. No more welfare state for the farmers of this country. Mr. President, I have absolutely no objection to grazing on Federal lands. What I object to is the amount of money we receive from the people who graze livestock on public lands. Let me just start by saying that we have about 27,000 permitees in this country who graze cattle on public lands. That is on both Forest Service lands and Bureau of Land Management lands. How much land is involved? It is 270 million acres. What do we get? What does the United States Treasury get for the 270 million acres? We get $25.2 million--$25.2 million a year for 270 million acres of land. I am not quarreling about how much land is grazed. I am not quarreling with the permitting system where we grant permits to ranchers so that they can graze cattle on it. I am not even quarreling all that much about how little money we get out of it. My amendment will only add $8 million a year to that $25 million. What I am quarreling about is the welfare system that exists in the way we handle our Federal grazing lands. In short, we have 27,000 permits--I want my colleagues who are sitting in their offices or in the Chamber to listen to these figures-- 27,000 permits in this country. Some people have more than one permit, so we actually have 22,350 operators who hold permits. Here is what I object to and this is what my amendment is designed to correct: some of the biggest corporations in America, corporations from the Fortune 500, people who are billionaires--pay $1.35 per AUM [animal unit month] to graze cattle on public lands. Mr. President, I am talking about 9 percent, look at this figure on this chart, 9 percent of the 22,350 permittees, 9 percent of them hold 60 percent of the 270 million acres of land that we allow to be grazed. What does that mean? Mr. President, 91 percent of the remaining permittees control 40 percent of all of the AUM's. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to look at this chart and know that we are being grossly unfair to ourselves and we are allowing a form of corporate welfare in this country that we should never permit. What would I do? My amendment focuses on this 9 percent, the permittees controlling 60 percent of all of the AUM's. Let me digress a moment to describe what that is. An animal unit month is the amount of forage needed to graze one cow and her calf for 1 month, or one horse, or five sheep or five goats. We will talk about cows because virtually all Federal lands are grazed by cattle. Nine percent of these people, many of whom are billionaires and the largest corporations on the Fortune 500, control 60 percent of all of this land. My amendment would require these 9 percent to pay the rate that the State charges for grazing on State lands for any AUM's in excess of 2,000. My amendment allows all permittees to pay the current fee of $1.35 on the first 2,000 AUM's. Today we charge, per AUM, $1.35 a month. You can graze one cow and her calf for 1 month for $1.35 on public rangelands. Look at this. In 1981, that figure was $2.31. In 1995, it was $1.61. In 1996, it is $1.35. My amendment would require that, if a permittee controls more than 2,000 AUM's, that permittee must pay the average that the State charges for State lands for all AUM's in excess of 2,000. What's wrong with that? Somebody tell me, what's wrong with that? Why is it that Colorado leases their lands for $6.50 an AUM and poor old ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35? Why is it that even Arizona gets $2.18 per AUM and poor old ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35? Look at this--Nebraska. Nebraska gets $15.50 per AUM, and ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35. South Dakota gets $7 per AUM on State lands in South Dakota, and the State of Oklahoma gets $10. Washington State gets $4.55. The average for all of these States where Federal lands exist--the average charged by all of those States is well over $5, or between $5 and $6. That is the average. ``Uncle Sucker'' gets $1.35. I see my colleague, Senator Gregg, who just came on the floor. He is my chief cosponsor on this amendment. Our amendment allows every permittee to pay the current rate of $1.35 on their first 2,000 AUM's. We are not trying to change the basic rate. However, if you are Anheuser-Busch, or Newmont Mining, or Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard, and you have thousands of acres of land you are grazing, anything above 2,000 AUM's, you ought to be willing to pay what the State charges. Mr. President, I was discussing this amendment with my staff in my office this morning, and I said, ``You know, I used to be a trial lawyer, and I know something about juries. Sometimes I got fooled about what a jury would do. But I would not be fooled on this.'' If I were arguing this to 12 jurors, peers of mine--12 jurors, tried and true-- they would not be out to deliberate this issue in minutes. Why do you think people are always saying, ``What on God's green Earth is Congress thinking about? Why do they permit things like this?'' I will tell you why they permit it. The same reason we permit a lot of other things: They have a lot of clout. Do you see these States right here on this chart? I would hope to get a Senator or two from one of those States. However, right now I don't know who it would be. These people who control these grazing permits have a lot of political clout. I don't blame them. If I were out there running cattle on Federal lands for $1.35 a month, I can promise you I would have some strong feelings about changing the law, too. Look what has happened, Mr. President, since 1981. I invite all of my colleagues to look carefully at this. In 1981, this green line represents the average fees in these States charged to private persons. If you rent land from me--incidentally, Mr. President, until 2 years ago, I had a 400-acre farm, and I leased it for cattle grazing. From the time I was elected Governor in 1970, I never farmed again. I leased my land every year. That is a private lease, and the average is $7.88 an AUM in 1981. But in 1995, look at the trend. Private lease rates now average $11.20, which is the amount a rancher pays if he or she leases these lands in the private sector. If a rancher leased State lands in one of these States right here in 1981, he or she paid $3.22 per AUM. In 1995, he or she would have paid $5.58. That is the average of what all these States charge. But if a rancher happened to be one of those lucky people that held a permit from the Bureau of Land Management, in 1981, he or she paid $2.31. The Federal fee was decreasing. In 1991, a Federal permittee paid $1.97. In 1995, a Federal permittee paid $1.61. In 1996, it is $1.35. Here are lands being leased in the private sector, going up dramatically in the last 16 years. The grazing fees charged on lands leased in the private sector, going up dramatically since 1981. And grazing fees on lands that poor old ``Uncle Sucker'' lets out have gone down. I don't have this carried out, but it would be down about here, $1.35 an AUM. Even Senator Domenici's bill, which passed the Senate but which did not go anyplace--nor is it going anyplace--even that bill would have taken the price of AUM's up to $2.18. Now, of course, you understand that is 9 years from now, in the year 2005. No big deal. But at least Senator Domenici would recognize that $1.35 per AUM is outrageous. Here is an average of the 1995 fees. I mentioned this a while ago, but I did not show you the chart. Today, this figure is not $1.61; it is $1.35. Senator Domenici's bill was $1.97. In the State lands, the average is $5.58.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUMPERS. We object.

Mr. BUMPERS. Happy to.

Mr. BUMPERS. You understand, of course, that some of the biggest corporations, and these billionaires who own hundreds of thousands of AUM's, if they had to pay more or if they gave it up, that would make a little room for some of the little ranchers that I watch all these tears shed for around here. Would the Senator agree?

Mr. BUMPERS. So the Senator sees no inequity in the fact that the State of Montana leases its lands at $4.05 an AUM and the Federal Government receives $1.35? That doesn't bother the Senator?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. I take it the answer is no, there is not any limit that is too high for the Senator to oppose?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I take it from the Senator's comments that the fact that Montana gets $4.05 an acre and the U.S. Government gets $1.35 an acre, the Senator sees nothing wrong with that. In the private sector in Montana, people who lease private lands to ranchers receive $11 per AUM. The Federal Government gets $1.35, and the Senator sees no inequity in that. Amendment No. 5353, As Modified

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment originally required that anybody who held more than 2,000 AUM's would have to pay whatever the State charged for lands in that State on any AUM's in excess of 2,000. I have the very distinct impression it would not make any difference, as the Senator from Montana just confirmed, how high the limit went. I think he would find it difficult, if not impossible--I detect impossible--to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I will give everybody a chance because they say 2,000 AUM's is only 166 head. So we will get it up to 400 with 5,000 AUM's. That is what my modification does. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.