Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator yielding the floor?

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield such time as he may wish to use.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to open my remarks by simply saying that this amendment is not vindictive, it is not designed to put small ranchers out of business, and indeed it would not. I consider it to be an eminently fair amendment. Mr. President, for the benefit of people who do not deal with this issue and really do not understand what this debate is about, let me start off by saying there are 270 million acres of land that literally belong to the taxpayers of America. Most of it, admittedly, is in the western States. However, some of it is in my State and your State. Mr. President, there are currently 270 million acres of land that are subject to grazing permits. How many permits? Twenty-two thousand. How much money do we get? Mr. President, we receive $25 million and change. Therefore, we are not here debating money. That is really not the issue here. There is not much difference in the amount of money between the bill of the Senator from New Mexico and the Bumpers amendment. I will tell you, however, where the difference is. The difference is in fairness. The difference is in who pays the fee and what happens to the money. Now, the principal thrust of my amendment and the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], is to protect-- let me repeat, to protect--small ranchers. That is who the Senator from New Mexico says he wants to protect. He has a lot of small ranchers in New Mexico that are totally dependent for their livelihood on grazing. I want them protected. I do not want my intelligence insulted by continually talking about small ranchers when 9 percent of the permittees, bear this in mind, there are 22,000 permittees and 9 percent of those permittees control 60 percent of the AUM's. What is an AUM? It is an animal unit month. It is the amount of forage needed to graze one horse, one cow, five sheep, or five goats for 1 month. An AUM is the basis on which farmers or ranchers are charged for grazing their cattle. They may start off with 200 head and they may keep 200 head for 6 months and they will pay, today, in 1996, $1.35 for each month for each of those 200 head that graze on Federal land. If the rancher sells off 100 head on the first of July, his rent is cut in half. I was a drugstore cowboy, among other things before I came to the Senate. I had 125 cows and maybe 80 calves.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, there will be an hour and 15 minutes following the close of the second vote tomorrow.

Mr. BUMPERS. OK. Fine. I accept that.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield for that purpose. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. BUMPERS. For what purpose?

Mr. BUMPERS. They were raised on private land. However, other people in Arkansas currently graze on Forest Service lands. Moreover, fees paid on eastern Forest Service lands, including Arkansas, are currently calculated using a formula that is different than the western Forest Service lands. The formula for eastern Forest Service lands is based on fair market value and is currently $2.50 per AUM. Additionally, any new or vacant permits on eastern Forest Service lands are competitively bid. When I was elected Governor of my State, I charged five times as much per AUM for my farm lands as the Federal Government receives now. I did not just fall off a turnip truck when it comes to cattle. I raised cattle for several years and I know something about it. I enjoyed some good times and some bad times. I will never forget back in the late 1960's, the story about two farmers meeting. My area of Arkansas is cattle and poultry farming. Two farmers met in the restaurant. One said, ``I lost $100 already this morning.'' The other said, ``How on Earth did you do that?'' He said, ``My cow had a calf.'' That is how bad prices were for cattle. Back to the point, not only do 9 percent of all BLM permittees control 60 percent of the AUM's, according to GAO, 2 percent of the 22,000 permittees control 50 percent of all the land. Who are they? I will come back to that in just a moment. When I begin providing you with a list of the kind of people, and they are not exactly small ranchers, who control hundreds of thousands of acres of land and run thousands of acres of cattle, you will see that we are not talking about that small rancher that everybody in the Senate wants to protect. We are talking about billionaires, millionaires, and big corporations. What do they receive? At this very moment, they may be in a State that charges up to $10 per AUM for grazing cattle on State lands. They may have to pay $10 for per AUM on State lands. But if they get a permit from ``Uncle Sucker'' they pay $1.35 per AUM. Here are some of the fees that the States charge. I have been through this so many times on mining, and it is the same old story. Here is what the U.S. Government receives, $1.35 per AUM; Arizona, $2.16; Colorado, $6.50; Idaho, $4.88; Montana, $4.05; Nebraska, $15.50; New Mexico, $3.54; Oklahoma, $10; Oregon, $2.72; South Dakota, $7; Utah, $2.50; Washington, $4.55; and Wyoming, $3.50. Why in the name of God does the Federal Government charge $1.35 per AUM? What do the States know that we do not know? I tell you what the States know. They know what the value of their land is. The argument will be made, ``Senator Bumpers, you do not seem to understand the way BLM and the Forest Service hassle our people. It is just terrible how put upon they are.'' I know there is some truth to that. I know that some of these bureaucrats of the BLM and the Forest Service can be overbearing. I also know that most of those ranchers do not want them around, period. Now, the reason I am standing here is twofold: No. 1, I want a grazing bill that is fair, that protects small ranchers and no. 2, I want a grazing bill that restores the rangelands of this country. Madam President, I want you to look at this very carefully on why the States are so much smarter than we are when it comes to leasing their lands for cattle grazing. Even this Senator had enough sense not to charge $1.35 when folks were standing in line to pay me $10. Why do we continue to do this? I want you to look at this chart. Since 1981--incidentally, Madam President, in 1981, the U.S. Government was getting $2.31 for an animal unit month. The current PRIA formula takes cattle prices into consideration. The cattle prices are very low right now. That is one of the reasons that I want to make sure that we protect the small ranchers. They are having a terrible time surviving right now. It is interesting to look at the trend of the Federal fee level--we received $2.31 in 1980. In 1996, 15 years later, we are receiving $1.35. That is $1 less per AUM than we received in 1980. What is the trend with regard to fees charged on State lands? The States are not dummies. They did what any prudent landowner would do. They have raised their rates from an average of $3.22 per AUM in 1980 to $5.58 per AUM in 1995. That translates into approximately a 50- percent increase. What is the trend of the private sector? They are smarter than the States or the Federal Government, either one. In 1981, they were receiving an average of $7.83 per animal unit month on private lands. Today they are receiving an average of $11.20 per AUM. Look at poor old Uncle Sucker. Not much money involved, I repeat, but a big principle. Why would some of these billionaires not be clamoring for Federal lands? They did not get rich by being stupid. They are mining the Federal Treasury, too. Who are they? One of my favorites, Newmont Mining. Talk about somebody mining the Federal Treasury. Newmont Mining is one of the biggest gold producers in the country, mining on lands that they bought from the Federal Government for $2.50 an acre. They are mining billions of dollars' worth of gold on it and not paying the U.S. Government one red cent. They are not just satisfied with owning gold lands. They want some of these grazing permits. So what do they have? They control 12,000 AUM's. What are we doing? We are charging $1.35 per AUM to Newmont Mining Co., one of the wealthiest companies in the world. Who else? Incidentally, here is a good one. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard. They started a good company. I noticed a while ago that their stock went down today. They are a big computer manufacturer. Everybody knows Hewlett-Packard. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard graze cattle on nearly 100,000 acres in Idaho. Why? Because it adjoins a ranch they own. Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard pay $1.35 per AUM on that Federal land. Why can Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard not pay a fee that is at least a little closer to fair market value than $1.35 per AUM. There is a company called Nevada First Corp. How many AUM's do you think Nevada First has? They have 56,000. They are a subsidiary of the Garvey Industries Corp., with a net worth of $80 million. Then there is Anheuser-Busch. Everybody knows who Anheuser-Busch is. Sunday afternoon, I was coming back on an airplane, and my staff had given me a memo on this debate and a newspaper article about how much public land Anheuser-Busch controlled with grazing permits. I asked the gentleman sitting on my left, ``Do you work for Anheuser-Busch?'' He said, ``No.'' I said, ``In that case, I will let you read this.'' He handed it back to me and said, ``Surely, you are not surprised by that.'' I said, ``No, I am not surprised.'' We went on our separate ways. Anheuser-Busch, which ranks 80th in the top 500 corporations in America, holds four permits that total 8,000 AUM's. I have nothing against Anheuser-Busch. I have been a Cardinal fan all my life. That was all we could get on the radio when I was a kid. They are a good corporation, as far as I know. Then there is an organization named Bogle Farms. Bogle Farms has 40,000 AUM's on two permits in New Mexico. In 1991, their net worth was $15 million. Dan Russell--I do not know these people--currently holds 10 permits covering 200,000 AUM's. The issue is not whether or not he is a rancher. The issue is whether, if he controls 200,000 AUMs, we should subsidize his cattle at the same rate that small ranchers pay.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it is immaterial to me when we vote. We can vote this evening or possibly tomorrow. I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement at this moment. If the Senator from Montana would like to proceed, my chief cosponsor, Senator Jeffords, will be here in about 2 or 3 minutes. If the Senator wants to proceed, that is fine.

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

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object --and I know the Senator from New Mexico did not prepare this--but the first vote which is to occur at 2:00 p.m. is supposed to be after the two votes. But it anticipates an hour and 15 minutes. So I ask that it be changed to an hour and 15 minutes following the close of the second vote.

Mr. BUMPERS. Second, there is one correction there. The first vote should be on the Jeffords amendment to the Bumpers amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Well, obviously, I cannot object to that. You have a perfect right to move to table.

Mr. BUMPERS. The reason I have strong objection to that--and I am going to talk a great deal about that--is that the Jeffords amendment is an amendment with which I agree. I like it. I like it in some respects better than I do my own. I want for the people of this body to understand that if they vote to table the Bumpers amendment, they will not get a chance to vote on the Jeffords amendment, which I think most of them would like to do.

Mr. BUMPERS. I would not want to preclude the possibility of making a tabling motion prior to the Jeffords amendment prior to that time. I would like to add that to the unanimous consent agreement. Madam President, to ensure the Record is clear, I would like to make this statement as a part of the unanimous consent agreement; that is, that at any time prior to the expiration of the hour and 15 minutes, or immediately thereafter--Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. No. The amendment will be the subject of an hour and 15 minutes of debate tomorrow. Does that answer the Senator's question?

Mr. BUMPERS. We will debate tonight as long as anybody wants to say anything on this, and then we will shut the Senate down as soon as we run out of debate. Amendment No. 3557 withdrawn

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Jeffords amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I do not want to belabor these rich folks too long. The last one that I want to point out to for the edification of my colleagues is the gentleman by the name of J. R. Simplot from the great State of Idaho. He is 86 years old and has obviously been a great entrepreneur. I do not know a thing in the world about him. I assume he is a very fine man. In 1991, Forbes magazine identified him as one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. Furthermore, he is on the cover of Fortune magazine in November 1995. Here is the magazine, if anybody would care to look at it. His sales that year were $3 billion. And Mr. Simplot, to his credit and to his ingenuity, controls 50,000 AUM's in Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada. Finally, a Japanese named Kaiku controls 6,000 AUM's on 40,000 acres of Federal land in Montana. What does our amendment do? I will not belabor the point because it is very simple. We make a distinction between that group of people that I showed you a moment ago. Look at this chart, colleagues. We make a distinction in what people in this category pay, and what people in this category pay. Ninety-one percent of the permittees under our amendment will pay just a little bit more than they would pay under the Domenici proposal, and in some years less than the Domenici proposal. Ninety-one percent of them will pay just a few cents more than Senator Domenici's bill requires. This other 9 percent, which control 60 percent of all the AUM's, will pay either the same amount as the small ranchers, plus 25 percent, or a weighted average of the State fees charged in the State in which the permit is located, whichever is higher. That is as fair as a proposition could be. You can accept this amendment and agree that these people have taken advantage of a generous Congress who passed this law and gave these permits to people thinking they were helping poor ranchers make a living. And now we find 60 percent of this land and AUM's are controlled by the richest people of America. Even under our proposal, to require these rich people to pay the weighted average of what the State charges, will still be in most instances around 100 percent less than what the private sector charges for grazing. Madam President, why are we defending a system that promotes the use of the public lands for the wealthiest when it was intended for the poorest? Because it is an old law and we just simply have not been able to turn it loose and make it work the way it was supposed to. When I came here in 1975, I found out that the Federal Government was leasing Federal lands for oil and gas leasing by lottery, like a bingo game. If you won the lottery, you got the land for $1 an acre. When I began to raise questions about it, they said, ``We are trying to make sure those little mom and pop operations get some of this Federal land.'' We started checking the little mom and pop operations, and guess what was happening? They were retirees in Florida. They were elderly people who were snapping up these lottery chances because they were advertised all over America by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. And if they did happen to win the lottery, what do you think they did with it? They took it to Exxon, and if Exxon thought it had potential, they paid them a fortune for it. That is what we did for mom and pop operators. We made people, who did not know what a drilling rig looked like, wealthy because we refused to change that old law. I just made my mining speech yesterday so I am not going to make that again, but how many times have I heard that old story about those poor little old mom and pop mining companies out there? It turns out, as I began to examine it, that we are helping the biggest corporations in the world--not the United States, in the world. Now, here is deja vu. If someone argues that the State's rates are too high, I will answer that they have people standing in line wanting these permits. And when then they say, ``But that mean old BLM hassles us. They make us sort of take care of the land.'' But you know something else that the BLM and the Forest Service do? They take 50 percent of the rent and put it back into the land. How many landlords do you know that take 50 percent of the rent they receive and put it back into improvements of your apartment or your house? Fifty percent goes back to improve the very land where these cattlemen are running their cattle. Madam President, the Public Rangelands Management Act was passed in 1978. As I stated earlier, the fee under that formula has declined. In 1980, the fee was $2.36 and in 1996, the fee is $1.35. Our amendment would use the same formula and simply raise the minimum. My amendment requires 91 percent of the deserving ranchers to pay very little more than they are paying right now. In 1999, our rate would go to $2 and under Senator Domenici's amendment the fee would be $1.85--15 cents difference. Who is going to quibble about that? However, under our amendment these people, the wealthiest people in America, would have to pay more. Madam President, two quick points, and I will conclude and let others speak who wish to. Karl Hess, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, which is not exactly a citadel of liberalism, no bleeding heart liberals over at Cato, simply believes that the Government ought to get fair value for its assets. Here is a statement by Mr. Hess: Domenici's bill is bad for ranchers, bad for public lands, bad for the American taxpayer. It will not improve management of public lands and it will not be a fix for the hard economic times now faced by ranchers. What it will do, however, is deepen the fiscal crisis of the public land grazing program by plunging it into an ever-deepening deficit. If western ranchers insist on supporting this bill and the additional costs associated with it, they should be prepared to pay the price. Tagging the majority of Federal grazing fees to state grazing rates is one essential step in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have no objection. I was under the impression that we were going to recess at 12:30. I thought I would speak on the Murkowski Greens Creek amendment prior to the recess.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, was there some kind of an agreement about time?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I understand current procedures for such purchases require an inspector of the National Marine Fisheries Service to be present at all times during processing. Would the Senator's amendment prohibit the presence of any Federal inspector during processing for these products in order to ensure contractual compliance related to quality standards?