THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

I am not going to promise we can do all that Bill wants done and give tax cuts and buy down the debt because we cannot do all those things. Most important, we should not. I hope we can give

[Page: S130]  GPO's PDF

   I thank my colleague from Wyoming for the liberty he has allowed me in the use of time, and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho. Certainly, we share all those thoughts and ideas. I want to expand in the few minutes we have remaining in our allotment of time the public land issue the Senator mentioned.

   Public lands, of course, are very important to those of us in the West. As was pointed out, 1 out of every 4 acres in this country is owned by the public. My State of Wyoming is 50-percent owned by the Federal Government. Idaho is some 63-percent owned by the Federal Government. Nevada is 83-percent owned by the Federal Government. The management of these lands then, rightfully, is a public issue and one with which all of us need to be concerned.

   It would not be a surprise to know that some of the issues with regard to the management of those lands are seen differently by the people who live there and who have access to the lands as opposed to those who equally own them and live many miles away. The fact is it is a public issue and it deserves public input.

   There is a system that has been set up by the Congress and happens to be followed by everyone, except the administration, which allows for public input. It requires that all ideas be set forth so that they can be considered and there can be statements made on all these issues. Sometimes it takes an excruciatingly long time to do it, but nevertheless it is a vital concept.

   Now, of course, we have a different thing going on in the administration. They call it a land legacy, an effort by the President in these remaining months to leave a Teddy Roosevelt land legacy for himself and his administration.

   In so doing, he has done a number of things quite different from what we have seen done before and, quite frankly, has created a good deal of controversy, particularly in the West.

   There are different kinds of lands, of course, set out for different purposes. I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee, so I am very interested in that. I grew up right outside of Yellowstone National Park. As you know, Wyoming has several famous national parks. We are very proud of them. Those lands were set aside for a particular purpose. They were set aside because they were unique and they were different. They are used for a limited number of purposes.

   We have the forest reserve which, by its nature, was set aside, was reserved for special uses. Although there are many, part of them are wilderness areas set aside by the Congress in specific acts that limit the use, and properly so, in my view.

   Then there is the Bureau of Land Management, which has a very large section of lands. Those lands, rather than having been set aside for some particular purpose, were generally what was left after the Homestead Act was completed. They were sort of residual lands that were managed, first of all, by a different agency but now by the Bureau of Land Management--clearly multiple use lands. They are used for many things.

   These are the kinds of things we have. We have seen suddenly a rush for doing something in public lands. The system being used now by the administration completely ignores the Congress, which should have a say in these kinds of things, and as a matter of fact generally ignores people. One of them is the 40 million acres of roadless areas nationwide that were declared by the Forest Service.

   Frankly, I have no particular quarrel with the idea of taking a look at roadless areas in the forests, but each forest has a very extensive, very expensive, very important forest plan, a process that has been gone through that requires studies, that requires proposed regulation, that requires statements, that requires hearings. That is where those things ought to be done rather than having one EIS over the whole Nation, not for the Secretary of Agriculture to just come out and declare that there are going to be 40 million acres, and not even knowing exactly where they are.

   As a matter of fact, we had a hearing with the Secretary and with the Chief of the Forest Service in which they could tell us very little about it.

   Another is the $1 billion from offshore oil royalties that the administration has asked to be given to it to spend, without the approval of Congress, to acquire additional lands.

   As the Senator from Idaho said, in the Western States the acquisition of new lands is not the issue. The care of those lands, the investment in parks, the investment in forests is where we ought to be, in my view.

   The Antiquities Act, which is a legitimate act, has been on the books since 1905. Teddy Roosevelt put it there. As a matter of fact, Devils Tower, in my State, was put in by the Antiquities Act and was part of Teton National Park. But times have changed, and we understand now the President is going to have 18 different land areas changed in their designation without, really, any hearings--we had one last year in Utah that the Governor and the congressional delegation did not even know about until it was done. That is not the way to do these

   kinds of things.

   They have a proposal to change the way the Land and Water Conservation Fund is allocated. It was set up by Congress to go half and half--State and national. Now the administration wants to spend all that money for land acquisition.

   BLM now has a nationwide roadless plan in which there is very little, if any, input. They have the Clean Water Action Plan, which is something done by EPA, which has to do with the control of water, which is really a way of controlling land.

   Each of these things probably has some merit, but they ought to be examined. They ought to go through the system. They ought to be talked about. They ought to be agreed to, rather than imposed unilaterally by an administration.

   We can preserve public lands, and, indeed, we should: they are a legacy for us. We can have multiple use on those lands. We need them for the communities. We can have public involvement. That is the way it ought to be. We can have cooperating agency agreements in which the State and the local communities ought to have a real voice in doing this.

   I hope we do not politicize public lands simply because it is an election year, to the distraction of public use, to the distraction of the economies that surround them. The purpose of public lands is to preserve the resources and give a chance for the owners to enjoy it. The owners, of course, are the taxpayers.

   It is an issue on which I think we will have more and more input throughout the year. I hope we do.

   Mr. President, our time is nearly expired. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THOMAS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. GRASSLEY. I think we are in morning business, right?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents