[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       CLINTON RANGE REFORM PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas] is recognized during morning business for 4 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, there is a war in the West. The 
previous speaker talked some about the complexities of the Clinton 
health care plan. Let me tell you that the complexities of the Clinton 
range reform plan are equally as destructive and difficult. I came just 
this weekend from another appearance of Secretary Bruce Babbitt in the 
West to talk about rangeland reform. This was hearing that was held by 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce, Senator Wallop. It brought 
out about 250 family farmers and ranchers in Wyoming to talk about 
their future on public lands. It brought about people who were talking 
abut the opportunity to stay in business as opposed to going out of 
business.
  Under the plan, the Agriculture Department, FmHA, has indicated that 
about 50 percent of the borrowers that are on public lands would go out 
of business under this plan.
  About 50 percent of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government, more 
than that in most Western States, as a matter of fact. We have some 29 
million acres that belongs to the Federal Government, most of it in the 
13 Western States.
  These lands have to be used in multiple use if we are to have an 
economic future in the West and they are designed for multiple use. 
These are not National Parks, these are not wilderness areas, these are 
BLM lands, these are the lands that were left after the land was taken 
up in homestead. These were residual lands that, frankly, were not 
usable.
  In the early days the owners came in who homesteaded and they 
homesteaded along the creek bottoms and they homesteaded along the 
better lands, and these were lands that were left, frankly. No one 
wanted them. Originally the BLM Act said they would be managed pending 
disposal and they were not disposed of, and I have no quarrel with that 
particularly, although I would like to see them transferred to the 
States. The fact is they are for multiple use and the war in the West 
goes on, despite a letter to the editor from the staff director of the 
majority in the House, which says that these are barons, mineral barons 
and land barons.
  I wish he could have been with me, these are barons all right. These 
are family barons. These are people who support their communities, 
who's downtown businesses depend upon the basic tax base of the 
communities, depend upon the multiple use of these lands.
  The most egregious example, it seems to me, is the over effort in the 
area of rangeland reform where we have an expansive solution to a 
relatively modest problem.
  Overgrazing conditions can be taken care of under the law. The fact 
is the land is in better shape than it has been for years. BLM's own 
figures shows that.
  Hunting and fishing, we have a great many more antelope, deer, elk, 
and mountain sheep than we have had before.
  We need to do something about riparian grazing. We can do that now. 
We have this expansive reform as is the case in this administration of 
every change that they want to make. They call it some reinvention or 
reform, or some kind of revolution. It does not require a revolution. 
It requires sensible management of resources.
  It is not just grazing. It has to do with timber, it has to do with 
oil, and gas, and trona, soda ash, it has to do with water. It has to 
do with endangered species. Basically and most of all it has to do with 
the multiple use of resources that belong to all of the people.
  We can provide for family ranches to continue to graze those lands. 
We can provide for timber cutting which is required to have healthy 
forests. We can continue in an environmentally sound way to have 
exploration and production of oil and gas. We need to do this. This is 
not just a matter of grazing. This is a national matter of the best 
use, the best use of our natural resources.
  So there is a war in the West, and it continues despite the 
protestations of the administration. It continues despite the delays 
which are put in, interestingly enough, after November, which may have 
some impact on Democrats running in the West. There is a war in the 
West.
  There is a war in the West and it is a war on the economic future of 
people who live in the Western States and all of the impacts it has on 
infrastructure and education, and children.
  I think we need to use those resources effectively. We need to use 
them in a balanced way and we can do this and continue to have an 
economic future.

                          ____________________