[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S15572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       TRANSFER OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS TO THE STATES

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that I 
firmly believe in, more localized control of our public lands. I am 
here today to set the facts straight so that the people of Montana get 
the real story and can make their decision on two pieces of legislation 
before this body.
  Several months ago I cosponsored a bill, S. 1031, that will allow the 
Governors of States with Bureau of Land Management lands to request 
these lands be transferred to the States in which they are located. 
This bill brings control of public lands to the local government and 
out of the stone cold buildings in this town. I signed on to this bill 
as a way of addressing an issue that I have fought long and hard for 
local control and oversight of public lands by the people that live in 
and around those lands.
  This bill will provide for the Secretary of the Interior to offer to 
transfer BLM lands to the States in which they are located. The 
Governor of the State will then have 2 years in which to make the 
decision on the future of this land. A Governor can either accept the 
title transfer of these lands or they may reject this offer. If 
accepted, then within the following 10 years the Secretary will 
transfer these lands to the States.
  What this effectively does, Mr. President, is place control and 
oversight of these lands into the hands of those closest to the land. 
This puts the decisions on the use of this land into the local hands, 
and out of the hands of people that live thousands of miles away. It 
will provide a better opportunity for all Montanans to have a voice in 
the future of the public lands in the State.
  There have been many incidents in Montana where people, outside the 
State, have affected the Federal land policy of land within Montana. 
People living in downtown New York City have placed a stamp on an 
envelope and appealed decisions that effect the people in Montana. This 
goes against every promise the West ever offered to those who live 
there. Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have stood strong on one 
basic philosophy; the people of Montana know what is best for Montana. 
The best decisions are made at the local level. We do not need a 
Federal land manager in Washington to tell us how to manage our lands. 
The land managers in the State have a better understanding of the needs 
and the future of the lands in Montana.
  One of the basic misconceptions that have been expounded on by the 
opponents of this bill is that the sportsmen and other Montanans will 
lose access to the lands. This is far from the truth. Our State lands 
are open to the public, more open than the Federal Government makes 
their land.
  I must assure my fellow Montanans that I would never do anything to 
deprive them of their rights to hunt or fish or have access to our 
lands. As a founding member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus I 
have fought hard for the sportsmen across the country. The goal of the 
caucus is to provide more opportunities for all the sportsmen 
throughout the state and the nation, and I am proud to serve as the 
Senate cochair.
  As I look at this legislation I would like to ask a couple of 
questions about the future of public lands. In Montana I wonder who 
among us would like to have the future of our public lands, our access 
to those lands and use of them, determined by Federal land managers in 
Washington? How many of us would prefer to have our neighbors and 
friends, those people who live in our state determine when and where we 
can use and have access to the lands?
  I would like to return debate of this bill to the topic from which it 
has been built. Local control over local lands and access to lands by 
the people in the State where the lands are located. Multiple use of 
the lands by people who understand the concept of multiple use.
  This is not a bill that sells land to private interests or closes 
land off to the residents of a State. It is a bill which allows each 
and every State that has lands the opportunity to determine the future 
of their lands.
  I end by restating one belief that I have always held near and dear 
when talking about Montana. I stand firm in the fact that Montanans 
make the best decisions about the future of Montana.

                          ____________________