[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1319-H1323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          USE OF PUBLIC LANDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as you know, my home State is the State of 
Colorado. My actual home is located high in the Colorado Rockies. I 
wanted to take a few minutes today to address my colleagues on an issue 
that is absolutely critical for the Western United States, and that is 
the issue of public lands. I think to understand the issue of public 
lands, you have to have some kind of historical perspective of how the 
West is unique, not only in its water, and I will talk about the water 
here in a few moments, but also in the public lands that are entrusted 
by the people of this country to the Federal Government.
  In the early days when the settlement of the West was the crucial 
goal of this country, the bureaucrats in Washington, DC and the 
Government encouraged settlers to go West and go beyond the mountains. 
As they got to the mountains, because of the fierce winters we have, 
because of the mountainous terrain, because of the high altitudes, 
because of the difficulty in farming and ranching at those high 
altitudes, not too many people were encouraged to settle, say, for 
example, in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.

                              {time}  2130

  Instead they went around the Rocky Mountains and went on to the 
States of California and so on. And in many of these States in the 
Midwest, such as the State of Kansas, you are able to, on a very few 
number of acres, produce a great number of crops or run many, many more 
cattle than you can per acre in the high Rocky Mountains.
  So what happened was as time went on they discovered that there were 
people interested in going into the Rocky Mountains, but they felt that 
they still needed to provide a governmental incentive to move into the 
mountains. They knew that they could not do the land grants that they 
had done in some of the other States because to give that, to give a 
large enough amount of land for a settler out in the Rocky Mountains to 
really make it would be many, many hundreds of acres. And they felt, 
the Government at that time felt that that would be too much acreage in 
order for that to work. It was not going to be politically sellable. So 
what they did instead was had what they called public lands or use of 
public lands, entrust the public lands to the people of that area for 
the concept of multiple use. 

[[Page H1320]]

  That is a very crucial issue in today's evaluation of public lands. 
When I grew up in the Colorado mountains, every national forest sign 
said, and the Federal lands signs said, as you entered into Federal 
property, a land of many uses, multiple uses, a land of many uses. 
Unfortunately, today we have some more radical groups in this country, 
some of the more very, very liberal groups that want to replace that 
sign ``a land of many uses'' with the sign called ``no trespassing.''
  Are these groups well-intended? I think the answer to that question 
is perhaps yes in some cases. But are they well educated on the issue 
of multiple use and how critical it is for the everyday lifestyle of 
people of the West? And the answer to that is no, they are not well 
educated on that issue, although they profess to be well educated, when 
they try and lobby back here to take away the concept of multiple use 
as we know it in the West.
  Now, if you asked the question to most people, give me some examples 
of multiple use, they are going to say to you, well, grazing, the 
cattlemen, that is what they use Federal lands for, for grazing, or 
maybe the ski areas, they have ski areas on Federal lands 
for recreation. But ask them to give you some more examples of what we 
in the West use that land for, that Federal land under the multiple use 
concept. The answer really is pretty common sense.

  Every drop of water, for example, in the Third Congressional District 
of Colorado either comes across Federal lands, is stored on Federal 
lands or originates on Federal lands. There are a lot of other uses of 
Federal lands and the use of public lands that we have out in Colorado. 
All of our highways go across public lands. All of our electricity, the 
power lines come across public lands. The cable TV, the telephone, our 
food, there are a lot of cattle that are run out there. But the primary 
uses of public lands are the uses which I have just said: water, 
transportation, communication.
  And when some people back here in the East take on the position that 
we should not ever set foot again on public lands or that the use of 
public lands should be severely limited, I am not sure they understand 
how critical it is for the average working Joe and the average working 
Jane out there in the West to have multiple use on public lands.
  Now, do we need to have a balance on public use and on multiple use 
of these public lands? The answer is clearly yes. Sometimes it really, 
really can irritate you when you are from the West and you hear someone 
that comes up and pretends that because you live in the West, that you 
somehow mistreat the lands, the lands that we have to entrust for the 
next generation and the many, many generations beyond that. Those of us 
in the West take particular pride in the way we treat those lands.
  Of course, we do not want those lands savaged; of course, we do not 
want those lands destroyed. But we do think we have a right, for 
example, to take water off the Federal lands, to have drinking water, 
to have water for our crops, to have water for our small towns out 
there in the West. That water comes or originates or is stored upon 
public lands.
  The State of Colorado, let me address water here for a moment, the 
State of Colorado is somewhat unique in this Nation. Colorado is the 
only State in the United States where all of our water runs out of the 
State. We have no natural water that runs into Colorado. Water is 
crucial for us. Back here in the East, as I understand it, a lot of 
States' problem with water is trying to get rid of it. The big issues 
back here is what you do in flood stages, what you do for drainage. In 
our State, it is how you store water for future use.
  In Colorado, we do not have heavy rainfall. It is really quite an 
arid State. Instead what we depend upon is a 60- to 90-day period of 
time called the spring runoff. The snows that accumulate, in fact they 
are accumulating as I now address you in the State of Colorado, these 
snows accumulate in many places over 100 feet. And during that period 
of time called the spring runoff, which last 60 to 90 days, that water 
melts down, comes off the mountains and heads out of Colorado. In fact, 
the State of Colorado, I think, supplies water for 23 other States and 
for the country of Mexico. Because we do not have heavy rainfall, we 
have to depend, we have to get our water during that 60- to 90-day 
period of time, which obviously means you have got to capture some of 
that water, you have to have the ability to store that water, and be 
able to have that water for the remaining balance of the year where you 
do not have the spring runoff. And that is many of our storage projects 
in Colorado, if not all of our storage projects in Colorado deal with 
Federal public lands.
  If we followed the theory or the concept or the order of some of 
these radical groups who want no trespassing signs put up on the public 
lands, we would not be able to store our water, and these people know 
that. A lot of these people know that. That is their goal.
  In fact, a lot of times it is to the advantage of the downstream 
States to put whatever kind of restrictions there are on the upstream 
States so that they get more water flowing their way. The water in 
Colorado that we do not utilize, because we do not have the capacity to 
store it, goes on to other States that would like that water, that may 
be short of that water.
  Water is our largest, besides our people, water is probably one of 
our largest assets in Colorado. And it all ties in with this multiple 
use of public lands. If you look at the history of Colorado, public 
lands has played a very strong part of the foundation of that State. 
Whether it be the minerals and the gold mining of the 1860's, clear on 
up to the oil shell exploration of the 1970's, that is one aspect of 
multiple use that has to do with the building of the State of Colorado.
  But let us talk about another point, not the mineral extraction that 
has happened over the history of Colorado. Let us talk about the 
recreation of Colorado or the beauty of Colorado. A lot of people in 
Colorado make their living there because of the people and the tourism 
that come to visit these great, wonderful public lands. We do not want 
to destroy that. Tourism is our No. 2 industry, maybe even our No. 1 
industry in the State of Colorado. We want to preserve that. And how do 
you preserve that? You have to preserve the beauty of the State.
  Sure, some of our tourists come to Colorado to visit their relatives 
or come to the Rockies to visit their relatives, but primarily our 
visitors come out there to see the beauty of those mountains, to ski 
our fresh powder, to hunt there during hunting season, to enjoy river 
rafting down our rivers right after the spring runoff. So we would be 
following ourselves if we really were out there to try and destroy what 
the good Lord had given to us, and that is the beauty of the Rocky 
Mountains and the beauty of the West.
  But by gosh, we have every right to stand in front of you here today 
and say, do not be so blind when we talk about multiple use that you 
take the concept of multiple use and dump it into the trash. It is too 
valuable. It is too valuable for the lifestyle of the frontiersmen in 
the West. That is how it came about, a land of many uses.
  Take a look at the native Americans. The true native Americans out 
there in the Rocky Mountains or in the plains of Kansas that went into 
those mountains during the time that the early settlers had not even 
approached it. Take a look at the uses they made of those lands. They 
hunted on those lands. They had their religious services on those 
lands. They were born on those lands. They died on those lands. The 
heritage that exists all comes about or all ties in to that all-
important concept of multiple use.
  So my message to my colleagues here today is that the people of 
Colorado, the people of the Rocky Mountains and the people of the West 
in general support very strongly the protection and the guardianship of 
those public lands. We know they are not our lands. We know those lands 
belong to the people of the United States. Although we would like to 
say they are our lands, and many times we actually do, when we are out 
there and we infer that the lands within the State of Colorado belong 
to the people of the State of Colorado, we know those public lands do 
not belong, for example, to the people just in that State. They belong 
to all 50 States.

  We know that we have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of 
America and to the future generations of America to protect that land. 
But that concept comes down to protection of that 

[[Page H1321]]
land to one key word; that key word is balance. We have got to maintain 
a balance in the utilization and in the protection of the public lands 
of the West. It is very easy, very easy for people who have not visited 
the West, who do not understand the history of the West, who do not 
understand the people of the West, who have not studied their history 
in regard to the settlers and in regard to the politics of the time 
that encouraged the railroads to go out there, that encouraged the 
settlers go West, young man, go West.
  Not everybody has taken a look at that. But the people who want to 
voice an opinion on the utilization of those public lands in my humble 
opinion have an obligation to educate themselves on those issues, have 
an obligation to come out and visit the State.
  The Third Congressional District of Colorado, that is one of the 
largest congressional districts in the United States. It is the 
district I represent. It includes almost all of the mountains of 
Colorado. It includes all of the ski areas in Colorado. So if you have 
ever skied in Colorado, you have skied in the Third Congressional 
District of Colorado.
  You can fly literally in a small plane, you can fly for hours and 
hours across that district and not come to the other end of it. You can 
fly for an awful long time and not even see another human being out on 
the ground, or every once in a while you will see a cabin up there in 
those mountains. We have protected those mountains. Now, clearly once 
in a while you find people that abuse, and those kinds of people we 
should have a zero tolerance level for.
  For example, we had a disaster called Summitville in Colorado. That 
was a disaster, that was mismanagement, not only by the agency that 
oversaw the actual mining project but by the people that conducted that 
project. We should have zero tolerance of that. We do not want it. You 
do not want it. We do not want people that misuse the public lands that 
are entrusted to future generations. We do not want those people any 
more than you do. But when you make the decisions back here about 
multiple use or about public lands, take into consideration the long-
term impacts of what your decision is going to create. How will it 
alter the lifestyle of the people of the West? Every decision we make 
back here that deals in any slight way with public lands will impact, 
will impact on a long-term basis the lifestyle of the people of the 
West.
  I am confident that the people of the West can manage these lands as 
they have for centuries, as they have with modern techniques of 
management and as they can in the future with abilities to take care of 
that land. We can do it with balance. There is nothing wrong with a 
well-managed ski area high in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, a ski area 
that mitigates the environmental impacts that it may create.
  If you take a look at the actual footprint or the area impacted by a 
ski area, I think you will find that under the right kind of guidance, 
under the right kind of environmental regulations, which all of us 
support, you can have a protected environment. You can have a thriving 
ski community. And you can have people who have the opportunity to live 
in that ski area because they have jobs as a result of that skiing 
opportunity, and finally many people across the country can enjoy 
skiing in the Rocky Mountains as a result of that ski area.
  You can do it in balance. It is the same thing with water storage 
projects. We have some groups back here in the East that will never 
find a water storage project that they can support. Not because the 
project does not make sense. You can have water projects out there that 
make sense. But these groups will try and convince many other people 
who live outside the West that these water storage projects for some 
reason devalue our public lands and the public lands for the future of 
this country.
  It is about time that some of those groups be brought to their 
senses, that some of those groups finally put into their vocabulary a 
word that very few of them have ever really thought about, and that is 
called balance.

                              {time}  2145

  At the same time we must serve notice to all people who enter the 
mountains and all people who come into the West, if you have come out 
there to take an unfair advantage of the land, just the same as coming 
out there to take unfair advantage of the people of the West, it is not 
acceptable. We are trying our hardest out there to adapt policies that 
will indicate a zero tolerance level for the kind of ignorance that 
propels people to come out and destruct that, destroy that land, or to 
ignore the environmental regulations that are so important to preserve 
our public lands. But we can do it in balance. I think that we should 
treat with a discount these groups clear over here on the left that 
demand that the land of many uses sign be replaced with a no 
trespassing sign, and I think we can discount the people over here who 
decide that that land should be developed at whatever the cost and the 
development should be the No. 1 priority of the public lands. Both of 
those groups are on the fringe. Both of those groups represent, in my 
opinion, a very minority of minority views on what the utilization of 
public lands should be for the best interests of the United States of 
America. Instead what we should do is strive to have our oversight and 
our regulation and our utilization of public lands carved out of the 
middle, the middle that is represented by the word called balance, the 
middle that believes in multiple use of Federal lands, the middle that 
thinks that you have to have reasonable environmental regulations to 
guide the utilization of these Federal lands, the middle that believes 
that development or extraction of minerals or utilization of the land 
for grazing has to be done in consideration of the preservation of that 
land, but also the middle that understands that there are things called 
jobs that people; for example, the ranching families that have been out 
there, some of them for well over 100 years on the same ranch, that 
these people have a right to utilize that land, that these people are 
good guardians of that land, that in order for people to keep their 
jobs out there in the West they have got to have highways, they have 
got to have transportation, they are entitled to communication, that 
carefully regulated it is OK to put a power line into a community up 
there in the mountains so they can have cable TV or they can have 
electricity or they can have telephones. It is OK to have a highway, an 
interstate for example, through Glenwood Canyon, which has as its top 
priorities safety through the preservation of the environment. We can 
do it.
  The Glenwood Canyon, by the way, I think, is one of the outstanding 
examples in this country of how you can go into some very pristine 
country, some very important environmentally beautiful country, and 
preserve that while still keeping in mind the consideration of the 
safety of the people that visit the West, that travel through the West 
or that live in the West.
  I know that my remarks have focused on that word called multiple use, 
and I know that my remarks have focused on that word called balance. It 
is because we think those people in the West, those of us who represent 
the people of the West, we are very proud of our heritage, we are proud 
of the heritage of the United States of America. But we think that the 
entire country needs to understand that our heritage is built in part 
not just on strong people, not just on our good friends and the first 
Americans out there, the Native Americans, but also built on the 
ability to utilize public lands in a reasonable and well-thought-out 
manner. I cannot tell you how disappointing and discouraging it has 
been to see that sign that says ``Welcome to the White River National 
Forest'' and then underneath it the sign that says ``A land of many 
uses.'' How discouraging it is to go by and see the sign that now just 
says ``Welcome to the White River National Forest.'' Where is the sign 
that said ``A land of many uses?'' That is the historical use of that 
land, that is the protected use of that land, that is the use that 
everyone in this country and every group in this country that really 
cares about the West and the preservation of the West, that is the term 
that they will take the time to educate themselves on. It is absolutely 
crucial. If you want to address the issues in the Rocky Mountains, if 
you want to address the issues of public lands, and I would say not 
just the Rocky Mountains. This obviously expands up to Alaska and 
expands to the other areas of the country in which large tracts of 
public lands exist.  If 

[[Page H1322]]
you want to voice your opinions on that, look and study the history of 
the West, and what built it and, again, what the politics were, and 
finally what the people today do for that. You know we are really very 
fortunate, we think, to live in the Rocky Mountains, and many of you 
know what it is like. You have been out there, you skied, you have come 
out there to see the beauty we have got. Maybe you have gone out to see 
some of the wildlife, the mountain goats or the Rocky Mountain elk, or 
the mountain lions, or gone out there, and now a big fad is fishing, or 
you have been on our rivers to raft.

  You too can continue to enjoy the beauty of what you like about those 
public lands in the future, but do not shut us out of it, do not let 
some of these groups convince you that that land out there is being 
wasted. Do not let some of these groups convince you that the only way 
to enjoy water in Colorado is to make sure that it runs out of the 
State, that the only way to protect water coming off those mountains is 
not to store it, not to allow it to be taken out of the rivers so that 
the communities and the towns and the people can thrive and the crops 
can thrive on the use of that water.
  Instead, what you should do is encourage these groups to come in and 
work with us as partners. We are a partnership. This great Nation of 
ours depends upon team players, and that is what the middle of America 
is about, it is a team player. Our team in the middle is much stronger 
than either team on the fringes. But those teams on the fringes; for 
example, those groups that want development at any cost or those groups 
that do not want any development regardless of the merits of the 
development, sometimes those groups have more ability than the groups 
in the middle to pass on their message, to make the American people 
believe that they really are the experts or to make the American people 
believe that they represent the majority of the American people or to 
make the American people believe that they represent the best interests 
of the American people. Instead, next time you hear from some of these 
groups, put them aside, just discount what they have said until you 
have the opportunity to talk with somebody in the middle.
  Now, I know that many of you may not have had the opportunity to 
visit the great Rocky Mountains or the great State of Alaska. If you 
have that opportunity, come out. We have a lot to offer. We do have a 
good lifestyle out there. We do have clean air, and you can bet your 
bottom dollar we want to protect that clean air. We do have crystal 
clear water in our streams, and you can bet your bottom dollar we want 
to protect that. We have some of the best fishing in the world. We have 
some of the best hiking trails in the world. Just in my district alone 
we probably have 54 mountain peaks over 14,000 feet. We have got 
mountain climbing. We want to preserve that.
  But we also have jobs. That is how those of us who still manage to 
stay out there, that is why we are able to stay there, because we know 
how to make a living out there. And our ability to make a living really 
determines whether or not we can let our next generation, my kids and 
my kids' kids, and whether my wife's family can continue to operate in 
the ranching business. If we manage those lands well, we can guarantee 
that the next few generations will have the same kind of opportunities 
we did. We are good guardians, and we can be better guardians, we want 
to be better guardians, but do not shut us out, do not go to the people 
of the West and say, all right, let us start with grazing fees, for 
example.
  You know a lot of the people or some of the groups, let me put it 
that way, or some of the people, I will put it that way, that are 
proposing a hike in the grazing fees in this country. They are not out 
to make sure the Government gets a better deal. That is just a mask, 
that is just the surface of what they are trying to portray. What they 
really want to do is eliminate grazing from Federal lands. What they 
really want to do is go after multiple use. It is a disguised attack on 
multiple use.
  I think as a U.S. Congressman that the Government should get a fair 
deal on grazing fees, for example. If the grazing fees, if the cattle 
market, is good, then the grazing fees should be higher. If the cattle 
market goes to pot, as it has done this year, any of you in that 
business know how terrible it has been, then the fees ought to drop so 
that we can sustain the lifestyle of those kind of ranching, and so on, 
on those public lands. But do not be taken by the people that say, 
well, there is great, great abuse going on out there and these ranchers 
and farmers are just wealthy farmers who take advantage of the Federal 
Government.
  A lot of those groups do not have, as I mentioned earlier, do not 
have in mind the idea that we have to improve the deal that the 
Government is getting. Instead, what those groups have as their sole 
intent is to shut the door on the people of the West, to move the 
people of the West out of the West and to hang up no trespassing signs.
  That is why the people of the West, that is why when President 
Clinton first became the President and they had talked about the 
grazing fees and the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, came out, 
that is why people in the West were so defensive. It is one thing to 
come in here with reasonable negotiations for a reasonable grazing fee. 
It is quite another thing to come into the West under the guise of 
saying you want reasonable grazing fees and trying to drive people off 
the land.
  To show you how intense the battle has become in the West I am not 
sure that during my lifetime you will ever see another ski area, a new 
ski area built in the Rocky Mountains. Now maybe the demand is not out 
there for it. But if the demand were there, should you automatically 
eliminate the possibility of a new ski area somewhere in the Rocky 
Mountains or should you rather approach the question by saying does it 
make sense, does it make sense environmentally, does it make sense for 
the community, does it make economic sense because the last thing you 
want is a company that gets into development of an area like that and 
halfway through the project has to give it up or file into bankruptcy 
because they have run out of capital.
  Those are the kind of questions that should be asked. We know in 
Colorado for example that it is crucial, it is absolutely crucial, as I 
said in my earlier remarks, that we have the capability of storing 
water, storing water for future use. I am not sure once the Animas 
LaPlata project is built, and I hope that it is built, I am not sure 
that during the rest of my lifetime that we are going to see another 
water storage project in Colorado.
  Now we ought to ask the same questions. First, is there a need for 
additional storage; second, are we using the current storage to our 
maximum benefit? Maybe we need to clean out some of the current water 
storage projects we have so they can hold more water. Third, does it 
make economic sense? Fourth, if we were to build a new project, can we 
protect the environment like we need to? Can we mitigate the 
environment in such a way that could actually enhance the environment? 
You know, it used to be a statistic; now it is 3 or 4 years old. But it 
used to be that all the good stream fishing in Colorado was below a 
water storage project. We have brought water, we have brought green, to 
a lot of the area in Colorado because of our utilization of water.
  Well, let me conclude my remarks by saying this. I know that with a 
budget, a big issue back here, and I know in the past few days the 
tragedy in Cuba has taken a lot of time on this floor so we can depend 
and kind of direct where this country should go, but I felt that it was 
appropriate tonight, especially having just come back from Colorado, I 
felt it was appropriate to take a few minutes to talk to you about the 
importance of multiple use for our fine State.

  I am doggone proud of being from Colorado. I feel good about the 
West. I feel good about the way we have taken care of the West. I feel 
good about some of the improvements that are being made in the way we 
take care of the West. And I also feel very strong and very committed 
to oppose those people who want to shut the door on the West, to oppose 
those people who want to take that sign, ``A land of many uses,'' and 
replace it with a sign of ``No trespassing.''

                              {time}  2200

  That is why I am here tonight. I appreciate all of you listening. I 
appreciate your consideration. But every 

[[Page H1323]]
time you pick up a bill, or every time you pick up a letter from, say, 
the Sierra Club or someone else, that talks about public lands, take a 
look at what we have talked about this evening: The historical use of 
those lands, the environmental mitigation on those lands, the need of 
the people of those lands, and the life culture and the lifestyles of 
the West.

                          ____________________