[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9977-H9983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE BUDGET AND FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, while we are preparing up here to discuss 
my main topic this evening which will be the Federal public lands, the 
management tools, the history of multiple use in this country, Colorado 
water, Colorado recreation, and Colorado jobs, while we are preparing 
to set up for that, I want to mention a couple of comments on a subject 
that involves every state in the Union, and that is our budget.

                              {time}  2030

  Back here, we are right in the midst of some very tentative 
negotiations, very fragile negotiations would be an appropriate way to 
discuss it. The Federal budget is important to every citizen in 
America. This Federal budget helps determine the future of our 
generation and the kind of debt and the kind of opportunities we give 
to the next generation and the next generation and the next generation.
  We have some very strong policy points that must be adopted or must 
be carried out, and those policy points are the Republicans' top 
priorities in regards to these budget negotiations. Number one, the 
defense of this country, this country must maintain a strong defense. 
We cannot be the second strongest kid on the block.
  Number two, education. We can have a strong military. We can have a 
good economy but if we do not have a strong educational system, and 
when I talk about a strong educational system history will show that 
the best educational system is not run from Washington, D.C. down, as 
the Democrats would have it done but it is run from the local school 
districts up, education is absolutely crucial.
  The third thing, for 40 years, while the other party was in control, 
they ran deficits year after year after year. It is very interesting to 
see them all of a sudden adopt fiduciary and fiscal responsibility to 
the taxpayers of this country. The plan and the budget we have to come 
up with, we will come up with, has to reduce that Federal debt.
  In fact, I remember all the criticism given by the other side, the 
Democrats, when we took the majority: Do not fill us full of baloney 
that they are going to get rid of the annual deficit; do not tell us 
how the cuts in the programs and cutting government waste, which is one 
of our big targets, is going to help get rid of the annual deficits.
  Well, today it is as if they were part of our team back then. They 
did not cooperate much. Some of them did but not all of them. Today 
they have forgotten all about that. We do not have

[[Page H9978]]

annual deficits. In fact, last year we had a $1 billion surplus, after 
Social Security. We have heard a lot of discussions out there on Main 
Street about, well, maybe there is a surplus but it includes Social 
Security money. We have heard Republican after Republican and some 
conservative Democrats say, look, Social Security has to be preserved; 
we cannot count that in that surplus.
  Last year we really had a true surplus of $1 billion. Well, the key 
here and the key in our budget is to be able to go forward and take 
care of that Federal debt. We have the deficit taken care of. Now we 
have to shift from the annual deficit, which happens every year, did 
happen for 40-some years with the exception of a couple of years, I 
think in 1963 and 1964, now we have that taken care of, at least we are 
barely on top of it, and now we have to look at reducing the Federal 
debt. That is a high priority.
  What is the other priority in these budget negotiations? Medicare. I 
can say that colleagues on both sides of the aisle are concerned about 
that, but concern is one thing. Doing something about it is something 
else. Of course, the final thing, Social Security, I do not know 
anybody that is not concerned about Social Security. I know a lot of 
people, however, that are not confident in Social Security and Social 
Security being there when they need it or being there when their 
children or their children's children need it. Those are our priorities 
in this Republican budget.
  I can say when there is a so-called surplus, it is very easy to go 
out to the country, to go out to the communities and promise everybody 
that wants money that money. Those are the people that do not get it 
done. Those are the people that promise it. They are the ones that do 
not gather a lot of firewood for the fire at the campsite. It is very 
easy to do that, but the real tough decision is the party; the party 
that really has the tough decision is the party that has to try and 
balance this budget.
  We have committed to the American people we will do everything we can 
to avoid spending Social Security money and at the same time enhance 
the military, enhance education, reduce the debt, help Social Security 
and help Medicare.
  I think we are pretty darn close to doing it. That is the good news I 
have tonight, but let me say it is going to require some sacrifice. 
Now, we ask all to sacrifice. Now, I do not think cutting government 
waste is a real sacrifice, although some people make a living off 
government waste. I think it is something pretty easy to do, but there 
are a lot of programs out there that are good programs but maybe not 
urgent programs or necessary programs. We are asking the citizens of 
this country, team up with us. We can save Social Security. We can do 
something about Medicare. We can reduce the Federal deficit. We can do 
something for education. We can have a strong defense in this country, 
and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way, but it means we have to 
tighten our belt.

  It is always easy to pick between a good program and a bad program. 
That choice is pretty easy. Our choices today are between good and good 
programs. These are not easy choices, and in the way our legislative 
body is created the minority party does not have that responsibility so 
it is very easy for them to go out and promise to every American that 
certain products or programs or services will be delivered.
  It is our job on this side to put the money in the account. We write 
the checks. We do not complain, but we know that we have to ask for a 
tightening of the belt. Now one of the things we are talking about is 
an across-the-board, 1 percent maybe, 1 percent out of every dollar, 
reduction in some of these agencies to help us save Social Security, 
get money into Medicare, help education, help the military defense and 
reduce the Federal debt. That is all we are asking.
  Think about it on a person's own family budget, Mr. Speaker, at home 
at night. When someone's daughter or son comes home and says, dad and 
mom, if we can just save one penny on the dollar it can really help me 
with my future.
  That is exactly what we are doing here. We are looking at the 
generation of their son's, their daughter's age or their grandson's or 
their granddaughter's age, we are looking at them and they are asking 
us to save one penny on the dollar. Let us reduce our expenditures by 
one penny on the dollar. Guess what? We can do it without going into 
the Social Security money. We can put money into education, we can put 
money into defense, we can reduce the debt and we can help Social 
Security, obviously, and Medicare. Those are important issues for us to 
consider. I will keep everyone advised as these negotiations continue 
to go on.


               Federal Public Lands Should Remain Public

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to shift gears and talk 
about the Federal public lands. The largest landowner in the United 
States is the Federal Government, and by far, by far, the largest 
owners of land are the Federal Government, the State government, the 
city government, the local districts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 
We depend very heavily on the use of public lands.
  I thought I would begin tonight by showing some examples of some 
beautiful public lands. Now, I am a little biased in this regard. My 
State, the State I represent, is the State of Colorado and I have been 
very fortunate to represent the 3rd District of the State of Colorado. 
Many people have been to Aspen, many have heard of Glenwood Springs or 
Steamboat or Telluride, or Durango, Breckenridge, Summit County, Grand 
Junction. There are a number of different communities that some people 
have visited. They know about the Colorado Rockies. The Colorado 
Rockies are a gem. They are a diamond for the United States.
  We need to do what we can do to preserve those while at the same 
time, while at the same time, allowing people to live out there. We are 
going to cover a little of that.
  Let me, first of all, point out, this is in the district, I will use 
my red pointer here, we will see the red pointer on the sky above the 
mountains. This is the Maroon Bells, one of the most beautiful settings 
and I am sure many of my colleagues have been there. This is fall, 
obviously, which can be seen by the colors. Many, many thousands and 
thousands of visitors, whether handicapped, whether 19 years old and 
have great big legs, everybody gets to have access that can get here 
can go up there and see this beautiful, beautiful gem of our country, 
the Maroon Bells.
  I know the Maroon Bells. I was born about 40 miles away. My brother 
climbed the Maroon Bells when he was 14 years old right there on that 
peak where the red dot is. Unfortunately, during that climb, a rock 
came off the top. He was in outward bound school, and it killed his 
instructor. He was 14 or 15 years old. We have a lot of family history 
and there are a lot of people in this country that have a lot of 
history in these mountain ranges. I am from the mountains. So are many 
of us, but the mountains are something we believe in. We have a strong 
heritage with the mountains. We want to protect the mountains.

  Now, that is what this looks like today. See my red beeper, my little 
light there, the lake, that is how it looks today. Why does it look 
like that today? Is it because we allowed oil well drilling to go up on 
top of it? No. Is it because we put mines in there? No. Is it because 
we clear cut all the sides? No. Is it because we let them fish out the 
lake? No. Is it because we let them pollute the water? No.
  What is my point? My point is that for 200 years and before that with 
the Native Americans, we have taken care of this land. Washington, D.C. 
would like to convince us that this thing is full of oil rigs, that the 
timber, that the small families that make a living off timber, go up 
there and clear cut this land, that the fishermen fish out the streams, 
that the streams are polluted and that the only way to do this is move 
the West Wing of the White House to now have that command center for 
the western United States. They think it matches: West Wing, western 
United States. So they come up with a program, 40 million acres.
  Now, what does 40 million acres mean? Many people, if they own a 
home, they are on a lot size, maybe they have, I do not know, half an 
acre, a half an acre, where their home is located. Imagine 80 million 
times that

[[Page H9979]]

 half an acre that they own and that is what the President today has 
proposed to, in essence, take off limits.
  What I am saying here is, these are assets, these are museum pieces. 
These mountains are beautiful. We know this. We want to protect them, 
but we have to use common sense and in using common sense we cannot 
just do it for the elite people of this country. We have to consider 
the common man of this country, and I say that generically. We have to 
speak for the common person in this country. Do not forget about them.
  Not everybody can have a farm or a ranch in Aspen, Colorado. Not 
everybody can own a home in Aspen, Colorado. I certainly could not 
afford it and most of my colleagues on this floor could not afford it, 
but that should not keep us from being able to go up and enjoy it. It 
should not keep us from being able to go up and recreate on it, like 
skiing. I can say within eyesight of Maroon Bells, one can see several 
of the major ski areas in the world. Have they polluted the Maroon 
Bells? No. Have they caused clear cutting in the Maroon Bells? No. Do 
they provide jobs for Colorado? Yes, thousands of jobs. Do a lot of 
people get to enjoy the recreation of skiing in Aspen, Colorado? Yes, 
lots. We have to be careful about allowing an administration, who by 
the way rarely sets foot in Colorado and last year when they locked off 
a big chunk of the State of Utah, they announced it, the President 
announced it, in the State of Arizona.
  Come put your hands in the soil; come put your hands in the dirt, Mr. 
President. Come see what you are doing before you do it. Know a little 
something about it before you talk about it.
  I know about it. I was raised there. My family has been there for 
generations.
  Let me show my next display here. These are the Fourteeners. Look at 
this. All over Colorado, I will point out, there is the young Compadre 
Peak. This one is the mount of the Holy Cross right here where my 
finger is. I will put the red pointer so it can be tracked by the red 
pointer. Columbine Park, look at all of these.

                              {time}  2045

  We have over 54 of them. Over 14,000 feet in Colorado form these 
beautiful mountain ranges. Do my colleagues see any clear-cutting that 
has gone on? No. Do my colleagues see any oil rigs? No. Do my 
colleagues see tents and cities and condominiums and town homes all 
over those 14,000 foot peaks?
  No. Why do my colleagues not see them? It is because we protect this 
land. But we protect it with common sense. We do not lock everybody out 
of there. One can ski on some of those mountains. One can cross country 
ski.
  In the summer, guess what? We have discovered something. It is a 
wonderful sport. It is a fabulous sport. Mountain biking. One gets to 
mountain bike a lot of this. Does it tear up those mountains? No. Are 
people who use those mountains responsible for the most part? Yes. For 
the ones who are not, let us go after them.
  If this is an asset, if they are going to abuse it, kick them off. 
But do not kick them off in general just because they are human beings. 
Do not put all of the four systems of the United States into a museum.
  The Federal lands, I will show my colleagues a couple other here real 
quick. This right here, this is a winter scene here in Colorado. Take a 
close look at that. Look at that snow. Do my colleagues see bulldozer 
tracks through that snow? No. My colleagues do not even see snow 
machine tracks through that snow. Why? Because we have designated 
trails. We manage those lands out there.
  Those lands are not just important to the United States. They are 
important to those of us who make a living off of those lands. My in-
laws, for example, David and Sue Ann Smith, my colleagues ought to 
visit them. They live in Meeker, Colorado. You want to talk about salt 
of the earth people. You want to talk about environmentalists. Do my 
colleagues know why they are environmentalists? They have got their 
hand in the soil every day.
  Ask him what he thinks about that ranch. Ask him what he thinks about 
that ranch when people come up and offer him millions of dollars for 
that property. They do not want to sell it. They love that land. The 
Smith family is pretty representative of most of the ranching families.
  I mean, the President is about to go out and destroy the way of the 
West, the territory. Remember the judge from the Supreme Court, ``Go 
west, young man. Go west.'' Maybe it was Greeley, Horace Greeley said 
that. ``Go west, young man. Go west.''
  Do not wipe it out. Do not make it an urban area. Do not restrict it 
for the President's museum at the White House. Work with us and help us 
protect this in a common sense approach, a common sense approach.
  This is Colorado. These are more peaks that I want my colleagues to 
see. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Those are protected. President 
Clinton does not need to skip in and protect them any more than they 
are protected right now. We are preserving them. We know how to take 
care of this land.
  What I am saying to my colleagues, in my district alone, and I say my 
district, the people's district that I am lucky enough and fortunate 
enough to represent, in that district alone, we have over 23 million 
acres of government-owned land, 23 million acres. We take darn good 
care of that land. We have a lot of uses of that land: recreational 
land, recreation, wilderness areas. We do have some timber. We have 
very little mining left anymore. We have a lot of different uses for 
that land.
  President Theodore Roosevelt, I want to quote him, because the 
President in the last couple of days wants to put out an image that he 
is the Theodore Roosevelt, the Teddy Roosevelt who rode in on the 
bucking Bronco to save the West. Let me tell my colleagues what Teddy 
Roosevelt said. I think it is very important here because he talks to 
the common man. President Teddy Roosevelt was known as a common man. He 
understood the ways of the east. He understood the ways of the West. I 
think before somebody lifts themselves to that standard, they ought to 
at least qualify for it.
  Let us talk about Teddy Roosevelt. ``Conservation. Conservation means 
development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and 
the duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of 
our land. But I do not recognize the right to waste them or to rob by 
wasteful use the generations that come after us.''
  That is the approach, the balanced approach. In essence, what he is 
saying is there is a right for people to use these lands. But there is 
no right, no right by the people that use these lands to destroy these 
lands for future generations.
  We have got really two extremes: One end of the spectrum over here, 
one end of the spectrum over here. This end of the spectrum says, 
``hey, we ought to be able to go out there and mine it and clear-cut it 
and develop it all we want.'' Over here on this extreme, we have got 
organizations like Earth First. ``Lock them out. Put everything in 
wilderness. Take away the right of multiple use.'' I will talk about 
multiple use here in a minute. Take away those rights.

  But do my colleagues know what? Most people in America and certainly 
most of the people that live here feel that, in the middle ground 
there, we can do both. We can allow some ski areas. We can allow cross 
country skiers. We can allow mountain bikers. We can raft on those 
wonderful, beautiful rivers in Colorado. We can hike.
  Yeah, we can allow a power line to go across them to some of our 
communities that are circled by Federal lands. There are things we can 
do with Federal lands. We are going to restrict it. We are going to be 
balanced.
  On the other hand, they also say there are places, the same group 
that says one can ski and ride on mountain bikes and raft down the 
rivers, that same group, the middle group, as I call it, the real 
Westerners, as I call it, also believe, hey, there are some areas like 
the Maroon Bells that we just saw, like this area right here to my 
left, just like this area where my hands are. There are some areas we 
need to lock those away. Let us put those into wilderness. Those are 
appropriate wilderness.
  Or let us create a National Park, just like Senator Campbell and I 
did with the Black Canyon National Monument. We just converted it to a 
National Park. Or let us create a new monument, or let us make this a 
special-use

[[Page H9980]]

area, or let us give this a species status, a certain endangered 
protected status. There is a reasonable ground in there.
  What the President has done is laid his chip. He has staked out his 
ground on this extreme. To me, that is as offensive as the people over 
here that stake out their claim that say we ought to be able to mine it 
at any cost. Let us go in and cut the timber. We do not need selected 
timber cuts. Let's go in and cut it. That is as extreme as the 
President is attempting to do over here for Earth First, and that is 
clear-cut those forests, abandon those forests, and put them into the 
museum.
  Let us talk about a concept that is very important, very important 
for the United States and for all of us to understand during my 
discussion this evening.
  That is the concept of multiple use. Now, many of us, many of my 
colleagues may have never heard of what multiple use means. Well, 
obviously, one puts use together with multiple. It means many uses, 
many different kinds of uses.
  Remember, just a couple of minutes ago in my comments, I talked about 
skiing, mountain biking, rafting, grazing, grazing one's cattle, 
timber, mining, lots of different uses, wilderness, environmental, 
fishing, things like that. Those are multiple uses.
  I think this map is an excellent illustration if my colleagues can 
follow my red dot on the map. Obviously this is a map of the United 
States. This is government lands. My colleagues can see where the blob 
of government lands are. They are not in the east. There are some in 
the Carolinas. There are some up here in the northern part and Illinois 
and the Great Lakes. But the big bulk of Federal lands are right here.
  Well, when the United States acquired these lands through different 
acquisition methods, the population was all along here in the east, and 
they decided they needed to move the population to the west.
  Follow the red dot out to the west. Well, when they got them out here 
to Ohio and Nebraska and Kansas and Texas, Oklahoma, and some of these 
States out here, those are pretty fertile States. The way to encourage 
people to go out west when we wanted to settle the frontier back in the 
last century was to give them land grants or let them go out and put a 
stake in the ground and claim that land, 120 acres or 160 acres.
  Let us go back to the map. In these areas, for example, in Kansas, in 
Nebraska, in the Dakotas, out here in the midwest farm country, one can 
support a family on 160 or 320 acres or some other type of government 
land grant.
  But what was happening, and Washington was aware of it, is there were 
not many people coming into the mountains. They were not going into 
this area. They wanted to settle this area of the West. The question 
came up, how do we encourage our pioneers to go to the west, to go 
beyond the Colorado Rockies or to get into the Rockies and into the 
mountains and go west? How do we encourage people to settle? Shall we 
give them 160 acres under land grant like we have to settle the midwest 
and up to Kansas and so on?
  Well, the answer came back pretty simple. One is dealing with 
different terrain. The mountains cannot support per acre what the Great 
Plains States can support per acre. So if we give 160 acres to somebody 
for agriculture, and that was the driving industry, obviously back 
then, the agriculture and mining, if we give it to them for 
agriculture, they are not going to be able to make it off 160 acres. In 
fact, they need thousands of acres to do what somebody can do on 160 
acres of real fertile land or 220 acres of real fertile land.

  So they thought about it, and said, we cannot go out politically, and 
it may not even be right to go out, and give citizens several thousand 
acres of land simply through a land grant program. What can we do? How 
do we resolve this?
  Therein was the birth of multiple use. That is a concept. That 
concept was the government said, okay, and again follow my pen on the 
demonstration here, the way we can get people to go up into this 
territory of the United States, let us introduce this concept of 
multiple use, which simply means that the government retains the 
ownership of the land, we will call it public lands, but the people 
have a right to use the lands.
  Now, when I grew up, and when my father and mother grew up before me, 
and so on down back in the generations, there was a sign that hung out 
there. We still see it once in a while. But there was a sign that hung 
out there on public lands. For example, when one would go into the 
White River National Forest, one would see a sign that said ``Welcome 
to the White River National Forest.'' Underneath it hung a sign that 
said a land of many uses. That is what the sign said.
  Today there is a very concentrated attempt to take off the sign that 
says a ``land of many uses'', throw it in the trash, and put on a sign 
that says ``no trespassing.'' That is the defeat of the concept of 
multiple use.
  Now, maybe this would have worked. I doubt it, but maybe that ``no 
trespassing'' would have worked 150 years ago. But the government 
itself, this country itself encouraged its citizens, encouraged its 
people to become pioneers. Go out and settle the West. Be cowboys. Be 
farmers. Help this country. We need people in the West.
  So generation after generation after generation, including not only 
my family, but my wife's family and our children, has spent generations 
in those mountains. That is how we make a living.
  If one wants to put up one's ``no trespassing'' sign to those of us 
in the West, one will break us. We are not large in number. We are 
large in heart. We have got a lot of heart in our feeling about this. 
But one will break us. Keep putting up that ``no trespassing'' sign. 
Unfortunately, a lot of people that are encouraging that are these over 
here on this extreme that I spoke about earlier.
  My colleagues have to imagine, if they can pretend for a minute, that 
they are a ranch owner, that they own their own ranch. There are 
several things that they need to do to be a responsible ranch owner.
  Number one, they need to visit. They need to go out into their 
fields. They need to get their hand into the dirt. Number two, they 
need to understand nature. They need not to defy nature. They need to 
work with nature. Nature renews a lot of natural resources such as 
water, only if they treat it right. So they have to understand nature.
  The other thing that they have to do is manage different segments of 
that ranch. They may want to manage the strawberry patch on their ranch 
a little different than they manage their grazing area where they have 
got their cattle.
  Well, it is the same thing here. The United States has millions and 
millions of acres in public lands. Let me give my colleagues some of 
those statistics. Ninety-one percent, almost 92 percent of the land 
that the Federal Government owns, almost 92 percent of the land that 
the Federal Government owns is in the western United States. Thirty-
seven percent, almost 37 percent of the land in the State of Colorado, 
primarily in the mountains, is owned by the Federal Government.

                              {time}  2100

  The Forest Service, the BLM, and the National Park Service manage 95 
percent of this land. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers system 
contains 10,900 miles of wild, scenic and recreational rivers. We have 
got a lot of land out there, and most of it is owned in the mountains 
by the Federal Government.
  How do we manage that land? What kind of management tools do we have? 
Let me talk to my colleagues about a few of them. In order to manage 
Federal land, we do not need to lock everything up, as some proposals 
like the President. He says take 40 million acres. Again, colleagues, 
picture what 40 million acres is. Imagine how many people make a 
livelihood off of 40 million acres, 40 million.
  We have lots of ways we can manage that land and protect it so it 
looks just like the beautiful Maroon Bells that I just got done showing 
my colleagues, or like the 54 Peaks over 14,000 feet that I just got 
down showing you, or the snowy scene in the Colorado Rockies that I 
just got done showing my colleagues.
  We have ways to manage that land, protect it for the future, but 
reach that balance that Teddy Roosevelt spoke

[[Page H9981]]

about. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``you have a right to develop.'' That was 
the word back then. Of course, it is a sin to use that word today. But 
back then that is exactly the word that Teddy Roosevelt meant. Today we 
use the word ``use,'' you have the right for use. But you do not have 
the right for waste. You don't have the right for abuse, for 
destruction. And he is right. He is absolutely right.
  Well, how do you manage this to help protect it? We have national 
parks. We have national monuments. We have national preserves. We have 
national reserves. We have national lake shores. National seashores. 
National rivers. National wild and scenic rivers. I just told you 
eleven-some thousand miles. National scenic trails. National historic 
sites. National military parks. National battlefield parks. National 
battlefield site. National battlefields. National historic park. 
Reserve study areas. National memorials. National recreation areas. 
National parkway. Coordination areas. National forests. National scenic 
areas. National byways. National scenic research area. Conservation 
research programs. National research and experimental areas. National 
grasslands. National conservation areas. Special management areas. 
National forest primitive areas. National game refuges. National 
wildlife preserve areas. National wildlife refuges. National wildlife 
protection areas.
  We have lots of tools in our arsenal to manage these public lands. We 
should not just go to one tool. We should not put everything in a 
national park. We should not put everything in a national wilderness.
  Mr. President, before you put 40 million acres, 40 million acres, in 
essence locking people out of it, look at what the consequences are to 
the people who have preserved it all of these years.
  It is very, very important for us to understand a couple other 
ramifications, not just the soil, not just the land, but right here. 
With my cold tonight, I have been sipping on water to keep my voice 
because I feel it very important to talk to you. But that is water.
  In Colorado, let me give my colleagues a little quote from the poet 
Thomas Ferrell. It is in the Colorado State Capital. I saw it when I 
served in the State legislature. And the quote is, ``Here is a land,'' 
talking about Colorado, ``Here is a land where life is written in 
water.'' ``Here is a land where life is written in water.''
  Colorado is a very unique State. In Colorado we must be overly 
protective of our water rights. Number one, it is something that a lot 
of other people want. Colorado provides water for probably 18 to 23 
other States. Believe it or not, the country of Mexico has water rights 
in the State of Colorado for some of that water.
  Colorado is the only State in the Union, the only State in the Union, 
where all of our water goes out of the State. We have no free flowing 
water that comes into the State for our usage.
  In Colorado, we are an arid State, an arid State, meaning we do not 
get much rain. When you look at those beautiful mountains, you say, 
wow, it looks pretty rich to us. But we do not have the kind of thick 
vegetation that a lot of my colleagues do in the East in their 
district. In the East, their problem is getting rid of water. In the 
West, our problem is storing water.
  We have to store it because since we do not have much rain, the only 
real opportunity we have for mass volumes of water is for the spring 
runoff, assuming we get the winter snows. And that spring runoff only 
lasts for about 65 maybe at the most 90 days. So over the balance of 
time, we have got to have it, we have got to store it, or we do not get 
it.
  Now, what happens is that the water law in Colorado is unique, as 
well, and the same for a lot of the western water law. It is different 
than the East, as I mentioned earlier. It is entirely different. But 
there are some organizations out there who understand this, and those 
organizations really have two things in mind.

  One, stop any kind of use from the water and that is one way to drive 
people out of those mountains. And the second thing is, let us take the 
water for our own use.
  I do not know many organizations in the East who have the interests 
of the people of the State of Colorado or have the interests of the 
people in the West in mind when they look at our water rights. They 
look at our water rights like a great big piece of apple pie and they 
are hungry and they think it ought to be theirs, although they did not 
bake it or anything else. They think it ought to be theirs. So they put 
their arm around us and they talk to us friendly and they do all kinds 
of things, but their goal is to put that apple pie in their mouth and 
keep it out of our stomach. That is what their goal is.
  So what do we do. We have to be protective. And when the President 
comes out and does as he did today, set aside 40 million acres of 
public lands to essentially lock them up, when he does that, what are 
the implications to water in the West?
  Well, I can tell my colleagues right now that the National Sierra 
Club, that Earth First, and some of these kind of organizations, their 
goal is that every acre he locks up ought to have with it implied water 
rights. You ought to be able to reach outside that acre. Let us say 
this is an acre of land right here. This is an acre of land. They would 
like to have the Government step outside of this acre, up here or over 
here or over here, to control water rights. These are very, very 
valuable rights.
  And in essence, what the next argument will be is, hey, we realize 
that President Clinton back in 1999 set aside 40 million acres and 
certainly what he wanted to do is to also lock up the water necessary 
for all of those 40 million acres even though we may not be using the 
water for agriculture or anything. We have certain water rights, like 
we want the quality, et cetera, et cetera, and they start reaching 
outside that territory.
  It happened in Colorado. We have the Wilderness Act. When the 
Wilderness Act was enacted by this Congress by the United States House 
of Representatives and of course the Senate and the President, there 
was never any kind of discussion of water rights.
  In about 1985, Judge Cain out of the Federal District Court said, 
although there were no water rights for the Federal Government, 
although the Federal Government does not seem to have any automatic 
water rights, there must have been an implication for water rights so 
the Federal Government now has implied water rights for the wilderness 
areas.
  We have been fighting that battle for a long time. Same thing is 
going to happen here, my colleagues.
  Now, for you in the East, my colleagues, so what? We need the water. 
What do you mean ``so what''? That is our lifeblood. Remember my quote? 
``Here is a land,'' speaking of Colorado, ``Here is a land where life 
is written in water.'' ``Here is a land where life is written in 
water.'' It is a huge difference to us.
  What are some of the other things that these 40 million acres can do, 
the other implications? We do not know. But it could be all of a sudden 
there are air rights for the Federal Government. All of a sudden the 
Federal Government could reach out to an adjacent town, say Silt 
Colorado or Grand Junction, Colorado, or Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 
which borders the White River National Forest, or Meeker, Colorado, 
which borders the White River National Forest on the north side, and 
they could say to those communities, you know something, you have too 
many cars in your community, you have too many people burning wood 
fireplaces. And those communities could say, we understand that. We try 
and do our own. No, no, no. Here is what the Federal Government out of 
Washington, D.C., is going to tell you communities in the West how you 
are going to run your communities.
  There are lots of implications to the action that the President has 
taken today. Now, what they will try and give you is an allusion that 
if we do not follow the President's lead, if we do not listen to the 
advice of Earth First, if we do not adopt point by point the national 
policies of the National Sierra Club, that these beautiful mountains 
that I showed you a picture of will be destroyed, that the water in the 
West will be polluted, that the trees will be clear-cutted.
  Well, let me tell you what happens if we follow their agenda. Write 
off mountain biking. Forget skiing. Forget river

[[Page H9982]]

rafting. Forget the other recreational uses that we have out there, 
hunting, going throughout in a 4-wheel drive vehicle on marked trails, 
all of the different kind of things that you can recreate with in 
Colorado. In the long-run, those could very easily be diminished 
significantly, maybe never ended completely, because we have some 
private property.

  Although, every ski area, to the best of my knowledge, and I have 
almost all of them in the Third Congress District, in my district, 
almost every one of them is on public land. Those are the kind of 
implications that we are speaking about here.
  It sounds warm and fuzzy today. And it is very easy to appeal to the 
entire country by saying what I have done is to do as Teddy Roosevelt 
or, as I just heard somebody on TV say, it is the most significant 
thing we have done for the environment in centuries.
  Do you know what the most significant thing we have done for the 
environment in centuries? We have let the people that live in those 
mountains help manage those mountains. We let the people who really 
have their hands in the soil every day.
  Now, my hands are not in soil. But take a look at my father-in-law's 
hands or my mother-in-law or my parents or many, many people out there 
in Colorado. I could give you name after name after name. What we have 
done right is let those people who are on the ground there every day, 
every hour help us manage those lands. We did not kick them off.
  Now, once in a while we have had abuse and we get rid of them. And 
maybe we need to tighten the laws on that. I am up for that. And I am 
not for saying that we do not have additional areas out there where 
these kind of restrictions should be placed. But 40 million acres by 
simply throwing a fishnet over the western United States? That is what 
has happened. The President got a big fishnet and just threw it as far 
as he could and out it floated over the western United States. And 
wherever there is public lands, ha-ha, we will lock it up.
  I am not attempting here to be provocative, to try and be derogatory. 
What I am trying to do here is, one, make us all cognizant of what life 
in the western mountains is all about; number 2, the fact that we have 
beautiful, beautiful diamonds out there, meaning the mountains, and we 
all want to protect those; and three, I want to tell you, do not just 
write us off. We have too much to lose. We are fellow citizens and we 
live in a beautiful, large expansive area, but there are not a lot of 
us out there. So it may be pretty easy for many of my colleagues just 
simply to write us off. But I am asking you not to do that. Take a look 
at what it really means, what kind of impact you are going to have.
  You are going to hear in the next few days many statements about how 
bad mountain bikes are I guess. Probably more realistically, they will 
take some kind of thing that just on its face they will want to make it 
sound offensive. Logging, for example.
  You know, I have known a lot of small families, these are not the big 
logging companies, these are small families that are in the logging 
business. Why do you want to wipe them out? Manage them. Do not wipe 
them out. Help them. Do not destroy them.
  My gosh, Mr. President, I wish that you could go to dinner some 
night. Go to dinner tonight. What you should have done is made this 
announcement of this lock-up of this 40 million acres and then gone to 
dinner with a small family in Colorado somewhere that cuts timber and 
does it responsibly. How happy do you think they are tonight? It is 
going to destroy some people out there.
  But that will not happen. The people in Washington, D.C., especially 
down the street, are not going to take time to see what the impact is 
on people. As my good colleague the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) said earlier, this President committed to put people first, 
they are not going to go out and see where it puts people.
  Instead, it is much easier to be politically warm and fuzzy and say 
the West is being destroyed and we in the East must step into the West 
and defend it, defend it against itself.

                              {time}  2115

  We have got to protect those people, those families and pioneers out 
there in the West, those ranchers, those river rafters, those hikers, 
those skiers, those residents that live out in the West. We have got to 
protect them from themselves. They are destroying themselves.
  That is what the image is here in Washington, D.C. That is exactly 
what the image is that this President is trying to portray to you 
people with this sign, with this signature of 40 million acres set 
aside.
  Mr. Speaker, in Colorado most of us that live out there, including 
myself, my family, my wife's family, we are not wealthy people. We are 
there because we have a job. I have been fortunate. I have a job 
representing those people. But all five of my brothers and sisters, all 
of my nieces and nephews, all of my cousins, there are probably 30 or 
40 first cousins, they are all over Colorado. Why are we able to stay 
in Colorado? Because we have a job. We have a job. That may not sound 
like a lot. Up here we get paid. We have got an automatic job for 2 
years. Back there some of these people depend on their jobs almost day 
to day.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of what kind of jobs we have in 
Colorado. On the White River National Forest, the White River National 
Forest has two predominant uses. Two-thirds of the forest, the 
predominant use in two-thirds of it is recreation. In one-third of the 
White River National Forest, the predominant use is wilderness. We have 
locked it up. I voted for that and it was appropriate to do that. But 
we intentionally left two-thirds open for recreation. Why? Number one, 
they do it in a responsible fashion. Two, it provides resources that 
are not available. You cannot put a ski mountain out in Ohio. They do 
not have a lot of skiing in Kansas. They do not have much skiing in 
Mississippi or Missouri or Louisiana or Nevada. They have some in the 
Sierras, but not much. Colorado has got the natural resource for it. 
What does that do, that White River National Forest, just that forest? 
Thirty-five thousand jobs. My neighbors in a lot of cases have those 
jobs. That is how we are able to stay out in Colorado. We are not 
Johnny-come-lately. We did not just jump out to Colorado all of a 
sudden to live. Our families, many of our families have lived there for 
generations. My family and my wife's family have lived there for many, 
many generations, but we still welcome people to come out to Colorado. 
Sure we think it has grown too fast, we wish it were not growing so 
fast, but we do not think we have the right to shut the door because 
they did not shut the door on us back in the 1870s when my family came 
in or the 1880s when Lori's family came in, they did not shut the door 
on us. They said, Come on in, but we only ask you one thing when you 
come to Colorado or when you come to the Rockies or Utah, Wyoming or 
Montana: Be responsible, help us make this a good community to live in, 
help us retain the beauty of this State, help us follow what Teddy 
Roosevelt said and, that is, there is a right to use the land but there 
is not a right to destroy the land.
  We think we can use the land, the Federal public lands in Colorado or 
in the Rockies or in the West in a responsible fashion. I happen to 
think you can build a ski area and manage it in a responsible way. Many 
of you have skied in Colorado. Many of your constituents have skied in 
Colorado. You have been there. You have seen that a lot of those areas, 
they are managed okay. It has been a fun family vacation. It was a nice 
way to recreate. Then when you take a look at the areas that are 
cleared for the ski runs, they are just a pinpoint, a pinpoint in the 
forest. Many of you have had the opportunity to river raft in the State 
of Colorado, or Utah or Wyoming or Montana. It is a blast. If you have 
not done it, do it. It is a great time. And it is a great family 
activity. We have not destroyed the rivers. We have been doing what 
Teddy Roosevelt said to do: ``Use it but don't destroy it.''
  Some of you may have never heard of Lake Powell but many of you 
probably have. Do you know what Lake Powell has done for families in 
this country, how many families are down there instead of having their 
kids running out to the mall or dad running down to work? They are down 
together on a little boat on Lake Powell. That lake does a lot. It 
recreates. ``Use it but

[[Page H9983]]

don't destroy it.'' The Roosevelt theory. It is a lot different than 
the other theories that have come out. When we talk about this, when we 
talk about where we are going with the future, I have got to tell you, 
as long as I am in this elected office, I am going to stand as strongly 
as I can for Colorado and for water rights in the West. I am not just 
saying that. Because never in my entire career have I felt more of a 
challenge to the taking of Colorado water than I do today. And never in 
my career have I felt more of a challenge to those 35,000 jobs on the 
White River National Forest. Those are not indirect jobs, those are 
direct jobs. That is not 35,000. In fact, it is 35,000 families live 
off that forest.
  I have never felt a larger threat in my political career to those 
jobs than the vision coming out of Washington, D.C., the vision that we 
cannot manage it, the vision that they need to protect us, to protect 
us from ourselves. How many of you have ever mountain biked out in 
Colorado? That is a relatively new sport. But if you have, you have 
really gotten into some of that terrain and you have been able to 
access it, you did not have to hike for miles, you have been able to 
ride in there on your bike. Minimal damage to the environment. We 
managed it well, despite the fact that Washington thinks they need to 
protect us from ourselves. We followed the Roosevelt theory: ``Use it 
but don't abuse it.''
  It is the same thing with any other type of activity you can imagine, 
whether it is kayaking, whether it is hiking, and so on. You get my 
message, my drift, what I am saying here.
  Now, what about some of the other issues? What about some of the 
other jobs? I do not think it is shameful to have a sporting goods 
store and sell sporting goods in Colorado. I do not think it is wrong 
for a small family to try and go out and harvest some timber. By the 
way, if you harvest timber with correct management, it is healthy for 
the forest, it is a renewable resource and, by the way, every one of 
you in this room tonight, every one of your constituents uses wood that 
is taken out of some forest somewhere at some time. Every chair in 
here. You look around. You know what I mean. Wood is everywhere. It is 
a renewable resource. But you have to follow the Roosevelt theory. The 
Roosevelt theory is: ``Use it but don't abuse it.''

  It saddens me to think that here in Washington, D.C., frankly a lot 
of the national press is buying this hook, line and sinker, they are 
biting at it just like that, it troubles me that back here in the East, 
that even the administration in the West Wing, they do not go to the 
western United States, they make this decision in the West Wing. They 
have got some confusion there. It bothers me that they are using a 
deception upon the American people that this land out there, that we 
are not taking care of that land. It is public land. It is all of our 
land. I am telling you, we have been on it for a long time. We have 
lived on it for a long time. We have worked it for a long time. We have 
used it for a long time. And we have not abused it for a long time.
  Folks, do not be sold on this. Do not automatically assume that the 
West is being destroyed because of the fact that we have ski areas. Do 
not automatically assume that the West is being destroyed because we 
have mountain bikes. Do not automatically assume that the West is being 
destroyed because we allow people to river raft and hike and hunt. Do 
not automatically assume because it is not true. We do follow the 
Roosevelt theory: ``Use it but don't abuse it.''
  I know that tonight my time is rapidly expiring, but I just want to 
reiterate a couple of things. Number one, do not forget that the 
pioneer spirit still exists for a lot of us. We are very proud of our 
heritage. We are Americans. But we also come from the West. I feel very 
respectful of the people of the East. But I am not an Easterner. I am a 
Westerner. I am not out here to destroy the life-style of the East, and 
I ask you people in the East, do not go out of your way to destroy our 
life-style in the West. We do not need the eastern United States, the 
bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. to protect us from ourselves. I think 
we, much, much better than some of my colleagues and some of the people 
in the East, understand that land much, much better than you ever will. 
We have got our hands in the soil. All of us can agree that a common-
sense approach is what is reasonable. But that means that these people 
out here who want to clear-cut every forest, who want to put a ski area 
on every mountain, who want to build a house on every ridge, who want 
to put a highway wherever they want to, who want to build townhouses 
wherever they want, that means these people are going to have to be 
moved to the middle, and the people out here like Earth First and other 
hard-core groups out there who think they only have the title to the 
environment, who think they only have the knowledge to protect that 
land, who think only they have the historical background to manage that 
ranch for all of us, that group has also got to be brought to the 
middle. And here in the middle is not the leader of the United States 
today, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. That is not 
who is here in the middle today. He is over here. What is in the middle 
today was what was in the middle at the turn of the century and many 
years ago, and, that is, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is who is in 
the middle.
  And remember, and I will conclude with Teddy Roosevelt's comments, 
and I will paraphrase him: ``You have the right to use it but you don't 
have the right to abuse it or destroy it.'' Teddy Roosevelt had it 
right. It should be Teddy Roosevelt's path that we follow. Do not be 
misguided down the path of President Clinton. Follow the path of Teddy 
Roosevelt: ``Use it and enjoy it, but don't abuse it and destroy it.''

                          ____________________