progressive politician from Montana, a man who exposed the teapot dome 

 controversy, was another advocate of public control of the western lands. 

 Keith Pittman, another Nevada senator along with Newlands, was of like 

 mind. So it hasn't been the West versus the East. And I think you could 

 ask any conservationists in the United States, " who have been the leaders 

 say in the 1970's, of conservation legislation?" Some of them have been 

 from the East, but none of them have a higher reputation in the eyes of 

 conservation than Morris Udall or Montana's own Lee Metcalf. So the 

 national interests may have dominated the environmental issues like clean 

 air and water, but they have not dominated public lands. An example 

 would be the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act had widespread 

 support throughout the United States. It had the support of the 

 President of the United States. It passed the Senate on three different 

 occasions over eight years. There were never even hearings held on it in 

 the House of Representatives, let alone a vote. Why? Because Wayne 

 Asbenall, congressman from the slope of Colorado held it hostage by 

 virture of his position as chairman of House Interior Committee. When he 

 got in the Wilderness Act the provisions he wanted--grazing in wilderness, 

 a prospecting and mining provision and a water development provision--he 

 said fine, I'll let it come up for a vote. When it did, it passed the House 

 of Representatives with one descending vote. 



Let's look at some more recent legislation that has been introduced 

 and led through the House and Senate by western congressmen. The 

 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act. One of the principal supporters of that 

 and floor manager of it was Congressman Santini of Nevada. The bill, of 

 course, provides federal dollars to counties in lieu of property tax. Take 

 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as Frank Gregg has pointed 

 out... who are the leaders of that bill? Melcher of Montana, Udall of 

 Arizona, Roncalio of Wyoming and Congressman Santini introduced 

 numerous amendments that I think weakened the Federal Land Policy and 

 Management Act, before it was adopted by the full House. So the western 

 input on that bill was overwhelming. And on the negative side, we've seen 

 western congressional interests prevent the modification of the 1887 Mining 

 Law. The first President that I've seen that suggested that we should do 

 something about that outdated law was Warren Harding, hardly a leader in 

 conservation. And why don't we have reform? Because we have 

 congressmen like Jim Santini who sit on the House Subcommittee on Mines 

 and Mining. He's not about to hold hearings or let any legislation through 

 that doesen't serve his mining constituents. Another recent example, the 

 Range Improvement Act of 1978. All the way through, it's dominated by 

 westerners. And even last year the McCore Amendment. It is an 

 excellent example. It was a special amendment for special treatment to the 

 western livestock industry. It essentially legislated over-grazing on part 

 of the public lands. The conservation groups could not stop that 

 amendment. Or did not. And one of my favorites is that much maligned 

 Wild Horse and Burro Act. You would think, to hear westerners talk, 

 that that bill was forced down westerners throats by some hysterical group 

 of dicky bird watchers from the East. Nothing could be further from the 

 truth. Of the original 12 or 13 sponsors of that bill, every single one was 

 a westerner. It was introduced and pushed through the House by Walter 

 Beering of Nevada. And it was pushed through the Senate. The only 

 western senator who voted against the bill, by the way, was Cliff Hanson 



