    [House Hearing, 107 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141 AND H.R. 4620

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  June 6, 2002

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 107-123

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                                     -------

    80-063              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2002
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska,                   George Miller, California
      Vice Chairman                      Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey               Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
    Elton Gallegly, California           Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee           Samoa
    Joel Hefley, Colorado                Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Ken Calvert, California              Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Richard W. Pombo, California         Robert A. Underwood, Guam
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming               Adam Smith, Washington
    George Radanovich, California        Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North              Islands
        Carolina                         Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Mac Thornberry, Texas                Jay Inslee, Washington
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Grace F. Napolitano, California
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Tom Udall, New Mexico
    Bob Schaffer, Colorado               Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada                  Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Hilda L. Solis, California
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho            Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
    C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska
    Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

                          Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
               Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
                    Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
                        Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                   GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
          DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

    Elton Gallegly, California            Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
     Joel Hefley, Colorado                   Samoa
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Tom Udall, New Mexico
        Carolina,                        Mark Udall, Colorado
      Vice Chairman                      Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Mac Thornberry, Texas                Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Hilda L. Solis, California
    Bob Schaffer, Colorado               Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on June 6, 2002.....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................     2
        Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California, Prepared statement on H.R. 4620...    55
        Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada............................................    10
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4141..........................    11
            Maps submitted for the record............................    94
        Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     6
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................     9
        Otter, Hon. C.L. ``Butch'', a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Idaho.........................................     4
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................     5
        Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141 and H.R. 4620.     2
        Ross, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................    13
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3815..........................    16
            Letter from President Bill Clinton submitted for the
              record.................................................    15

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Altenbaumer, Crystal, Executive Director, William Jefferson
          Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas....................    80
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3815..........................    81
        Barry, Donald J., Executive Vice-President, The Wilderness
          Society, Washington, D.C...................................    44
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    46
        Finfer, Larry, Assistant Director for Communications, Bureau
          of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
          Washington, D.C............................................    58
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4141..........................    59
        Hatfield, Nina Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and
          Finance, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
          Interior, Washington, D.C..................................    17
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    18
        Johnson, Randy G., Commissioner, Emery County, Castle Dale,
          Utah.......................................................    28
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    30
        Johnson, Rick, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation League,
          Boise, Idaho...............................................    40
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    42
        Kimbell, Abigail, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
          System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
          Washington, D.C............................................    20
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    20
        Salove, Chris, Commissioner, Owyhee County, Marsing, Idaho...    32
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    33
        Smith, Daniel P., Special Assistant to the Director, National
          Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
          D.C........................................................    56
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3815..........................    57
        Thompson, Douglas L., Chairman, Wyoming Rancher and Freemont
          County Commissioner, Representing the National Public Lands
          Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
          Lander, Wyoming............................................    37
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4620..........................    38
        Van Epp, Daniel, President, The Howard Hughes Corporation,
          Las Vegas, Nevada..........................................    61
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4141..........................    63

    Additional materials supplied:
        Reilly, Thom, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada,
          Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 4141............    12

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3815, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
       INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF
     ESTABLISHING A PRESIDENTIAL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN HOPE, ARKANSAS,
      AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4141, TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION BY
        EXCHANGE OF LANDS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RED ROCK CANYON NATIONAL
     CONSERVATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
        H.R. 4620, TO ACCELERATE THE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION PROCESS BY
     ESTABLISHING A TIMETABLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF WILDERNESS STUDIES ON
                     FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, June 6, 2002

                         U.S. House of Representatives

          Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
    room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
    Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
    order. This afternoon this Subcommittee will hear testimony on
    three bills H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141, and H.R. 4620. The first
    bill, H.R. 3815, introduced by Representative Mike Ross, would
    authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey of
    the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential
    National Historic Site in Hope, Arkansas, birthplace of the
    former President, William Jefferson Clinton.
        The next bill, H.R. 4141, introduced by our Subcommittee
    colleague, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, would authorize the
    acquisition by exchange of lands for inclusion into the Red
    Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Clark County, Nevada.
    The bill would also authorize the transfer of certain other BLM
    lands to Clark County for a county park.
        Our last bill is H.R. 4620, introduced by our Committee
    colleague, Butch Otter, which would accelerate the wilderness
    designation process by establishing a timetable for the
    completion of wilderness studies on Federal lands.
        Before turning the time over to Ms. Christensen, I would
    ask unanimous consent that Mr. Ross be allowed to sit on the
    dais following his statement. Without objection, so ordered.
        And I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for
    any opening statement that she may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in
                     Congress from the State of California

        Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order. This afternoon the
    Subcommittee will hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141,
    and H.R. 4620.
        The first bill, H.R. 3815, introduced by Representative Mike Ross,
    would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey of
    the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential National
    Historic Site in Hope, Arkansas, birthplace of former President William
    Jefferson Clinton.
        The next bill, H.R. 4141, introduced by our Subcommittee Colleague,
    Jim Gibbons of Nevada, would authorize the acquisition by exchange of
    lands for inclusion in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
    Clark County, Nevada. The bill would also authorize the transfer of
    certain other BLM lands to Clark County for a county park.
        Our last bill, H.R. 4620 introduced by our Committee Colleague,
    Butch Otter, would accelerate the Wilderness designation process by
    establishing a timetable for the completion of wilderness studies on
    Federal Lands.
        Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
    unanimous consent that Mr. Ross be allowed to sit on the dais following
    his statement. Without objection [PAUSE], so ordered.
                                     ______

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, as you
    said, the Subcommittee is going to consider three bills,
    unrelated bills. The first one is H.R. 3815, introduced by our
    colleague, Representative Mike Ross. It is a noncontroversial
    measure to authorize a study on the suitability and feasibility
    of designating the William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home,
    located in Hope, Arkansas, as a national historic site. The
    site was the home of the future 42nd President from his birth
    in 1946 to 1950. It is closely identified with his youth and
    early development.
        I would also note that H.R. 3815 is supported by the entire
    Arkansas delegation, as it is by me as well, and also has the
    support of State and local officials. I want to congratulate my
    colleague, Mike Ross, for his work on this bill.
        Our second measure, H.R. 4141, introduced by Representative
    Gibbons, I have a little more difficulty supporting because it
    raises a number of troubling concerns. Land exchanges in Las
    Vegas have been controversial, and this proposal is no
    exception. In fact, land exchanges in Las Vegas have been such
    a problem that Congress in 1998 enacted Public Law 105-263 to
    halt land exchanges in this area and instead directed public
    lands be disposed of by auction, with the proceeds earmarked to
    the acquisition of conservation and recreational lands in
    Nevada.
        H.R. 4141 overturns that policy in this instance and
    attempts to resurrect past problems with land exchanges. The
    legislation deems the lands to be exchanged to be of equal
    value with no qualified appraisals having been done yet. It
    waives environmental laws. In fact, the bill stipulates that
    the exchange does not require further consideration or action
    pursuant to any other law or Executive order.
        The lands that are proposed to be exchanged have been
    altered several times over the years, and we have yet to
    receive an accurate mapping acreage figure for those lands.
    With public land sales in Las Vegas averaging $44,770 per acre
    for large parcels and $116,004 per acre for small parcels,
    these lands represent a significant economic resource.
        So, Mr. Chairman, given these issues and questions, I
    believe that the Subcommittee will need to look closely at the
    legislation. But I have had a chance to sit down with
    Congresswoman Berkeley who represents this district. She has
    come over to the office with some of her staff, and they have
    assured me that they are willing to work out some of the areas
    we have concern about. So I hope that we will be able to do
    that before the bill comes to the floor through the full
    Committee.
        Our final bill, H.R. 4620, is perhaps even more
    controversial. This legislation is similar to a bill sponsored
    by Chairman Hansen in the last Congress which the Republican
    leadership declined to move to the House floor. The legislation
    delegates current congressional authority over wilderness study
    areas to the executive branch by granting the Secretaries of
    the Interior and Agriculture vast new power to abolish such
    designations. Furthermore, for those areas the secretary fails
    to abolish, the bill creates an arbitrary 10-year time limit
    after which these areas would lose their designations.
        Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fundamental
    misunderstanding of what a wilderness is, of what wilderness
    is, and we oppose it. The process of determining whether an
    area is suitable for wilderness designation is difficult and
    time consuming, involving the assessment of complex resource
    issues.
        The date of the area's designation as a WSA, however, is
    not one of the relevant issues. The passage of days on the
    calendar in no way alters the wilderness characteristics of an
    area and should not in any way be a factor. While the process
    is a difficult one, we feel strongly that Congress should
    continue its work on wilderness and avoid the temptation to
    abdicate our responsibilities to the executive branch or rely
    on an arbitrary strategy to let the clock run out on existing
    WSAs.
        And I want take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for
    their time and effort and look forward to the testimony.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Donna. Are there any
    other opening statements from anybody else on the panel
    regarding those three bills?
        If not, then we will go to our first panelist who is The
    Honorable Butch Otter from the First District of Idaho, here to
    speak on H.R. 4620.
        Mr. Radanovich. Butch, welcome to the panel.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

        Mr. Otter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    thank you for holding this hearing today and for inviting me
    not only to attend the meeting but also to join you at the
    dais.
        I recently introduced H.R. 4620, the American's Wilderness
    Protection Act. Its goal is to resolve what in most cases has
    become a decade-long process of deliberating the fate of
    wilderness study areas, millions of acres of public land made
    untouchable for multiple use while Federal agencies and
    Congress consider whether they warrant permanent wilderness
    status.
        My bill, sponsored by 33 fellow Congressmen, including many
    on this Committee, would release all areas designated as
    wilderness study areas from such status on the earlier of 10
    years after this Act becomes law, the date that the area is
    designated as wilderness by an act of Congress, or the date the
    Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture
    determines that the area is unsuitable for wilderness
    designation. Wilderness study areas released from the
    designation would revert back to their previous use.
        Currently, environmental obstructionists have no incentive
    to help reach decisions on wilderness designations that might
    give them less than what they want. To a large degree, they
    already have their victory. The status quo guarantees all study
    areas to be continued and to be treated as wilderness areas.
        Despite officially making allowances for historical uses,
    land managers understandably err on the side of caution and set
    rules maintaining wilderness values, restricting access to
    natural resources that might help restore jobs in rural
    communities.
        Many of our rural communities have been in limbo for too
    long. In Idaho, for example, there are 86 wilderness study
    areas totaling 3.1 million acres. Of the 67 Bureau of Land
    Management parcels, 63 have been locked up as de facto
    wilderness since 1981 or 1982, even though 40 of them have been
    found unsuitable for wilderness protection. The other 4 have
    been withdrawn from multiple use since 1976.
        Most of the 19 Forest Service wilderness study areas have
    been in place since the mid-1980's, and 2 have been held in
    that status since 1972, all the while through the
    administrations of seven Presidents and during the lifetime of
    many working people in Idaho, there has been no requirement on
    the part of the government nor impetus for the obstructionists
    to fish or cut bait.
        The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Lands Policy and
    Management Act of 1976 created the wilderness study area
    concept. The lands that became wilderness study areas were to
    be studied to determine whether they qualified for wilderness
    designation. Unfortunately, these laws failed to provide for
    the release of those lands when the studies were complete.
    Absent congressional action or consensus among the stakeholders
    on setting aside a specific parcel, that has caused wilderness
    study areas to be studied into perpetuity even after the actual
    studies were finished.
        The perpetual study of an area of wilderness for
    suitability is clearly not in the public interest. The American
    Wilderness Protection Act will bring some closure to the
    wilderness study area. If an area is truly worthy of the
    wilderness label, Congress should designate it as such. But if
    Congress can't support such a designation, then how can we
    support continuing to have the land locked away from active
    management?
        With this act's 10-year buffer and the 20 to 30 years that
    so many of these areas have already spent in limbo, we are
    talking about a generation during which people have been
    essentially barred from the use of some of the most valuable
    opportunities to recreate, to improve habitat and watersheds,
    protect against disease, insect infestation, invasive and
    noxious weeds, and other beneficial uses of our national
    resource.
        I believe this legislation is an important effort to raise
    the level of debate on wilderness, promote resolution, and hold
    everyone involved accountable for the outcome. Idaho's rural
    communities and rural communities across the West need
    certainty and self-determination for managing their natural
    resources and improving their economies.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing the
    testimony and the insight of our witnesses on this legislation.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Otter.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Otter follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Idaho

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today and inviting
    me to attend.
        I recently introduced H.R. 4620, the America's Wilderness
    Protection Act. Its goal is to resolve what in most cases has become a
    decades-long process of deliberating the fate of ``wilderness study
    areas''--millions of acres of public land made untouchable for multiple
    use while Federal agencies and Congress consider whether they warrant
    permanent wilderness status.
        My bill, cosponsored by 33 fellow Congressmen including many
    members of this Committee, would release all areas designated as
    wilderness study areas from such status on the earlier of 10 years
    after this Act becomes law, the date the area is designated as
    wilderness by act of Congress or the date that the Secretary of
    Interior or Agriculture determines that the area is unsuitable for
    wilderness designation. Wilderness Study Areas released from the
    designation would revert back to their previous use.
        Currently, environmental obstructionists have no incentive to help
    reach decisions on wilderness designations that might give them less
    than they want. To a large degree, they already have their victory. The
    status quo guarantees all the study areas continue to be treated as
    wilderness.
        Despite officially making allowances for historical uses, land
    managers understandably err on the side of caution and set rules
    maintaining ``wilderness values,'' restricting access to natural
    resources that might help restore jobs in rural communities.
        Many of our rural communities have been in limbo too long. In
    Idaho, for example, there are 86 wilderness study areas totaling about
    3.1 million acres. Of the 67 Bureau of Land Management parcels, 63 have
    been locked up as de facto wilderness since 1981 or 1982--even though
    40 of them have been found unsuitable for wilderness protection. The
    other four have been withdrawn from multiple use since 1976.
        Most of the 19 Forest Service wilderness study areas have been in
    place since the mid-1980s and two have held that status since 1972. All
    the while--through the administration of seven presidents and during
    the entire lifetime of many working people in Idaho--there has been no
    requirement on the government nor impetus for obstructionists to fish
    or cut bait.
        The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Land Policy and
    Management Act of 1976 created the ``Wilderness Study Area'' concept.
    Lands that became Wilderness Study Areas were to be studied to
    determine whether they qualified for wilderness designation.
    Unfortunately, these laws failed to provide for the release of those
    lands when the studies were complete. Absent congressional action or
    consensus among stakeholders on setting aside a specific parcel, that's
    caused Wilderness Study Areas to be studied in perpetuity--even after
    the actual studies were finished.
        The perpetual study of an area for wilderness suitability is
    clearly not in the public interest. The Americas Wilderness Protection
    Act will bring some closure to Wilderness Study Areas. If an area is
    truly worthy of the wilderness label, Congress should designate it as
    such. But if Congress can't support such a designation, how then can we
    support continuing to have that land locked away from active
    management?
        With this act's 10-year buffer and the 20 to 30 years that so many
    of these areas already have spent in limbo, we're talking about a
    generation during which people will have been essentially barred from
    some of our most valuable opportunities to recreate, improve habitat
    and watersheds, protect against diseases and insect infestation, and
    other beneficial uses of our natural resources. I believe this
    legislation is an important effort to raise the level of debate on
    wilderness, promote resolution and hold everyone involved accountable
    for the outcome. Idaho's rural communities, and rural communities
    across the West, need certainty and self-determination for managing
    their natural resources and improving their economies.
        Thank you again Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing the
    testimony and insight of our witnesses.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. The Chair will recognize the Chairman of
    the Resources Committee, Mr. Hansen; then Mr. Gibbons to speak
    on his bill, and Mr. Ross. Mr. Hansen.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for hearing
    from me at this particular time. I have to leave, but I did
    want to speak to this bill because I think there are some
    really tremendous misunderstandings that are going on, as Mr.
    Otter pointed out, on the process.
        The 1964 Wilderness Act called for the Forest Service and
    for the Park Service to do a study, and in 1975 we got the
    FLPMA Act that brought in the BLM. How does this work? They are
    supposed to take that Agency and they are supposed to do a
    study. They do the study, they submit it to Congress, and
    supposedly only Congress can then make wilderness.
        What has happened? Of all of the studies that have been
    done--I have been around here for 22 years and been a part of a
    lot of these things--the Agency has not followed one of them.
    Not one time. So we find ourselves in a situation where why do
    we spend these millions and millions of dollars to have these
    agencies do it when Congress won't follow it? And basically
    what happens is we just have a situation where nothing occurs.
        Now, in my 22 years as a Member of Congress and as Chairman
    of this full Committee, I think that the one thing that bothers
    me the very most is all of the attorney retirement acts that we
    do around here. Every time something happens, we do another
    thing to take care of our legal friends somewhere, and they do
    very, very well. And we have got more attorney retirement acts
    than we have ever seen.
        Now, what the gentleman from Idaho is trying to do is stop
    the ``wilderness retirement act,'' because on that little word
    ``wilderness,'' it is a romantic word. If I went around here
    and said, all of you folks give me your definition of
    wilderness, or, better yet, what do you envision when your hear
    the word, I envision being up in the hills and smelling the
    pines and the aspens and the clear water--and good people. And
    that is what I envision. And so it is a very positive, romantic
    word.
        Now, if I said, give me what you envision in severely
    restricted areas, that is a negative way of putting it. But you
    know what, folks, they are synonyms, they are exactly the same.
    When we did the 1984 bill of wilderness in the State of Utah,
    we had our phones ringing off the hook with people saying, gee,
    I can hardly wait to take my RV and get up there and get the
    job done and go in and see it. You don't go in there, because
    it says nothing mechanized shall go in that area.
        Now you tell me, what is mechanized? Is a camp stove
    mechanized? Is an oar lock mechanized? But you can't take a
    mechanized thing in there. So we in effect have said, this is a
    real reserve, pristine, primitive area.
        Now, another thing that I have noticed about this Act is
    what constitutes and qualifies as wilderness. Does just a piece
    of sage brush qualify as wilderness? I was recently working
    with Larry Young of the Southern Utah Wilderness Association,
    and the question came up; he wanted another 10,000 acres of
    pure sagebrush, pure unadulterated, all there is sage brush and
    a few beer cans in it. And he said he wanted that. I said, why?
    It doesn't qualify as wilderness. It is only sagebrush. It is
    something like the Grand Staircase-Escalante that President
    Clinton did.
        I don't know where there is anything in there that
    qualifies as a monument. And, of course, as we subpoenaed the
    papers, we found out they believed that, too. They said in
    there, we all are doing this to pacify the extreme whackos--
    whoever they are--I have never tried to figure that one out.
        But, anyway, we get the idea. And let me just ask you,
    folks. Up here most of us have served in a legislative body
    other than this one, haven't we? Didn't you come out of the
    legislature? Didn't you? I came out of the legislature. I was
    Speaker of the House. Butch was Lieutenant Governor. Jim held a
    leadership position. We are all in those areas. And guess what?
    If you go look in our legislative bodies, you know what you are
    you going to find? You are going to find that most of the
    bills--now I am emphasizing most of the bills--have a sunset on
    them. And why do they do that? We don't want them to go forever
    and ever and ever. We want them to stop somewhere. We want a
    chance to take another look at it.
        Now here, if you look at the 1964 Wilderness Act, we are
    going to have the Agency take it. Now, I think Mr. Otter's bill
    kind of reads this way: The Agency finishes their investigation
    and they make the suggestion to Congress. And then Congress has
    10 years from that point when it starts tolling; is that
    correct, Mr. Otter?
        You are supposed to say yes. If you would read your script
    we could get this show on the road.
        Mr. Otter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Carrying that on, we get down to the point that
    the thing starts to toll. And they have got 10 years. Now, tell
    me, why is it so difficult--because regardless of the arguments
    you are going to hear, it is not the time that they are
    investigating, it is the time after they have made their
    proposal to Congress. So you got 10 long years to adjudicate
    this thing. Tell me--I wish I could stay, Mr. Chairman, because
    I want to hear the answers of why you can't get it done in 10
    years.
        There are very few things I have seen in 42 years as an
    elected official that you can't get done in 10 years. So why
    are people opposing this idea of Mr. Otter's? They are opposing
    it because they want it to continue forever and ever, because
    that word ``wilderness'' is an entire industry today. Look at
    the clubs that have started. They built the whole thing on that
    romantic thing, wilderness. And if you keep it going and going
    and going, you are fine.
        Now, let my give you an example of that. They finished the
    thing on BLM wilderness in the State of Utah way back in 1990.
    Jim Parker was the head of the BLM for the State of Utah. He
    took this thing that took 15 years and $10 million of your
    taxpaying money and he made a determination. He said, all
    right, the State of Utah has 22 million acres of BLM. We said,
    the very most you would ever have is 3.2, but we wouldn't give
    you all of that, we will give 1.95. That is the thing. These
    people walked around with a little button that said 3.2 for a
    long time.
        Well, we didn't do 3.2. Then it went up to 5.7. That was
    the rallying cry when a fellow by the name of Wayne Owens sat
    here and could have got it through if he wanted, but he didn't
    really want to. As we know, and Wayne has said, they had the
    Democrats in both the House the Senate and the President, and
    they didn't even introduce the thing. And I was the Ranking
    Member of this Committee in those days.
        So then Bruce Babbitt came along, if you were there when
    Bruce and I had a swearing match, and he decided he was going
    to do a reinventory. So he walked out of here. And instead of
    15 long years and $10 million, they did it in 3 weeks with kids
    from BYU, Utah State, and others. They went out and said this
    is pretty, that is pretty, the other is pretty. Guess what they
    came up with? 5.7 million acres, exactly what they had been
    carrying around on those little badges all of those years,
    right on the button. Hardly the ink was dry on that.
        Guess what? They then wanted 9.1. Now it is 9.3. I called
    one of them and said, ``What if we gave you the 9.3?`` ``I want
    12.5.'' what if we gave you 12.5 and half of the Forest Service
    and all of the parks?
        So now really what are you telling me when you are saying
    that to me, Mr. Environmentalist? You are saying to me, you are
    saying I don't want to settle this thing, because if I settle
    this thing, my industry extinguishes. You better get to
    something else.
        It is kind of like Marlboro, you know. If we get rid of
    cigarettes, you guys don't kill yourself puffing on the damned
    things; do you know what you are going to find? They are going
    to go into cheese and into something else.
        So that is what you folks in the wilderness area ought to
    do, get into something else, because you are obviously in a
    place where you can't keep this going forever.
        So all he is doing is doing what we have done in the
    legislature, what we have done here. I wish I had brought a
    list of all of the bills that we have put a sunset on, of which
    there are hundreds. That is all we are asking is get it done.
        So what is the emphasis? What is the incentive to get it
    done? It is a time limit. And that is why since our Founding
    Fathers put this show together, they put sunsets on bills, to
    get the job done.
        So if you oppose this, you are in effect buying into that
    argument we really don't want to settle this thing, because if
    we settle it, what are we going to do to make money now? I just
    say, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. I think
    you have done a fantastic job and you even read your lines
    right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. That means we will put you down
    as neutral on that bill.

      Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
                                   Resources

        I've served in this body for 22 years. Throughout that time, I've
    taken part in hundreds of hearings, read countless pages of testimony,
    and have met with thousands of Americans expressing their views on
    public policy. I can say from experience that few issues create as much
    controversy, divisiveness, and frustration as wilderness does.
        This is a result of many factors. Some people consider the
    Wilderness Act of 1964 to be a sacred writ and oppose any attempt to
    improve it. Others formed special interest groups based on a philosophy
    of wilderness. These people prefer to continue to increase their
    wilderness proposals each year by hundreds of thousands of acres that
    do not fit the definition of wilderness, rather than coming to the
    table to resolve the issue. Others object to any wilderness designation
    at all. But I believe that most of the controversy and contention is a
    result of agencies or individuals departing from the original intent of
    the Wilderness Act.
        The Wilderness Act of 1964 vests the duty of designating wilderness
    areas on public lands solely with the Congress. Although Federal
    agencies may recommend areas that may be suitable for wilderness
    designation--and are even required to do so--they cannot create
    wilderness areas. Notwithstanding this fact, the agencies'' ability to
    designate Wilderness Study Areas allows them to bypass Congressional
    processes and create de facto wilderness areas. Even though Congress
    has not approved these areas as wilderness, they are being managed as
    though they were and, under current law, may continue to be managed as
    wilderness for perpetuity unless Congress directs them to do otherwise.
    Agency-made wilderness was not the intent of Congress when it passed
    the Wilderness Act in 1964, and it should not be now.
        Let me illustrate this with an example. In my home state of Utah,
    approximately 3.2 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land
    Management are Wilderness Study Areas. These WSAs have been around now
    for more than two decades, waiting for Congress to act on the BLM's
    recommendation of 1.9 million acres. As I stated earlier, wilderness is
    always a controversial subject. Trying to pass legislation that would
    designate those lands that deserve it and release those that do not has
    been very difficult. The result is that the State of Utah has 3.2
    million acres of WSAs as de-facto wilderness.
        But that's not where the problem stops. Special interest groups
    have lobbied the agencies to manage additional areas as wilderness.
    Without Congressional approval, the agencies have done just that, and
    in Utah, that makes between 5.7 and 9.1 million acres de-facto
    wilderness.
        This legislation would help to alleviate problems like this. It
    would require Congress to act within 10 years of the designation of the
    Wilderness Study Area. It would give an incentive to all sides to come
    to the table to negotiate and come to a resolution.
        Another result of this legislation would be the avoidance of
    perpetual studies for wilderness characteristics on public lands. I
    know that in Utah, the lands have been studied to death. This
    legislation would make allow the Federal agencies to devote more of
    their time and resources to other pressing management needs. It will
    revert the public land to the use status that it had immediately before
    becoming a WSA.
        Most importantly, it allows Congress decide what is and is not
    wilderness, based on the recommendations of the Federal agencies. This
    was the original intent of the Wilderness Act.
        This is a good piece of legislation. I appreciate the Chairman
    considering it today and look forward to hearing the panel's remarks.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Next up to speak on his bill, H.R. 4141, is
    Subcommittee colleague, Jim Gibbons of Nevada.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And there
    is a line in ``When Harry Met Sally'' where they are sitting at
    a restaurant, and ``I want some of what she is having.''
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for considering H.R.
    4141, the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Protection
    and Enhancement Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, a bill previously
    referenced by our colleague, Mrs. Green, was considered by this
    Congress years ago, called the Southern Nevada Public Lands
    Management Act of 1998, which was enacted to provide for the
    orderly disposal of Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and
    to provide the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands
    in the State.
        Now, pursuant to these goals and to those of the Recreation
    and Public Purposes Act, on April 10th of this year I
    introduced this important piece of legislation to further
    enhance the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
        H.R. 4141 will promulgate the exchange of approximately
    1,000 acres of private land, environmentally sensitive land,
    and mountainous land on the eastern border of the Red Rock
    National Conservation Area, held by the Howard Hughes
    Corporation, for approximately 1,000 acres of Bureau of Land
    Management lands. In addition, approximately 1,200 acres of BLM
    lands will be transferred to Clark County to be used as a
    public park. This exchange is fully consistent with the
    objectives of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act,
    P.L. 105-203, an Act to dispose of developable Federal lands
    which are currently on BLM's disposal list in exchange for
    those that are environmentally sensitive.
        The land to be conveyed to the BLM by the Howard Hughes
    Corporation has archeological, scenic and recreational values.
    The public lands to be acquired by the Hughes Corporation in
    exchange are adjacent to the Hughes Corporation holdings and
    lie within the disposal boundaries identified by the Southern
    Nevada Public Land Management Act for development.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know Congress recognized the benefits
    of convening lands to local governments without compensation
    for recreational purposes when it passed the Recreation in
    Public Purposes Act of 1954. The transfer of approximately
    1,200 acres to Clark County to be used as a park or part of a
    trial system meets with the objectives of the Recreation and
    Public Purposes Act as well as the Southern Nevada Public Land
    Management Act.
        H.R. 4141 is a bill that has the support of both Nevada's
    Senators, Democratic Senator Harry Reid, and Republican Senator
    John Ensign, as well as the local governments in the area.
        Further, the Howard Hughes Corporation deserves praise for
    its advocacy of an exchange that not only benefits their
    development interest but also those of the local public.
        The Las Vegas City Council passed a resolution on February
    20th of this year supporting preservation of Spring Mountain
    viewsheds through incorporation into the Red Rock Canyon NCA.
    Further, the Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club stated in
    a letter to the Howard Hughes Corporation that H.R. 4141 is not
    a bill that they want to oppose, and that the positive gains
    for the public holdings makes it a bill to celebrate.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
    record testimony from Clark County Manager Tom Riley endorsing
    this legislation. Along with the citizens of Clark County
    Nevada, we look forward to further consideration of this
    legislation which blends development and conservation interests
    into a wise and sensible solution for Red Rock Canyon.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for working this bill into
    your Subcommittee's very busy schedule. I hope to gain your
    support in moving this bill in the near future. I would be
    happy to address any questions the Committee or others may
    have.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
                            from the State of Nevada

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering H.R. 4141--the Red Rock
    Canyon National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of
    2002.
        A previous bill considered by this Congress, the Southern Nevada
    Public Land Management Act of 1998, was enacted to provide for the
    orderly disposal of Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada and to
    provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the
    State.
        Pursuant to these goals, and to those of the Recreation and Public
    Purposes Act, on April 10th of this year, I introduced this important
    piece of legislation to further enhance the Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area.
        H.R. 4141 will promulgate the exchange of approximately 1000 acres
    of private, environmentally sensitive, mountainous land on the eastern
    border of the Red Rocks National Conservation Area held by The Howard
    Hughes Corporation for approximately 1000 acres of Bureau of Land
    Management lands.
        In addition, approximately 1200 acres of BLM land will be
    transferred to Clark County to be used as a public park.
        The exchange is fully consistent with the objectives of the
    Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to dispose developable
    Federal lands in exchange for those that are environmentally sensitive.
        The land to be conveyed to the BLM by The Howard Hughes Corporation
    has archaeological, scenic, and recreational values.
        The public lands to be acquired by The Howard Hughes Corporation
    are adjacent to Hughes corporate land holdings and lie within the
    disposal boundaries identified by the Southern Nevada Public Land
    Management Act for development.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress recognized the benefit of
    conveying Federal lands to local governments without compensation for
    recreation purposes when it passed the Recreation and Public Purposes
    Act of 1954.
        The transfer of approximately 1200 acres to Clark County to be used
    as a park or part of a trail system meets with the objectives of the
    Recreation and Public Purposes Act as well as the Southern Nevada
    Public Land Management Act.
        H.R. 4141 is a non-controversial bill that has the support of both
    of Nevada's Senators, and local government.
        Further, the Howard Hughes Corporation deserves praise for its
    advocacy of an exchange that not only benefits their development
    interests but also those of the local public.
        The Las Vegas City Council passed a resolution on February 20th of
    this year supporting ``preservation'' of Spring Mountain viewsheds
    through incorporation into the Red Rock Canyon NCA.
        Further, the Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club stated in a
    letter to The Howard Hughes Corporation that H.R. 4141 is not a bill
    they ``want to oppose'' and that the positive gain for public holdings
    makes it a ``bill to celebrate''.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record,
    testimony from Clark County Manager Thom Reilly, endorsing this
    legislation.
        Along with the citizens of Clark County, Nevada, we look forward to
    further consideration of this legislation which blends development and
    conservation interests into a wise and sensible solution for Red Rock
    Canyon.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for working this bill into your
    Subcommittee's very busy schedule--and I hope to gain your support in
    moving this bill in the near future.
        I will be happy to address any of the Committee's concerns.
                                     ______

        [The statement submitted for the record on H.R. 4141 from
    Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada,
    follows:]

      Statement of Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada

        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 4141, a
    bill to authorize the acquisition by exchange of land for inclusion in
    the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Clark County, Nevada.
        Howard Hughes Corporation owns property and is developing the
    Summerlin Master Planned Community immediately adjacent to the Red Rock
    Canyon National Conservation Area administered by the Bureau of Land
    Management. The lands being offered by Howard Hughes Corporation,
    totaling 1071 acres, would be incorporated into the Red Rock Canyon
    National Conservation Area.
        Inclusion of the lands in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area will preserve the viewsheds of the Spring Mountains from the Las
    Vegas Valley and natural drainage ways. It will also provide improved
    public access to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
    resulting in significant public benefits.
        Howard Hughes Corporation has selected 998 acres within the Bureau
    of Land Management disposal boundary for the Las Vegas Valley that it
    considers suitable for exchange for the lands being offered. An
    additional 1250 acres of public lands, also within the Bureau of Land
    Management disposal boundary, would be conveyed to Clark County for
    public parks and trails to be administered by the Parks and Community
    Services Department.
        The majority of this land being conveyed to Clark County is
    currently identified as open space and part of the regional trail
    system in Clark County's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2000-2020.
    Steep slopes, view sheds from the urban
        Las Vegas Valley, and important cultural and biological resources
    best characterize the area.
        Clark County will construct trails and trailheads within this open
    space, through Federal-local partnerships, at an estimated cost of
    $5,000,000. It is Clark County's intent to link portions of the Old
    Mormon/Spanish Trail with the regional trails system through these
    constructed trails.
        Clark County understands that the lands conveyed would be subject
    to valid existing rights as identified in Section 6 (b) of the Bill. To
    that end Clark County has met with the owners of mining claims and will
    continue to work with them as they pursue their rights.
        In summary, H.R. 4141 will preserve the viewsheds of the Spring
    Mountains from the Las Vegas Valley; it will provide improved public
    access to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area; and it will
    result in significant public benefits to the residents and visitors of
    Clark County, Nevada. This is important and meaningful legislation and
    Clark County, Nevada supports its passage. To this end the Clark County
    Board of County Commissioners passed the attached Resolution in support
    of H.R. 4141.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

      Clark County, Nevada Resolution Supporting the Exchange of Selected
     Lands Between the United States Bureau of Land Management and Howard
                            Hughes Properties, Inc.

    WHEREAS, Howard Hughes Properties, Inc. (HUGHES) owns property along
            the western and northern boundaries of the Summerlin Master
            Planned Community; and
    WHEREAS, Inclusion of these land in the Red Rocks Canyon National
            Conservation Area (NCA) would preserve viewsheds of the Spring
            Mountains from the Las Vegas Valley and provide for improved
            public access to the NCA resulting in significant public
            benefits; and
    WHEREAS, HUGHES has selected lands within the Bureau of Land Management
            disposal boundary for Las Vegas Valley that it considers
            suitable for exchange for the lands being offered; and
    WHEREAS, Approximately 1250 acres of these lands being selected would
            be conveyed to Clark County for public parks and trails to be
            administered by the Parks and Community Services Department;
            and
    WHEREAS, A number of leaders representing a variety of both state and
            local environmental organizations have endorse this exchange.
    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners, of
            Clark County, Nevada, hereby supports the Federal legislation
            titled: H.R. 4141, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area
            Protection and Enhancement Act of 2002.
    PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 4th day of June 2002.
    CLARK COUNTY
    BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
        By: DARIO HERRERA, Chairman
    ATTEST: SHIRLEY B. PARRAGUIRRE, County Clerk
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Ross, I appreciate your patience.
    Welcome to the Committee--Subcommittee. Welcome here to speak
    on your bill, H.R. 3815.
        Mr. Radanovich. Please begin your testimony.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Ross. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
    Member Christensen and to Chairman Hansen for his work with me
    on this. I am here today to testify in support of H.R. 3815,
    the Presidential Historic Site Study Act. It is a bipartisan
    bill that I offered earlier this year.
        This bill simply begins the normal process for preserving
    an important American Presidential landmark. American
    Presidents are a hallmark of our society. The way in which
    Americans forever remember leadership of the greatest Nation is
    through their policies, their words, and through the people and
    places that have shaped their lives. We place a great
    historical significance on the homes of Presidents because
    indeed they are a part of our Nation's history. They are where
    our leaders formed the beliefs and values that shaped their
    decisions and legacies.
        The meaning of these historic Presidential landmarks has
    moved anyone who has ever visited sites like Mt. Vernon,
    Monticello, Abraham Lincoln's birthplace at Spring Creek or
    Ronald Reagan's birthplace.
        The birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton
    holds a piece of our Presidential history. It is only fitting
    for it to be designated as a Natural Historic Site. I share the
    unique opportunity of being the representative of former
    President Clinton's birthplace home, Hope, Arkansas. In fact I
    am a 1979 graduate of Hope High School. For 17 days back in
    1991, we had a President from Hope, a Republican Governor from
    Hope, and a Member of Congress from Hope. Two of us remain in
    office today. In that small place called Hope, President
    Clinton was educated and encouraged by a loving family in a
    home at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope, Arkansas. This home
    stands as a marker of his heritage.
        President Clinton lived in two homes in Hope. However, I
    have enclosed as an official part of my testimony today a copy
    of a personal letter from former President Clinton designating
    this home as his official birthplace for purposes of historic
    significance.
        Today the home is a tourist attraction operated by a non-
    profit organization, and is seeking to be designated as a
    National Historic Site. The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was
    formed several years ago, and its executive director is here
    today and will be testifying in just a little while, Crystal
    Altenbaumer.
        The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was founded several years
    ago and has successfully renovated the birthplace home as a
    museum and visitors center. To establish the William Jefferson
    Clinton birthplace home as a National Historic Site, a
    feasibility study must be completed. That is what we are
    seeking to do with this legislation is to simply authorize the
    Department of Interior to proceed with a feasibility study.
        The eventual designation as a National Historic Site will
    open the doors of economic opportunity through added tourism to
    southwest Arkansas. A number of my fellow colleagues are
    cosponsors of H.R. 3815, including every member of the Arkansas
    delegation, including our Republican member, John Boozman and
    the Chairman of the Committee, Chairman Hansen. Every member of
    the Arkansas delegation has signed onto this bill.
        My home state Governor, Mike Huckabee, a Republican who as
    I mentioned is also from Hope, is also very supportive of this
    study, and I have a letter here today from him in that regard.

        [The letter from President Clinton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.001

        Mr. Ross. Arkansans view this home as part of our long
    legacy of history within the State. This is not about politics,
    but instead it is about the rich history of Arkansas and our
    Nation. This site will not only educate the thousands of
    visitors each year that come to learn more about this part of
    American history, but bring more jobs, more opportunities, more
    tourism and, yes, more economic development to a part of my
    district that greatly needs it.
        Mr. Chairman, I would thank the members of the Subcommittee
    for allowing me to testify this afternoon. I hope that this
    bill will be marked up soon and offered before the House of
    Representatives. And I will be happy to answer any questions
    that you or members of the Committee might have at this time.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you so much Mr. Ross.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Michael Ross, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Arkansas

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3815, the Presidential
    Historic Site Study Act, a bipartisan bill that I offered earlier this
    year.
        This bill simply begins the normal process for preserving an
    important American presidential landmark. American Presidents are a
    hallmark of our society. The way in which Americans forever remember
    leadership of the ``greatest nation'' is through their policies, their
    words, and through the people and places that have shaped their lives.
    We place a great historical significance on the homes of President's
    because, indeed, they are a part of our nation's history. They are
    where our leaders formed the beliefs and values that shaped their
    decisions and legacies. The meaning of these historic presidential
    landmarks has moved anyone who has visited Mt. Vernon, Monticello,
    Abraham Lincoln's birthplace at Spring Creek, or Ronald Reagan's
    birthplace. The birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton
    holds a piece of our presidential history, and it is only fitting for
    it to be designated as a National Historic Site.
        I share the unique opportunity of being the Representative of
    former President Clinton's birthplace home, Hope, Arkansas. In fact, I
    am a 1979 graduate of Hope High School. In that small town called Hope,
    President Clinton was educated and encouraged by a loving family in a
    home at 117 South Hervey Street, Hope, AR. This home stands as a marker
    of his hermitage. President Clinton lived in several homes in Hope;
    however, I have enclosed as part of my official testimony a copy of
    personal correspondence from President Clinton designating this home as
    his ``official birthplace for purposes of historic significance.''
        Today, the home is a tourist attraction to the local area and is
    seeking to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places as a
    National Landmark. The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was formed several
    years ago. The foundation has successfully renovated the birthplace
    home as a museum and visitors center. To establish the ``William
    Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home'' as a National Historic Site, a
    feasibility study must be completed. That is what we are seeking to do
    with this legislation.
        The eventual designation as a National Historic Site will open the
    doors of economic opportunity through added tourism to Southwest
    Arkansas. Thirty-one of my fellow colleagues are currently cosponsors
    on H.R. 3815, including every member of the Arkansas delegation. My
    home state's Governor, Mike Huckabee-a Republican, is supportive of
    this study. Arkansans view this home as part of our long legacy of
    history within the state. This is not about politics, but instead about
    the rich history of Arkansas and our Nation. This site will, not only,
    educate the thousands of visitors each year that come to learn about
    this part of American history, but perhaps most importantly, bring more
    jobs, more opportunities, and more economic development to a part of my
    district that greatly needs it.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee
    for allowing me to testify this afternoon. I hope that this bill will
    be marked up soon and offered before the House of Representatives. I
    will be happy to answer any questions the members of the Committee
    might have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Are there any questions of the gentleman
    from Arkansas? Mike, you are welcome to join us here on the
    dais for the rest of the hearing if you would like.
        Mr. Ross. Actually, we have--I appreciate that. I have got
    a markup going on in Financial Services. I am going to run back
    to that, if you will forgive me. Unless there are any
    questions.
        Mr. Radanovich. There are no questions. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. With that we will move on to our next
    panel, Panel No. 2, which consists of Ms. Nina Hatfield, Deputy
    Director of Bureau of Land Management, the Department of the
    Interior in Washington; and also Abigail Kimbell, Associate
    Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
        If you would begin your testimony, if we can keep it under
    5 minutes, that would be terrific. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF NINA HATFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
              MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Ms. Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 4620, America's
    Wilderness Protection Act, H.R. 4620, which attempts to deal
    with the backlog of wilderness recommendations for both
    designation and release that have built up in Congress now for
    several years.
        The Administration believes that the wilderness debate must
    move forward and that Congress should do this by addressing
    these wilderness study areas. We share the desire of the
    sponsors of H.R. 4620 to move forward and, where appropriate,
    designate lands as wilderness or return lands not suitable for
    wilderness to multiple use management and other appropriate
    uses. We would certainly like to work with Congress on
    legislation to accomplish this.
        This particular legislation potentially impacts three
    Interior bureaus: The Bureau of Land Management, the National
    Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. For the Bureau of
    Land Management, Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
    Management Act of 1976, commonly referred to as FLPMA, charged
    the BLM with identification and management of lands for the
    National Wilderness Preservation System established by the 1964
    Wilderness Act.
        Between 1977 and 1980 the BLM identified over 700
    wilderness study areas, covering approximately 26.5 million
    acres. These areas were placed under BLM's interim management
    policy to be managed to protect their wilderness values,
    pending a final action by Congress. Congress has designated 148
    BLM-managed wilderness areas, containing about 6.2 million
    acres.
        For the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
    Service, the Wilderness Act of 1964 instructed the Secretary to
    review all roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres and all
    roadless islands within the refuge system, and to make
    recommendations to the President regarding the suitability of
    these lands for classification as wilderness.
        Between 1968 and 1990, Congress passed 15 laws designating
    about 20 percent of the lands and waters in the refuge system
    as wilderness, more than 20 million acres on 65 national
    wildlife refuges. Congress has yet to act on wilderness
    proposals for about 2 million acres and 21 refuges outside of
    Alaska that were submitted between 1969 and 1974.
        In the National Park Service, a total of 19 parks currently
    have areas recommended by the President for wilderness
    designation. Most of these areas have been awaiting
    congressional action for more than 20 years.
        H.R. 4620 seeks to move forward the wilderness debate. The
    bill places a 10-year limit for action on existing WSAs, after
    which any WSA lands not designated as wilderness would be
    released from withdrawal. Following release, pursuant to this
    legislation, management of the lands would revert to the plans
    in place prior to the designation. The Administration is
    currently formulating a position on this provision, and we look
    forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
        We support the goal of moving forward the wilderness debate
    on wilderness designation, and want to work with the Congress
    on legislation to accomplish these goals. Certainly,
    determining a final management status of these lands would
    achieve our objectives with respect to wilderness and
    nonwilderness use.
        The Administration agrees that the time has come to make
    decisions about wilderness designation. The holding pattern
    that we have been in for the last decade continues to frustrate
    people on all sides of the issue. And we are hopeful that the
    consideration of this bill will spur the debate. And we look
    forward to working with you on it.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and look
    forward to answering any questions that you may have.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Hatfield.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hatfield follows:]

    Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and
      Finance, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 4620, ``America's Wilderness
    Protection Act.'' H.R. 4620 is an attempt to deal with the backlog of
    wilderness recommendations both for designation and release that have
    built up in the Congress over the past 30 years. As my statement will
    point out, the Department currently has pending before Congress
    recommendations on many millions of acres of land managed by the Bureau
    of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
    the National Park Service (NPS). The Administration believes that the
    wilderness debate must move forward and Congress should do this by
    addressing these Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Except for the large
    amount of acreage addressed by the California Desert Protection Act of
    1993 and approximately1.06 million acres designated in the 106th
    Congress, there has been little activity in the Congress over the past
    10 years in this area. We share the desire of the sponsors of H.R. 4620
    to move forward and, where appropriate, designate lands as wilderness
    or return lands not suitable for wilderness to multiple use management
    and other appropriate uses, and would like to work with Congress on
    legislation to accomplish this.
    Background--Bureau of Land Management
        Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
    (P.L. 94-579), commonly referred to as FLPMA, charged the BLM with
    identification and management of lands for a National Wilderness
    Preservation System established by the 1964 Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-
    577).
        Between 1977 and 1980 the BLM identified over 700 Wilderness Study
    Areas (WSAs) covering approximately 26.5 million acres. These areas
    were placed under BLM's Interim Management Policy (IMP) to be managed
    to protect their wilderness values pending final action by Congress.
    FLPMA directs the BLM to protect the wilderness character of these
    lands until a decision on their final disposition is made by Congress.
    The IMP provides detailed guidance to managers on this protection
    mandate.
        Between 1980 and 1991 the BLM studied its WSAs (with the exception
    of Alaska) through the land use planning process. In 1991, and as
    mandated by FLPMA, Secretary of the Interior Lujan transmitted to the
    President his suitability recommendations for these WSAs. The
    recommendations found 9.7 million acres of BLM-managed public lands in
    330 units as suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness
    Preservation System. (Subsequent Congressional actions have reduced the
    remaining acreage recommended as suitable to approximately 6.5 million
    acres.) Between May of 1992 and January of 1993, President George H.W.
    Bush endorsed the recommendations of Secretary Lujan and submitted them
    to Congress. Apart from continuing to manage all the WSA lands for
    their wilderness character, this completed the Executive Branch's
    obligations under section 603 of FLPMA.
        The BLM's first significant wilderness area--``Bear Trap Canyon
    Wilderness'' in southwestern Montana--was designated by Congress in
    1983. Since then, Congress (through nearly two dozen separate Acts) has
    designated an additional 148 BLM-managed wilderness areas containing
    about 6.25 million acres. In some cases, the Congress has generally
    followed BLM's suitability recommendations. Far more frequently,
    Members of Congress and Congressional delegations have conducted their
    own investigation into proposed wilderness reaching their own separate
    conclusions. These have included releasing areas recommended suitable,
    designating areas originally recommended nonsuitable, designating areas
    which were not WSAs, as well as creating WSAs legislatively.
        There has been no single template for wilderness action by
    Congress. In Arizona, for example, two laws, the Arizona Wilderness Act
    of 1984 (P.L. 98-406) and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990
    (P.L. 101-628) resolved almost all of Arizona's BLM wilderness issues
    designating nearly 1.4 million acres of wilderness in 47 separate
    areas. Likewise, the California Desert Protection Area of 1994 (P.L.
    104-433) designated 69 new BLM wilderness areas covering over 3.5
    million acres, seven legislated WSAs, largely resolving wilderness
    issues in the California Desert. In the last Congress, five different
    bills designated wilderness in California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and
    Nevada ranging from a single area of 17,700 acres in Colorado to 10
    newly designated wilderness areas in Nevada containing over 750,000
    acres.
        At the present time 20 bills are pending in the House of
    Representatives or the Senate to designate wilderness, and we are aware
    of ongoing discussions by individual Members and entire delegations
    concerning additional wilderness proposals.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service
        The Wilderness Act of 1964 instructed the Secretary of the Interior
    to review all roadless lands greater than 5,000 acres and all roadless
    islands within the Refuge System and to make recommendations to the
    President regarding the suitability of these lands for classification
    as wilderness. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of
    1980 (ANILCA) directed the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive
    conservation plan (CCP) for each refuge in Alaska. ANILCA mandated that
    the CCPs include a wilderness study of all refuge lands and waters that
    were not designated wilderness by the Act.
        Between 1968 and 1990, Congress passed 15 laws designating about
    20% of the lands and waters in the Refuge System as wilderness--more
    than 20 million acres on 65 national wildlife refuges. Congress has yet
    to act on wilderness proposals for 2 million acres in 21 refuges
    outside Alaska submitted between 1969 and 1974. These ``proposed
    wilderness'' areas are managed to protect their wilderness values
    pending final action by Congress.
        In the National Park Service (NPS), a total of 19 parks, including
    some of the best known in the National Park System, currently have
    areas recommended by the President for wilderness designation. Most of
    these areas have been awaiting Congressional action for more than
    twenty years.
    H.R. 4620
        H.R. 4620 seeks to move forward the wilderness debate. The findings
    of the bill state that certain Federal lands as wilderness are
    beneficial to the American people and wilderness study areas were not
    intended as a substitute for wilderness designation by Congress.
    Finally, the findings point out that lands that merit wilderness
    designation should be granted the full protection that such as status
    would afford and those lands that do not merit such a designation
    should be released so that they could be managed for the public good.
        The bill places a 10-year time limit for action on existing WSAs,
    after which any WSA lands not designated wilderness by Congress would
    be released from withdrawal. Following release pursuant to the
    legislation, management of the lands would revert to the plans in place
    prior to their designation as WSAs. The Administration is currently
    formulating a position on this provision and we look forward to working
    with the Committee on this issue.
        As stated above, we support the goal of moving forward the
    wilderness debate and wilderness designation and want to work with
    Congress on legislation that accomplishes these goals. As of today,
    there are 16.3 million acres of BLM WSAs, 26.1 million acres of NPS
    WSAs, and 5.3 million acres of FWS WSAs. Determining a final management
    status of these lands would achieve our objectives with respect to
    wilderness and non-wilderness use.
    Conclusion
        The Administration agrees that the time has come to make decisions
    about wilderness designations. The holding pattern of the last decade
    continues to frustrate people on all sides of the issue. We are hopeful
    that Congress's consideration of H.R. 4620 will spur this debate. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to
    answer any questions the Committee may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Next is Abigail Kimbell, again the
    Associate Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Abigail,
    welcome to the Committee and please begin your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
                   FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE

        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today. My comments today
    represent the views of the Department of Agriculture on H.R.
    4620, America'S Wilderness Protection Act. My comments will be
    fairly short.
        Section 3(c) of the bill states: Any area released from
    wilderness study area status shall revert to the land use
    status that such area had immediately before the area was given
    wilderness study area status and shall not be studied again
    regarding wilderness designation. The Administration is
    currently formulating a position on this provision. We look
    forward to working with the Committee on the issue.
        The study of the Forest Service primitive areas has long
    since been completed. Wilderness suitability of National Forest
    System lands has been examined in RARE I, RARE II, as well as
    all of our land and resource management plans.
        We would certainly like to move the debate forward. This
    concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]

     Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
             System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today. I am Abigail Kimbell, Associate
    Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. My comments
    today represent the views of the Department on H.R. 4620, ``America's
    Wilderness Protection Act''.
        For reasons I will detail in my testimony, the Department has some
    concerns with this bill, but the Department would like to work with the
    Committee to resolve these concerns as the bill is considered.
    H.R. 4620, ``America's Wilderness Protection Act
        H.R. 4620, America's Wilderness Protection Act, would accelerate
    the wilderness designation process by establishing a timetable for the
    completion of wilderness studies on Federal lands, and for other
    purposes. The bill states, ``the establishment of a timetable for the
    completion of wilderness studies would facilitate the wilderness
    designation process by supplying a time frame within which Congress
    must act.
        Section 3(a) of the bill, directs all areas with Wilderness Study
    Area status on the date of the enactment of this Act would be released
    from Wilderness Study Area status on the earlier of the following:
        (1) LThe date that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
    of Agriculture, as appropriate, determines that the area is not
    suitable for wilderness designation.
        (2) L10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
        (3) LThe date that the area is designated as wilderness by an Act
    of Congress.
        Section 3(b) of H.R. 4620, directs that any area that is given
    Wilderness Study Area status after the date of enactment of this Act
    shall be released from Wilderness Study Area status on the earlier of
    the following:
        (1) LThe date that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
    of Agriculture, as appropriate, determines that the area is not
    suitable for wilderness designation.
        (2) L10 years after the date that the area was given Wilderness
    Study Area status.
        (3) LThe date that the area is designated as wilderness by an Act
    of Congress.
        Section 3(c) of the bill states any area released from Wilderness
    Study Area status shall revert to the land use status such area had
    immediately before the area was given Wilderness Study Area status and
    shall not be studied again regarding wilderness designation. The
    Administration is currently formulating a position on this provision
    and we look forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
        The Wilderness Act of 1964 provided for the study of certain
    National Forest System lands for wilderness suitability. The study of
    Forest Service Primitive Areas has long since been completed.
    Wilderness suitability of National Forest System lands has been
    examined in RARE I, RARE II, as well as many Land and Resource
    Management Plans. Although the President and the Secretary may
    recommend that certain areas be designated wilderness, Congress
    reserves the authority to designate areas as wilderness. Congress may
    direct the study of specific areas through specific wilderness
    legislation.
        In conclusion, the Department is committed to working cooperatively
    with the Committee to identify and secure for the American public, the
    benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness that can be used and
    enjoyed by current and future generations.
        This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Any questions from any of the members?
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, if I might; Ms. Hatfield, is the
    Bureau of Land Management, then, supporting or not supporting
    the bill?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, the Administration hasn't yet taken a
    position on the bill. They are still looking at the issues
    related to the bill and would like to work with the Committee
    on the bill.
        Mrs. Christensen. And just one other question. I am not
    sure how many wilderness studies are out there, but are most--
    how long does it take for most of the studies to be done?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, it would vary with the size of the unit
    that you are looking at and the complexity of the issues
    related to it. But I think that, certainly in most cases, many
    of the wilderness areas have already been looked at. And as we
    are looking through, trying to revise our plans--and we are
    doing that in most of the areas of the country--then there
    could be additional areas.
        A plan for a land area usually will take about 3 years to
    do, and wilderness would be considered as a part of that
    planning process.
        Mrs. Christensen. So you are saying that the studies are
    completed within 10 years normally?
        Ms. Hatfield. Yes. Most of the wilderness study areas in
    the Bureau of Land Management that have already been identified
    are now before Congress. But there is a provision in the Act
    that does allow us to go through and look at our land uses
    throughout the Bureau, and in the process of doing that, you
    might consider if there are wilderness values on a particular
    area of land.
        Mrs. Christensen. So it sounds as if most of them can be
    done within 10 years and are done within 10 years. So the
    problem is really here, acting on whether to designate the
    wilderness or not.
        Ms. Hatfield. Absolutely. I think that the Bureau and the
    other agencies have already put before Congress areas that they
    believe have wilderness characteristics and should be
    considered. And so the real issue is here, is Congress looking
    at those wilderness study areas and making a decision if in
    fact they intend to designate them as wilderness areas.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To either one of the
    testifiers--so convert back. If something has gone through a
    plan and been looked at for wilderness value, and maybe the
    decision in the plan is that this is not going to be used as
    wilderness, would there be instances where after we have spent
    the time and expense to look at the land, where maybe your
    Agency should be looking at not converting back to the original
    plan, but looking for a plan that would protect either a
    significant ecosystem or populations of plant or wildlife that
    might be existing on the land without going to the wilderness
    designation? So do we have a choice of one or the other only?
        Ms. Kimbell. Under the National Forest Management Act, we
    analyze forestlands, forest by forest. And the National Forest
    Management Act was passed in 1976. We have completed the first
    round of planning. We are involved in the second round. Each
    time we go through that planning process, we evaluate all of
    the lands on the national forest, other than those that have
    already been congressionally designated as a special area, and
    we evaluate them for different uses, including potential
    wilderness. They are then assigned a land use designation. So
    there is a great range of land use designations. We might
    recommend some area for wilderness. We might decide to
    designate it as primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized,
    semiprimitive motorized. There are a whole host of land use
    designations that would be specific to that piece of land.
        Ms. McCollum. So how are you answering my question? I
    thought my question was kind of simple. You said if it wasn't
    designated wilderness, it gets converted back. And I said, in
    doing the wilderness study, if you find a different use for the
    land or a different designation, can you do that? Yes or no?
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. So then it does not have to convert back to
    the original status that it was prior to doing the wilderness
    investigation?
        Ms. Kimbell. Well, currently under the National Forest
    Management Act, we evaluate it for a whole host of different
    land use designations. It doesn't necessarily revert to any
    specific designation.
        Ms. McCollum. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because I
    thought I heard in the testimony, repeatedly, it converts back
    to what it was prior to being designated wilderness--prior to
    the study. And thank you for the clarification that after the
    study is done that you look and evaluate it.
        Unless staff here wants to clarify what I heard?
        Mrs. Christensen. Would you yield? I think that the bill
    under consideration does that, reverts it back to prior use.
        Ms. Hatfield. You are really talking about two different
    types of areas. Currently, at least for Interior land, you have
    50 million acres of designated wilderness study areas that are
    before Congress for consideration. And in addition to that, the
    agencies do look at, routinely, their land base to make plans
    and constantly update those based on public impact, public
    input, and changes of situations that happen.
        And in that consideration, I think, as Ms. Kimbell has
    related, that we would look at wilderness values also.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, seeing as how we are on the
    bill, your question was for current policy. With the bill in
    front of us, do you feel that you have any input after you have
    looked at a study, even if wilderness is not the
    recommendation, to have any voice, any concerns, any input as
    to how the land should be designated?
        Ms. Kimbell. As I stated in my testimony, the Department of
    Agriculture would like to work with the Subcommittee on the
    language in Section 3(c).
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Otter, did you have any
    questions?
        Mr. Otter. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Hatfield, how does the Department of Interior and
    Forest Service--I guess I would ask Ms. Kimbell as well--
    currently manage wilderness study areas?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, they are currently managed so that the
    values that made them wilderness study areas in the first place
    will be maintained in the future. And so they are managed to
    maintain the status quo, if you will.
        Mr. Otter. Does that include the eradication of noxious and
    invasive weeds?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, certainly we can take actions like
    prescribed burns and some other management actions like that
    that are designed to maintain the health of the area. But for
    the most part, it is maintained with the idea of maintaining
    the wilderness characteristics.
        Mr. Otter. Could you help me out with some activity
    definitions here? What kind of activity, human activity, is
    allowed in wilderness areas?
        Ms. Hatfield. I think that, generally speaking, the
    activity is designed to be more nonmotorized type of activity,
    dispersed camping, individual camping; looking at these as I
    think the original legislation looked at in terms of enjoying
    the solitude and natural areas, areas that haven't primarily
    been used a great deal in terms of human interaction with it.
        Mr. Otter. During your testimony you referred to the over
    700--I think it was--study areas on BLM ground, representing
    26.5 million acres. During that, you said you had submitted to
    Congress, I think it was well over 100-some that should have
    been designated either for multiple use or for wilderness; is
    that right?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, currently there are about 16.3 million
    acres in BLM that are before Congress as wilderness study
    areas, and they are being managed by the Bureau as wilderness
    study areas. In other words, maintaining the status quo, if you
    will.
        Mr. Otter. You have made recommendations, then, to Congress
    that these should be wilderness areas?
        Ms. Hatfield. That is correct. Now, there have also been
    some other subsequent recommendations by the Bureau determining
    that some of those areas may not be suitable for wilderness
    designation.
        Mr. Otter. That would be the 40 in Idaho, for instance,
    that have been referred back and said this does not have--these
    do not have wilderness qualities.
        Ms. Hatfield. Yes, but we are still maintaining those as
    wilderness study areas.
        Mr. Otter. Now, who do you submit this list to, this advice
    to? Is this submitted directly to Congress or is this submitted
    to the President?
        Ms. Hatfield. The President submitted it to Congress.
        Mr. Otter. And how many of those have been submitted to
    Congress by the President?
        Ms. Hatfield. I think that--I will ask to submit the
    total--the list specifically to the record.
        [Mr. Hatfield's response, which was submitted for the
    record, follows:]
        Between 1991 and 1993, the President submitted nine reports
    to Congress:
                July 1991--California
                May 1992--New Mexico
                June 1992--Utah
                July 1992--Oregon
                July 1992--Wyoming
                September 1992--Idaho
                September 1992--Nevada
                January 1993--Colorado
                January 1993--Montana
        Ms. Hatfield. But about 70 million acres of Interior
    lands--BLM, Park Service, Forest, Fish and Wildlife--have been
    designated as wilderness, and about 50 million acres are still
    available to be studied.
        Mr. Otter. Well, I have been advised by staff that although
    the BLM may have made the recommendation, that list has not
    been submitted by the President to Congress.
        Ms. Hatfield. That is right.
        Mr. Otter. What is the difference in activity between
    wilderness and monument status?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, the monuments are managed based upon
    the document that established the particular monument. And each
    of those declarations, whether they be legislative or
    Presidential--the monument document, for example, establishes
    whether or not there is going to be further mineral activity or
    further grazing, as an example, what kind of recreational
    activity. The wilderness areas are really designated in the
    context of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
        Mr. Otter. I would invite Ms. Kimbell to also respond to
    this if she would. Would you be able to tell me how long the
    Staircase-Escalante Monument was studied prior to its getting
    its designation?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, I will certainly try to supply that to
    the record.
        Mr. Otter. Do you have a guess as to how long it was
    studied before--
        Ms. Hatfield. I don't personally. I have been more involved
    with it since its designation.
        Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you want to
    respond?
        Ms. Kimbell. Nor do I have an exact number.
        Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Hatfield, can you tell me--you had
    mentioned the 40 study areas that are in Idaho right now that
    have been looked at and deemed not having the characteristics
    for a wilderness area but they are still being managed as such.
    Can you explain why that is the case, and why it hasn't been
    reverted back to regular management of BLM?
        Ms. Hatfield. I would like to check on the numbers in terms
    of Idaho specifically and check on that. But, generally
    speaking, FLPMA, which included a duty for the Bureau of Land
    Management to inventory and decided what areas might have
    wilderness characteristics, also provided that the BLM would
    maintain those areas as wilderness study areas once the
    President had sent it forward to Congress. That is the
    management scheme under which we are now working.
        And so it is based on the--our legislation, FLPMA.
        Mr. Radanovich. Is there any intention of reverting it back
    to anything other than the management of wilderness in those
    areas?
        Ms. Hatfield. Not until Congress makes a decision with
    regard to those specific acres, because our statute would
    require they be managed as wilderness.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you.
        If you will bear with me, I have got a question to read
    that is little bit long. If you would bear with me. Section 603
    of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act mandates that the
    Secretary review lands having characteristics of wilderness and
    then making a recommendation to the President, which is what we
    have talked about. This section also states that this review
    shall comply with Section 603(d) of the Wilderness Act which
    deals with the recommendation of suitable lands for wilderness.
        Keep in mind that these provisions of law refer to the
    recommended areas of wilderness designation. So, with that in
    mind, do you agree that when Section 603(c) refers to such
    areas during the period of review, that this means only those
    areas which have been recommended as suitable for wilderness
    designation?
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, I think that the thrust of your
    question is that FLPMA Section 603 does provide a mechanism by
    which the Bureau has inventoried lands through the--I think the
    first 15 years after the passage of FLPMA. BLM did make
    recommendations which the President has submitted to Congress.
    Those are the ones that are being managed as wilderness study
    areas.
        Now, in addition to that, in its normal planning process,
    the Bureau has designated some other wilderness study areas.
    Those would be ones that could be changed through the land use
    planning process. So there are two different types. But about
    98 percent of them are the FLPMA 603 areas. About 98 percent of
    them are the ones--under FLPMA 603--that Congress has the
    authority to decide whether or not in fact they should be
    wilderness and, thus, the bulk of the area that we would like
    to move forward working with Congress to work out a solution.
        Mr. Radanovich. Right. Is it the BLM's policy to consider
    land studied and not recommended for wilderness designation to
    remain wilderness study area status as if they were part of the
    recommendation?
        Ms. Hatfield. Currently?
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
        Ms. Hatfield. That is currently how we are managing.
        Mr. Radanovich. You state in your testimony that proposed
    wilderness areas are managed to protect their wilderness values
    pending congressional action. Where in the Wilderness Act does
    it mention proposed wilderness and that these areas need to be
    managed for their wilderness values?
        Ms. Hatfield. Again, with regard to BLM, you are operating
    basically under FLPMA. The FLPMA provision is 603. Under that
    provision we have looked at them. We have submitted them to the
    President. Those are subject to congressional action.
        Mr. Radanovich. But is that language that authorizes you to
    do that in the Wilderness Act? You mentioned under BLM.
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, FLPMA refers to the Wilderness Act. But
    the actual legislative import for BLM's action was through the
    Federal Land Management and Policy Act, FLPMA. But it does
    reference the Wilderness Act in terms of a standard.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, so the Agency studies, the
    President recommends, and then Congress needs to act. In
    Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (c):
    During the period of review, such areas, until Congress has
    determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage
    such lands according to his authority or her authority under
    the Act under the applicable laws in a manner as not to impair
    the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness
    subject to, however, the continuation of existing mining and
    grazing uses and mineral rights in the manner--
        Then it says, that in managing the public lands, the
    Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action
    required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the
    lands and their resources or whatever--basically goes on and
    says until Congress acts.
        So you are following the law. You have done your inventory,
    the President's list--and there seems to be some controversy
    between which staff you talk to whether a list has been handed
    in.
        Ms. Hatfield. No. We have submitted a list.
        Ms. McCollum. Then it is up to us. It is up to this
    Subcommittee and this full Committee to start acting on the
    pending legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, they are just doing what
    they are supposed to be.
        Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Hatfield, appreciate your testimony as well as you, Ms.
    Kimbell.
        Excuse me, not quite done yet. Mr. Otter has another
    question.
        Mr. Otter. I would like to follow up on something that Ms.
    McCollum was talking about earlier before the second round
    began, and that was relative to the problem that everybody has
    with Section 3(c), and that is reverting it back to wilderness.
        And I would like to accommodate that kind of thought in
    this bill, that if it wasn't going to be wilderness, and if it
    was going to be designated a use other than the use prior to it
    being designated as a study area, do you think that would take
    more than 10 years to decide whether or not that was going to
    be a use other than (A) wilderness or (B) its prior use?
        Ms. Hatfield. I think that is one of the questions that we
    would like to talk with the Committee more about. As we read
    Section 3(a), when a wilderness study area reverts back it will
    revert back under the plan for the land that was in place at
    the time that the wilderness study area would have been
    designated.
        For all of the agencies involved here, I think that for the
    most part, those plans are very old. And so it certainly raises
    some questions for us about the appropriate management of those
    areas. I think that is one of the issues that we would like to
    spend more time talking to the Committee about.
        Mr. Otter. Given that in the subsequent question that was
    asked in the second round by Ms. McCollum, I can understand--
    and the reading of that section refers to leasing of mineral
    rights and that sort of thing. But it also reverts to the
    consideration for historical uses, does it not?
        Ms. Hatfield. I think that if it reverted back--I am
    assuming that the thrust of the legislation as passed would
    make it revert back. Then the land management agency is going
    to have to go through a planning process to decide what is the
    appropriate use now and that may or may not be wilderness.
        Mr. Otter. No, I understand that. But during the study
    period, during the study time and the designation as the
    wilderness and it stops any leasing of the mineral rights or
    subsurface rights or mining rights or anything like that, but
    in many wilderness--if in a wilderness study area for BLM there
    had been historical grazing rights on that wilderness area, are
    those grazing rights considered a historical use and continued
    during the study period?
        Ms. Hatfield. Yes, sir. We are continuing to allow some
    grazing as long as it, again, does not impair the values for
    which the study area was originally designated. So the defining
    piece in terms of how they are managed is trying to maintain
    the qualities for which it was originally designated.
        Mr. Otter. So there was a qualifying word that you used in
    there, ``some.'' we are quite a few, at least in our area,
    where the historical grazing rights have been discontinued as a
    result of it becoming a study area.
        Ms. Hatfield. Well, it is a management decision. And so is
    does require some management determination. But the thrust of
    the management is to maintain the area in a manner that
    maintains the values that made it a wilderness study area. But
    as you can well understand, those kinds of conflicts are the
    reasons that the agencies would like to have a final
    determination about whether or not these areas are, in fact,
    wilderness areas or if, in fact, they should be open to more
    multiple uses. And that is a congressional decision.
        Mr. Otter. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Hatfield, what in your mind is a final
    determination? Would it be an act of Congress, a law passed or
    would it be a join resolution? Does it need to be a law?
        Ms. Hatfield. I think that under the scheme that is
    currently in place, the Congress would pass a bill designating
    it as wilderness. That is how it has been done.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you again for being here as
    witnesses. We will go ahead and call our next panel.
        Mr. Radanovich. The Honorable Randy Johnson is Commissioner
    from Emery County Castle Dale in Utah; The Honorable Chris
    Salove, Commissioner of Owyhee County, Marsing, Idaho; The
    Honorable Douglas Thompson, National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association and Public Lands Council, Lander, Wyoming; Mr. Rick
    Johnson Executive Director of the Idaho Conservation League in
    Boise, Idaho. Mr. Donald Barry, Executive Vice President of the
    Wilderness Society, Washington D.C.
        Gentlemen, welcome to the panel. We are going to go ahead
    and take opening statements from everybody and--testimony, I
    should say. And then open up the panel for questions.
        And Mr. Johnson if you would go ahead and begin and then we
    will just work our way to my right and get everybody's
    testimony. Please note the clock there. It may be far away from
    some of you though we would like to keep testimony under 5
    minutes. I will start tapping my pencil if it goes more. But
    green means go, yellow means speed up, and red means stop.
        Mr. Randy Johnson. Should we do that the way they drive in
    Washington, sort of suggestions?
        Mr. Radanovich. Just like driving a car.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, EMERY COUNTY,
                           CASTLE DALE, UTAH

        Mr. Randy Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I come to you from Emery
    County, Utah, a county roughly the size of the State of
    Connecticut with just under 11,000 residents. More than 81
    percent of our county is Federally owned, and another 9 percent
    is owned by the State. Our tax base is mostly from electrical
    generating facilities. Our five power plants provide more than
    65 percent of the power for the State of Utah.
        Clearly, public land management policies deeply impact life
    in Emery Country. Rural communities like Emery County face many
    difficult problems in maintaining economic viability. A big
    part of the problem, if I may say so, is the all-or-nothing
    approach to public land management issues used by many in this
    debate. This has become very harmful and it is deeply
    concerning that in our zeal to protect land and wildlife, we
    are not only ignoring one of our most important national
    treasures, we are actually working to eliminate it. I refer of
    course to the small communities of the rural west.
        It is because of this problem that in 1995, the Emery
    County Commission created the Emery County Public Lands Council
    to act as an extension of the commissioners in dealing with
    complex public land issues. This group meets monthly in a
    public setting and it has MOUs with every agency that operates
    on vast public lands in Emery county. Those agencies meet with
    us monthly as well. The results have been very positive.
    Besides having an excellent working relationship with all the
    agencies that manage our lands, the Public Lands Council has
    become very proactive in public land matters.
        For 7 years now, we have invited stakeholders to our table
    and have developed a collaborative process that has been both
    inclusive and comprehensive. From this process has evolved
    legislation for the San Rafael Swell developed entirely by the
    Public Lands Council, which has twice been introduced here in
    Congress. Most recently we have proposed that the President use
    his powers to protect the San Rafael as a Western Heritage
    National Monument.
        Emery County has become a leader in its proactive approach
    to public land management. We love the lands our ancestors
    settled with their sweat and tears. We are very protective of
    those lands. We are anxious to protect the San Rafael Swell,
    but we recognize the San Rafael is a land of many varied
    treasures. Not only are the cliffs and canyons and mesas
    spectacular, but equally impressive is the human heritage and
    the natural history. We want to protect this land but not just
    for one singular part of what makes the San Rafael spectacular.
    We want to protect all the treasures of this land: The uranium
    mining history, the outlaw history, the pioneer history, the
    traditional uses such as easterin', and well as many others.
        It is from this perspective that I testify today. I am not
    anti wilderness. I am not against preserving pristine qualities
    where they exist. I am against contention and I am against
    letting problems fester for decades. What I am for is
    collaboration. I am for solutions. I am here today because I
    believe that this legislation could help resolve a long
    standing and contentious debate.
        If I may give a few quick reasons why I support H.R. 4620.
    No. 1, two decades of debate and argument is enough. It is time
    we worked it out and get on with our lives. This legislation
    would help us to do that. No. 2, we are not the same as we were
    in the 1960's and 1970's. We have changed as a society. We are
    careful of our environment. We have many layers of protective
    management already on our lands. Wilderness is just one tool in
    a complex management system. It is time to create management
    that reflects our sophistication as an environmentally
    conscious people, and that reflects the complex needs of the
    people who own and use these lands.
        Reason No. 3, the Wilderness Act has been seriously
    weakened by decades of debating its real meaning. The original
    intent of Congress to set aside exemplary lands for future
    generations has been largely ignored. We are now in an ever-
    expanding mode where all public lands that are beautiful are
    considered to be potential wilderness. We are attempting to
    create wilderness by reclamation where we ignore the impacts of
    man and attempt to force-fit wilderness wherever we can. This
    is inherently contentious. It creates enemies. H.R. 4620 will
    allow us to resolve these differences.
        Reason number 4, the current wilderness debate nullifies
    all other good efforts to manage and protect our public lands,
    however appropriate they may be. Unless a particular management
    concept contains all the wilderness proposed by wilderness
    advocacy groups, fair consideration of its merits is
    impossible. National wilderness groups unilaterally oppose any
    concept that does not match their acreage quotas, thus
    rendering collaborative and cooperative efforts useless since
    passage of any legislation that does not have the endorsement
    of these groups is virtually impossible. Emery County's own
    H.R. 3625 and H.R. 3605 are excellent examples of this. H.R.
    4620 would effectively compel all stakeholders to make an
    effort to resolve their differences, and thus it would allow
    for fair consideration of healthy collaborative concepts for
    management of our public lands.
        In conclusion, I must say that the only real reason I can
    think of to oppose this legislation is if your entire objective
    is to keep the debate contentious and the conflict endless. I
    respectfully ask this Committee, must we be doomed forever to
    fight this same fight unnecessarily. I submit that to set
    deadlines for designation of wilderness would compel
    stakeholders to reach compromise solutions, to make an effort
    to resolve differences to benefit of all involved, and it is
    time that we do exactly that. I strongly recommend passage of
    H.R. 4620.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
        [The prepared statement of Randy Johnson follows:]

      Statement of Randy G. Johnson, Commissioner, Emery County, Utah, on
      behalf of Rural Public Lands County Council and Utah Association of
                                    Counties

        Mr. Chairman, I come to you from Emery County, Utah, a county
    roughly the size of the State of Connecticut with just under 11,000
    residents. More than 81% of our county is Federally owned, and another
    9% is state owned. Our tax base is mostly from electrical-generating
    facilities. Our five power plant units provide more than 65% of the
    electrical power for the State of Utah.
        Clearly, public land management policies deeply impact life in
    Emery County. Rural communities like Emery County face many difficult
    problems in maintaining economic viability. A big part of the problem,
    if I may say so, is the all-or-nothing approach to public land
    management issues used by many in the debate. This has become very
    harmful. All-or-nothing philosophies are intolerant. They refuse
    compromise. They are prejudicial and contentious by design, and the
    result is that this is the way we have been forced to do business on
    our public lands for the last twenty years. It is deeply concerning
    that in our zeal to protect land and wildlife, we are not only ignoring
    one of our most important national treasures, we are actually working
    to eliminate it. I refer, of course, to the small communities of the
    rural west.
        It is because of this problem that, in 1995, the Emery County
    Commission created the Emery County Public Lands Council to act as an
    extension of the commissioners in dealing with complex public lands
    issues. This group, made up of the three commissioners and nine other
    people from all areas of experience and expertise, meets monthly in a
    public setting. The Council has a Memorandum of Understanding with
    every agency that does business on Emery County's vast public lands,
    and those agencies meet with us each month. The results have been very
    positive. Emery County has an excellent working relationship with all
    the agencies that manage our lands. Further, the Public Lands Council
    has become very proactive in public land matters. For almost seven
    years now, we have invited stakeholders to our table and have developed
    a collaborative process that has been both inclusive and comprehensive.
    Our rules have been simple: First, we value every viewpoint; second, we
    have no pre-set objectives, but rather we let the process define the
    product; third, we recognize that there are no one-size-fits-all
    solutions; and fourth, we believe that no public land management plan
    will work unless it addresses the needs of the people who use and enjoy
    those lands.
        From this process has evolved legislation for the San Rafael Swell,
    developed entirely by the Public Lands Council, which has twice been
    introduced in Congress. Most recently, we have proposed that the
    President use his powers to protect the San Rafael as a Western
    Heritage National Monument
        Through our efforts, Emery County has become a clear leader among
    counties in its pro-active approach to public lands management. We love
    the lands our ancestors settled with their sweat and tears. We are very
    protective of them. We are anxious to protect the San Rafael Swell. But
    we recognize that the San Rafael is a land of many varied treasures.
    Not only are the cliffs and canyons and mesas spectacular, but equally
    impressive is the human heritage and the natural history. We want to
    protect this land, but not just for one, singular part of what makes
    the San Rafael spectacular. We want to protect all the treasures of
    this land---the uranium mining history, the outlaw history, the pioneer
    history, traditional uses such as ``easterin''', as well as many
    others.
        It is from this perspective that I testify today. I am not anti-
    wilderness. I am not against preserving pristine qualities where they
    exist. However, I am against contention. I am against letting problems
    fester for decades. What I am for is collaboration. I am for solutions,
    and I am here today because I believe that this legislation could help
    resolve a long-standing and contentious debate.
        Since being asked to testify, I have wondered what I could say that
    hasn't already been said many times. We have been at each other's
    throats over public land management for so long, it seems impossible to
    say anything that will shed new light on the situation. What I would
    like to do is give you five reasons why I believe that H.R. 4620 should
    be passed by Congress.
        Reason number one: Two decades of debate and argument is long
    enough. Some people will say that this is such an important issue that
    we should hold out for our acreage quotas no matter what happens. I say
    we ought to be ashamed. No one concept fits all the needs of our public
    lands. Further, no one management concept should be allowed to hold
    hostage other good, collaborative progress. That is exactly what
    wilderness has done, and it is time we work things out and get on with
    our lives. This legislation would assure that would happen.
        Reason number two: We are not the same as we were in the 1960's and
    1970's when we were new to environmental concerns. We have changed as a
    society. We have learned. We are careful of our environment. We have
    many layers of protective management on our public lands. Wilderness is
    just one of many tools in a complex management system. Yet some
    approach public lands management as though we were stuck in the 1970's.
    They work to create a false sense of urgency in order to promote their
    acreage quotas. They make it appear as though it is wilderness or
    degradation with nothing in-between. It is time to create management
    that reflects our sophistication as an environmentally-conscious
    people, and that reflects the complex needs of the public who owns the
    land.
        Reason number three: The Wilderness Act has been seriously weakened
    by decades of debating its real meaning. The original intent of
    Congress--to set aside exemplary lands for future generations--has been
    largely ignored. We are now in an ever-expanding mode, where all public
    lands that are beautiful are considered to be potential wilderness. We
    are attempting to create wilderness by reclamation, where we ignore the
    impacts of man and attempt to force-fit wilderness wherever we can.
    This is an unnecessary and unhealthy effort. It is inherently
    contentious. It creates enemies. H.R. 4620 will stop the ever-enlarging
    wilderness monster that we all are forced to live with now, and allow
    us to finally resolve our differences.
        Reason number four: The current wilderness debate nullifies all
    other good efforts to manage and protect our public lands, however
    appropriate they may be. Unless a particular management concept
    contains all the wilderness proposed by wilderness advocacy groups,
    fair consideration of its merits is impossible. National wilderness
    groups unilaterally oppose any concept that does not match their
    acreage quotas, thus rendering collaborative and cooperative efforts
    useless, since passage of any legislation that does not have the
    endorsement of these groups is virtually impossible. Emery County's own
    H.R. 3625 and H.R. 3605 are excellent examples of this. H.R. 4620 would
    effectively compel all stakeholders to make an effort to resolve their
    differences, and thus it would allow fair consideration of healthy
    collaborative concepts for management of our public lands. Given this
    environment, I believe that we would see many collaborative efforts,
    such as has occurred in Emery County, spring up all over the country.
        Reason number five: The only reason to oppose this legislation is
    if your entire objective is to keep the debate contentious and the
    conflict endless in order to continually expand your acreage quotas. It
    becomes a war for the sake of the war. H.R. 1500 is an example of this.
    For many years, the goal for Utah's wilderness advocates was 5.7
    million acres. However, when there was some sentiment in Utah to create
    between 2.5 and 3.0 million acres of wilderness in Utah, the wilderness
    people suddenly found 4.4 million acres of new wilderness, bringing
    their acreage goal to 9.1 million acres. This is not about land
    protection. It is about business. It is a way of doing business that
    would be threatened if solutions were within our grasp. We are talking
    about a dynasty built upon an illusion of urgency--an illusion we have
    helped to create and perpetuate by our inability to collaborate and
    resolve our differences. An ever-expanding monster. A war for the sake
    of a war.
        I respectfully ask this Committee, must we be doomed forever to
    fight this same fight unnecessarily? I submit that to set deadlines for
    designation of wilderness would compel stakeholders to reach compromise
    solutions'to make an effort to resolve differences to the benefit of
    all involved. It is time we do exactly that. I strongly recommend the
    passage of H.R. 4620.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chris Salove, if I have got it right,
    from Owyhee County Idaho.

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS SALOVE, COMMISSIONER, OWYHEE COUNTY,
                             MARSING, IDAHO

        Mr. Salove. One is about as close as the other. I thank you
    for the opportunity to be here before you today. My name is
    Chris Salove and I am elected county commissioner from Owyhee
    County, Idaho.
        Mr. Radanovich. You see this? This gets abused all the
    time.
        Mr. Salove. I am sure you can appreciate that. I am also a
    newly appointed member of the Lower Snake River district, BLM
    Resource Advisory Council. Owyhee County is a very large
    county, about 4.9 million acres. We lie in the southwest corner
    of Idaho bordering Oregon to our west and Nevada to our south.
        Of our 4.9 million acres, over 70 percent is owned by the
    United States and managed by the BLM. The economy of our county
    is dependent upon the continued multiple use of these lands,
    particularly the grazing as mandated in the Taylor Grazing Act,
    the Federal Lands policy and Management Act, and the Public
    Grange Lands Improvement Act.
        The viability of our economy and of the ranching industry
    is threatened by conflicts arising out of arbitrary management
    by our local BLM. To that end, I am here on behalf of the
    Owyhee County Commissioners to testify in favor of H.R. 4620,
    America's Wilderness Protection Act. We believe this Act would
    help resolve the conflicts. We also believe it will benefit the
    land and its resources as well as our economy, the two of which
    are inseparable. There currently is no designated wilderness
    within Owyhee County. We do, however, have four wilderness
    study areas which combined total approximately 750,000 acres.
    The first of these studies began in 1982, the last was
    concluded in 1989. These areas are being managed more
    restrictively than if they were actual wilderness designations.
        When Congress designates a wilderness area, existing rights
    are protected and guidelines are set for future use. When the
    BLM manages under its own administrative policies the
    restrictions are so rigid that they endanger continued multiple
    use. Their don't-touch policy applied to the entire 750,000
    acres, even though the BLM itself only recommends 400,000 acres
    for wilderness.
        They acknowledge that the other 350,000 acres is unsuitable
    due to the need for intensive management actions such as
    control of the rapid invasion of Western Juniper into the sage
    brush grass ecosystems. Within the 400,000 acres, they
    recommend for wilderness they have identified the need for many
    management actions needed to maintain or improve ecosystem
    values. Yet none of these actions ever occur because of their
    rigid don't-touch policy, even though the actions are allowable
    under the Wilderness Act and its extension to FLPMA. We believe
    that BLM's rigid don't-touch management is inconsistent with
    the legislative intent of Congress in passing the Wilderness
    Act of 1964 and the wilderness section of the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act of 1976.
        The House Committee report as to the Wilderness Act points
    out the importance of legislative, not administrative control
    of wilderness areas. To quote, a statutory framework for
    preservation of wilderness would permit long-range planning and
    assure that no future administrator could arbitrarily or
    capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be
    retained or make wholesale designations of individual areas--of
    additional areas, in which use would be limited.
        When Congress broadened the impact of the Wilderness Act to
    the BLM acts by amending FLPMA in 76 the legislative intent was
    the same as that expressed in passing the Wilderness Act. The
    Committee report pointed out that section 603 of FLPMA provided
    that administrative recommendations as to wilderness would be
    submitted to Congress, quote, for appropriate action. The
    Committee report even emphasized that the review process should
    be expedited, stating that the Committee expects the secretary
    to establish priorities in a manner which will expedite the
    review process and which will cause minimum interference with
    existing multiple use management of the public lands.
        The bill now under your consideration is consistent with
    and will implement the intent of Congress stated in these
    reports. For purposes of resolving land use conflicts which are
    harmful to our environment as well as our economy, and for
    purposes of producing clear legislative guidance to the use of
    our unique lands, we ask that you pass America's Wilderness
    Protection Act. And since I have got 30 seconds left, I would
    like to recognize the fact that we have got the Idaho
    Conservation League and the Wilderness Society here, we have
    been working with their Idaho representatives through the
    Owyhee initiative, a collaborative effort began by the Owyhee
    County commissioners. Through that effort I have gained a new
    respect and understanding for these two groups. And I don't
    think we are as far apart as a lot of people would like to make
    out that we are. I think there is a lot of room for us to work
    together and come to an understanding, but it is time to do
    something and quit studying it.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Chris. Appreciate your
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Chris Salove follows:]

     Statement of Chris Salove, Member, Snake River BLM Resource Advisory
                                    Council

        My name is Chris Salove. I am an elected County Commissioner in
    Owyhee County, Idaho. I also serve as an appointed member of the Lower
    Snake River BLM Resource Advisory Council.
        Owyhee County, located in the southwest part of Idaho at its
    juncture with Oregon and Nevada, has a huge land mass and over 70% of
    it is owned by the United States. Economic health of our county and its
    citizens is dependent upon livestock grazing as mandated by Congress in
    the Taylor Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and
    the Public Rangelands Improvement Act.
        The viability of ranching in our county is threatened by land use
    conflicts which arise out of arbitrary management of Wilderness Study
    Areas by local BLM employees. I appear to testify in favor of America's
    Wilderness Protection Act, H.R. 4620, because I believe it will help
    resolve such conflicts. Passage of the Act will benefit the land and
    its resources which are critical to a sound environment in our County,
    and to the economic stability of our ranchers and our county.
        The two go hand in hand: a sound environment and economic
    stability. We recognize that in Owyhee County, and the Board of
    Commissioners recognizes its responsibility to pursue both.
        Owyhee County contains no designated wilderness. But, BLM studies
    of wilderness potential began in our County 17 years ago. Four separate
    studies have resulted in the placement of about 750,000 acres in
    administrative wilderness study areas. These acres are managed in a far
    more restrictive manner than actual wilderness designations by Congress
    in other parts of the country. When Congress designates a wilderness
    area, it mandates protection of existing rights and it sets the
    guidelines for continued uses such as grazing. But, land which lies
    only in a wilderness study area is managed by the BLM under its own
    administrative policy and procedures which are so restrictive that they
    endanger continued multiple use.
        The irony in our county is that the rigid restrictions do not
    result from recommendations for wilderness designation, but simply from
    the fact that the BLM studied the area for wilderness potential. All
    750,000 acres are rigidly restricted, even though the BLM itself has
    recommended only slightly more than half those acres for wilderness
    designation. The general studies for wilderness potential began in
    Owyhee County in 1982. The last study of the four separate areas
    studied was completed in 1989. The BLM recommended wilderness
    designation for 400,000 acres, and recommended that multiple uses be
    continued without wilderness designation on the other 350,000 acres.
    Much of the 350,000 acre portion of the studied areas was not
    recommended for wilderness designation because of the BLM identified a
    need for intensive management to restore or protect the landscape
    ecology.
        The areas not recommended for wilderness designation have been
    subjected to a ``do not touch'' policy. Such policy of ``non-use'' is
    arbitrarily applied even to those areas which the BLM said were in
    imminent need of intensive management efforts. It is harmful to the
    total environment of Owyhee County for the BLM to refuse to allow
    management improvement actions even in those areas in which the BLM has
    identified the need for intense management.
        That is the dilemma, however, that we face because of the
    administrative tie-up of these ``study areas''. Since the first
    wilderness study Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 1986,
    the studied lands have been off limits to any kind of management. Even
    maintenance of existing range improvements is allowed only with BLM
    approval, and that approval is often denied. Even when the approval is
    granted, the BLM often limits the maintenance activity in a way that
    dramatically increases costs and/or reduces the effectiveness of the
    maintenance work and resulting management of the area.
        Four Wilderness Study Areas were recommended for release to
    multiple use because of significant needs for management of encroaching
    western juniper into sagebrush-grass ecosystems. But, in the absence of
    Congressional action, the management needs identified by BLM personnel
    have been delayed by the same personnel for the past 17 years. The
    continuing and escalating juniper encroachment has resulted in
    deterioration of wildlife habitat, sensitive species habitat, watershed
    function and productivity which continues in those Study Areas to this
    day.
        Even in those areas recommended by the BLM as suitable for
    wilderness designation, the BLM has identified many needs for improved
    management of multiple uses which must be implemented in order to
    maintain and improve landscape scale ecosystem values. However, the BLM
    interim management policy prohibits any such management. The expansion
    and development of western juniper and resulting deterioration of
    watershed function and landscape ecosystem values continues unabated.
    Range improvements that would apply livestock grazing treatments in a
    manner that increases the rate of watershed improvement on a landscape
    scale are routinely prohibited in spite of the fact that such
    improvements are allowable under the Wilderness Act and the extension
    of that Act to BLM managed lands by FLPMA.
        In the most recent Resource Management Plan completed by the BLM
    for our County, issued in 1999, the BLM acknowledges that intensive
    management is necessary on public lands lying within five study areas
    covered by the 1986 Environmental Impact Study related to the Owyhee
    Amended Wilderness Report. Sixty percent of these particular lands have
    been recommended for non-wilderness because of the dramatic juniper
    encroachment. Yet, to this date, no management action has been
    initiated to address the juniper encroachment problem.
        Since the early days of the prior Administration in Washington,
    emphasis has been placed on riparian area improvement, restoration, and
    protection. Each time we review an allotment evaluation in our County
    we see the BLM emphasizing riparian condition. Yet, water developments
    which could help immeasurably in riparian protection, are restricted
    and denied in these Study Areas. A well which was put in prior to
    commencement of the wilderness study in the Jack's Creek area of our
    County, covered by the 1989 Environmental Impact Statement, still sits
    today without a pump installed---representing potential for riparian
    protection, stymied by BLM restrictions.
        Let me tell you of a horrible example of how the BLM restrictively
    limits riparian and ecological improvements. In the early 1990s,
    ranchers who share an allotment in Owyhee County were granted
    permission to build a riparian protection fence, part of which would be
    in a Wilderness Study Area. But, the permission was so restrictive that
    no one could reasonably have been expected to complete the fence under
    the terms specified by the BLM. The ranchers were given only 4 days to
    build a 3 mile fence in extremely rough terrain. Materials had to be
    carried in on foot because no motorized equipment could be used in the
    area. The ranchers requested that they be given more time, but the BLM
    refused, insisting that the fence had to be completed in its entirety
    within the four days.
        John Fend of the BLM (who now holds a position in the Bureau in
    D.C.) warned the ranchers that if the fence was not entirely completed
    within the four days, the ranchers would have to remove those portions
    which had been completed. A series of questions about leniency as to
    the fourth day made it clear that the BLM had no intention that the
    fence could be completed. The BLM position was crystal when Fend
    replied ``no'' to the question ``If we have the whole fence completed,
    but need to string one strand of wire 100 feet, can we do that on the
    5th day?''
        On the first of the allotted 4 days, the ranchers hand carried
    posts and wire into the area, laying the supplies out along the three
    mile fence course. Working from before dawn until after dark, the
    ranchers could see that they would not be able to complete the task.
        But, on day 2, before dawn, as they made their way to the fence
    line, they saw their friends and neighbors streaming toward them. 32
    men, women and children in this sparsely populated region, came with
    wire stretchers, post pounders and other tools necessary to complete
    the job. They had heard what the BLM had done, and were determined to
    help make the improvement which would enhance the ecology of the
    allotment.
        With the help of their neighbors, the fence was completed at 6pm on
    the fourth day. Just after the work was finished, John Fend called one
    of the ranchers and told her that the work would have to stop because
    the time was up. She told him that the work was completed, and he was
    stunned by the news. It was obvious that the BLM had not expected that
    the fence improvement could be made in the time allotted.
        Shortly thereafter, an anti-grazing conservation group filed an
    appeal of the decision to permit construction of the fence. Without
    consulting the ranchers who had worked so hard with their neighbors'
    help to meet the impossible terms, in fact without even advising them,
    the BLM settled the appeal and told the ranchers the fence would have
    to be removed.
        BLM fire crews then went into the area, including the Wilderness
    Study Area, with motorized vehicles and tore out the fence. They made
    no attempt to even save the wire, balling it up so that it would
    useless. The motorized vehicles damaged the resource. Ranchers have
    pictures evidencing this travesty in the Wilderness Study Area.
        The rigid interim management policy applied by the Idaho BLM to the
    administrative wilderness study areas needing intensive management is
    harmful to the environment, to viable multiple uses as mandated by
    Congress and to the economic welfare of our citizens. The only
    management options considered by the BLM within the administrative
    wilderness study areas are prohibitions for recreational access and
    elimination of livestock grazing. Ironically, proper management of
    recreational uses and proper management of livestock grazing are the
    most effective tools to preserve and enhance the landscape scale
    ecosystem function in the unique areas of Owyhee County.
        We believe that the rigid ``no touch'' management policy is
    inconsistent with the legislative intent of Congress in passing the
    Wilderness Act of 1964 and the wilderness section of the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act of 1976. The House Committee Report as to the
    Wilderness Act pointed out the importance of legislative, not
    administrative, control of the wilderness areas:
            A statutory framework for the
            preservation of wilderness would permit long-range planning and
            assure that no future administrator could arbitrarily or
            capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be
            retained or make wholesale designations of additional areas in
            which use would be limited.''
        The Committee Report also stated: ``Furthermore, by establishing
    explicit legislative authority for wilderness preservation, Congress is
    fulfilling its responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to exercise
    jurisdiction over the public lands.''
        The bill now under your consideration is consistent with, and will
    implement, the intent of Congress stated in that Report. It will assure
    that it is Congress, not an endless administrative policy, which will
    mandate the designations and the uses of the land within those
    designations. The Congressional intent in passing the Wilderness Act
    was to exercise its constitutional responsibility for management of the
    public lands, not leave that responsibility to administrators without
    Congressional designation. ``America's Wilderness Protection Act'' will
    implement that intent.
        When Congress broadened the impact of the Wilderness Act to the BLM
    lands by amending FLPMA in 1976, the legislative intent was the same as
    that expressed in passing the Wilderness Act. The Committee Report
    pointed out that Section 603 of FLPMA provided that administrative
    recommendations as to wilderness designation would be submitted to
    Congress ``for appropriate action''.
        There is no evidence in the report that the Committee intended that
    there be no action by Congress once the recommendation was received,
    and that during the period of no Congressional action, the multiple
    uses of the area would be rigidly curtailed. Rather, the Committee
    foresaw ``appropriate action'' by Congress once a recommendation was
    received.
        The Committee Report even emphasized that the review process should
    be expedited. The Report stated that the Committee ``expects the
    Secretary to establish priorities in a manner which will expedite the
    review process and which will cause minimum interference with existing
    multiple use management of the public lands.'' ``America's Wilderness
    Protection Act'' will expedite Congressional review of administrative
    recommendations, and will assure that long delays and inaction will not
    result in harm to the environment including the human element of the
    environment.
        The FLPMA Committee Report made it clear that Congress did not
    intend for long Congressional delays to result in rigid restriction of
    use. As to those areas recommended for wilderness, the Committee Report
    pointed out that the Secretary would have authority to allow at least
    minimum management improvements ``such as wildlife habitat and
    livestock control improvements where needed for protection or
    maintenance of the lands and their resources and for continuation of
    their authorized uses.'' That authority has not been exercised in our
    County. Through the many years since the recommendations were furnished
    to Congress, permission for improvements has repeatedly been withheld.
        Moreover, there is nothing in the Committee Report evidencing an
    intent to allow the BLM to impose rigid use limitations even on those
    study areas not recommended for wilderness designation. Yet, in our
    County, management improvements have been denied in those areas which
    the BLM determined to be unsuitable for wilderness designation.
        ``America's Wilderness Protection Act'' does not endanger
    wilderness designations. It simply places a time limit for Congress to
    act on the agency's recommendations. If Congress has not accepted a
    recommendation to designate wilderness within the time limit set by the
    Act, the ``wilderness study area'' is released so that management
    actions can be taken to protect the ecology of the landscape. Timely
    action by Congress will call for Congress to exercise its rightful
    jurisdiction over use of the public lands as emphasized in the
    Wilderness Act Committee Report in 1974. It will be Congress which sets
    the parameters for use in the wilderness designations, and in all
    others the multiple uses authorized by Congress will continue.
        For purposes of resolving land use conflicts which are harmful to
    our environment, for purposes of providing clear legislative guidance
    as to the use of unique lands, we ask that you pass ``America's
    Wilderness Protection Act''.

                                   PROPOSAL:
        There be established the Owyhee Landscape Conservation Center which
    shall be operated to implement the Owyhee Initiative which is a
    landscape-scale program to preserve the natural processes that create
    and maintain a functioning, un-fragmented landscape supporting and
    sustaining a flourishing community of multiple uses, to preserve
    economically viable livestock grazing, and to preserve and protect
    cultural resources.
        The Owyhee Landscape Conservation Center shall be operated under
    the direction of the Owyhee Scientific Management Review Team, in
    coordination with the land grant University of Idaho.
        The OSMRT shall be made up of representatives of the University of
    Idaho, conservation groups, county and state government, the Bureau of
    Land Management and Federal management and research agencies, livestock
    grazing industry, recreation groups, and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
    selected by the Owyhee Initiative Work Group which shall also identify
    the qualifications for membership on the OSMRT. When the member
    organizations have been chosen by the Owyhee Initiative Work Group, the
    organizations may submit nominations of persons who meet the
    established qualifications. From the nominees the Initiative Work Group
    shall select the members of OSMRT to serve staggered two and three year
    terms. The Chair of the Owyhee Scientific Management Review Team shall
    be a representative of the University of Idaho.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Next up is the honorable Doug Thompson from
    the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Welcome, Doug, and
    please begin your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS THOMPSON, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
         ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, LANDER, WYOMING

        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
    name is Doug Thompson. I would like to thank the Committee for
    the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4620. My wife and I own and
    operate Myers Land and Cattle Company, with the help of my
    daughter and son-in-law. Our ranch is in south central Wyoming
    and is a third-generation ranch with fourth generation
    preparing to take the reins. I am the past Chairman of the
    Wyoming State Grazing Board and serve as a Fremont County
    commissioner. Today I speak on behalf of the National Public
    Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
        H.R. 4620 is most timely in nature, most urgently needed.
    There must be a resolution to the wilderness study issue and
    now is the time to act. We agree with section 2, two statements
    are particularly important. First, ``wilderness study area
    status was not intended as a substitute for wilderness
    designation by Congress.'' The other, ``it was not the
    intention of Congress that areas continue under wilderness
    study areas status indefinitely.'' Current practice contradicts
    both these findings. Since Congress alone has the authority to
    create wilderness without congressional action, wilderness
    study areas will continue indefinitely and land management
    agencies will continue to create de facto wilderness. We agree
    that all wilderness study areas should either be designated
    wilderness or returned to multiple use status and that the
    perpetuation of wilderness study area status is undesirable.
        Over the course of time, successive Federal land managers
    have taken more and more restrictive possessions on permitted
    activities. Activities originally allowed under FLPMA have
    become prohibited or extremely restricted. Ranchers and energy
    companies in Wyoming and across the west are finding ever-
    increasing restrictions and difficulties on exercising their
    valid existing rights and permitted use.
        We agree that section 3's timetable for wilderness study
    completion provides appropriate and adequate options for
    resolution of the wilderness study area situation. For over 25
    years, the BLM has placed over 26 million acres in wilderness
    study areas. Only 36 percent of this acreage was even
    recommended for wilderness designation. Nearly 17 million acres
    were not recommended as wilderness but continued to be managed
    under the most restrictive land use status possible, that of a
    wilderness study area. The result is a severe negative impact
    on our economies, school funding, basic services because of the
    loss of multiple use and the associated revenue.
        We agree that a maximum time limit must be established to
    prevent continuing non-action. The 10-year limit is most
    generous, but a shorter timeframe is more appropriate,
    considering that some wilderness study areas have been in place
    for over 25 years. As Congress designates wilderness, we ask
    that you bear in mind what the general public really believes
    wilderness is. There is a wide gap between wilderness as
    envisioned by the wilderness advocates and the wilderness
    expectations of the general public. For the first group, only
    nonuse locked up areas will satisfy, while the second group
    simply wants access and reasonable use of our nation's pristine
    natural beauty.
        Concerning subsequent wilderness study areas, the authority
    to designate wilderness study areas under section 603 has long
    since expired. Any authority under sections 201 and 202 is
    restricted to lands acquired by the BLM through gift sale,
    exchange or transfer. Lands previously determined not suitable
    for wilderness study areas should not be reevaluated.
    Reevaluation drains valuable resources which are needed for
    ongoing management actions. We agree with section 3 that areas
    released from wilderness study area status should be not be
    studied again. These lands should be returned to multiple use
    until a subsequent land use planning process determines a long-
    term status. Further, the BLM should be mandated to restore,
    reauthorize any activity such as AUM reductions, improvements
    or access roads that were restricted solely as a result of
    wilderness study area designation.
        In closing, I have three attachments I would like to have
    part of this testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions
    and thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        Mr. Radanovich. Is there any objection to those attachments
    being included in the record? Hearing none so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

     Statement of Douglas L. Thompson, Wyoming Rancher and Fremont County
       Commissioner, Representing the National Public Lands Council and
                     National Cattlemen's Beef Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Resources: I testify
    on Congressman Otter's bill, H.R. 4620, entitled ``America's Wilderness
    Protection Act.'' Allow me to begin with a short introduction of
    myself. My name is Douglas L. Thompson. I own and operate Myers Land
    and Cattle Company, a cattle ranch in south central Wyoming along the
    Sweetwater River on Beaver Rim. This is a third generation ranch with
    the fourth generation preparing to take the reins. My background
    includes a BA degree in Business and Math Education. I have served in
    numerous leadership positions in both community and industry related
    activities, such as:
         Past President-Fremont County Cattleman's Association
         Past Vice-president-Wyoming Stock Growers Association
         Current President-Lander District Grazing Board
         Past Chairman-Wyoming State Grazing Board
         Fremont County School District 9 Trustee-20 years
         Past President-Wyoming School Boards Association
         4-H Leader-20 years
        Currently, I am in my second year as a Fremont County Commissioner,
    serving as our county's representative on the Interdisciplinary Team
    for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Planning process, having
    been granted Cooperating Agency status with special expertise in
    grazing and socio-economics. This varied and diverse background has
    enabled me to view the current wilderness situation from many different
    perspectives.
        Today, I speak as a representative of the National Public Lands
    Council and National Cattleman's Beef Association. I am a member of
    each of these organizations and serve as a Wyoming representative to
    the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Federal Lands Committee and
    serve as a Wyoming representative on the National Public Lands Council
    Board of Directors. Also, the National Association of County Officials
    endorses my testimony.
        This bill H.R. 4620 is most timely in nature and most urgently
    needed. There must be some resolution to the Wilderness Study Area
    issue and now is the time to act.
        We fully agree with Section 2 Findings and Purpose. Two statements
    are particularly important. Section 2 (3) states, ``Wilderness Study
    Area status was not intended as a substitute for wilderness designation
    by Congress,'' and Section 2 (4) states, ``It was not the intention of
    Congress that areas continue under Wilderness Study Area status
    indefinitely.'' Current practice contradicts both of these findings.
    Since Congress alone has authority to create wilderness, without
    Congressional action Wilderness Study Areas will continue indefinitely
    and land management agencies will continue to create de facto
    wilderness-more land in Wilderness Study Area status.
        We further agree with subsection (4) that all Wilderness Study
    Areas should either be designated wilderness or released back to
    multiple-use status and that the ``perpetuation of Wilderness Study
    Area status is undesirable.'' Over the course of time, successive
    Federal land managers have taken more restrictive positions on
    permitted activities in Wilderness Study Areas. Activities originally
    given exceptions under FLPMA Section 603c to the non-impairment
    standard (grand fathered uses) have become prohibited or extremely
    restricted use. One rancher in our county lost the grazing use of 9000
    acres in his allotment when the area manager decided that grazing was
    not appropriate for the Wilderness Study Area. Another rancher is
    currently litigating a situation where he was originally allowed to
    maintain reservoirs in a Wilderness Study Area in his grazing
    allotment, but now the BLM is trying to deny him the ability to fulfill
    the maintenance obligations in the terms and conditions of his grazing
    permit. Energy companies in the Jack Morrow Hills are finding ever-
    increasing restrictions and stipulations on exercising their valid
    existing leases in current Wilderness Study Areas. Perpetuation of
    Wilderness Study Area status is certainly undesirable.
        We agree that Section 3 Timetable for Wilderness Study Completion
    provides appropriate and adequate options for resolution of Wilderness
    Study Area Status. Section 3 (a)(1) is especially important. For over
    25 years the BLM has placed over 26 million acres nationwide in
    Wilderness Study Area status.
        However, according to a 1993 GAO report, only 36.2% of this acreage
    was recommended for wilderness designation. 63.8% or 16,785,826 million
    acres that were NOT recommended by the Secretary of Interior as
    Wilderness have continued to be managed by the BLM in the most
    restrictive land status possible-Wilderness Study Area status.
        The result is a severe negative impact to our economies, schools,
    and basic services caused by the loss of multiple-use options and
    revenue. These 17 million acres could have been used by recreation
    enthusiasts, people with disabilities, senior citizens, and others
    whose use is excluded by Wilderness Study Area status. The
    recommendations of de facto non-use by the Federal land management
    agencies needs to be acted upon by Congress.
        We agree that a maximum time limit must be established to prevent
    continuing non-action on this subject. We believe that the 10-year
    limit in Section 3 (a)(2) is most generous, but feel that a shorter
    time frame is more appropriate, considering that some Wilderness Study
    Areas have been in place for over 25 years. Whether it is 10 years or a
    shorter period, it is critically important to the final resolution to
    this situation to set a maximum time limit for action.
        We would ask that as Congress designates wilderness as referred to
    in Section 3 (a)(3) that the decision makers bear in mind what the
    general public believes wilderness is. There is a wide gap between
    wilderness as envisioned by the wilderness advocates and the wilderness
    expectations of the general public.
        For the first group, only a no-use, locked-up area will satisfy;
    while the second group simply wants access and reasonable use of our
    nation's pristine natural beauty.
        Concerning Section 3 (b) Subsequent Wilderness Study Areas, it is
    the position of the organizations represented by this testimony that
    authority to designate Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of
    FLPMA has long since expired; and that any authority conveyed under
    Sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA is restricted to lands acquired by the
    BLM through gift, sale, exchange, or transfer since the 603 process was
    completed. Lands previously determined not suitable for Wilderness
    Study Area status should not be re-evaluated in any subsequent planning
    process. Such re-evaluation would prove costly, time-consuming, and a
    drain on valuable resources which are needed for ongoing management
    actions.
        We agree in Section 3(c) Release from Wilderness Study Area Status
    that areas released should not be studied again. However, we believe
    that lands should be released back to multiple-use status until a
    subsequent land use planning process determines a long-term status for
    such lands.
        In closing, I would relate two examples that clearly point to the
    necessity of crafting and implementing a resolution to the Wilderness
    Study Area situation.
        First, in 1986 the BLM produced a document entitled ``Wilderness
    Study Areas and Wilderness-Questions and Answers About Domestic
    Livestock and Wildlife Management.'' This document paints a picture of
    accommodation and consideration of existing uses. For example,
    equipment and vehicles could be used for maintenance, livestock
    facilities, and fences. Also, water development could occur, and
    wildlife management practices could be done on a case-by-case basis.
    All this has changed over time and a strict non-impairment, non-use
    standard appears to be the practice of the day.
        Secondly, an article by Bill Sizer with John Carr entitled ``The
    Trouble with Wilderness'' points out the gap between the rhetoric and
    the reality relating to the Arizona Fish and Game Department's
    management activities in wilderness areas. In the article, examples of
    land managements agency's efforts to thwart legitimate wildlife
    research, law-enforcement activities, and habitat management reveal the
    real consequences of not resolving the wilderness issue.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4620.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Rick Johnson, welcome to the Committee
    from the Idaho Conservation Association. And please begin your
    testimony.

         STATEMENT OF RICK JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IDAHO
                   CONSERVATION LEAGUE, BOISE, IDAHO

        Mr. Rick Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
    on H.R. 4620. It is a pleasure to see Mr. Otter from Idaho and
    a colleague from Owyhee County.
        For the past 8 years, I have been executive director of the
    Idaho Conservation League. We work to protect and restore
    Idaho's water, wild lands and wildlife, do public education,
    citizen action and professional advocacy. Our organization is
    nearly 30 years old, has three offices in Idaho, and we are the
    State's largest conservation group.
        I have been involved in every legislative wilderness
    discussion in the State of Idaho one way or another since the
    River of No Return bill passed in 1980. I have more than a
    passing familiarity with Idaho's wilderness. In fact, my first
    appearance before this Committee was to testify on wilderness
    issues was in 1984. And Mr. Larry Craig was occupying the seat
    now held by Mr. Otter.
        There are unprecedented opportunities to advance wilderness
    bills throughout the west and also in Idaho and for this reason
    and others we oppose this bill. Idaho has over 4 million acres
    of designated wilderness and another 10 million or so acres
    that are unprotected. Wilderness is an identifying feature of
    our incredibly beautiful State. Idaho is, in fact, the
    wilderness State. And many Idahoans are very, very proud of
    this. Yet in rural Idaho today, as throughout much of the west,
    the impact of a shrinking economy and urbanization are creating
    real pains. There is no denying that. Counties and communities
    are looking for a villain and ``procedurally locked up,''
    roadless land is frequently it. That is a false accusation. The
    economic and demographic forces impacting rural Idaho are far
    greater than any administrative procedures impacting Idaho's
    roadless lands.
        Further rural Idaho is being presented with a false hope of
    some holy grail of riches that would come from prospective
    development of the wildlands that an ever-growing segment of
    Idaho would like to see protected. If these lands were valuable
    for development, the economic forces for that development would
    have long ago been more clear and successful in articulating a
    vision for these lands.
        This bill assumes wilderness bills need a new catalyst. We
    disagree. If a catalyst is needed, let it be what it has always
    been, leadership from Members of Congress. Successful
    wilderness bills result from a synergy between Members of
    Congress and involved interest groups who do the hard work of
    building compromise and common ground. Members of Congress can
    assemble the interest groups, convene the meetings, and use
    your leadership to create the package. That H.R. 4620 now
    originates in Idaho I find perplexing.
        To the best of my knowledge, Representative Otter has not
    attempted to write a wilderness bill or assemble the
    appropriate interest groups to create one. On the other hand,
    Representative Simpson has spoken to our organization a number
    of times about a variety of issues, including wilderness
    potential for the Boulder White Clouds in Idaho's second
    district. We have a working relationship and his office has
    convened a subset of interest groups on this subject as
    recently as just last week.
        Idaho's Senator Crapo is similarly involved in good faith
    direct discussions involving interest groups on the wilderness
    issue and other concerns in the Owyhee Canyon lands. This has
    been going on for more than 9 months. In fact, the development
    on that recently is that the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association has
    now developed its own wilderness proposal as part of the
    discussion, a very positive development.
        My staff is talking with staff from Senator Crapo and
    Representative Simpson's office regularly about wilderness and
    related issues of a constant basis. This is how we will get the
    job done. I am similarly perplexed that Idaho's delegation,
    long critical of Federal land agencies, would now advance
    legislation so based on a Federal agency's recommendation. I
    suspect a round effort to undercut the wilderness movement is,
    in fact, the intent behind the bill. That is unfortunately
    because it only fosters the wedges between rural and urban
    Idaho that we should all be working to bridge. And doing so
    fosters entirely unrealistic expectations for rural Idaho.
        I once helped lead nationality level campaigns for a
    national conservation group. I assure you that H.R. 4620 will
    be fought hard by the environmental community. Ironically for
    the sponsors, I believe this fight will strengthen the national
    wilderness movement by providing a cause to rally around. I am
    also troubled that national environmental--anti environmental
    exposure only hurts Idaho's already beleaguered reputation.
    Also fighting this bill will hurt the good faith wilderness
    discussions already underway in Idaho.
        Politically speaking, Idaho is well positioned with the
    House and Senate administration. This presents an opportunity
    to craft a bill that has true Idaho approved identity to it
    with a minimum of outside interference. Just as it took the
    established conservative credentials of Nixon to create a
    relationship with China, it will take the conservative
    credentials of western republicans to successfully advance
    wilderness in Idaho. But unlike past attempts, we must approach
    the resource and each other with a level respect. Thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Rick Johnson follows:]

       Statement of Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation
                                     League

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4620. It is a
    pleasure to see my friends in the Idaho House delegation.
        For the past eight years I have been the executive director of the
    Idaho Conservation League. We work to protect and restore Idaho's
    water, wildlands, and wildlife of Idaho through public education,
    citizen action, and professional advocacy. Our organization is nearly
    30 years old, has three offices in Idaho, and we are the state's
    largest conservation group.
        Idaho has not passed a wilderness bill since 1980. In that time
    there have been several attempts led by members of the Idaho
    delegation, but none have reached this Committee in well over a decade.
        As a citizen activist, as a public lands lobbyist for the Sierra
    Club for eight years, and as staff of the Idaho Conservation League for
    a total of ten years, I have been involved in every legislative
    wilderness discussion in the state of Idaho since the River of No
    Return bill passed in 1980. I have more than a passing familiarity with
    Idaho's wilderness. My first appearance before this Committee to
    testify on wilderness issues was in 1984.
        Getting a wilderness bill passed through Congress and signed by the
    president is very hard. You know better than I that passing any
    legislation is hard, but wilderness bills have a history of being
    particularly challenging in the West.
        That said, I believe we have unprecedented opportunities to advance
    wilderness bills throughout the West and also in Idaho. While I have
    current and past experience with the national wilderness issues, I will
    limit my testimony to Idaho.
        First, let me set the stage. Idaho is the Wilderness State. With
    over 4 million acres for designated wilderness and another 10 million
    or so acres that are unprotected, Wilderness is an identifying feature
    of our incredibly beautiful state. Twenty-one of the unprotected areas
    in Idaho are over 100,000 acres in size. To those familiar with
    wilderness issues, this is a remarkable statistic.
        In rural Idaho today, as throughout much of the West, the impact of
    shrinking economies and urbanization are creating real pain. Counties
    are looking for a villain, and ``procedurally locked up'' roadless land
    is frequently it.
        That is a false accusation. The economic and demographic forces
    impacting rural Idaho are far greater than any administrative
    procedures impacting Idaho's roadless lands.
        Further, rural Idaho is being presented with a false hope for some
    Holy Grail of riches that would come from prospective development of
    the wildlands that an ever growing segment of Idaho would like to see
    protected. If these lands were valuable for development, the economic
    forces for that development would have long ago been more clear and
    successful in articulating a vision for these lands. Again, there are
    no barriers to development on many of these unprotected lands. Yes,
    Wilderness Study Areas retain barriers to development, but that is a
    minority of the undesignated lands in Idaho, and they became WSAs, in
    part, due to an absence of economic value.
        I provide a review of the numerical impacts of H.R. 4620 and Idaho
    Conservation League wilderness recommendations as an attachment at the
    end of my written testimony, but history has clearly shown that when
    wilderness issues are reduced to numbers, everyone on all sides lose
    touch with what the real issues are.
        My main point is that this bill is unnecessary, and casts a
    troublesome cloud on the opportunity before us in Idaho.
        1. LThis bill assumes wilderness bills need a new catalyst. We
    disagree. If a catalyst is needed, let it be what it has always been:
    leadership from members of Congress. Successful wilderness bills result
    from a synergy between members of Congress and involved interest groups
    who do the hard work of building compromise and common ground. So what
    you can do as members of Congress is to assemble the interest groups,
    convene the meeting, and use your leadership to create the package.
        That H.R. 4620 now originates in Idaho I find perplexing. To the
    best of my knowledge, Rep. Otter has never attempted to write a
    wilderness bill or assemble the appropriate interest groups to create
    one. On the other hand, Rep. Simpson has spoken to our organization a
    number of times about a variety of issues including wilderness
    potential for the Boulder White Clouds in Idaho's Second District. We
    have a working relationship, and his office convened a subset of
    interest groups on this subject just last week. Idaho's Sen. Crapo is
    similarly involved in good faith, direct discussions involving interest
    groups on the wilderness issue and other concerns in the Owyhee
    Canyonlands, and this has been going on for more than nine months.
        My staff is talking with staff from Sen. Crapo and Rep. Simpson
    about wilderness and related issues on a regular basis, to do the hard
    work to achieve real solutions that include all interests. This is how
    we'll get the job done.
        We don't need this bill in order to do the work Idaho needs to do
    to resolve wilderness issues. The Idaho delegation members who are
    interested are already engaged in trying to break the legislative
    logjam that has held this issue up for years.
        2. LH.R. 4620 places a huge amount of weight on the appropriateness
    of BLM Wilderness Study Areas and USFS wilderness recommendations.
        I am similarly perplexed that Idaho's delegation--long critical of
    Federal land agencies--would now advance legislation so fundamentally
    based on BLM and U.S. Forest Service wilderness recommendations and
    WSAs. The Idaho Conservation League has grave problems with the BLM and
    USFS wilderness recommendations, and I am sure you do as well, though
    perhaps for different reasons.
        These recommendations should play a consultative role in wilderness
    designation processes, but we all know that Congress is the final
    arbiter. Again, a legitimate wilderness process requires active
    engagement of members of Congress, not some artificial hammer.
        3. LFinally, H.R. 4620 is a major challenge to the wilderness
    movement of the entire United States.
        I suspect an effort to undercut the wilderness movement is the
    intent of this bill. That is unfortunate, because that only fosters the
    wedges between rural and urban Idahoans we should all be working to
    bridge, and by doing so this bill fosters entirely unrealistic
    expectations for rural Idaho. Further, as we all know, it is easy to
    stall or never start a legislative process, so this bill by intent, is
    prejudiced against wilderness protection.
        This bill will not pass because it is a fundamental assault on the
    historic and ultimately fair processes for advancing wilderness
    protection.
        I once helped lead national-level campaigns for a national
    conservation group. I assure you H.R. 4620 will be fought hard by the
    environmental community. Ironically for the sponsors, I believe this
    fight will strengthen the national wilderness movement by providing a
    cause to rally around.
        Over many years, in individual bills, Congress has debated and
    generally rejected ``release language'' as a trade off for designated
    wilderness. This bill releases lands regardless of designations; there
    isn't even a proposed trade-off.
        I am also troubled that national anti-environmental exposure only
    hurts Idaho's already beleaguered reputation. Also, fighting this bill
    would hurt the good-faith wilderness discussions already underway in
    Idaho today, and in the future.
    Summary
        This bill is not needed. Idaho and the nation needs to move forward
    on wilderness issues, but that requires leadership not drop-dead
    deadlines. It requires a spirit of compromise and it requires a respect
    for the land. This bill demonstrates neither.
        Wilderness protection is a well-established purpose of our public
    lands. Arbitrarily cutting off any and all consideration of future
    Wilderness designations makes no more sense than saying that all lands
    now not being logged should forever be banned from consideration for
    logging.
        This is a great time to advance wilderness bills in Idaho the old-
    fashioned way.
         Politically speaking, Idaho is well positioned with the
    House, Senate, and administration. This presents an opportunity to
    craft a bill that has a true Idaho-approved identity to it, with a
    minimum of outside interference, yet still retains a high likelihood of
    passing Congress and being signed by the President.
        A. LJust as it took the established conservative credentials of
    Nixon to establish a relationship with China, it will take the
    conservative credentials of Western Republicans to successfully advance
    wilderness issues in Idaho. But unlike past attempts, we all must
    approach the resource and each other with a level of respect.
        B. LThere is a motivated and increasingly sophisticated
    conservation community ready to get to work. The Idaho Conservation
    League is very closely involved in two processes right now to advance
    wilderness bills in Idaho, both engage the Idaho congressional
    delegation, and both could succeed. Success in either place will do far
    more to break the wilderness legislative logjam for Idaho.
        Politics are the art of the possible, and wilderness bills pass
    because of successful engagement of politics. Let's do it, and that
    means putting aside H.R. 4620.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
                 H.R. 4620 and Idaho public lands 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Source: The Wilderness Society, Idaho Regional Office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     bureau of land management (blm lands)
        Idaho has roughly 11.9 million acres of BLM lands. Only 1.8 million
    of those lands are managed as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The BLM
    has only recommended half of these lands (972,239 acres) to be
    designated as wilderness. Only 802 acres of BLM lands are officially
    designated as wilderness in Idaho.
        Conservation groups consider the both the BLM wilderness
    recommendations and the WSAs themselves to be inadequate. The Idaho
    Conservation League supports the Idaho Citizen's Desert Wilderness
    Proposal. This is a 3,420,000 acres proposal on BLM lands. This
    proposal also recommends that 590,000 additional acres be studied for
    eligibility for wilderness designation.
    U.S. Forest Service Lands
        Idaho's National Forests contain 1,292,006 acres that have been
    recommended by the Forest Service to be designated as wilderness. H.R.
    4620 would give only 10 years time for resolution of bills before all
    these lands would be released from further consideration as wilderness.
        Conservation groups have long considered USFS wilderness
    recommendations to be woefully inadequate. The Idaho Conservation
    League supports a minimum of 6 of the 9 million acres of remaining
    roadless areas in the National Forests of Idaho be designated as
    wilderness. The remaining lands should remain undeveloped, unroaded,
    and wild in character.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Next up is Mr. Don Barry, executive Vice
    President of the Wilderness Society. Don, welcome and please
    begin your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF DONALD BARRY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WILDERNESS
                       SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Barry. With your permission, I would like to request
    that my written statement be submitted for the record and I
    would like to just make a few oral comments.
        Mr. Radanovich. That would be just fine. There is no
    objection here.
        Mr. Barry. I would also like your permission to submit for
    the record on behalf of the Nevada wilderness coalition some
    comments that they also have on the bill.
        Mr. Radanovich. No objection. So ordered.
        Mr. Barry. I am testifying on behalf of the Wilderness
    Society and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in strong
    opposition to H.R. 4620. H.R. 4620 is called the America's
    Wilderness Protection Act. But after close to 30 years of
    working on Federal land conservation activities in this town, I
    am hard pressed to think of another bill that would have as
    sweeping and an adverse effect on wilderness quality public
    lands as H.R. 4620.
        I would like to lay out five reasons why I think passage of
    H.R. 4620 would be a terrible blow to the wilderness heritage
    of this country. First, we strongly disagree that Congress
    never intended WSAs to have indefinite protected status.
    Section 603(c) of FLPMA expressly states that ``during the
    period of the review of such areas and until Congress
    determines otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage
    such lands according to his authority under FLPMA and the
    applicable law and in a manner so as to not impair the
    suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.''
        We interpret 603(c) as making it very clear that Congress
    wanted the Secretary to maintain the environmental status quo
    indefinitely for WSAs so as to maximize and preserve
    congressional options. And I should just note too, Mr.
    Chairman, that I worked for the Merchant Marine Fisheries
    Committee for 6 years in this hearing room. During that time
    when I was working for the Chairman of the Committee, we always
    worked to try to maximize congressional options and we worked
    hard to maintain congressional prerogatives. I think that is
    what we read into 603: an attempt to maintain the options for
    Congress to go one way or the other and to not lose those
    options by administrative action in the interim.
        The second reason we are opposed to this bill is that
    despite strong concerns that we had about the predecessor bill
    in the last Congress, H.R. 1500, we believe that the adverse
    impacts of H.R. 4620 are much more sweeping because it is not
    limited in scope to just the Bureau of Land Management as H.R.
    1500 was.
        H.R. 4620, we believe, would lift interim WSA protection
    from as much as 50 million acres of public lands in our
    national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and
    Bureau of Land Management lands. All you need to do is to look
    at the impact alone on the national park system to get an idea
    why we are particularly concerned about this bill. The
    definition of a wilderness study area is so broad in section
    (3)(d) of the bill that we believe that it could erase interim
    protection for over 25 million acres of park land including
    acreage in such icons as Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Teton,
    the Great Smokies and the Everglades.
        The Wildlife Refuge System wouldn't fair much better. In
    the lower 48 states, over 2 million acres are currently
    recommended for wilderness designation in 21 national wildlife
    refuges. These areas could have their interim protection and
    interim protective management removed under the terms of this
    bill. I should note that these 2 million acres and the 21
    affected wildlife refuges were recommended for wilderness by
    Presidents Nixon and Ford, hardly environmental extremists.
        The third reason that we are troubled by H.R. 4620 is
    because of the hard release provisions that it contains. By
    ``hard release,'' we mean that once an area has been released
    from further consideration as a wilderness study area, it could
    never again be studied for inclusion in the wilderness system.
        Congress has repeatedly rejected similar hard release
    provisions and has never adopted it in wilderness legislation
    and we think for good reason. Here's an example of where a
    ``hard release'' wouldn't make any sense and just wouldn't
    work. Congress has, over the decades, created the concept of
    ``potential wilderness'' in the context of park wilderness
    legislation. With potential wilderness, what you have is a
    situation where they will be designating a large area within a
    national park as wilderness, but where there may be a
    nonconforming activity or use in one particular part of the
    park.
        What Congress will do in this situation is to punch the
    hole of the donut out of the original proposal. They will go
    ahead and designate the whole area as wilderness, but they will
    designate the hole as ``potential wilderness.'' As ``potential
    wilderness'' the hole becomes automatically upgraded to full-
    blown wilderness status, if you will, at such time as the
    nonconforming use is ended.
        Under the terms of this bill, and under the definition of a
    ``wilderness study area'' in section (3)(d) which applies to
    potential wilderness areas, even though Congress may have
    passed a law clearly signaling its intention that a given
    ``potential wilderness'' area automatically shall become
    wilderness as soon as the nonconforming use has ceased, because
    of the hard release provision of this bill, if after the
    passage of 10 years the nonconforming use has not yet been
    eliminated, that area loses its ``wilderness'' status and can
    never again be considered for formal designation even though
    Congress already passed a law acknowledging its wilderness
    quality status in the park.
        That is an example of where the breadth of the bill
    covering park areas and the breadth of the definition involving
    hard releases causes serious problems.
        We are also troubled in particular by the provision that
    would allow secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture on their
    own determination to deactivate past wilderness study areas. I
    know I have run out of time, but I will just note that our last
    concern that we have with the sponsor's explanation of this
    bill is with their claim that these wilderness study areas
    should not be studied in perpetuity and that it is time to
    bring a close to these studies. It has been pointed out before
    the problem is not the breadth or length of the wilderness
    studies. These areas have been studied and the studies are
    complete. The problem lies with Congress, quite frankly, in
    being unable to reach a consensus on where these wilderness
    areas ought to go.
        So in summary, we believe that expediting wilderness
    designations is the correct way to resolve these issues. We too
    have appreciated the efforts and leadership coming out of
    Owyhee County in trying to reach a consensus on wilderness. The
    people in our Idaho office have been very actively involved and
    were highly complimentary of the efforts of the commissioners
    in that county in initiating this effort. We believe as does
    the Idaho Conservation League that that is how we will reach a
    resolution of these issues, and eventually get wilderness acts
    passed. Last Congress designated and enacted over a million
    acres of wilderness areas, and we think that is the way to go.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Barry.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]

    Statement of Donald J. Barry, Executive Vice-President, The Wilderness
                                    Society

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don Barry,
    and I am Executive Vice-President of The Wilderness Society. The
    Wilderness Society is devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife,
    protecting pristine areas of our nation's national forests, public
    lands, national parks, and national wildlife refuge system, and
    fostering an American land stewardship ethic. I thank you for the
    opportunity today to testify in opposition to H.R. 4620, the
    erroneously titled ``America's Wilderness Protection Act,'' on behalf
    of The Wilderness Society and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I
    say erroneously titled, because far from protecting America's
    wilderness, the bill would result in the hands-off, automatic pilot,
    permanent release from wilderness consideration, and in most cases
    interim protection, of tens of millions of acres of public lands,
    national forests, national park lands, and lands within national
    wildlife refuges that deserve wilderness designation by Congress.
        It is difficult to understand an appropriate rationale for this
    legislation. Though its ``findings'' suggest that ``wilderness is
    beneficial,'' the clear result of the bill's enactment would be that
    very few areas of our national interest lands deserving wilderness
    designations would ever be so designated. Perhaps proponents of the
    bill are philosophically opposed to with the idea of wilderness. I
    would hope that is not the case. But in case it is, a word or two about
    the benefits of wilderness designation, I think, is warranted here.
    These benefits include protection of: habitat for diverse native plant
    and wildlife species; reservoirs of pure air and clean water; some of
    America's most spectacular, pristine, distinctive, and awe-inspiring
    natural landscapes; vast opportunities for outdoor recreation
    activities, such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, climbing,
    horseback riding, horse packing, and river-running; scientific
    research; and the increasingly rare opportunity to find solitude and
    escape from the daily pressures of our dynamic and expanding urban
    society. In fact, we need more wilderness protected in America, not
    less, as H.R. 4620 would assure.
        The Federal land management agencies are currently required to give
    interim protection to certain areas of the Federal lands that have been
    studied for possible wilderness designation by Congress, and to manage
    these areas in a manner that does not impair their wilderness
    characteristics pending a final Congressional determination regarding
    their wilderness status. The reason for this process is simple: once a
    wilderness is gone, it is gone forever.
        Under Sec. 3(a) of H.R. 4620, however, over 8.8 million acres of
    Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (as defined in
    Sec. (3)(d) of the bill) in 10 states would immediately lose their WSA
    status upon enactment, without Congress having considered the specific
    merits of their wilderness attributes. (see attachment)
        Furthermore, once these lands were released from WSA status, the
    land management agencies would be barred by Sec. 3(c) from ever
    studying them for potential wilderness designation again. This
    unprecedented ``hard release'' language has never been accepted in any
    bills passed by Congress, and should not be accepted by this Committee
    now.
        With respect to WSAs that have been recommended for wilderness
    designation by a land management agency, the adverse consequences of
    this bill are obvious, even to the affected Federal land management
    agencies themselves. As the Bureau of Land Management stated in its
    testimony in opposition to similar legislation introduced during the
    106th Congress, the bill `` would create a timetable that would
    virtually guarantee wilderness areas would not be designated.'' Why?
    Because under
        Sec. 3(a)(2), wilderness opponents would merely have to prevent
    Congressional action on pending agency wilderness recommendations for
    10 years, at which time the interim protection afforded such areas
    would expire. Because such areas are ``hard released,'' under Sec. 3(c)
    they could never be considered by the agency for potential wilderness
    designation again. For example, within the National Park System 25
    million acres of wilderness quality land could lose their protective
    management status under this provision. (see attachment)
        Moreover, Sec. 3(a)(1) provides new authority for the Secretaries
    of Interior and Agriculture to terminate previous secretarial
    recommendations for wilderness designation. This can occur merely if a
    Secretary ``determines'' that a WSA recommended for wilderness
    designation by a previous Secretary is no longer ``suitable'' for
    wilderness designation. This is a blank check to the Secretaries to
    make arbitrary and capricious decisions to rescind a previous
    Secretary's action with no required study, no process, no compliance
    with the National Environmental Policy Act or other applicable
    statutes, and no consultation with the general public.
        Perhaps there is a perception on the part of some of the bill's
    proponents that Congress is not capable of moving forward on a positive
    wilderness designation agenda. In fact Congress has demonstrated slow
    but steady progress on the issue of wilderness designation, and should
    not shrink from the task now. For example, the 106th Congress
    eventually designated 1,016,753 acres of wilderness in the states of
    Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Virginia. There are certainly plenty of
    opportunities for this Subcommittee to far exceed the accomplishments
    of the 106th Congress, as outlined below.
        Accordingly, we recommend that this Committee discontinue its
    consideration of H.R. 4620, since it clearly has no prospect for
    passage. A far more productive approach would be for the Subcommittee
    to roll up its sleeves and approve comprehensive wilderness bills. This
    would include a number of legitimate wilderness bills that have either
    been introduced and referred to this Committee already, or which, we
    understand, will be introduced in the near future. For example, for
    several years now versions of H.R. 1613, ``America's Red Rock
    Wilderness Act,'' have been introduced in the House, garnered
    substantial support from Members of both political parties (it
    currently has 162 co-sponsors), but has never even received a hearing
    in this forum. Another comprehensive bill, H.R. 4468, the ``Colorado
    Wilderness Act'', has also been introduced in various forms over the
    years, but it has not received a hearing here, either. Yet another
    opportunity is H.R. 4644, the ``Wild Sky Wilderness Act,'' introduced
    just last week. There are others and there will be more to come.
        In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to oppose passage of H.R.
    4620, and instead move forward with a positive wilderness designation
    agenda. The best way to resolve wilderness issues is to pass wilderness
    bills, to legislate. That is why your constituents sent you here, to
    make tough legislative choices and to move positive legislative
    agendas. We would be most willing to assist the Subcommittee in this
    endeavor, as we have in the past. I look forward to your questions.
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Mr. Barry's statement follow:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.026

        Mr. Radanovich. You mentioned the cooperation you had
    gotten with Owyhee County. Describe to me what progress is. Mr.
    Johnson, you recognize you mentioned that as well. What kind of
    progress are you making? Chris, you had mentioned you are not
    that far apart. So what are you all talking about here? Are you
    coming up with something? What does it entail?
        Mr. Rick Johnson. I think we both come at it from different
    perspectives, so we both should answer. I think progress, first
    off, this is all about politics. It might be small ``p''
    politic, politics is about relationships. So first and
    foremost, what has happened is some people that have previously
    only gotten to know each other through sound bytes or through
    quotes in, frankly, legal briefs are getting to know each other
    around a table and relationships are being built, the kind of
    relationships that actually lead to resolution of tough issues.
    So first and foremost, we are getting to know each other.
        After that, what we are doing is really getting to know
    what we stand for, the issues that our organizations or our
    constituencies or our communities are most concerned about, the
    things that we support and frankly the things we fear. And by
    getting to know those things, we start to understand why we are
    wilderness advocates, why we support cattle operations in the
    region, why we want to build a rural economy that lasts, we
    reach common understanding. At the same time we aren't there
    yet.
        Mr. Radanovich. Interesting.
        Mr. Salove. As a little bit of background, the Owyhee
    initiative is a group formed by us. The idea actually goes back
    a year ago or a little bit more. We brought together 12 groups,
    all of which are users of the land. Everything from the United
    States Air Force which has training ranges in Owyhee County to
    conservation groups, both of these groups here. We basically
    tried to include everyone that has an interest. There are
    recreation groups, there are cattlemen's groups. The only
    people that we excluded were the conservation groups such as
    John Marble, who we felt had no interest in reaching
    compromise.
        The progress that we have all referred to is the fact that
    now the representatives from these individual groups are to the
    point that they are making proposals. They have been meeting
    regularly, sitting down at a round table, if you will, talking
    over issues, specific issues. They are now at the point that
    each group is making proposals and finding out what each of the
    others really wants out of this initiative process. Our hope as
    commissioners is that this process will be resolved some place
    other than, as Rick says, through legal sound bytes and briefs
    in court which is where everything has been dealt with up to
    this point and nothing has been solved.
        We are hopeful that you will see representatives of the
    commissioners of all of this group back here for legislative
    action at some point, I would hope, within the next year.
        Mr. Radanovich. Based on what you guys come up with.
        Mr. Salove. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. More power to you. I think that is great.
    An example could be what was in forest service management in
    California with what is known as the Quincy Library Group,
    where a group of people got together, the local stakeholders
    and put together a plan. That, boy, I think the more you do
    that--you know, all vote for it. It is still not resolved yet,
    though. It still is being caught up in bureaucratic red tape.
    But they were able to take a plan and get it passed through
    Congress and through the Senate. So I would encourage you.
        Mr. Barry, in Yosemite, I was born and raised right next to
    Yosemite. What part is wilderness? Is that up in the high
    country? If you can't answer that, can you tell me why does a
    national park benefit from a wilderness designation? DCMN MAYER
        Mr. Barry. I can't tell you the exact area, but I will find
    out for you. There are 3,550 acres in Yosemite that are
    potential wilderness. It must be a nonconforming use, was
    designated as potential wilderness at some particular time. I
    can't give you the exact location though.
        Mr. Radanovich. But why do you name a wilderness in a
    national park?
        Mr. Barry. It is interesting you should mention that.
        I served as the Assistant Secretary over at the National
    Park Service for 3-1/2 years. And I have to say that I spent a
    lot of time in the back country of national parks on my own
    vacation time even after I stepped down.
        As I'd go from park to park to park, I frequently found
    them entirely differently managed in the back country area from
    one wilderness area to the next. And I think one of the reasons
    that national parks benefit from having wilderness in them is
    because, quite frankly, frequently you need to protect the
    national parks sometimes from the National Park Service.
        There have been--here's an example. In Glacier National
    Park, when I went hiking, I came down an area called Goat
    Haunt, and I was with the Chief Ranger of the Park Service at
    the time. And this is an area where they have all their
    livestock for having the trail crews work out of that area. He
    was so proud of this stable that they had there.
        I took one look at it. It was 5 feet from the major river
    draining into Waterton Lake with Waterton National Park on the
    Canadian side. You could see where the river bed went--it was
    dry at the time. You could tell every time there was a heavy
    rain, this creek bed went right under the stable, washed out
    all of the manure right under the lake. The Park Service never
    thought of it as a particular problem.
        So merely because land is managed by the National Park
    Service doesn't mean they are managing their areas in a
    careful, responsible way.
        There was a book that was put out by a park historian
    called ``Preserving Nature in the National Park System,'' which
    basically documents decades of poor land management decisions.
    I think the Park Service should not be excluded from wilderness
    park consideration, because people generally perceive they have
    the highest management standards. The areas qualified as
    wilderness in the back country, they ought to be managed as
    wilderness and designated as wilderness, as such.
        Mr. Radanovich. But it seems to me an issue like that could
    be brought up in the park's management plan.
        Mr. Barry. I am not disagreeing with that, Congressman. I
    am just saying there is more wilderness in national parks--I
    think about 44 million acres--than under any other Federal
    agency. I think it just reflects the fact that the national
    parks have some of the most beautiful topography in the country
    in them. That is why people drive to Yosemite to go see the
    back country and the high Sierras. I am sure that is an area
    you have hiked in, too.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
        Any other questions, Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have a
    question of this panel, but I am sure--after listening to Mr.
    Barry, it reminds everyone who has ever been a cowboy that you
    don't drink downstream of the herd.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Otter.
        Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chris, thank you very much for coming to Washington, D.C. I
    apologize for having you come to Washington, D.C., to go
    through all this. And I want to congratulate you on the Owyhee
    Initiative and your leadership in that. Make no mistake about
    it, if you folks hadn't put that initiative together--the other
    folks, other stakeholders, weren't part of that process until
    you demonstrated the leadership, because--and I think the
    reason that those who appear to be so concerned about the
    multiple rate in development of pristine lands, it is not in
    their best interest to arrive at decisions like this.
        So I applaud you not only for your leadership, but for your
    patience. Do you expect this to take 10 years before you come
    up with some answers for the Owyhee Initiative?
        Mr. Salove. This group would never allow it to take 10
    years. We had hoped to have legislation ready in this calendar
    year, and I am not sure we are going to get to that point. I
    don't think there is any question everyone would lose heart and
    the process would be dead if it took 10 years.
        Mr. Otter. Mr. Johnson, do you think it will take 10 years
    to arrive at a point of agreement for the Owyhee Initiative?
        Mr. Rick Johnson. No, I don't. One of the key factors that
    keeps all of us at the table is the political reality is that
    we have the House, near parity in the Senate, the Idaho
    delegation and the Administration-- all of one party. So this
    presents a very good opportunity to move something forward.
        I would say, however, that, as you well know, Idaho has a
    lot of wilderness study areas and a lot of recommended
    wilderness and a lot of roadless areas. So the entire process
    of resolving these kinds of issues with the kind of work that
    we are doing, where you sit at a table and talk this through,
    that may well talk a lot more than 10 years.
        Mr. Otter. Rick, you and I had discussions and some other
    conversations before on other issues.
        Mr. Rick Johnson. Oftentimes, sir, with utmost respect
    about labels like ``whackos'' and ``obstructionists'' and
    things like that.
        Mr. Otter. You know, I feel the same way about politicians
    and big mouths and otters and other endangered species.
        But, Rick, you know, I have several times, in fact--you
    know, it is not well known because I don't play it in the
    newspaper, but I can't tell you how many trips on horseback
    that we have made into the wilderness study areas and into the
    Canyonlands, into Owyhee County.
        But I formalized that when I became a Member of Congress,
    and I invited the Idaho Conservation League. I invited quite a
    few--Nature Conservancy; I also invited the cattlemen and the
    off-road vehicle enthusiasts--only to ride a horse, not a four-
    wheel.
        And last year Dallas Gudgell from the Idaho Conservation
    Association came with us, and he was quite enthused. Because we
    purposely ride all day and spend the night around the
    campfire--and there is magic about a campfire out there in the
    desert--and then ride back the next morning.
        You know, we saw eye to eye on a lot of things. And it is
    unfortunate that he, so quickly after he took that trip, went
    out of your employ, that I was--because I thought that we were
    actually clicking, we were actually coming to some agreement on
    what was important.
        And I also think I diminished Dallas' idea of my 20-some
    years of politics in Idaho, that I was one of these guys that
    didn't care about wilderness, that I only wanted to develop
    land and only wanted to graze it and only wanted to cut the
    logs.
        And so we renewed that process this year, and I guess there
    is going to be an empty saddle around the fireplace because the
    Idaho Conservation Association has since said that they are not
    going to attend. And I don't know if that is because I am
    attending or if it is because you are, but during your
    testimony, it was suggested that I wasn't willing to listen. It
    was suggested that I wasn't part of this collaborative process.
    There was some suggestion made that, jeez, you didn't have any
    trouble working with the rest of the delegation, but you had a
    problem working with me.
        I just want you to know right here in front of God and Mr.
    Radanovich, I just want you to know that I do want to solve the
    problems.
        And as I said yesterday to the news media, I will be the
    first to introduce the bill when the President brings it to our
    attention. I think this legislation advances Congress'
    attention as much as it does the rest of the stakeholders. But
    I am not going to substitute my judgment, holding this
    congressional seat for the collaboration that you folks are
    making in Owyhee County.
        I will guarantee you, when that bill comes up, I will be
    its best champion because I know it is the result of a
    collaborative effort and every stakeholder has had an
    opportunity to have their stab at the fire.
        So I make that commitment to you now. I would like to get
    yours--I would like to fill that saddle up this weekend.
        Mr. Rick Johnson. Part of the problem if I--if I could have
    the opportunity to respond, part of the problem is that I
    didn't find out about that opportunity to fill the saddle until
    about a week ago. And my respective saddle is already
    scheduled. So I cannot take care of that.
        The rest of my staff--John McCarthy, who probably would be
    most appropriate, who is sitting at the table at the Owyhee
    Initiative day in and day out, also is predisposed, I believe,
    because his son is graduating from high school.
        But I stand ready absolutely to get to work in any number
    of places. The Owyhee is just one of many.
        Another example, we will go to the whole other end of the
    district and say Long Canyon up in the panhandle. That is an
    area that we could get to work on right now. I challenge us
    both to sit down, and let's get the job done in Boundary
    County, Idaho. I think it would be easy.
        Mr. Otter. To make it work, we are going to have to have
    Chris, I guess.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Otter. And I think, with
    that, we are going to clear this panel, although I will say
    that the next couple of panels are going to be regarding two
    other bills that we are hearing today, so we are not going to
    bring the discussion of this particular bill up.
        I encourage those people that are working on this thing in
    Idaho, if Butch sponsors it, I am an automatic cosponsor. So
    keep working and bring something up, because this is--I think
    the Congress yearns for something like this to happen. So
    please keep up the good work.
        Thank you very much for being here.
        And I want to ask unanimous consent to include the
    statement of Representative John Doolittle in the record today,
    June 6, 2002. He could not be here and had some comments on
    H.R. 4620.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]

       Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
              Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 4620.

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on
    an important piece of legislation, H.R. 4620. As you may be aware, I
    also introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4589, The Wilderness Study Area
    Release Act. Although the two bills differ slightly in the number of
    years allotted for release and future study, both seek the same end
    immediate release of Federally managed land for utilization by the
    people of America.
        As I am sure you are aware, both pieces of legislation are almost
    identical to legislation Chairman Hansen introduced in the 106th
    Congress. H.R. 4589 and H.R. 4620 will provide for definitive end-dates
    to wilderness study area designations, thus ending one of the most
    egregious and widespread land rights abuses of the Federal land
    management agencies.
        Wilderness study areas are intended to be short-lived designations,
    which close off a specific portion of land to human activity and give
    the agencies an opportunity to determine whether to recommend to
    Congress that the land be officially designated as a permanent
    wilderness area. Currently the system leaves the land closed off to
    human use, including grazing and timber harvest, without congressional
    approval.
        My bill would automatically end wilderness study area designations,
    which are more than 15 years old. Currently there are 665 such
    designations, covering nearly 23 million acres exist in 18 states, the
    bulk of which are in the western U.S., according to the Congressional
    Research Service.
        Furthermore, any subsequent wilderness study areas after the
    enactment of H.R. 4589 must be determined to meet wilderness status no
    later than five years after designation, unless Congress declares them
    wilderness areas. All areas not declared official wilderness would
    revert to multiple-use as defined by the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained-
    Yield Act.
        Mr. Chairman, it is of the utmost importance that these agencies
    must no longer be allowed to deny the American people access to public
    lands simply by ignoring Congress. Both H.R. 4589 and H.R. 4620 will
    put an end to that practice.
        Again, I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this
    hearing. It is my hope the Committee will look favorably on wilderness
    study reform legislation and mark it up as expeditiously as possible.
                                     ______

        And then, with that, I will turn the gavel over to Mr.
    Gibbons from Nevada to call the next panel.
        Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] I want to thank Chairman
    Radanovich. What I would like to do, before we start here, is
    make a request, as the Chairman of the Committee and the only
    person left, to combine these last two panels. I think they
    both talk about the same two bills, and we would like to have
    both Panel 4 and Panel 5 if we can, come up here and testify.
        So, with that, we will ask Mr. Daniel Smith, Special
    Assistant to the Director of the National Park Service,
    Washington, D.C., to the table; Mr. Larry Finfer, Assistant
    Director for Communications, Bureau of Land Management, United
    States Department of Interior; Mr. Daniel Van Epp, President of
    the Howard Hughes Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Ms.
    Crystal Altenbaumer, Executive Director of the William J.
    Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas, to please be here.
        Mr. Gibbons. With that, we will ask Mr. Smith--we welcome
    you to the hearing. The floor is yours. We look forward to your
    testimony. And I might also add that, for any of you, the
    Committee will accept your full and complete statement into the
    record. If you want to summarize your statement that is fine.
        The floor is yours, Mr. Smith.

     STATEMENT OF DANIEL SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR,
                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on H.R. 3815, a bill to authorize the
    Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of suitability and
    feasibility of establishing a Presidential national historic
    site in Hope, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
        Mr. Chairman, the Department supports H.R. 3815; however,
    the Department did not request additional funding for this
    study in Fiscal Year 2003. Furthermore, we believe that any
    funding requested should be directed toward completing
    previously authorized studies. Presently, there are 37 studies
    pending of which we hope to transmit at least seven to Congress
    by the end of this fiscal year.
        To meet the President's initiative to eliminate the
    deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our
    resources on caring for existing areas of the national park
    system. Thus, we have concerns about funding requirements for a
    new park unit that could be required if the study recommends
    designation while the Department is trying to eliminate the
    deferred maintenance backlog. As such, the Department will
    identify in each study all acquisition, one-time, and
    operational costs of the proposed site. At this time, those
    costs are unknown.
        H.R. 3815 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    carry out a study on the suitability and feasibility of
    designating the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home
    located in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site.
        Hope, Arkansas, is the location of the boyhood home of the
    42nd President. It is located between Dallas and Memphis. This
    southern community is part of the Texarkana greater
    metropolitan area. Built in 1917, the house in Hope where
    President Clinton spent his first 4 years with his maternal
    grandparents is now owned by the Clinton Birthplace Foundation.
    This is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and was established
    to help preserve the site, and has a witness represented here
    today.
        In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National
    Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires
    congressional authorization of areas to be studied for
    potential new units of the national park system. The law also
    designates the criteria to be followed by the National Park
    Service in determining whether to recommend an area as a unit
    of the national park system. Thus, this study will determine
    whether it conforms to the criteria of Public Law 105-391.
        With respect to historic sites, the studies not only look
    at whether the event or person associated with the site was
    historically significant, they look at the integrity of the
    buildings and other factors, such as whether there are other
    sites that might more appropriately tell the story associated
    with a particular site.
        The national park system consists of many previous
    residences of former Presidents. However, there are also many
    residences of former Presidents that are not part of the
    system. A study would look at whether the Federal Government is
    the most appropriate entity to manage the site and would help
    identify other protection and preservation methods available.
        When sites are managed by other entities, such as State
    governments or private foundations, the National Park Service
    may assist these entities in achieving the common goal of
    protecting and interpreting these places for all Americans.
    Conducting a study allows Congress to be certain it is
    protecting an area that meets the criteria to be designated a
    unit of the national park system, and the National Park Service
    is the best agency to manage the site.
        A study would also enable the National Park Service and
    Congress to identify the costs in acquiring, restoring and
    operating a potential site. Such a review is important if we
    are to gain control over the deferred maintenance backlog and
    eliminate it within 5 years, as the President's initiative
    seeks to do.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
    Subcommittee may have.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

       Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant to the Director,
             National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
    3815, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
    study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential
    National Historic Site, in Hope, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
        The Department supports H.R. 3815, with a technical amendment noted
    at the end of this testimony. However, the Department did not request
    additional funding for this study in Fiscal Year 2003. We believe that
    any funding requested should be directed towards completing previously
    authorized studies. Presently, there are 37 studies pending, of which
    we hope to transmit at least 7 to Congress by the end of 2002. To meet
    the President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance
    backlog, we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing
    areas in the National Park System. Thus, we have concerns about new
    funding requirements for a new park unit that could be required if the
    study recommends designation while the Department is trying to
    eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog. As such, the Department
    will identify in each study all acquisition, one-time, and operational
    costs of the proposed site. At this time, these costs are unknown.
        H.R. 3815 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry
    out a study on the suitability and feasibility of designating the
    William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home located in Hope, Arkansas, as
    a national historic site. Hope, Arkansas, is the location of the
    boyhood home of William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President of the
    United States. Located between Dallas and Memphis, this southern
    community is part of the Texarkana greater metropolitan area. Built in
    1917, the house in Hope, where President Clinton spent his first four
    years with his maternal grandparents, is now owned by the Clinton
    Birthplace Foundation. This non-profit 501(c)(3) organization was
    established to help preserve this presidential site.
        In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National Parks
    Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires congressional
    authorization of areas to be studied for potential new units of the
    National Park System. The law also designates the criteria to be
    followed by the National Park Service in determining whether to
    recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System. This study
    will determine whether it conforms to the criteria of Public Law 105-
    391.
        With respect to historic sites, the studies do not only look at
    whether the event or person associated with the site was historically
    significant. They look at the integrity of the buildings, and other
    factors, such as whether there are other sites that might more
    appropriately tell the story associated with a particular site.
        The National Park System consists of many previous residences of
    former presidents. However, there are also many residences of former
    presidents that are not part of the system. A study would look at
    whether the Federal Government is the most appropriate entity to manage
    the site and would help identify other protection and preservation
    methods available. When sites are managed by other entities, such as
    state governments or private foundations, the National Park Service may
    assist these entities in achieving the common goal of protecting and
    interpreting these important places for all Americans. Conducting a
    study allows Congress to be certain it is protecting an area that meets
    the criteria to be designated a unit of the National Park System and
    that the National Park Service is the best agency to manage the site.
        A study also would enable the National Park Service and Congress to
    identify the costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential
    site. Such a review is important if we are to gain control of the
    deferred maintenance backlog and eliminate it within five years, as the
    President's Initiative seeks to do.
        We recommend a technical amendment to include a missing word. On
    page 2, line 15, insert ``the'' after ``to''.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Finfer, the floor is yours.

           STATEMENT OF LARRY FINFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
               COMMUNICATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Finfer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on H.R. 4141, the Red Rock Canyon
    National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of
    2002. The Department generally supports the land tenure
    adjustments outlined in the bill, but believes several issues
    need to be addressed before it is advanced by the Committee.
        Red Rock Canyon is among the most spectacular areas managed
    by BLM and now attracts over 1 million visitors annually. Red
    Rock also enjoys considerable support in the Las Vegas
    community, and the management of the NCA is vastly enhanced by
    the Friends of Red Rock and other partners.
        H.R. 4141 proposes to legislate a land exchange between the
    BLM and the Hughes Corporation, as well as to transfer other
    public lands to Clark County for a park. The lands proposed to
    be transferred to the BLM from Hughes border the eastern edge
    of the NCA and total about 1,068 acres, seven parcels. The BLM
    strongly supports the acquisition of these parcels and believes
    they will enhance the NCA. Their addition will improve boundary
    management and enable better protection of the rock art
    cultural resources in the NCA.
        The public lands identified for transfer by exchange to
    Hughes total about 1,001 acres and were identified as suitable
    for disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
    Act. We understand these lands would be used to expand a
    master-planned housing community.
        At this time we do not have appraisals for the lands
    proposed for exchange in order to determine if they are, in
    fact, of approximate equal value. It is our understanding that
    Hughes has contracted with a private appraiser and expects to
    deliver estimates to BLM soon. Should these parcels not be of
    equal value, we would like the opportunity to modify the
    acreage of the lands involved in the exchange before the bill
    moves to markup.
        Further, the lands in question may be encumbered by rights-
    of-ways and mining claims. We believe these uses, as well as
    concerns such as the responsibility for hazardous materials,
    need to be addressed in the bill.
        The bill would also require the BLM to transfer about 1,344
    acres of other public lands to Clark County at no cost for
    purposes of a park. These lands are adjacent to and
    intermingled with the lands to be transferred to the Hughes
    Corporation. While we do not oppose the transfer of these lands
    to the county, we believe they should be transferred at fair
    market value or, alternatively, under a Recreation and Public
    Purposes Act lease.
        In addition, our concerns about impacts on previously
    authorized uses in the Hughes transfer also apply to this one.
        In summary, we expect the benefits of the transfer of lands
    outlined in H.R. 4141 to be positive. However, we believe a
    number of unresolved issues need to be reconciled so we can
    support final passage of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to
    respond to any questions that you may have.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much Mr. Finfer.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Finfer follows:]

       Statement of Larry Finfer, Assistant Director for Communications,
           Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 4141, the
    Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement
    Act of 2002. The Department generally supports the land tenure
    adjustments outlined in the legislation, but believes several issues
    need to be addressed before the bill is advanced by the Committee.
        H.R. 4141 provides for the exchange of certain lands managed by the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the west of Las Vegas for certain
    other lands owned by the Hughes Corporation which border the Red Rock
    Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), also west of Las Vegas. The
    bill would also transfer additional lands from the BLM to Clark County,
    Nevada for a county park at no cost.
    Background
        The Red Rock Canyon NCA was established in November of 1990 under
    Public Law 101-621. Its boundaries have been expanded by ensuing Acts
    of Congress in 1994 and again in 1998, so that today the NCA covers
    approximately 196,000 acres and receives over 1.2 million visitors a
    year. Its close proximity to a major urban center makes Red Rock Canyon
    NCA both a draw for the local population, and also a popular attraction
    for many of Las Vegas's visitors.
        The NCA's attraction is a result of a collision 65 million years
    ago by two of Earth's crustal plates. The force of that collision
    thrust gray limestone up and over younger red sandstone. The result
    today has a dramatic visual impact. We are not the first to be drawn to
    the spectacular mountains, cliffs, and outcroppings; evidence of
    prehistoric native peoples in the NCA date back at least five thousand
    years. Rock art, ceramics, and roasting pits bear evidence to their
    presence here. The springs that still dot the area undoubtedly brought
    these people and perhaps the beauty of the area encouraged them to
    stay.
        The NCA boasts a 13-mile scenic drive, a visitor center with guided
    walks and extensive interpretive materials. Visitors enjoy rock
    climbing, hiking, birding, jeep tours, and horseback riding. In
    partnership with the BLM, the Friends of the Red Rock, the Red Rock
    Canyon Interpretive Association and others, helps to serve many
    visitors needs and provides over 40,000 of volunteer hours annually to
    the NCA. In addition, commercial outfitters fill an important role in
    introducing visitors to many of the NCA's treasures.
    H.R. 4141
        H.R. 4141 proposes to legislate both a land exchange between the
    BLM and the Hughes Corporation as well as transfer additional public
    lands to Clark County for a park. The lands proposed to be transferred
    to the BLM from the Hughes Corporation border the eastern edge of the
    NCA and total approximately 1,068 acres in seven separate parcels. The
    BLM strongly supports the acquisition of these parcels and believes
    they will enhance the NCA. The addition of these parcels will improve
    boundary management and allow for better protection of rock art within
    the NCA.
        The legislation is silent on responsibility for any potential
    hazardous materials that may preexist on these parcels. We believe that
    this should be addressed in the legislation. In addition, a
    modification of the boundary of the NCA to include all of these added
    lands should be clearly stated in the legislation and established on
    the legislative map. We are also concerned about language in section
    4(a) of the bill that may imply that the Hughes Corporation does not
    own all right, title, and interest to these lands and would like
    clarification before we move forward. Finally, the Administration
    opposes the language contained in section 6(a) and proposes its
    deletion. Section 6(a) of the bill exempts implementation of the
    exchange from consideration or action under the National Environmental
    Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other law or
    Executive Order. The Administration supports authorization of an
    exchange through normal public review, including title review, and
    disclosure of the fiscal and environmental effects of the exchange to
    ensure equal value and full awareness of the consequences of the
    exchange.
        The public lands identified for transfer by exchange to the Hughes
    Corporation, total approximately 1001 acres and were identified for
    disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA),
    Public Law 105-263. It is our understanding that these lands would be
    used for the expansion of a master-planned housing community. Under
    SNPLMA, proceeds from BLM-managed lands which are disposed of are
    divided between the State of Nevada general education fund (5%), the
    Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%), and a special account in the
    Treasury for acquisition of environmentally-sensitive lands in Nevada
    and other purposes (85%). Section 4 of SNPLMA mandates that in the case
    of a land exchange, the non-Federal party remains liable for the 5% and
    10% payments. The legislation is silent on this point, and therefore we
    make the assumption that these provisions of SNPLMA would apply to the
    Hughes Corporation.
        In addition, the public lands identified for disposal are currently
    encumbered by rights-of-way for roads, water pipelines, gas pipelines,
    and power lines as well as mining claims. We would like to ensure that
    these current uses are appropriately addressed by the legislation.
        At the present time, we do not have appraisals for the lands
    proposed for exchange in order to determine if they are, in fact, of
    approximate equal value. It is our understanding that the Hughes
    Corporation has contracted with a private appraiser and expects to have
    estimates to the BLM in the near future. Should these parcels not be of
    equal value we would like the opportunity to modify the acreage of the
    lands involved in the exchange before the bill moves to markup.
        The bill would also require the BLM to transfer approximately 1,344
    acres of additional public lands to Clark County at no cost for
    purposes of a park. These lands are adjacent and intermingled with the
    lands to be transferred to the Hughes Corporation. While we do not
    oppose the transfer of these lands to the county we believe they should
    be transferred at fair market value or through a Recreation and Public
    Purposes (R&PP) lease. In addition, our concerns about impacts on
    preexisting uses in the Hughes transfer would also apply to this
    transfer.
        Finally, H.R. 4141 references a map. We are in the process of
    creating a map which better reflects the specifics of this proposal,
    including land status. We would strongly recommend the bill be amended
    to reference the BLM map as opposed to one created by a private entity.
    Conclusion
        The long-term benefits of the transfer of lands outlined in H.R.
    4141 will be positive. However, we believe that a number of unresolved
    issues need to be reconciled before we could fully support final
    passage of this bill.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gibbons. I would like now to introduce a friend, Mr.
    Daniel Van Epp, President of the Howard Hughes Corporation.
        Welcome, Mr. Van Epp. We have known each other for many
    years, and we have worked on this project for many years. And
    it is a pleasure to have you here, as is your son, Nate, who is
    back there making sure that you testify correctly. We want to
    welcome you. As we know, this is your cameo appearance before
    the U.S. Congress, and it is indeed a pleasure to have you.
        The lights in front of you are simply a stop-and-go sign.
    That red light, 5 minutes; yellow, sum it up; and the green--
    the red light is to stop, yellow is to sum it up, and green is
    to talk as much as you want.
        With that, Mr. Van Epp, if I could get it straight, you are
    welcome and the floor is yours.

         STATEMENT OF DANIEL VAN EPP, PRESIDENT, HOWARD HUGHES
                     CORPORATION, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

        Mr. Van Epp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here to testify to you today.
        We appreciate the work of your office and staff in crafting
    and introducing this bill to the House of Representatives, a
    bill that would enhance the Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area and preserve significant viewsheds in the
    western Las Vegas Valley.
        It would also set aside more than 1,200 acres of ridge line
    for use by Clark County as a passive park. And it would raise
    the level of protection for an additional 232 acres of BLM land
    surrounding a flood control basin adjacent to the conservation
    area, thus guaranteeing its permanent preservation.
        For these reasons and many more, this bill is supported by
    the entire Nevada congressional delegation, as you have just
    heard, also by the BLM, local governments of southern Nevada,
    conservation groups and other interested parties.
        Our company is developing the master-planned community of
    Summerlin on land acquired by Howard Hughes nearly a half
    century ago. Summerlin is America's most successful master-
    planned community, and when completed, it will be home to
    160,000 Nevadans.
        Our company was acquired in 1996 by The Rouse Company,
    recognized today as one of America's most successful real
    estate investment trusts. The Rouse Company developed Columbia,
    Maryland, one of the first major master-planned communities in
    America. Other major successful projects include downtown
    revitalization, such as Harbor Place in Baltimore and Faneuil
    Hall in Boston.
        Joining me today is the Vice Chairman of The Rouse Company,
    Douglas McGregor.
        Summerlin covers more than 22,000 acres and stretches along
    the western rim of the Las Vegas Valley, bordering public
    lands, including the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area.
        Mr. Van Epp. A principal reason passage of this bill is so
    important is that the boundary of the Federal land to our west
    is based on section lines and so it does not conform to the
    well-defined foot of the mountains. Thus it is that the very
    toes or shoulders of some of those mountains are clipped by the
    current property lines. A clear border is created where the
    mountain slopes meet the alluvial plain, forming a natural and
    desirable boundary between Summerlin and the conservation area.
    The bases of those mountains that currently lie within
    Summerlin make up the bulk of the offered lands of this
    exchange proposal.
        Logic would dictate that if most of the mountain is under
    the protection of a conservation area, perhaps the entire
    mountain should be also included, and that is precisely what
    this legislation addresses. Our company takes great pride in
    the quality of Summerlin and guides its development with a
    strong environmental stewardship. At Summerlin's inception,
    approximately 5,000 acres of pristine land was transferred to
    the BLM through an exchange, creating what is today the gateway
    and buffer zone for the astonishingly beautiful Red Rock Canyon
    National Conservation Area.
        There are many other examples of our environmental
    leadership, including the use of water-saving landscapes,
    preservation of arroyos to maintain natural terrain while
    providing recreational opportunities, and design criteria that
    require the use of color palettes indigenous to the desert,
    thereby reducing impact on the viewshed. Most visitors to Las
    Vegas are well acquainted with the manmade grandeur of the
    Strip, but 15 miles to the west, our efforts in the creation of
    Summerlin are precisely the opposite, to preserve the natural
    beauty and harmony of the desert by responsible development.
        While it is generally acknowledged that custom home lots
    perched on mountain slopes provide extraordinary high value
    view lots, the impact of such development on viewsheds is an
    issue. This bill refers to an exchange of lands of equal value.
    That value is being determined by an appraisal conducted by a
    BLM-approved professional using all applicable Federal
    standards and, as mentioned earlier, is due to be complete in
    the very near future.
        The process of gathering input on this bill has been open
    and inclusive, and we have initiated dozens of meetings with
    environmental leaders, government agencies and community
    organizations. The result is widespread support from members of
    the local Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and numerous
    leaders of environmental and conservation groups in southern
    Nevada. We believe this bill is a prime example of constructive
    legislation. It engenders public consensus and accomplishes
    multiple goals. It expands the national conservation area. It
    protects and preserves the viewshed for the entire Las Vegas
    valley. It improves access to the conservation area, and it
    creates a park for Clark County residents.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
    your consideration and leadership.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Van Epp follows:]

     Statement of Daniel Van Epp, President, The Howard Hughes Corporation

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
    important Subcommittee in support of H.R. 4141, the Red Rock Canyon
    National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of 2002.
        We appreciate the efforts and expertise of Congressman James
    Gibbons and his staff in introducing H.R. 4141 to the House of
    Representatives. The Congressman's leadership has resulted in a well-
    crafted bill, beneficial to the residents of Clark County, and
    supported by the entire Nevada congressional delegation, Nevada local
    governments, conservation groups and other interested parties.
        This bill will enhance the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area, and preserve significant viewsheds in the western Las Vegas
    Valley. H.R. 4141 will also set aside approximately 1223 acres of high-
    terrain Federal land along a prominent ridgeline for use by Clark
    County as a passive park and component of a growing regional trail
    system. Finally, the bill would incorporate 232 acres of BLM land
    surrounding a flood control basin into the adjacent Red Rock Canyon
    National Conservation Area, thus guaranteeing its permanent protection.
    INTRODUCTION
        The Howard Hughes Corporation, an affiliate of The Rouse Company,
    is developing the Summerlin master-planned community in Clark County.
    Summerlin borders BLM- managed public lands on the western side of the
    Las Vegas Valley, including the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area. Howard Hughes takes great pride in the quality of the Summerlin
    community and its contribution to the quality of life in Las Vegas.
    Similarly, we are committed to sensitive development that protects and
    enhances the priceless public resources of Southern Nevada, especially
    the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. That is why this land
    exchange makes such good sense from every perspective.
    THE EXCHANGE
        Under the proposed legislation sponsored by Congressman Gibbons,
    The Howard Hughes Corporation would transfer to the BLM 1,071 acres of
    privately-held high-ground acreage (lands offered) in the northwestern
    region of Summerlin in exchange for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    acreage of equal value. These ``lands selected'' are inside the
    Southern Nevada Land Disposal Boundary, and are contiguous with the
    southern region of Summerlin. The exact amount of land our company will
    acquire is dependent on the results of an appraisal in progress.
        Most of the lands offered comprise the lower slopes of mountains
    which are located primarily inside the Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area. Exchanging them to the Federal Government guarantees
    that they will be protected from private development that could
    negatively impact the approach to Red Rock and mar the spectacular
    viewshed of this area looking west from Las Vegas.
        In return, The Howard Hughes Corporation will acquire lands of
    equal value (determined through appraisal) that lie west and south of
    its current Summerlin holdings. Through the Southern Nevada Public
    Lands Management Act, this property is already slated for future
    disposal and development, either by auction or exchange to private
    parties or for public purposes.

    BENEFITS
        1. LRed Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is enhanced and
    expanded by the addition of approximately 1,071 acres of adjacent
    private high-terrain land.
        2. LClark County will acquire approximately 1,223 acres of high
    ridgeline property inside the Southern Nevada Disposal Boundary for use
    as a passive county park. This will allow the county to develop trail
    systems with management plans, providing residents with a spectacular
    and accessible recreational opportunity.
        3. LThe Howard Hughes Corporation can continue environmentally
    sound development of our land, while preserving significant viewsheds
    and improving access to conservation areas.
        4. LA portion of BLM land was originally excluded from Red Rock
    because of the need for a regional flood control structure. The
    structure is now built and 232 acres of the 'carve-out' that were not
    used remain outside the Conservation Area. We propose amending the
    current bill to insert these lands into the Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area, which would grow by an additional 232 acres. This
    amendment would enhance viewshed protection and provide protected trail
    access routes into the National Conservation Area.

    HUGHES HISTORY
        When Howard Hughes died in 1976, his estate included 49,000 acres
    of real estate. After the disposition of all but the most valuable
    properties, Summa Corporation, now known as The Howard Hughes
    Corporation, retained the land in Southern Nevada that is currently
    under development as Summerlin. In 1996 the corporation merged with The
    Rouse Company of Columbia, Maryland, one of the largest publicly held
    real estate development and management companies in the United States.
    The Rouse Company is one of the nation's foremost real estate
    investment trusts.

    SUMMERLIN
        Today Summerlin is ranked as America's most successful master-
    planned community and is home to more than 60,000 residents. Upon
    build-out in 2015, more than 160,000 Nevada residents will call
    Summerlin home. The community spans the Las Vegas Valley's western rim,
    much of it bordering the mountains of Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area.
        The boundaries that demarcate the Federal land to our west are
    based on section lines or fractions thereof. Thus it is that the very
    'toes' or 'shoulders' of some bordering mountains are 'clipped' by the
    current property lines. Those lower mountain lands make up the bulk of
    the offered lands of this exchange proposal. Logic would dictate that
    all of a given mountain in a conservation area should be included, and
    that is precisely what this legislation addresses.

    ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY
        The Howard Hughes Corporation enjoys and values a strong working
    relationship with the environmental community of Southern Nevada. This
    partnership dates back to an exchange facilitated by The Nature
    Conservancy in 1987, long before the first homes were built in
    Summerlin. Through this exchange, The Howard Hughes Corporation and the
    Bureau of Land Management assured the preservation of a significant
    part of Red Rock Canyon. The exchange transferred a 5,000-acre parcel
    of land owned by Hughes, which provided an important buffer zone and
    gateway into one of Southern Nevada's most precious environmental
    treasures. This parcel was considered a critical element in what
    eventually became the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
        Environmental stewardship has been an integral part of the entire
    planning process of our master-planned community. Summerlin is the
    first major scale master-planned community in Nevada to use award
    winning drought-tolerant (low-water-use) plantings in common areas,
    saving precious water resources. Strict design criteria are imposed to
    reduce viewshed impacts throughout the community. Natural drainage
    features such as arroyos are often preserved to maintain natural
    terrain, while at the same time providing recreational opportunities.
    Light pollution is addressed through the use of limited-spread street
    lighting.
        These are just a few of the many ways in which our company has
    addressed and maintained a dedication to environmentally sound
    development. We are proud of the numerous awards and considerable
    recognition this planning has garnered.

    HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
        There has been a fair amount of media attention focused on hillside
    development recently in Southern Nevada (see attached article). While
    it is generally acknowledged that custom home lots cut from hillsides
    provide extraordinary high-value view lots, the impact of such
    development on viewsheds is an issue. As profiled in attached media
    reports, Hughes is dedicated to reducing that impact in our northwest
    holdings through this exchange. Likewise, the county acquisition of the
    high ground ridgeline to the south also enhances such preservation
    efforts.

    APPRAISAL
        The language in this bill refers to an exchange of lands ``of equal
    value.'' That value is being determined by appraisal. The appraisal
    will comply with all applicable Federal standards and is supported by
    both an extensive engineering study, as well as an extensive marketing
    study. The appraisal nearly complete and will be turned over to the Las
    Vegas District BLM office for review.

    CREATING A NEW PARK
        An important element of this legislation will create a major
    recreational opportunity for the Las Vegas Valley. Clark County will
    receive approximately 1223 acres of ridgeline for use as a passive
    park. The county identified the recreational and planning advantages of
    acquiring this ridge years ago. Aside from the potential for trail
    systems, the acquisition will also address an important viewshed issue.
    Commercial or residential development of this ridgeline would impact
    the viewshed for the southwest quadrant of the Las Vegas Valley, if not
    the valley-at-large. Any associated increase in the value of lands
    surrounding this potential park has been factored into the appraisal
    process.

    SUPPORT
        The process of gathering input has been open and inclusive, and has
    involved dozens of meetings with interested parties, government
    agencies (both local and Federal), community organizations and
    concerned residents.
        Our corporation has initiated such meetings to discuss the
    potential exchange with environmental leaders in Nevada, working toward
    a bill that will benefit all residents of Clark County. This bill has
    received widespread support from the environmental community, including
    words of praise from the local Nevada chapter of the Sierra Club,
    leaders of which (including Jane Feldman) were featured in newspaper
    stories as well as on television news reports. The Sierra Club also
    wrote a letter of ``non-opposition'' to this exchange (see attached).
    Other environmental supporters of the bill include The Nature
    Conservancy (see attached letter), and Alan O'Neill, executive director
    of the Outside Las Vegas Foundation (see attached letter).
        The exchange is likewise supported by both the City of Las Vegas
    (see attached resolution) and Clark County (resolution to be introduced
    by Clark County).

    SUMMARY
        This legislation will impart significant benefits to all Southern
    Nevadans, including conservation of sensitive lands and the
    establishment of considerable recreational opportunities, while still
    providing economic opportunity for The Howard Hughes Corporation.
    Supported by the environmental community, local government and the
    Bureau of Land Management, this bill is a prime example of constructive
    legislation that engenders public consensus.
        We are deeply appreciative of the opportunity to provide details
    and to testify in person on this proposed legislation. The elected
    leaders and staff who conduct the legislative process of the House of
    Representatives are to be commended for their service to country and
    constituents. It is an honor to be invited to contribute to such a
    process. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we thank you all
    for your kind consideration, especially Congressman James Gibbons,
    whose leadership and initiative made it possible.
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Mr. Van Epp's statement follow:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.024

        Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding] Mr. Van Epp, I wish everyone could
    follow you. That was, to the second, 5 minutes. Obviously you
    practiced that speech. As everyone heard, we have a vote
    underway. We have a little less than 10 minutes, probably
    between 5 and 10 minutes left.
        Turn now to Crystal Altenbaumer. Welcome. The floor is
    yours. We look forward to your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF CRYSTAL ALTENBAUMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILLIAM
               J. CLINTON BIRTHPLACE HOME, HOPE, ARKANSAS

        Ms. Altenbaumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am going to make mine quick because I am
    freezing. So if my teeth start chattering, you will understand.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
    3815, the Presidential Historic Site and Study Act. This
    legislation would authorize the Department of Interior to study
    the feasibility of designating the birthplace home of President
    William Jefferson Clinton in Hope, Arkansas as a national
    historic site. The house at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope,
    Arkansas is known as the Bill Clinton birthplace or the first
    home of the 42nd President of the United States. The Clinton
    Birthplace Foundation was established in 1993 as a nonprofit
    corporation to serve the historic preservation opportunities in
    President Clinton's home State. Currently the foundation is not
    affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise supported by the
    President of the United States or any official agency of the
    Federal Government.
        One of the foundation's primary goals is to restore and
    preserve President Clinton's first home. President Clinton's
    grandparents, Edith and Eldridge Cassidy, purchased the home in
    1938, and at that time the President's mother, Virginia, was in
    high school. During the next few years she met and married
    William Blythe. Virginia Cassidy Blythe was 3 months pregnant
    with her first child when her husband was killed in a car wreck
    during a business trip. Virginia lived in the house with her
    parents during the remainder of her pregnancy, giving birth to
    William Jefferson Blythe on August 19, 1946.
        Virginia raised Billy in Hope with the help of her parents
    for the first 2 years of his life. After his second birthday,
    she left him in her parents' care to attend nursing school in
    order to be able to support herself and young son. Then in 1950
    Virginia married Roger Clinton.
        The home on 117 South Hervey Street is the property most
    directly associated with the teachings, values and benefits
    that have served President Clinton throughout his life and
    career. The Cassidys taught their young grandson by placing
    flash cards on the curtains and they would drill him over and
    over until he knew his numbers. They also taught him how to
    read newspapers by the time he was 4 years old. It was in this
    house that Bill Clinton spent his formative years learning to
    talk, walk, laugh, play, read, and pray. President Clinton has
    said he has great memories of living with his wonderful
    grandparents. President Clinton's grandfather owned a small
    grocery store in Hope, and despite the segregation laws at the
    time allowed people of all races to make purchases on credit.
    The Cassidys taught their grandson that everyone should be
    treated equally. Clinton's statement ``I still believe in a
    place called Hope'' has given people of every race the
    inspiration to strive forward while paying tribute to the place
    where he learned life's lessons.
        Through interpretive programs the Clinton birthplace and
    visitor center will seek to stimulate an interest in history
    and engender an understanding of what the past means to the
    present and the future. It has promoted the value of education
    and shows what education has done for President Clinton, making
    it an excellent field trip experience for school. It is seen as
    a strong historical and educational project that will attract a
    large number of public school children throughout the country.
        Besides chronicling the life and times of Bill Clinton, the
    Clinton birthplace and visitor center recognizes and promotes
    the rich history, achievements and legacy of the region and
    State to show the impact of this environment on the young Bill
    Clinton. It serves as a tourist attraction promoting economic
    development throughout Hope, Hempstead County and southwest
    Arkansas.
        The financial structure for this historic treasure has come
    from extensive fund-raising efforts, small grants and some
    funding from the Arkansas government. Citizens from throughout
    the Nation have supported the restoration program and have
    helped sustain the foundation and the birthplace home, many of
    them coming with multiyear pledges. Today the Clinton
    Birthplace Foundation operates on money raised from admissions,
    sales from gift shop and contributions from visitors and other
    interested parties. While the foundation is presently
    financially sound, cutbacks have been made where necessary to
    maintain operations while awaiting national park status. Other
    fund-raising efforts will be ongoing to establish the
    educational facilities at the center so the foundation can hand
    over to National Park Service a site already established as an
    educational, historic and tourist family attraction.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering any questions the
    Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Altenbaumer follows:]

       Statement of Crystal Altenbaumer, Executive Director, William J.
             Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas, on H.R. 3815

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3815, the Presidential
    Historic Site Study Act. This legislation would authorize the
    department of the Interior to study the feasibility of designating the
    birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton in Hope, AR as a
    national historic site. The house at 117 S. Hervey Street in Hope, AR
    is known as the Bill Clinton birthplace or the first home of the 42nd
    President of the United States.
    Birthplace Foundation
        The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was established in 1993 as a non-
    profit corporation to serve the historic preservation opportunities in
    President Clinton's home state. Currently, the Foundation is not
    affiliated with, sponsored by or otherwise supported by the President
    of the United States or any official agency of the Federal Government.
    One of the Foundation's primary goals is to restore and preserve
    President Clinton's first home.
    History
        In 1917, Dr. H.J.S. Garrett, who settled in Hope after living in
    France, built the structure located at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope,
    AR. Structurally, it is known as the American foursquare, a 2-+-story
    2,100 square ft. building.
        Virginia Cassidy's parents, Edith & Eldridge Cassidy, purchased the
    home in 1938, while Virginia was in high school. During the next few
    years she met & married William Blythe, a traveling salesman. Virginia
    Cassidy Blythe was three months pregnant with their first child when
    her husband was killed in a car wreck during a business trip. Virginia
    lived in the house with her parents during the remainder of her
    pregnancy, giving birth to William Jefferson Blythe on August 19, 1946.
        Virginia raised Billy in Hope, with the help of her parents for the
    first two years of his life. After his second birthday she left him in
    her parents care to attend nursing school in New Orleans, LA, learning
    the trade of nurse anesthetist to support herself and young son. In
    1950, Virginia married Roger Clinton.
        The home on 117 S. Hervey Street is the property most directly
    associated with the teachings, values, and benefits that have served
    President Clinton throughout his life and career. The Cassidy's taught
    their young grandson to count by placing flash cards on the kitchen
    curtains and drilling him over and over the numbers while he was fed.
    They taught him how to read newspapers by the age of 4. It was in this
    house that Bill Clinton spent his formative years, learning to walk,
    talk, laugh, play, read & pray. President Clinton has said ``he has
    great memories of living with his wonderful grandparents.''
        President Clinton's grandfather owned a small grocery store in Hope
    and despite the segregation laws of the time, allowed people of all
    races to make purchases on credit. The Cassidy's taught their grandson
    that everyone should be treated equally. Clinton's statement, ``I still
    believe in a place called Hope,'' has given people of every race the
    inspiration to strive forward, while paying tribute to the place where
    he learned life lessons.

    Foundation Mission and Purpose
        Since Bill Clinton is the first President of the United States to
    be born after World War II, it is only fitting that plans for this
    birthplace museum are different from those honoring other Presidents.
    While many of these homes keep visitors in hallways behind ropes, the
    Clinton home features interactive exhibits.
        The Foundation Board of Directors completed an in-depth development
    feasibility study in February 1995 for a proposed $1.5 million capital
    development program to restore the home. Interviews were conducted with
    individuals, businesses and foundations throughout Arkansas and the
    United States. The study indicated that the restoration program is
    viewed as a ``win-win'' situation for Hope and Arkansas with the
    benefits of increased tourism, positive public image, and historical
    preservation.
        Through interpretive programs, the Clinton birthplace and visitors
    center will seek to stimulate an interest in history and engender an
    understanding of what the past means to the present and the future. It
    has promoted the value of education and shows what education has done
    for President Clinton, making it an excellent field-trip experience for
    schools. It is seen as a strong historical and educational project that
    will attract a large number of public school children throughout
    Arkansas, North Texas, Louisiana, and Southeast Oklahoma.
        Besides chronicling the life and times of Bill Clinton, the Clinton
    birthplace and visitors center recognizes and promotes the rich
    history, achievements and legacy of the region and state to show the
    impact of this environment on the young Bill Clinton. It serves as a
    tourist attraction promoting economic development throughout Hope,
    Hempstead County, and Southwest Arkansas.

    Restoration
        Restoration of the birthplace home began in 1995, and was opened
    for visitation on June 1, 1997. Under the professional direction of
    Cromwell-Truemper-Levy-Thompson-Woodsmall, the foundation restored the
    home into a hands-on museum and has constructed a visitor's center.
    Visitors have relative open access to all parts of the home. In
    addition to the home serving as an interactive museum, the visitor's
    center features an exhibit area and educational facility. The entire
    complex is located on a half city block.

    Funding
        The financial structure for this historic treasure has come from
    extensive fund-raising efforts, small grants and some funding from the
    Arkansas government. Citizens from throughout the nation have supported
    the restoration program. Personal and corporate contributions of
    varying amounts, all of them tax-deductible, have helped sustain the
    foundation and the birthplace home, many of them coming with multi-year
    pledges.
        Today, the Clinton Birthplace Foundation operates on money raised
    from admissions, sales from the gift shop and contributions from
    visitors and other interested parties. While the foundation is
    presently financially sound, cutbacks have been made where necessary to
    maintain operations while awaiting national park status. Fund-raisers
    are being planned to further develop the site and maintain the
    structure and facilities available now.
        For example, the foundation is selling personalized bricks that
    will be placed adjacent to the Virginia Clinton Kelley Memorial Rose
    Garden, which will both help maintain the grounds while allowing
    citizens to have their names associated with the historic the site.
    Other fund-raising efforts will go to establish the educational
    facilities at the center so that the foundation can hand over to the
    National Parks Service a site already established as an educational,
    historic and tourist-friendly attraction. The foundation also has
    assuring that visitors will get the information about the home and
    family from residents of the area where the president spent his
    formative years.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering any questions the
    Committee might have.
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Ms. Altenbaumer's statement follow:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.010

        Mr. Gibbons. Absolutely perfect. Folks, I am going to have
    to leave to go do the vote process, the process to which I was
    elected to this office. It is going to preclude me from asking
    questions. I would like to submit written questions to the
    witnesses from the Committee to be answered and submitted back
    to the Committee for our benefit. I am sure all of you will
    agree that should we submit questions to you that you would be
    willing to supply answers to them for the record on the
    Committee.
        Mr. Gibbons. Also for Committee purposes, I would like to
    submit for the record a boundary modifications map dated May
    24, 2002 for H.R. 4141 and the Red Rock Enhancement Act map
    dated March 15, 2002 for the record.
        Mr. Gibbons. With that, I want to thank you. I know that
    there were expectations of answering and two-way dialog here,
    but unfortunately I do not control the floor schedule and the
    vote has taken precedent. And I would like to thank you, excuse
    the witnesses, and bring this hearing to a close.
        [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [The maps submitted for the record follow:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.028