[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 42 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2737-S2790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1296, an act to 
provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1296) to provide for the administration of 
     certain Presidio properties at a minimal cost to the Federal 
     taxpayer.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with an amendment 
to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof 
the following:

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Presidio, located amidst the incomparable scenic 
     splendor of the Golden Gate, is one of America's great 
     natural and historic sites;
       (2) the Presidio is the oldest continuously operated 
     military post in the Nation dating from 1776, and was 
     designated a National Historic Landmark in 1962;
       (3) preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of 
     the Presidio for public use recognizes its significant role 
     in the history of the United States;
       (4) the Presidio, in its entirety, is part of the Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area, in accordance with Public Law 
     92-589;
       (5) as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     the Presidio's significant natural, historic, scenic, 
     cultural, and recreational resources must be managed in a 
     manner which is consistent with sound principles of land use 
     planning and management, and which protects the Presidio from 
     development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty 
     and historic and natural character of the area and cultural 
     and recreational resources;
       (6) removal and/or replacement of some structures within 
     the Presidio must be considered as a management option in the 
     administration of the Presidio; and
       (7) the Presidio will be managed through an innovative 
     public/private partnership that minimizes cost to the United 
     States Treasury and makes efficient use of private sector 
     resources.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE 
                   INTERIOR.

       (a) Interim Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') is 
     authorized to manage leases in existence on the date of this 
     Act for properties under the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary and located at the Presidio. Upon the 
     expiration of any such lease, the Secretary may extend such 
     lease for a period terminating not later than 6 months after 
     the first meeting of the Presidio Trust. The Secretary may 
     not enter into any new leases for property at the Presidio to 
     be transferred to the Presidio Trust under this Act. Prior to 
     the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over any property 
     to the Presidio Trust, and notwithstanding section 1341 of 
     title 31 of the United States Code, the proceeds from any 
     such lease shall be retained by the Secretary and such 
     proceeds shall be available, without further appropriation, 
     for the preservation, restoration, operation and maintenance, 
     improvement, repair and related expenses incurred with 
     respect to Presidio properties. The Secretary may adjust the 
     rental charge on any such lease for any amounts to be 
     expended by the lessee for preservation, maintenance, 
     restoration, improvement, repair and related expenses with 
     respect to properties and infrastructure within the Presidio.

[[Page S2738]]

       (b) Public Information and Interpretation.--The Secretary 
     shall be responsible, in cooperation with the Presidio Trust, 
     for providing public interpretive services, visitor 
     orientation and educational programs on all lands within the 
     Presidio.
       (c) Other.--Those lands and facilities within the Presidio 
     that are not transferred to the administrative jurisdiction 
     of the Presidio Trust shall continue to be managed by the 
     Secretary. The Secretary and the Presidio Trust shall 
     cooperate to ensure adequate public access to all portions of 
     the Presidio. Any infrastructure and building improvement 
     projects that were funded prior to the enactment of this Act 
     shall be completed by the National Park Service.
       (d) Park Service Employees.--Any career employee of the 
     National Park Service, employed at the Presidio at the time 
     of the transfer of lands and facilities to the Presidio 
     Trust, shall not be separated from the Service by reason of 
     such transfer, unless such employee is employed by the Trust, 
     other than on detail. The Trust shall have sole discretion 
     over whether to hire any such employee or request a detail of 
     such employee.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESIDIO TRUST.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a wholly owned 
     government corporation to be known as the Presidio Trust 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Trust'').
       (b) Transfer.--(1) Within 60 days after receipt of a 
     request from the Trust for the transfer of any parcel within 
     the area depicted as Area B on the map entitled ``Presidio 
     Trust Number 1,'' dated December 7, 1995, the Secretary shall 
     transfer such parcel to the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Trust. Within one year after the first meeting of the 
     Board of Directors of the Trust, the Secretary shall transfer 
     to the Trust administrative jurisdiction over all remaining 
     parcels within Area B. Such map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the Trust 
     and in the offices of the National Park Service, Department 
     of the Interior. The Trust and the Secretary may jointly make 
     technical and clerical revisions in the boundary depicted on 
     such map. The Secretary shall retain jurisdiction over those 
     portions of the building identified as number 102 as the 
     Secretary deems essential for use as a visitor center. The 
     Building shall be named the ``William Penn Mott Visitor 
     Center''. Any parcel of land, the jurisdiction over which is 
     transferred pursuant to this subsection, shall remain within 
     the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
       (2) Within 60 days after the first meeting of the Board of 
     Directors of the Trust, the Trust and the Secretary shall 
     determine cooperatively which records, equipment, and other 
     personal property are deemed to be necessary for the 
     immediate administration of the properties to be transferred, 
     and the Secretary shall immediately transfer such personal 
     property to the Trust. Within one year after the first 
     meeting of the Board of Directors of the Trust, the Trust and 
     the Secretary shall determine cooperatively what, if any, 
     additional records, equipment, and other personal property 
     used by the Secretary in the administration of the properties 
     to be transferred should be transferred to the Trust.
       (3) The Secretary shall transfer, with the transfer of 
     administrative jurisdiction over any property, the 
     unobligated balance of all funds appropriated to the 
     Secretary, all leases, concessions, licenses, permits, and 
     other agreements affecting such property.
       (c) Board of Directors.--
       (1) In general.--The powers and management of the Trust 
     shall be vested in a Board of Directors (hereinafter referred 
     to as the ``Board'') consisting of the following 7 members:
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary's 
     designee; and
       (B) six individuals, who are not employees of the Federal 
     Government, appointed by the President, who shall possess 
     extensive knowledge and experience in one or more of the 
     fields of city planning, finance, real estate development, 
     and resource conservation. At least one of these individuals 
     shall be a veteran of the Armed Services. At least 3 of these 
     individuals shall reside in the San Francisco Bay Area. The 
     President shall make the appointments referred to in this 
     subparagraph within 90 days after the enactment of this Act 
     and shall ensure that the fields of city planning, finance, 
     real estate development, and resource conservation are 
     adequately represented. Upon establishment of the Trust, the 
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Trust shall meet 
     with the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee of the United States Senate and the Chairman of the 
     Resources Committee of the United States House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Terms.--Members of the Board appointed under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall each serve for a term of 4 years, except that of 
     the members first appointed, 3 shall serve for a term of 2 
     years. Any vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made, and any 
     member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the 
     remainder of the term for which his or her predecessor was 
     appointed. No appointed member may serve more than 8 years in 
     consecutive terms.
       (3) Quorum.--Four members of the Board shall constitute a 
     quorum for the conduct of business by the Board.
       (4) Organization and compensation.--The Board shall 
     organize itself in such a manner as it deems most appropriate 
     to effectively carry out the authorized activities of the 
     Trust. Board members shall serve without pay, but may be 
     reimbursed for the actual and necessary travel and 
     subsistence expenses incurred by them in the performance of 
     the duties of the Trust.
       (5) Liability of directors.--Members of the Board of 
     Directors shall not be considered Federal employees by virtue 
     of their membership on the Board, except for purposes of the 
     Federal Tort Claims Act and the Ethics in Government Act, and 
     the provisions of chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code.
       (6) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at least three times 
     per year in San Francisco and at least two of those meetings 
     shall be open to the public. Upon a majority vote, the Board 
     may close any other meetings to the public. The Board shall 
     establish procedures for providing public information and 
     opportunities for public comment regarding policy, planning, 
     and design issues through the Golden Gate National Recreation 
     Area Advisory Commission.
       (7) Staff.--The Trust is authorized to appoint and fix the 
     compensation and duties of an executive director and such 
     other officers and employees as it deems necessary without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and may 
     pay them without regard to the provisions of chapter 51, and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53, title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that no officer or employee may receive a salary which 
     exceeds the salary payable to officers or employees of the 
     United States classified at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule.
       (8) Necessary powers.--The Trust shall have all necessary 
     and proper powers for the exercise of the authorities vested 
     in it.
       (9) Taxes.--The Trust and all properties administered by 
     the Trust shall be exempt from all taxes and special 
     assessments of every kind by the State of California, and its 
     political subdivisions, including the city and county of San 
     Francisco.
       (10) Government corporation.--(A) The Trust shall be 
     treated as a wholly owned Government corporation subject to 
     chapter 91 of title 31, United States Code (commonly referred 
     to as the Government Corporation Control Act). Financial 
     statements of the Trust shall be audited annually in 
     accordance with section 9105 of title 31 of the United States 
     Code.
       (B) At the end of each calendar year, the Trust shall 
     submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the United States Senate and the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives a comprehensive and detailed 
     report of its operations, activities, and accomplishments for 
     the prior fiscal year. The report also shall include a 
     section that describes in general terms the Trust's goals for 
     the current fiscal year.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE TRUST.

       (a) Overall Requirements of the Trust.--The Trust shall 
     manage the leasing, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair and 
     improvement of property within the Presidio under its 
     administrative jurisdiction using the authorities provided in 
     this section, which shall be exercised in accordance with the 
     purposes set forth in section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the 
     State of California, and for other purposes,'' approved 
     October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 
     460bb), and in accordance with the general objectives of the 
     General Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``management plan'') approved for the Presidio.
       (b) The Trust may participate in the development of 
     programs and activities at the properties transferred to the 
     Trust. The Trust shall have the authority to negotiate and 
     enter into such agreements, leases, contracts and other 
     arrangements with any person, firm, association, 
     organization, corporation or governmental entity, including, 
     without limitation, entities of Federal, State, and local 
     governments as are necessary and appropriate to finance and 
     carry out its authorized activities. Any such agreement may 
     be entered into without regard to section 321 of the Act of 
     June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b). The Trust shall establish 
     procedures for lease agreements and other agreements for use 
     and occupancy of Presidio facilities, including a requirement 
     that in entering into such agreements the Trust shall obtain 
     reasonable competition. The Trust may not dispose of or 
     convey fee title to any real property transferred to it under 
     this Act. Federal laws and regulations governing procurement 
     by Federal agencies shall not apply to the Trust except that 
     the Trust, in consultation with the Administrator of Federal 
     Procurement Policy, shall establish and promulgate procedures 
     applicable to the Trust's procurement of goods and services 
     including, but not limited to, the award of contracts on the 
     basis of contractor qualifications, price, commercially 
     reasonable buying practices, and reasonable competition.
       (c) The Trust shall develop a comprehensive program for 
     management of those lands and facilities within the Presidio 
     which are transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Trust. Such program shall be designed to reduce 
     expenditures by the National Park Service and increase 
     revenues to the Federal Government to the maximum extent 
     possible. In carrying out this program, the Trust shall be 
     treated as a successor in interest to the National Park 
     Service with respect to compliance with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act and other environmental compliance 
     statutes. Such program shall consist of--
       (1) demolition of structures which in the opinion of the 
     Trust, cannot be cost-effectively rehabilitated, and which 
     are identified in the management plan for demolition,
       (2) evaluation for possible demolition or replacement those 
     buildings identified as categories 2 through 5 in the 
     Presidio of San Francisco Historic Landmark District Historic 
     American Buildings Survey Report, dated 1985,
       (3) new construction limited to replacement of existing 
     structures of similar size in existing areas of development, 
     and
       (4) examination of a full range of reasonable options for 
     carrying out routine administrative and facility management 
     programs.
     The Trust shall consult with the Secretary in the preparation 
     of this program.

[[Page S2739]]

       (d) To augment or encourage the use of non-Federal funds to 
     finance capital improvements on Presidio properties 
     transferred to its jurisdiction, the Trust, in addition to 
     its other authorities, shall have the following authorities 
     subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 
     661 et seq.):
       (1) The authority to guarantee any lender against loss of 
     principal or interest on any loan, provided that (A) the 
     terms of the guarantee are approved by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, (B) adequate subsidy budget authority is provided 
     in advance in appropriations acts, and (C) such guarantees 
     are structured so as to minimize potential cost to the 
     Federal Government. No loan guarantee under this Act shall 
     cover more than 75 percent of the unpaid balance of the loan. 
     The Trust may collect a fee sufficient to cover its costs in 
     connection with each loan guaranteed under this Act. The 
     authority to enter into any such loan guarantee agreement 
     shall expire at the end of 15 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) The authority, subject to appropriations, to make loans 
     to the occupants of property managed by the Trust for the 
     preservation, restoration, maintenance, or repair of such 
     property.
       (3) The authority to issue obligations to the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, but only if the Secretary of the Treasury 
     agrees to purchase such obligations after determining that 
     the projects to be funded from the proceeds thereof are 
     credit worthy and that a repayment schedule is established 
     and only to the extent authorized in advance in 
     appropriations acts. The Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds 
     from the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which 
     securities may be issued under such chapter are extended to 
     include any purchase of such notes or obligations acquired by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury under this subsection. 
     Obligations issued under this subparagraph shall be in such 
     forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject 
     to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and shall bear interest at a rate 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into 
     consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable 
     obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. No 
     funds appropriated to the Trust may be used for repayment of 
     principal or interest on, or redemption of, obligations 
     issued under this paragraph.
       (4) The aggregate amount of obligations issued under this 
     subsection which are outstanding at any one time may not 
     exceed $50,000,000.
       (e) The Trust may solicit and accept donations of funds, 
     property, supplies, or services from individuals, 
     foundations, corporations, and other private or public 
     entities for the purpose of carrying out its duties. The 
     Trust shall maintain a liaison with the Golden Gate National 
     Park Association.
       (f) Notwithstanding section 1341 of title 31 of the United 
     States Code, all proceeds received by the Trust shall be 
     retained by the Trust, and such proceeds shall be available, 
     without further appropriation, for the preservation, 
     restoration, operation and maintenance, improvement, repair 
     and related expenses incurred with respect to Presidio 
     properties under its administrative jurisdiction. Upon the 
     Request of the Trust, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest excess moneys of the Trust in public debt securities 
     with maturities suitable to the needs of the Trust.
       (g) The Trust may sue and be sued in its own name to the 
     same extent as the Federal Government. Litigation arising out 
     of the activities of the Trust shall be conducted by the 
     Attorney General; except that the Trust may retain private 
     attorneys to provide advice and counsel. The District Court 
     for the Northern District of California shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over any suit filed against the Trust.
       (h) The Trust shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement 
     with the Secretary, acting through the Chief of the United 
     States Park Police, for the conduct of law enforcement 
     activities and services within those portions of the Presidio 
     transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Trust.
       (i) The Trust is authorized, in consultation with the 
     Secretary, to adopt and to enforce those rules and 
     regulations that are applicable to the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area and that may be necessary and appropriate to 
     carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Act. The 
     Trust shall give notice of the adoption of such rules and 
     regulations by publication in the Federal Register.
       (j) For the purpose of compliance with applicable laws and 
     regulations concerning properties transferred to the Trust by 
     the Secretary, the Trust shall negotiate directly with 
     regulatory authorities.
       (k) Insurance.--The Trust shall require that all 
     leaseholders and contractors procure proper insurance against 
     any loss in connection with properties under lease or 
     contract, or the authorized activities granted in such lease 
     or contract, as is reasonable and customary.
       (l) Building Code Compliance.--The Trust shall bring all 
     properties under its administrative jurisdiction into 
     compliance with Federal building codes and regulations 
     appropriate to use and occupancy within 10 years after the 
     enactment of this Act to the extent practicable.
       (m) Leasing.--In managing and leasing the properties 
     transferred to it, the Trust consider the extent to which 
     prospective tenants contribute to the implementation of the 
     General Management Plan for the Presidio and to the maximum 
     generation of revenues to the Federal Government. The Trust 
     shall give priority to the following categories of tenants: 
     tenants that enhance the financial viability of the Presidio; 
     tenants that maximize the amount of revenues to the Federal 
     Government; and tenants that facilitate the cost-effective 
     preservation of historic buildings through their reuse of 
     such buildings.
       (n) Reversion.--If, at the expiration of 15 years, the 
     Trust has not accomplished the goals and objectives of the 
     plan required in section (5)(b) of this Act, then all 
     property under the administrative jurisdiction of the Trust 
     pursuant to section (3)(b) of this Act shall be transferred 
     to the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     to be disposed of in accordance with the procedures outlined 
     in the Defense Authorization Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 1809), 
     and any real property so transferred shall be deleted from 
     the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDING.

       (a)(1) From amounts made available to the Secretary for the 
     operation of areas within the Golden Gate National Recreation 
     Area, not more than $25,000,000 shall be available to carry 
     out this Act in each fiscal year after the enactment of this 
     Act until the plan is submitted under subsection (b). Such 
     sums shall remain available until expended.
       (2) After the plan required in subsection (b) is submitted, 
     and for each of the 14 fiscal years thereafter, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Trust not more than the 
     amounts specified in such plan. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended. Of such sums, not more than $3 
     million annually shall be available through the Trust for law 
     enforcement activities and services to be provided by the 
     United States Park Police at the Presidio in accordance with 
     section 4(h) of this Act.
       (b) Within one year after the first meeting of the Board of 
     Directors of the Trust, the Trust shall submit to Congress a 
     plan which includes a schedule of annual decreasing federally 
     appropriated funding that will achieve, at a minimum, self-
     sufficiency for the Trust within 15 complete fiscal years 
     after such meeting of the Trust.
       (c) The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration shall provide necessary assistance to the 
     Trust in the formulation and submission of the annual budget 
     request for the administration, operation, and maintenance of 
     the Presidio.

     SEC. 6. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

       (a) Three years after the first meeting of the Board of 
     Directors of the Trust, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct an interim study of the activities of the Trust and 
     shall report the results of the study to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the United States Senate, and the Committee 
     on Resources and Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives. The study shall include, but shall not be 
     limited to, details of how the Trust is meeting its 
     obligations under this Act.
       (b) In consultation with the Trust, the General Accounting 
     Office shall develop an interim schedule and plan to reduce 
     and replace the Federal appropriations to the extent 
     practicable for interpretive services conducted by the 
     National Park Service, and law enforcement activities and 
     services, fire and public safety programs conducted by the 
     Trust.
       (c) Seven years after the first meeting of the Board of 
     Directors of the Trust, the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct a comprehensive study of the activities of the Trust, 
     including the Trust's progress in meeting its obligations 
     under this Act, taking into consideration the results of the 
     study described in subsection (a) and the implementation of 
     plan and schedule required in subsection (b). The General 
     Accounting Office shall report the results of the study, 
     including any adjustments to the plan and schedule, to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the United States Senate, and the 
     Committee on Resources and Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.

  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Aaron 
Watkins, a congressional fellow employed by the Department of the 
Interior, and assigned to the staff of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, be granted privilege of the floor for the duration 
of the consideration of H.R. 1296, a bill to provide for the 
administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the 
Federal taxpayers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that A. J. 
Martinez, a fellow from the Department of the Interior, be granted 
privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1296, and all votes 
taken thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in the absence of Senator Murkowski, his 
staff indicated that it would be appropriate for me to go ahead and 
make my

[[Page S2740]]

statement at this point, so I would like to do so.
  Mr. President, I want to make a few initial observations about where 
we are with respect to this bill and where I hope we will end up. 
Almost every park and public land bill reported from the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee in this Congress is included in the 
Murkowski substitute to be introduced this morning. Most of these bills 
are noncontroversial and were reported by the committee unanimously; 
some have passed the Senate already but are held up in the House; some 
have passed the House and could go to the President, but for the fact 
that they are included in this package; others have had no action in 
either body.
  While packaging these bills in this manner is not unprecedented, this 
particular package is unusual in at least two respects. First, for 
almost 1\1/2\ years we have been unable to move any of these bills 
through the Senate. This gridlock which has prevented our ability to 
legislate in this area is unprecedented. This is not the way we should 
do our business.
  Whatever happens to this bill, I hope we will not find ourselves in 
this situation again. For as long as I have been in the Senate we have, 
until this Congress, been able to move these noncontroversial but 
important bills back and forth between the House and Senate in a spirit 
of bipartisanship and comity. I deeply regret that we appear to have 
lost the will and/or the ability to do that in this instance.
  Second, the addition of the Utah wilderness bill to this package has 
transformed an effort to end procedural gridlock and enact a number of 
essential noncontroversial bills into a major battle over a very 
contentious wilderness proposal. The inclusion of the Utah wilderness 
bill in this package of otherwise relatively noncontroversial bills has 
brought on a filibuster here in the Senate and a veto threat from the 
administration.
  I have indicated to my colleagues from Utah that I plan to support 
them in their efforts to get a Utah wilderness bill enacted. At the 
same time, I do not want to see the committee's efforts of the last 
year and a half wasted by passing a bill that does not pass or cannot 
pass the House and will almost certainly be vetoed.
  Since the Utah wilderness bill was introduced, the delegation from 
Utah has agreed to modify it significantly. Wilderness acreage has been 
added and a number of significant changes in the management and land 
exchange provisions have been made. While I know that the changes do 
not go far enough for some of my colleagues, I think it is clear that 
the Utah delegation is serious about crafting a bill that can pass the 
Senate.
  For example, with respect to one of the most contentious provisions 
of the bill, the so-called release language, the substitute before the 
Senate today contains language very similar to an amendment which I 
offered in the committee on this subject and which, though it failed on 
a 10 to 10 vote, had bipartisan support and, as I recall, the Democrats 
of the committee were united on that subject. So, in effect, Senators 
Bennett and Hatch have agreed to the Democratic position in the 
committee on that subject.
  The substitute no longer contains language requiring that release 
lands, that is, lands not designated as wilderness, be managed for 
nonwilderness multiple uses. Likewise, the substitute does not prohibit 
the BLM from managing these release lands in a manner that protects 
their wilderness character. Thus, this new language now satisfies the 
primary objective that my amendment in the committee addressed.
  Under the language as introduced, the BLM would have been unable for 
any reason to manage released lands, that is, those lands not 
designated as wilderness, for anything but nonwilderness purposes. In 
addition, the BLM would have been precluded from adopting any 
management option that had the effect of protecting the wilderness 
character of these released lands. I was concerned that such 
restrictive language would preclude management for many legitimate 
purposes, such as disbursed recreation, protection of wildlife habitat 
or watersheds, the protection of scenic, scientific, or historical 
values or similar purposes.
  Like the language offered, which was supported by virtually all the 
Senators on my side, the substitute now clearly permits these 
management options and only prohibits the BLM from managing these lands 
as wilderness study areas for the expressed purpose of protecting their 
suitability for future inclusion in the National Wilderness 
Preservation System.
  While I recognize that there is still a serious limitation in the 
view of some of my colleagues, this current formulation is 
significantly narrower in scope than the bill introduced and 
illustrates the willingness of the Utah delegation to compromise on 
some of these very difficult issues. I hope that both sides will make 
the very serious effort over the next several days to reach an 
accommodation on this bill.
  I might say, Mr. President, Senator Bennett, a former member of our 
committee, has shown time and time again in this Senate his willingness 
to be reasonable, not to be extreme in any way, and try to work to a 
bipartisan solution. I do not know the details of all the land in Utah. 
In fact, I count myself as being unlucky because I have only been to 
Utah once and that was to the Salt Lake City airport. I am advised that 
it is a magnificent State with very beautiful lands. I cannot tell you 
about which lands are which in Utah. However, I support the position of 
my colleagues from Utah, frankly, as an indication of my confidence in 
their fairness and their reasonableness in picking these lands and 
because I think the two Senators from the State ought to, in all but 
very extreme circumstances, have the ability to deal with wilderness 
matters in their State.
  Now, having said that, I can tell my colleagues from Utah that they 
are up against very strong and persuasive opposition. The most 
persuasive opposition you can get is a veto threat from the President. 
I offer to them and to my colleagues on this side of the aisle whatever 
services I can give in trying to find a common solution so that we can 
work out a bill that not only passes the Senate, gets past the 
filibuster, but can avoid the veto threat of the President.
  They have shown already, as I just indicated, on the release 
language, their willingness to work to this kind of purpose. I hope we 
can find a way to do that here on this floor so we can do more than 
just pass a bill in the Senate or get a majority of the votes in the 
Senate for a bill that does not become law; rather, that we pass a law 
that does become law and settles this very contentious issue in a good 
way for the people of this country, as well as the people of the State 
of Utah.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is recognized to offer a substitute amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3564

 (Purpose: To offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
  1296, a bill to provide for the administration of certain Presidio 
   properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk a substitute 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3564.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me acknowledge my friend from Louisiana, the 
ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for his 
statement of support on the Utah wilderness. As we both know, serving 
on the committee, this particular phase of this package of legislation 
has been worked long and hard. We will hear from the representatives 
from Utah with regard to the specifics, but I think we have a good 
package here.
  I want to remind my colleagues, of the 56 or so titles of this bill, 
there is virtually something in it for almost every Member of this body 
in the sense of it affecting his or her individual State. I encourage 
my colleagues to recognize the importance of staying together on this 
package, because once we start to take it apart by motions to strike, 
it will lose its base of support in

[[Page S2741]]

the House of Representatives. I can assure all of the Members of that 
fact.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael 
Menge be permitted privilege of the floor for the duration of the 
debate of H.R. 1296, the Presidio legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that John Piltzecker be 
granted privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1296.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the legislation under consideration 
today is probably the largest and, in my opinion, one of the most 
balanced environmental packages we have addressed in the Senate, at 
least in this Congress. This major legislative effort does, really, a 
number of things. It is proenvironment, it is profuture. I think it is 
fair to say that basically everybody wins. The bill represents a 
balance between protection of our parks and our public lands and the 
welfare of families and the economic well-being of the Nation and many 
local communities.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, it is a very reasonable attempt to 
fulfill a multiple-use concept and add to the wilderness some 2 million 
acres. Now, acreage, in the eyes of many, does not relate to anything, 
and perhaps I can put it in perspective. The State of Delaware is about 
1 million acres. We are proposing to add 2 million acres in Utah. It is 
fair to say 2 million acres is about three times the size of the State 
of Rhode Island; 2 million acres of wilderness is about half the size 
of the State of New Jersey.
  Let me put this in a further perspective, Mr. President, as we 
address wilderness and what it means. In the State of New Jersey, there 
are 10,341 acres of wilderness. With this bill, we would be adding to 
Utah's 800,000 acres of wilderness another 2 million, making it 2.8 
million, approximately.
  Another State that comes to mind in comparison is Arkansas. There are 
127,000 acres of wilderness in the State of Arkansas. By this 
legislation, we would be adding 2 million in the State of Utah, again 
making it 2.8 million.
  My friend from Louisiana has 17,046 acres of wilderness in his state 
of Louisiana. I am not going to talk too much about my State of Alaska 
but will just mention in passing, we have 57 million acres of 
wilderness in the State of Alaska. We are proud of that wilderness. I 
think it is important in this debate that we keep this in a 
proportional comparison, because with New Jersey at 10,341, one wonders 
why there is not a little more wilderness in New Jersey. I will leave 
that to the Senator from New Jersey to explain.
  Mr. President, this bill contains over 50 measures affecting our 
parks, our national forests, and public lands. It is really a 
bipartisan endeavor. It addresses legislation introduced by Members on 
both sides of the aisle and represents a broad spectrum of interests 
from legislation dealing with everything from the Olympic games in Utah 
to the Sterling Forest in New York, to land exchanges in California, to 
boundary adjustments in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The legislation contains expanded authorities for the National Park 
Service which will contribute to more cost-effective management and add 
additional parklands for the protection and enjoyment of all Americans 
now and in the future.
  There are several land exchange proposals that will add 
environmentally sensitive lands to the Nation's public land inventory, 
as well as having the effect of rearranging scattered Federal land 
areas into manageable units that will be protected well into the 
future.
  The amendment starts with the Presidio, San Francisco. The title is a 
result of long hours of negotiation, long hours of bargaining and 
compromise. I made a visit to this military post on the San Francisco 
peninsula. The committee has been presented with a major challenge, and 
I am pleased to report to you that we, I think, have a realistic method 
to save this valuable historic asset. Let me recognize Representatives 
from the House, as well as those Members from the California delegation 
of the Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I know how much this 
particular legislation means, and we have been working with them to try 
and reach an accord.
  Mr. President, under this legislation, and over a period of time, the 
Federal appropriated dollars that made this park the most expensive 
operation in the National Park System, I am pleased, will be reduced 
over a period of time to basically zero. Federal dollars will be 
replaced with money and expertise from the private sector, and the 
private sector is willing and able to accomplish that.
  Mr. President, following the provisions affecting the Presidio, we 
have some 32 additional titles covering 53 separate measures, and now 
there have been three more for a total of 56. I trust that the staffs 
are responding this morning because I am going to go through the 
various titles and identify the States because, again, I want to 
emphasize that there is virtually an interest by each State in this 
package of titles.
  Here is the list of titles:

       Yucca House National Monument boundary adjustment 
     (Colorado);
       Zion National Park boundary adjustment (Utah);
       Pictured Rocks National lakeshore boundary adjustment 
     (Michigan);
       Independence National Historic Park boundary adjustment 
     (Pennsylvania);
       Craters of the Moon National Monument boundary adjustment 
     (Idaho);
       Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument boundary adjustment 
     (Idaho);
       Wupatki National Monument boundary adjustment (Arizona);
       New River Gorge National River (West Virginia);
       Gauley River National recreation area (West Virginia);
       Bluestone National Scenic River (West Virginia);
       Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (Hawaii);
       Women's Rights National Historical Park (New York);
       Boston National Historical Park (Massachusetts);
       Cumberland Gap National Historic Park (Kentucky, Virginia, 
     Tennessee);
       William O. Douglas outdoor classroom (California);
       Limitation on park buildings (National Park service-wide);
       Appropriations for transportation of children (National 
     Park service-wide);
       Federal burros and horses (National Park service-wide);
       Authorities of the Secretary relating to museums (National 
     Park service-wide);
       Volunteers in the parks increase (National Park service-
     wide);
       Cooperative agreements for research purposes (National Park 
     service-wide);
       Carl Garner Federal lands cleanup day (Federal lands-wide);
       Fort Pulaski National Monument (Georgia);
       Laura C. Hudson visitor center (Louisiana);
       United States Civil War Center (Louisiana);
       Title III--Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center 
     (California);
       Title IV--Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Center 
     (Colorado);
       Title V--Corinth, Mississippi Battlefield Act 
     (Mississippi);
       Title VI--Walnut Canyon National Monument Boundary 
     Modification (Arizona);
       Title VII--Delaware Water Gap (Pennsylvania, New Jersey);
       Title VIII--Targhee National Forest Land Exchange (Idaho, 
     Wyoming);
       Title IX--Dayton Aviation (Ohio);
       Title X--Cache La Poudre (Colorado);
       Title XI--Gilpin County, Colorado Land Exchange (Colorado);
       Title XII--Butte County, CA. Land Conveyance (California);
       Title XIII--Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Federal 
     lands-wide);
       Title XIV--Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange (Alaska);
       Title XV--Alaska Peninsula Subsurface Consolidation 
     (Alaska);
       Title XVI--Sterling Forest (New York, New Jersey);
       Title XVII--Taos Pueblo Land Transfer (New Mexico);
       Title XVIII--Ski Fees (National Forest System-wide);
       Title XIX--Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail 
     (Alabama);
       Title XX--Utah Wilderness (Utah);
       Title XXI--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon (Colorado);
       Title XXII--Snowbasin Land Exchange Act (Utah);
       Title XXIII--Colonial National Historical Park (Virginia);
       Title XXIV--Women's Rights National Historical Park (New 
     York);
       Title XXV--Franklin D. Roosevelt Family Lands (New York);
       Title XXVI--Great Falls Historic District (New Jersey);
       Title XXVII--Rio Puerco Watershed (New Mexico);
       Title XXVIII--Columbia Basin (Washington);
       Title XXIX--Grand Lake Cemetery (Colorado);
       Title XXX--Old Spanish Trail (New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, 
     California);

[[Page S2742]]

       Title XXXI--Blackstone River Valley (Massachusetts, Rhode 
     Island);
       Title XXXII--Cuprum, Idaho Relief (Idaho); and
       Title XXXIII--Arkansas and Oklahoma Land Transfer 
     (Arkansas, Oklahoma).

  So, you see, Mr. President, this has far-reaching effects, and I urge 
my colleagues to recognize and assess keeping this package together to 
ensure that it will be passed when it reaches the House.
  Mr. President, within the noncontroversial issues, as I have 
indicated, there are a host of minor boundary adjustments and small 
operational change authorizations requested by the Department of 
Interior. There are authorizations for historic trail studies, building 
and naming national park visitor centers, expansion of historical 
parks, and equal value land exchanges for the Department of 
Agriculture. We have also addressed survey problems, and we authorize 
the citizens of Grand Lake, CO, to maintain their own town cemetery. It 
just happens to lie inside the boundaries of the Rocky Mountain 
National Park. There are other noncontroversial measures, each 
benefiting one or more segments of our society.
  Mr. President, by far, the most controversial component of the 
package that we are considering is the title dealing with the Utah 
wilderness. Mr. President, it is suggested that if Winston Churchill 
were a Member of this body, he would have said, ``Never have so few 
done so much to confuse so many.'' It is our collective responsibility, 
I think, to look past the smoke screen that has been framed by extreme 
elitist types on the Utah wilderness issue.
  Under the provisions of this bill, the Nation gains some 2 million 
acres of new wilderness. The lands under consideration meet the 
legislatively mandated definition of what wilderness should be. These 
are truly land masses that retain their primeval character and their 
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, with the 
imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable, just as the act tells 
us the requirements must be. We have the benefit of extensive studies 
and efforts poured into defining exactly what lands should and should 
not be included in the wilderness system for Utah.
  This whole issue was initiated by an act of Congress under the terms 
and conditions contained within the Federal Land Planning and 
Management Act. The effort was carried out by professional subject 
matter experts working for the Federal Government, not political 
appointees. In other words, Mr. President, this was done by 
professionals working for the Federal Government, but independent of 
the political influences associated with political appointees. That is 
not the case on the current recommendations that are coming from the 
other side to increase this wilderness in the area of 5 million acres.
  Mr. President, the Bureau of Land Management study and final report 
cost the taxpayers of this country in excess of $10 million. It took 
more than 15 years to complete. This process, which was carried out in 
the full light of the public land planning process, included input from 
some 16,000 written comments, and there were over 75 formal public 
hearings on this question of Utah wilderness. The study processed was 
open to every citizen of the United States. It was well-defined 
criteria, and well documented. Appeals and protests rights were well 
publicized and used by groups of people on both sides of the issue. At 
the culmination of this process, those independent professionals 
recommended the inclusion of 1.9 million acres. This legislation 
recommends 2 million acres on the nose.
  Those Federal employees in that open process spoke basically for 
every citizen in this country who participated in the Utah wilderness 
process. The process followed the rules that, I remind my colleagues, 
are extensively articulated in both the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the 
Federal Land Planning and Management Act.
  Mr. President, unfortunately, the Secretary of the Interior, 
Secretary Babbitt, seems to want to ignore the advice of his own 
professional managers.
  Here is the record of decision, Mr. President, the Utah Statewide 
Wilderness Study Report that substantiates the recommendations that it 
be 2 million acres. So the Secretary has decided to ignore that.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Bureau of Land Management, Oct. 1991]

  Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report, Volume I--Statewide Overview


                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1991.


                           record of decision

       The following are the wilderness recommendations for 95 
     wilderness study areas (WSAs) in the State of Utah. These 
     recommendations were developed from the findings of a 15-year 
     wilderness study process by the Department of the Interior 
     and Bureau of Land Management. The wilderness studies 
     considered each area's resource values, present and projected 
     future uses of the areas, public input, the manageability of 
     the areas as wilderness, the environmental consequences of 
     designating or not designating the areas as wilderness, and 
     mineral surveys prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and 
     Bureau of Mines.
       Based on our review of those studies, I have concluded that 
     1,958,339 acres within 69 study areas should be designated as 
     part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and that 
     1,299,911 acres within 63 study areas should be released from 
     wilderness study for uses other than wilderness. The acreage 
     recommendations for each WSA, with which I concur, are listed 
     in the following table. The Wilderness Study Report 
     accompanying this decision includes a detailed discussion of 
     the recommendations and maps showing the boundaries of each 
     area.
                                                Manuel Lujan, Jr.,
                                        Secretary of the Interior.

                                         UTAH WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATION                                         
                                         [Utah Statewide EIS WSAs/ISAs]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Acres    
                                                                                       Acres        recommended 
           WSA/ISA name                    Study                WSA number          recommended         for     
                                                                                  for wilderness   nonwilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Stansbury Mountains........  Statewide...........  UT-020-089.............          10,480               0
Cedar Mountains..................  Statewide...........  UT-020-094.............               0          50,500
Deep Creek Mountains.............  Statewide...........  UT-050-020/............          57,384          11,526
                                                         UT-020-060                                             
Fish Springs.....................  Statewide...........  UT-050-127.............          33,840          18,660
Rockwell.........................  Statewide...........  UT-050-186.............               0           9,150
Swasey Mountain..................  Statewide...........  UT-050-061.............          34,376          15,124
Howell Peak......................  Statewide...........  UT-050-077.............          14,800          10,000
Conger Mountain..................  Statewide...........  UT-050-035.............               0          20,400
Notch Peak.......................  Statewide...........  UT-050-078.............          28,000          23,130
King Top.........................  Statewide...........  UT-050-070.............               0          84,770
Wah Wah Mountains................  Statewide...........  UT-050-073/............          36,382           5,758
                                                         UT-040-205                                             
Cougar Canyon....................  Statewide...........  UT-040-123/............           4,228           6,340
                                                         NV-050-166                                             
Red Mountain/Red Mountain 202....  Statewide...........  UT-040-132/132A........          12,842           5,448
Cottonwood Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-040-046.............           9,853           1,477
LaVerkin Creek Canyon a..........  Statewide...........  UT-040-153 (202).......             567               0
Deep Creek a.....................  Statewide...........  UT-040-146 (202).......           3,320               0
North Fork Virgin River a........  Statewide...........  UT-040-150 (202).......           1,040               0
Orderville Canyon a..............  Statewide...........  UT-040-145 (202).......           1,750               0
Parunuweap Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-040-230.............          17,888          12,912
Canaan Mountain..................  Statewide...........  UT-040-143.............          33,800          13,370
Moquith Mountain.................  Statewide...........  UT-040-217.............               0          14,830
The Blues........................  Statewide...........  UT-040-268.............               0          19,030
Mud Spring Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-040-077.............               0          38,075
Paria-Hackberry/Paria-Hackberry    Statewide...........  UT-040-247/247A........          95,042          41,180
 202.                                                                                                           
The Cockscomb....................  Statewide...........  UT-040-275.............           5,100           4,980

[[Page S2743]]

                                                                                                                
Wahweap..........................  Statewide...........  UT-040-248.............               0         134,400
Burning Hills....................  Statewide...........  UT-040-079.............               0          61,550
Death Ridge......................  Statewide...........  UT-040-078.............               0          62,870
Phipps-Death Hollow..............  Statewide...........  UT-ISA-006.............          39,256           3,475
Steep Creek......................  Statewide...........  UT-040-061.............          20,806           1,090
North Escalante Canyons/The Gulch  Statewide...........  UT-ISA-004.............          91,558          28,194
Carcass Canyon...................  Statewide...........  UT-040-076.............               0          46,711
Scorpion.........................  Statewide...........  UT-040-082.............          14,978          20,906
Escalante Canyons Tract 5........  Statewide...........  UT-ISA-005.............             760               0
Fiftymile Mountain...............  Statewide...........  UT-040-080.............          91,361          54,782
Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills.............  Statewide...........  UT-050-238.............          65,804          15,922
Bull Mountain....................  Statewide...........  UT-050-242.............          11,800           1,820
Dirty Devil......................  Statewide...........  UT-050-236A............          61,000               0
Horseshoe Canyon (South).........  Statewide...........  UT-050-237.............          36,000           2,800
French Spring-Happy Canyon.......  Statewide...........  UT-050-236B............          11,110          13,890
Fiddler Butte....................  Statewide...........  UT-050-241.............          32,700          40,400
Mt. Pennell......................  Statewide...........  UT-050-248.............          25,800          48,500
Mt. Hillers......................  Statewide...........  UT-050-249.............          16,360           3,640
Little Rockies...................  Statewide...........  UT-050-247.............          38,700               0
Mancos Mesa......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-181.............          51,440               0
Grand Gulch ISA Complex..........  Statewide...........  UT-ISA-001.............         105,520               0
    Pine Canyon WSA..............                        UT-060-188.............  ..............  ..............
    Bullet Canyon WSA............                        UT-060-196.............  ..............  ..............
    Sheiks Flat WSA..............                        UT-060-224.............  ..............  ..............
    Slickhorn Canyon WSA.........                        UT-060-197/198.........  ..............  ..............
Road Canyon......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-201.............          52,420               0
Fish Creek Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-060-204.............          40,160           6,280
Mule Canyon......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-205B............           5,990               0
Chessebox Canyon.................  Statewide...........  UT-060-191.............               0          15,410
Dark Canyon ISA Complex..........  Statewide...........  UT-ISA-002.............          68,030               0
    Middle Point WSA.............                        UT-060-175.............  ..............  ..............
Butler Wash......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-169.............          24,190               0
Bridger Jack Mesa................  Statewide...........  UT-060-167.............           5,290               0
Indian Creek.....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-164.............           6,870               0
Behind The Rocks.................  Statewide...........  UT-060-140A............          12,635               0
Mill Creek Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-060-139A............           9,780               0
Negro Bill Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-060-138.............           7,620               0
Horsehoe Canyon (North)..........  Statewide...........  UT-060-045.............          20,500               0
San Rafael Reef..................  Statewide...........  UT-060-029A............          59,170               0
Crack Canyon.....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-028A............          25,335               0
Muddy Creek......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-007.............          31,400               0
Devils Canyon....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-025.............               0           9,610
Sids Mountain/Sids...............  Statewide...........  UT-060-023/023A........          80,084             886
    Cabin 202....................                                                 ..............  ..............
Mexican Mountain.................  Statewide...........  UT-060-054.............          46,750          12,850
Jack Canyon......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-068C............               0           7,500
Desolation Canyon................  Statewide...........  UT-060-068A............         224,850          65,995
Turtle Canyon....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-067.............               0          33,690
Floy Canyon......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-068B............          23,140          49,465
Coal Canyon......................  Statewide...........  UT-060-100C............          20,774          40,656
Spruce Canyon....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-100C............          14,736           5,614
Flume Canyon.....................  Statewide...........  UT-060-100B............          16,495          34,305
Westwater Canyon.................  Statewide...........  UT-060-118.............          26,000           5,160
Winter Ridge.....................  Statewide...........  UT-080-730.............               0          42,462
Red Butte a......................  Statewide...........  UT-040-147 (202).......             804               0
Spring Creek Canyon a............  Statewide...........  UT-040-148 (202).......           1,607           2,826
The Watchman a...................  Statewide...........  UT-040-149 (202).......             600               0
Taylor Creek Canyon a............  Statewide...........  UT-040-154 (202).......              35               0
Goose Creek Canyon a.............  Statewide...........  UT-040-176 (202).......              89               0
Beartrap Canyon a................  Statewide...........  UT-040-177 (202).......              40               0
Fremont Gorge a..................  Statewide...........  UT-050-221 (202).......               0           2,540
Lost Spring Canyon a.............  Statewide...........  UT-060-131B (202)......           3,880               0
Daniels Canyon a.................  Statewide...........  UT-080-414 (202).......               0           2,496
South Needles a..................  Statewide...........  UT-060-169A............             160               0
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Statewide EIS totals.......  ....................  .......................       1,945,079      1,285,355 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Recommended in conjunction with adjacent National Parks.                                                      



                                         UTAH WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATION                                         
                                        [Utah ISAs not in Statewide EIS]                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Acres    
                                                                                       Acres        recommended 
           WSA/ISA Name                    Study                WSA number          recommended         for     
                                                                                  for wilderness   nonwilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Cliffs Mountain Browse        Unit................  UT-ISA-007.............               0             400
 N.A.\1\.                                                                                                       
Devils Garden N.A.\1\............  Unit................  UT-ISA-009.............               0             640
Joshua Tree N.A.\1\..............  Unit................  UT-ISA-010.............               0           1,040
Escalante Canyons (Tract 1)        Unit................  UT-ISA-003.............               0             360
 N.A.\1\.                                                                                                       
Link Flats N.A.\1\...............  Unit................  UT-ISA-008.............               0             912
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Unit ISA totals............  ....................  .......................               0           3,352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N.A.=Natural area.                                                                                          


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Acres    
                                                                                       Acres        recommended 
           WSA/ISA Name                    Study                WSA number          recommended         for     
                                                                                  for wilderness   nonwilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Cold Spring.................  District............  UT-080-103/............               0           3,200
                                                         CO-010-208.............                                
Diamond Breaks...................  District............  UT-080-113/............           3,620             280
                                                         CO-010-214.............                                
Bull Canyon......................  District............  UT-080-419/............             620              40
                                                         CO-010-001.............                                
Wrigley Mesa/Jones Canyon/Black    Resource Area.......  UT-060-116/117/........           5,200               0
 Ridge Canyon West.                                      CO-070-113A............                                
Squaw/Papoose Canyon.............  Resource Area.......  UT-060-227/............               0           6,676
                                                         CO-030-265A............                                
Cross Canyon.....................  Resource Area.......  UT-060-229/............               0           1,008
                                                         CO-030-265.............                                
White Rock Range.................  Resource Area.......  UT-040-216/............           3,820               0
                                                         NV-040-202.............                                
                                                                                 -------------------------------

[[Page S2744]]

                                                                                                                
      Total Utah WSAs studies by   ....................  .......................          13,260          11,204
       other States.                                                                                            
                                                                                 -------------------------------
Utah study totals................  ....................  .......................       1,958,339       1,299,911
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that throughout the committee 
deliberations on this issue the Secretary did not offer one 
constructive comment--not one single comment--nor did he direct his 
legions to put forth an alternative. He was silent except for his 
exchanges with the media.
  So here we have a Secretary that objects to this even after some $10 
million and 15 years, and comes up with no suggested alternative.
  That brings me to the point which I find very, very disturbing. I 
personally received from the Secretary, not directly but through the 
news media, a letter. This letter contains the passage that if the Utah 
wilderness provision contained in this bill prevails he would recommend 
that the President veto the entire bill. This did not come in the mail, 
Mr. President. Again, the Secretary offered no other constructive 
alternative to the wilderness proposal. I do not know. Maybe he wanted 
to save stamps and figured that the media would deliver his message. 
Well, they did deliver his message. I put a copy that we finally 
received into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed. I 
add that this did not come in the mail.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to convey the 
     Administration's position on the Omnibus Parks Bill, due 
     before the full Senate shortly. If the Utah Public Lands 
     Management Act is part of an omnibus bill sent to the 
     President, I would recommend that he veto the entire package.
       The Administration is prepared to support the omnibus park 
     bill if the Utah wilderness provision is deleted and with the 
     qualifications mentioned below.
       With regard to the Presidio, we have continued to work with 
     the Committee to arrive at acceptable language. I am prepared 
     to recommend that the President support this provision, 
     assuming the Senate includes language authorizing the Trust 
     to transfer properties surplus to its needs and open space 
     areas to the Secretary (as provided for in the House-passed 
     bill), deletes the Davis-Bacon waiver (again as in the House 
     bill), deletes the exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act, 
     and clarifies that the National Park Service may continue 
     short-term use and occupancy agreements until the Trust is 
     established.
       As to the remaining titles, we are, in general, favorably 
     disposed to their enactment. However, the Alaska Peninsula 
     Subsurface Consolidation title is problematic. It would 
     establish a new appraisal methodology that would likely 
     result in the overvaluation of Koniag subsurface rights, at 
     the expense of the taxpayer. In addition, the National Park 
     Service does not believe that Koniag subsurface rights, at 
     the expense of the taxpayer. In addition, the National Park 
     Service does not believe that Koniag has a valid claim on 
     some lands the Secretary would be directed to acquire, and 
     these interests are of very low priority when evaluated on an 
     objective basis.
       It is my understanding that certain procedural obstacles to 
     the consideration of the individual titles have recently been 
     overcome. We would also be pleased to encourage swift passage 
     and adoption of the vast majority of the bill's titles were 
     they to be considered separately. I have directed my staff to 
     work with the Committee to convey other technical concerns of 
     the Department and assist in improving the legislation where 
     we have expressed concerns, and hope this has been helpful to 
     those seeking to assess prospects for this legislation.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the submission of this report and that 
     enactment of this legislation in its current form would not 
     be in accord with the program of the Administration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I still have not received the original 
letter from the Secretary. I find these events indicative of some of 
the attitudes that this administration--or some in this 
administration--seems to have for the Congress and the people who will 
benefit by the passage of this legislation. Playing in the media is 
only self-serving. It does not serve the public. Unfortunately, some of 
the media seemed to not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and 
find out just what the facts are. I hope they will search them out with 
regard to this package that is so important to the lands in the United 
States.
  It is true that some of these lands in the State of Utah that they 
are going to receive in the exchange authorized under this legislation 
may be developed, but very little. It will not be developed 
irresponsibly. I think we can trust the people of Utah in that regard. 
The moneys generated from some of these lands go to Utah schools and 
institutions. Some opponents of the legislation suggest that the land 
will be ruined and developed beyond recognition. I know that my 
colleagues are aware of all of the safeguards that are still in place 
under both Federal and State laws, and they are almost too numerous to 
mention, Mr. President. But I think it is important that we recognize 
just what the significance of these checks and balances are because 
they are numerous.
  To suggest that somehow Utah will have the flexibility to 
irresponsibly develop this land defies logic, Mr. President. I am going 
to submit for the Record legislative authorities involving the Bureau 
of Land Management, the General Public Lands Management Act, the 
general environmental laws. They consist of the Federal Land Policy 
Management Act, Classification of Multiple Use Act, Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, National Environmental 
Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, Noise Control Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Oil Pollution 
Act, National Environmental Education Act, on and on and on.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Legislative Authorities Involving BLM


                   i. general public lands management

       1. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 
     amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.
       2. Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964, as amended, 
     433 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. (Expired. However, segregative 
     effects of classifications are valid until modified or 
     terminated.)
       3. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 
     Appendix I
       4. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 1451 et seq.


                     II. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

       1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
     U.S.C. 4321-4347
       2. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
       3. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (Includes Clean Water Act of 1977 and 
     Water Quality Act of 1987)
       4. Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 
     300f et seq.
       5. Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4901 et 
     seq.
       6. Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
     6901 et seq. (Includes Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
     of 1976)
       7. Environmental Quality Improvement Act, as amended, 42 
     U.S.C. 4371-4374
       8. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, 49 
     U.S.C. 1801-1813
       9. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA) ``Superfund,'' 42 
     U.S.C. 9601 (Includes Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA))
       10. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended, 104 Stat. 484-
     575; 33 U.S.C. 2701/2719; 33 U.S.C. 2731-2737; 33 U.S.C. 
     1319, 1321; 43 U.S.C. 1642, 1651 et seq. (Includes Oil 
     Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and 
     Monitoring Act of 1990)
       11. National Environmental Education Act, 104 Stat. 3325-
     3329; 20 U.S.C. 5501-5510
       12. Antarctica Protection Act, 104 Stat. 2975-2978; 16 
     U.S.C. 2461-2466
       13. Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, as amended, 15 
     U.S.C. 4101-4111; 30 U.S.C. 1801-1811 (Includes National 
     Critical Materials Act of 1984)

[[Page S2745]]

       14. Global Change Research Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. 2921 et 
     seq. (Includes International Cooperation in Global Change 
     Research Act of 1990)
       15. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 
     of 1986
       16. The Community Environmental Response Facilities Act of 
     1992


                    III. LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT

       1. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended, 43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
       2. Reservations and Grants to States for Public Purposes, 
     43 U.S.C. 851 et seq.
       3. Carey Act of August 18, 1894, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 641 
     et seq.
       4. Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 
     321 et seq
       5. Color of Title Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1068
       6. Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended, 43 
     U.S.C. 869
       7. Act of July 26, 1955, 69 Stat. 374 (Timber Access Roads)
       8. Act of February 28, 1958, 43 U.S.C. 155-158 (Withdrawal 
     for Defense Purposes ``Engle Act'')
       9. Act of July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, 48 U.S.C. Chapter 2 
     (Alaska Statehood)
       10. Alaska Omnibus Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 141, 48 U.S.C. 
     Chapter 2
       11. Act of September 21, 1922, 43 U.S.C. 992 (Erroneously 
     Meandered Lands, Arkansas)
       12. Act of February 19, 1925, 43 U.S.C. 993 (Erroneously 
     Meandered Lands, Louisiana)
       13. Act of February 27, 1925, 43 U.S.C. 994 (Erroneously 
     Meandered Lands, Wisconsin)
       14. Act of August 24, 1954, 43 U.S.C. 1221 (Erroneously 
     Meandered Lands/Wisconsin River and Lake Land Titles)
       15. Act of May 31, 1962, 76 Stat. 89 (Snake River, Idaho--
     Omitted Lands)
       16. Federal-Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 101 et 
     seq.
       17. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4601 
     et seq.
       18. Act of September 28, 1850, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 982 et 
     seq, (Grants of Swamp and Overflowed Lands)
       19. Submerged Lands Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.
       20. Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976, 15 
     U.S.C. 719
       21. Act of February 26, 1931, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 258a-
     258e (Popularly Known as the Declaration of Taking Act)
       22. Various Acts authorizing creation of units within the 
     National Park System which provided for exchanges involving 
     public land--
       a. Act of September 13, 1962, 16 U.S.C. 459c-459c-7 (Point 
     Reyes National Seashore)
       b. Act of September 11, 1964, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 459e-
     459e-9 (Fire Island National Seashore, NY)
       c. Act of October 8, 1964, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460n-460n-
     9 (Lake Mead National Recreation Area, AZ & NV)
       d. Act of October 15, 1966, 16 U.S.C. 460t (Bighorn Canyon 
     National Recreation Area, WY & MT)
       e. Act of July 15, 1968, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-11 
     (Conveyances in National Park System and Miscellaneous 
     Areas--Freehold and Leasehold Interests; Competitive bidding; 
     Exchanges)
       f. Act of October 2, 1968, 16 U.S.C. 90 (North Cascades 
     National Park, WA)
       g. Act of October 2, 1968, 16 U.S.C. 79a-79j (Redwood 
     National Park, WA)
       h. Act of June 28, 1980, 16 U.S.C. 410gg-2(b) (Biscayne 
     National Park, FL)
       23. Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, 42 
     U.S.C. 8301 et seq. (Section 601--Energy and Impact Area 
     Development Assistance)
       24. Act of October 21, 1970, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460y-
     460y-9 (King Range National Conservation Area)
       25. Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988, 43 
     U.S.C. 751; 1716-1723
       26. Rail Safety and Service Improvement Act of 1982, 96 
     Stat. 2543; 45 U.S.C. 1201-1214; 43 U.S.C. 1611, 1615, 1621, 
     1635 (Includes the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982)
       27. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, as 
     amended, 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.
       28. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 
     3501-3510
       29. Federal Lands Cleanup Act of 1985, 36 U.S.C. 169
       30. Act of November 4, 1986, 28 U.S.C. 2409a (Real Property 
     Quiet Title Actions)
       31. Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 1856
       32. Utah School Lands Improvement Act, 107 Stat. 995
       33. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
       34. The Engle Act of February 28, 1958
       35. The Burton-Sensitive Act, Public Law 96-586
       36. The Zuni Act, Public Law 98-408
       37. The Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended


                   iv. energy and minerals management

       1. Act of May 10, 1872, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq. 
     (General Mining Law)
       2. Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 1818 et seq. 
     Includes:
       a. Act of November 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 576 (Trans-Alaska 
     Pipeline Authorization Act).
       b. Federal Coal Leasing Amendments of 1976, 90 Stat. 1083
       c. Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 1070 
     (Tar Sand)
       d. Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 
     101 Stat. 1330-256-1330-263
       3. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, as amended, 30 
     U.S.C. 351-359
       4. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 1001 
     et seq.
       5. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 
     1331 et seq.
       6. Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. (Includes Barrow Gas Field 
     Transfer Act of 1984)
       7. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as 
     amended, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
       8. Act of February 7, 1927, 30 U.S.C. 281 et seq. (Potash 
     Mineral Leasing)
       9. Multiple Mineral Development Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 
     521-531.
       10. Act of August 12, 1953, 30 U.S.C. 501-505 (Mining 
     Claims on Lands Subject to Mineral Leasing Laws)
       11. Act of August 11, 1955, 30 U.S.C. 541-541i (Mining 
     Location on Coal Lands)
       12. Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916, as amended 
     (Section 9), 43 U.S.C. 299. (Includes Act of April 16, 1993, 
     regarding mining claims)
       13. Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of 1955, as 
     amended, 30 U.S.C. 621-625
       14. Act of April 17, 1926, 30 U.S.C. 271-276 (Sulphur 
     Mineral Leasing)
       15. Act of May 9, 1942, 30 U.S.C. 181, et seq. (Silica 
     Leasing on Withdrawn Lands)
       16. Act of June 8, 1926, 30 U.S.C. 291-293 (Lease of gold, 
     silver, or quicksilver on private land claims)
       17. Act of March 18, 1960, 30 U.S.C. 42 (Mill sites)
       18. Act of July 31, 1947, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 
     (Popularly known as the Materials Act of 1947) (Includes the 
     Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955)
       19. Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6504
       20. Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. 4101 
     et seq; 30 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
       21. Act of August 29, 1984, 30 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. (State 
     Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute Program)
       22. National Critical Materials Act of 1984, as amended, 30 
     U.S.C. 1801-1811.
       23. Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, as 
     amended, 30 U.S.C. 1701-1757; 30 U.S.C. 188
       24. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 
     U.S.C. 6201 et seq.
       25. Federal Power Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 791a; 818
       26. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U.S.C. 1413
       27. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq. (Includes the Uranium Mill 
     Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988, Section 
     7916)
       28. Energy Policy Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 2782; 42 U.S.C. 
     13201 et seq.
       29. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 106 
     Stat. 4777


                   v. renewable resources management

       1. Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 
     1901 et seq.
       2. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.
       3. Act of August 28, 1937, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1181a et 
     seq. (Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road 
     Grant Lands)
       4. Act of June 28, 1934, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 315-315r 
     (Popularly known as the Taylor Grazing Act)
       5. Act of December 15, 1971, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq. (Popularly known as the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and 
     Burro Act)
       6. Act of September 15, 1960, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 670g 
     (Popularly known as the Sikes Act)
       7. Act of June 8, 1940, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. 
     (Protection of Bald and Golden Eagles)
       8. Act of March 4, 1927, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 316 et seq. 
     (Alaska Grazing)
       9. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 
     757a et seq.
       10. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 
     1010-1012
       11. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 661 et seq.
       12. Act of March 29, 1944 16 U.S.C. 583-583i (Sustained-
     Yield Forest Management)
       13. Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act, 7 U.S.C. 1651-1656
       14. Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.
       15. Act of August 14, 1976, 16 U.S.C. 673d et seq. (Tule 
     Elk)
       16. Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 
     U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
       17. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 1361-1362, 1371-1384, 1401-1407
       18. Act of October 17, 1968, 43 U.S.C. 1241-1243 (Control 
     of Noxious Plants)
       19. Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 
     2801-2813
       20. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as 
     amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801-1802, 1811-1813, 1821-1825, 1851-
     1861, 1882
       21. Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 
     715 (Includes the Wetlands Loan Extension Act of 1976)
       22. Act of April 27, 1935, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 590a et 
     seq. (Soil Conservation)
       23. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as 
     amended, 7 U.S.C. 136-136y (Includes the Federal 
     Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972)
       24. Act of September 2, 1937, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 669-
     669i (Popularly known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
     Restoration Act or the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
     Act)
       25. Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1151 et 
     seq.
       26. North American Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, 
     16 U.S.C. 4401-4413

[[Page S2746]]

       27. Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act, 16 
     U.S.C. 618-619, 539f
       28. Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), 7 U.S.C. 148f 
     (Control of grasshoppers & mormon crickets on Federal lands)
       29. Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.
       30. Pacific Yew Act, 16 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.
       31. Snake River Birds of Prey Act, 107 Stat. 302


                vi. water resources and related problems

       1. Water Resources Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
     1962-1962a (Includes the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1974)
       2. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as 
     amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.
       3. Act of August 3, 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. (Estuary 
     Protection)
       4. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act, as 
     amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1445, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1439
       5. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as 
     amended, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1009
       6. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended, 
     43 U.S.C. 620d, 1543, 1571-1578
       7. Water Resources Research Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10301 et 
     seq.
       8. Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, 33 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.
       9. Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-
     12--4601-21
       10. The Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality 
     Act of 1987
       11. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1977
       12. The National Dam Inspection Act of 1977
       13. The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977


           vii. recreation, heritage and wilderness programs

       1. National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 470 et seq.
       2. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271 
     et seq.
       3. Act of June 8, 1966, 16 U.S.C. 431-433 (Preservation of 
     Antiquities)
       4. National Trail System Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et 
     seq.
       5. Wilderness Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.
       6. Act of August 11, 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996 (Popularly known 
     as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act)
       7. Historic Sites Buildings and Antiquities Act or Historic 
     Sites Act, 16 U.S.C. 461-467
       8. Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 
     4301 et seq.
       9. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as 
     amended, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.
       10. Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-
     12--4601-21
       11. Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 42 
     U.S.C. 2991-2992, (Includes the Indian Environmental 
     Regulatory Enhancement Act of 1990)
       12. Act of December 19, 1980, 16 U.S.C. 410ii-410ii-7 
     (Chaco Culture National Historical Park)
       13. Act of September 27, 1988, 16 U.S.C. 273b (Capitol Reef 
     National Park, Grazing Privileges)
       14. Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 460xx-1--460xx-6; 460yy-1
       15. Act of December 31, 1987, 16 U.S.C. 460uu et seq. (El 
     Malpais National Conservation Area)
       16. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area 
     Establishment Act of 1990, 16 U.S.C. 460ccc et seq.
       17. Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, 16 U.S.C. 460ddd 
     (Includes Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area and 
     Take Pride in America Act, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4608)
       18. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991, 105 Stat. 1914 (Includes Federal Lands Highway Program/
     BLM Country Byways Program, 23 U.S.C. 101 Note, and Symms 
     National Recreation Trails Act of 1991, 16 U.S.C. 1261-1262)
       19. The Nature American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act of 1990


                             viii. finance

       1. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as 
     amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4--4601-11
       2. Act of September 13, 1982, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 6901-
     6907, (Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT))
       3. Act of June 17, 1902, as amended, 13 U.S.C. 371 et seq. 
     (Popularly known as the Reclamation Act or the National 
     Irrigation Act of 1902)
       4. Forest Wildfire Emergency Pay Equity Act of 1988, 5 
     U.S.C. 5547


                         IX. technical services

       1. Cadastral Survey
       a. Act of May 18, 1976, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 751 et seq. 
     (R.S. 2395--Survey of Public Lands)
       b. Act of April 8, 1864, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 176 (Survey 
     of Indian Reservations)
       2. Law Enforcement and Fire Protection
       a. Act of September 20, 1922, 16 U.S.C. 594 (Protection of 
     Timber of U.S.)
       b. Act of May 27, 1955, 42 U.S.C. 1856 (Reciprocal Fire 
     Protection)
       c. Act of February 25, 1885, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1061 et 
     seq. (Popularly known as the Unlawful Inclosures of Public 
     Lands Act or the Unlawful Occupancy of Public Lands Act)
       d. Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act, 16 
     U.S.C. 618-619, 539f
       e. Wildfire Disaster Recovery Act of 1989, 16 U.S.C. 551b-
     551c
       f. Forest Wildfire Emergency Pay Equity Act, 5 U.S.C. 5547
       3. Act of August 13, 1970, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1701-1706 
     (Youth Conservation Corps)
       4. Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969, as amended, 16 
     U.S.C. 18g-18j
       5. The Federal Uniform Crime Reporting Act 1988


                           x. administrative

       1. Administrative Procedures Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 500-
     576. Includes:
       a. Freedom on Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552 et 
     seq.
       b. Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a et seq.
       2. Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
       3. Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 1201-1222
       4. Federal Employees' Leave Transfer Act of 1988, 5 U.S.C. 
     6331-6339
       5. Awards for Cost Savings Disclosures Act, 5 U.S.C. 4511-
     4514
       6. Performance Management and Recognition System 
     Reauthorization Act of 1989, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 5401 et 
     seq.; 5 U.S.C. 4302a
       7. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 6; 5 
     U.S.C. 6381 et seq. (Title II--Federal Employees)
       8. Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access 
     Enhancement Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 112
       9. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
       10. The Computer Security Act of 1987
       11. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
       12. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended


 major environmental laws enforced by the bureau of land management on 
                             federal lands

       Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
       National Environmental Act of 1969
       Federal Water Pollution Control Act
       Clean Air Act
       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
       Oil Pollution Act of 1990
       Safe Drinking Water Act
       Mineral Leasing Act
       Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
       Public Rangelands Improvement Act
       Taylor Grazing Act
       Wild Horse and Burro Act
       Endangered Species Act
       Federal Noxious Weed Act
       National Historic Preservation Act
       Wilderness Act
       American Indian Religious Freedom Act
       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980


  major environmental laws enforced by the state of utah on state and 
                             private lands

       The State of Utah, through State Law has the authority to 
     enforce the following Federal Laws on State and private 
     lands:
       Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
       Federal Water Pollution Control Act
       Clean Air Act
       Endangered Species Act
       Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
       National Historic Preservation Act
       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
       Safe Drinking Water Act
       Fish and Wildlife Management Laws
       In addition, the Counties have zoning ordinances to ensure 
     lands within the counties are managed in a responsible 
     fashion.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my point is an obvious one--that there 
are plenty of safeguards to ensure that that land will be developed in 
a responsible manner.
  The citizens of Utah have proven that they are responsible and good 
stewards of their land. Irresponsible development does not support, 
obviously, the school system, and the future of the State of Utah, as 
is any other State, is the children. They obviously need the benefits 
of a good educational system and some development. Some of this land 
will be utilized for that purpose.
  But to suggest somehow that it is an irresponsible act, the 
development of the land will be done irresponsibly, defies logic. This 
bill benefits the local communities in Utah. It provides them with 
access to resources promised to them when they were first granted the 
school section concept.
  I need only to remind my colleagues that those who oppose this 
addition to the wilderness system are, in my opinion, those who have 
absolutely no consideration for maintaining a vibrant economy. Look at 
some areas of the United States where we had difficulties--poverty, 
lack of jobs. Appalachia comes to mind. We can look to Afghanistan and 
certain areas of South America, economically depressed portions of the 
planet, and there is an easy connection to be drawn. It is a reality 
that people do not have a future. They do not have the opportunity for 
jobs. There is no tax base. As a consequence, a situation like that 
needs to be recognized and corrected.
  That is why in this legislation, the State of Utah has the 
flexibility to make the determinations on their own as to what is best 
for their own people and their own State.
  So, Mr. President, we simply must not divorce the concept of 
environmental protection from the economic

[[Page S2747]]

health of our citizens and the communities within which they live. 
Economic well-being enhances the environment. It certainly does not 
destroy it. I think you have to have good schools, well-educated young 
Americans, and good job opportunities. Then we can truly have the means 
and the knowledge to meet our environmental responsibilities. You do 
not do it in a vacuum.
  Again, Mr. President, the Nation gains some 2 million acres of 
pristine national treasure; the residents of Utah gain schools, 
education, and a protected environment. In my opinion, there is no 
better quid pro quo.
  We are going to have an extended debate here, Mr. President. But 
there are a couple of other things that I would like to add to the 
opening statement that I think make reference to the realities that we 
are faced with.
  There has been a suggestion by some in the media and some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there have been delays 
in putting this legislation together and that somehow the 
responsibility should rest with those of us on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that the bills in 
this package have been held in limbo for several months. The end result 
of this inaction has produced a logjam of legislative proposals that 
have been collecting sawdust around here. But the reality of this 
logjam is the fact that Senate passage of one bill will not occur until 
there is an action on another and then another and so on down the line.
  The bottom line is everyone gets something or everyone gets nothing. 
That is where we are with this package today. As I have indicated, 
there are some 56 areas that are affected here. If we can take this 
package together and move it, it will pass and be accepted in the House 
of Representatives and move on to the President. But if we start 
unwinding, I can assure you that set of facts is not going to prevail.
  The bottom line is that you cannot send the Presidio to the House 
minus the provisions concerning Utah. I guess we could sit around here 
today and tomorrow rearranging the deck chairs all we want, but if the 
Titanic leaves port without that deck chair the results are 
predictable. Presidio will die and all of the other titles of the bill 
will die, too.
  I am going to be specific because I think it is appropriate relative 
to the concerns that are going to be expressed today in the extended 
debate.
  I wish to talk specifics about the Utah wilderness bill. I know my 
colleagues from Utah will go on at great length, but my good friend 
from New Jersey has made a point of indicating his dissatisfaction with 
the proposed resolve of 2 million acres being added to the wilderness 
of Utah, and he has made the point in his press releases that our 
public lands belong to all Americans. I certainly agree with that. But 
he goes on to say that they should never be given away to a few special 
interests.
  Mr. President, I do not consider the people of Utah ``a few special 
interests.'' While I am a Senator from Alaska, I happen to have a 
little spot in Utah where occasionally I go skiing, so you might say I 
have my own vested interest in Utah. I am a taxpayer there. I do not 
pretend to have the expertise of my colleagues who are going to speak 
later, but by the same token I think I have equal expertise to that of 
my friend from Utah.
  I do not consider the people of Utah a special interest. The 
residents of Utah are represented by their elected officials. I have a 
letter which shows that 26 of the 29 State senators support the 
provisions of this bill. The letter from the house chamber of the Utah 
State Legislature shows that 64 out of 75 house members support the 
designation of wilderness in this bill.
  Finally, I have a letter which shows that all of the elected county 
officials, all of the officials in 26 out of the 29 counties support 
the legislation as written. It is interesting to note that in the 27th 
county, five out of seven commissioners support the bill. The letter 
contains over 310 signatures of county elected officials.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I 
just referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Utah State Legislature,

                            Salt Lake City, UT, February 14, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: As legislative leaders, we want to 
     reaffirm the position taken by the Fifty-first Legislature of 
     the State of Utah as it relates to the amount of BLM land 
     designated as wilderness in Utah.
       HCR 12, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WILDERNESS DESIGNATION, by 
     Representative Bradley Johnson, states very clearly the 
     process by which wilderness was to be identified and 
     quantified. That process was followed, and the local 
     political entities acted very responsibly when they 
     recommended that a little more than 1 million acres receive 
     wilderness status.
       The addition of acreage bringing the total amount to be 
     added to the wilderness proposal to 1.8 million was an 
     unsettling surprise. Yet, in a spirit of compromise, this 
     total amount would be acceptable. We believe the addition of 
     any more acreage, however, would be an affront to the 
     citizens of this state and the process put in place that made 
     the original recommendation. Furthermore, we believe the 
     addition of more land would be tantamount to surrendering to 
     rhetoric which is without a rational or factual basis.
       The Fifty-first Legislature has spoken clearly on BLM 
     wilderness designation. To lock up more land to an uncertain 
     future in a state where 80 percent of the land area is 
     subject to some form of government restriction and control is 
     a policy which lacks sensitivity and foresight. This policy 
     blind spot is simply inappropriate. To shackle future 
     generations in this state with the unbendable restrictions 
     wilderness designation imposes is nothing more than a 
     ``takings'' of the hopes and dreams of Utahns whose heritage 
     and economic roots are tied to these lands. These lands are 
     not threatened and wilderness designation will not provide 
     any additional protection that is already provided for by law 
     governing the management of these lands.
       For more than 100 years, there has been a harmony between 
     the land and the land user. A dependence on the part of both 
     has grown up with a healthy mutual respect. Questionable 
     science has been injected into the wilderness decision-making 
     process by those who are disjointed and removed from the land 
     they claim to befriend.
       We reaffirm our position on wilderness designation 
     articulated in the last legislative session and as that you 
     consider it to be the position of the State of Utah. If we 
     can be helpful and answer your questions in addressing your 
     concerns relative to this issue, we would be most amenable to 
     doing what is necessary so that your decision is made with 
     the very best, accurate information.
           Sincerely,
     Melvin R. Brown,
       Speaker.
     R. Lane Beattie,
       President.
                                                                    ____


                    The Truth About Utah Wilderness

                                                   March 22, 1996.
       Dear Senator: You recently received a letter dated March 
     15, 1996 from a group of twenty calling themselves ``The 
     Coalition of Utah Elected Officials,'' asking the ``Utah 
     Congressional Delegation to withdraw S. 884 and reconsider 
     the direction they have taken on wilderness.'' The letter 
     states that ``most Utahns oppose S. 884.'' It further states 
     that ``most local people consider this to be stridently anti-
     environmental legislation, not the carefully balanced package 
     the Utah Congressional Delegation has been claiming it to 
     be.''
       These statements are not only preposterous, but blatantly 
     untrue. The facts are that most Utahns do not want large 
     amounts of acreage designated as wilderness in Utah. We the 
     undersigned Democrats and Republicans strongly support 
     Senator's Hatch and Bennett in their balanced approach to 
     Utah wilderness.
       In reality, the Utah State Senate endorsed the provisions 
     contained in the Hatch-Bennett proposal unanimously (27-0), 
     while the Utah State House voted 62-6, or 92% in favor. 
     Across the state, elected commissioners in 27 of 29 counties 
     support this bill. As this letter indicates, over 90% of 
     Utah's elected county leaders support the Utah wilderness 
     proposal now before the Senate.
       Early in 1995, the Governor of Utah and all members of the 
     Utah Congressional Delegation specifically tasked the elected 
     county officials in each county where wilderness was being 
     proposed, to hold public hearings and from those public 
     hearings, develop a proposal for wilderness designation on 
     Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands in the affected 
     counties. Numerous public hearings were held in every county 
     where lands were proposed for wilderness designation. The 
     country officials then developed their proposals for 
     designating lands as wilderness from the public hearings. In 
     every county where lands were proposed for wilderness 
     designation, the county officials made their recommendations 
     based on what they heard at the hearings. Many county 
     officials recommended more acreage than they knew their 
     citizens wanted, but they knew they had to do so in order to 
     make a bill acceptable to Congress. Some of those county 
     officials have paid a dear political price for their 
     recommendations.

[[Page S2748]]

       After the county officials made their recommendations, the 
     Governor and Congressional Delegation, held five regional 
     hearings around the state. The environmental community, both 
     in and outside of Utah was well organized and paid its 
     partisans to testify. They even rented busses and vans to 
     transport these people from location to location. The 
     testimony they gave was based on emotion and not the 
     requirements of the Wilderness Act itself. Their testimony 
     ignored the professional recommendations of the BLM which 
     based its proposals on the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness 
     Act.
       The Governor and Congressional Delegation then developed 
     what is now Title XX of omnibus package, S. 884. Many in Utah 
     believe it contains too much acreage. It represents more than 
     was recommended by the elected county officials who held the 
     local public hearings. It represents more than the State 
     Legislature has recommended at least twice in the last four 
     years by nearly unanimous votes.
       The people of Utah live in a state with approximately 67% 
     federal land ownership and another 13% state ownership, but 
     managed under the federally enacted State Enabling Act. Utah 
     already has millions of acres in Five National Parks, two 
     National Recreation Areas, four National Monuments, thirteen 
     Forest Service wilderness areas, and BLM Areas of Critical 
     Environmental Concern (ACEC). The unelected State Director of 
     the BLM manages more of Utah than does its elected Governor.
       The BLM wilderness debate in Utah has dragged on for more 
     than 15 years at a cost to taxpayers of over $10 million. We 
     believe it is time to end the debate, pass the balanced 
     Hatch-Bennett proposal and bring some peace and stability to 
     the people of Utah who must live daily with results of this 
     debate. We the undersigned are a few of the elected officials 
     in Utah who support Title XX of this omnibus bill. We want it 
     passed and enacted into law.
           Sincerely,
         John Hansen, Millard County Auditor; Linda Carter, 
           Millard County Recorder; Ed Phillips, Millard County 
           Sheriff; LeRay Jackson, Millard County Attorney; John 
           Henrie, Millard County Commissioner; Donovan Dafoe, 
           Mayor, Delta Utah; Merrill Nielson, Mayor, Lynndyl, 
           Utah; Phil Lovell, Mayor, Leamington, Utah; B. DeLyle 
           Carling, Mayor, Meadow, Utah; Terry Higgs, Mayor, 
           Kanosh, Utah; Mont Kimball, Councilman, Konosh, Utah; 
           Roger Phillips, Councilman, Kanosh, Utah; Robert 
           Decker, Councilman Delta, Utah; Gary Sullivan, Beaver 
           County Commissioner; Ross Marshall, Beaver County 
           Commissioner.
         Chad Johnson, Beaver County Commissioner; Howard Pryor, 
           Mayor, Minersville Town; Louise Liston, Garfield County 
           Commissioner; Clare Ramsay, Garfield County 
           Commissioner; Guy Thompson, Mayor, Henrieville Town; 
           Shannon Allen, Mayor, Antimony Town; John Mathews, 
           Mayor, Cannonville Town; Julee Lyman, Mayor, Boulder 
           Town; Robert Gardner, Iron County Commissioner; Thomas 
           Cardon, Iron County Commissioner; Worth Grimshaw, 
           Mayor, Enoch City; Dennis Stowell, Mayor, Parowan City; 
           Norm Carroll, Kane County Commissioner; Stephen Crosby, 
           Kane County Commissioner; Viv Adams, Mayor, Kanab City.
         Scot Goulding, Mayor, Orderville Town; Gayle Aldred, 
           Washington County Commissioner; Russell Gallian, 
           Washington County Commissioner; Gene Van Wagoner, 
           Mayor, Hurricane City; Chris Blake, Mayor, Ivins Town; 
           Rick Hafen, Mayor, Santa Clara City; Paul Beatty, 
           Mayor, New Harmony Town; Terrill Clove, Mayor, 
           Washington City; David Zitting, Mayor, Hildale City; 
           Ike Lunt, Juab County Commissioner; Martin Jensen, 
           Piute County Commissioner; Joseph Bernini, Juab County 
           Commissioner; J. Keller Christensen, Sanpete County 
           Commissioner; Eddie Cox, Sanpete County Commissioner; 
           Ralph Okerlund, Sevier County Commissioner; Meeks 
           Morrell, Wayne County Commissioner; Stanley Alvey, 
           Wayne County Commissioner; Kevin Young, Mayor, Mona, 
           Utah.
         Steve Buchanan, Mayor, Gunnison, Utah; Roger Cook, Mayor, 
           Moroni, Utah; Mary Day, Millard County Treasurer; James 
           Talbot, Millard County Assessor; Marlene Whicker, 
           Millard County Clerk; Lana Moon, Millard County 
           Commissioner; Tony Dearden, Millard County 
           Commissioner; Ken Talbot, Mayor, Hinkley, Utah; Elzo 
           Porter, Mayor, Oak City, Utah; Keith Gillins, Mayor, 
           Fillmore, Utah; Barry Monroe, Mayor, Scipio, Utah; C.R. 
           Charlesworth, Mayor, Holden, Utah; Vicky McKee, Daggett 
           Clerk Treasurer; Bob Nafus, Councilman, Konosh, Utah; 
           Roger Phillips, Councilman, Konosh, Utah.
         Chad Johnson, Beaver County Commissioner; James Robinson, 
           Mayor, Beaver City; Mary Wiseman, Mayor, Milford City; 
           Maloy Dodds, Garfield County Commissioner; Jean Seiler, 
           Mayor, Tropic Town; Laval Sawyer, Mayor, Hatch Town; 
           Wade Barney, Mayor, Escalante, Utah; Elaine Baldwin, 
           Mayor, Panguitch, Utah; Roy Urie, Iron County 
           Commissioner; Bill Weymouth, Mayor, Kanarraville Town; 
           Harold Shirley, Mayor, Cedar City; Constance Robinson, 
           Mayor, Pro-Tem, Paragonah; Joe Judd, Kane County 
           Commissioner; Garaldine Rankin, Mayor, Big Water; Eric 
           Brinkerhoff, Mayor, Glendale Town; Orval Palmer, Mayor, 
           Alton Town; Jerry Lewis, Washington County 
           Commissioner.
         Daniel McArther, Mayor, City of St. George; A. Morley 
           Wilson, Mayor, Enterprise City; Raymond Jack Eves, 
           Mayor, LaVerkin City; David Everett, Mayor, Toquerville 
           Town; Brent DeMille, Mayor, Leeds Town; Joy 
           Henderlider, Mayor, Virgin Town; Gordon Young, Juab 
           County Commissioner; Paul Morgan, Piute County 
           Commissioner; Don Julander, Piute County Commissioner; 
           Robert Bessey, Sanpete County Commissioner; Tex Olsen, 
           Sevier County Commissioner; Peggy Mason, Sevier County 
           Commissioner; Bliss Brinkerhoff, Wayne County 
           Commissioner; Bob Steele, Mayor, Nephi, Utah; Connie 
           Dubinsky, Mayor, Utah; Kent Larsen, Mayor, Utah; 
           Chesley Christensen, Mayor, Mt. Pleasant, Utah.
         Lawrence Mason, Mayor, Aurora, Utah; Eugene Honeycutt, 
           Mayor, Redmond, Utah; James Freeby, Mayor, Sigurd, 
           Utah; Orlin Howes, Mayor, Junction, Utah; Sherwood 
           Albrecht, Mayor, Bicknell, Utah; Dick Davis, Mayor, 
           Lyman, Utah; Mike Milovich, Carbon County Commissioner; 
           Pay Pene, Grand Count Council; Bart Leavitt, Grand 
           County Council; Lou Colisimo, Mayor, Price City; Roy 
           Nikas, Councilman, Price City; Paul Childs, Mayor, 
           Wellington, Utah; Bill McDougald, Councilman, City of 
           Moab; Terry Warner, Councilman, City of Moab; Richard 
           Seeley, Councilman, Green River City; Karen Nielsen, 
           Councilwoman, Cleveland Town; Gery Petty, Mayor, Emery 
           Town; Dennis Worwood, Councilman, Ferron City.
         Brenda Bingham, Treasurer, Ferron City; Ramon Martinez, 
           Mayor, Huntington City; Ross Gordon, Councilman, 
           Huntington City; Lenna Romine, Piute County Assessor; 
           Tom Balser, Councilman, Orangeville, City; Richard 
           Stilson, Councilman, Orangeville City; Murene Bean, 
           Recorder, Orangeville City; Carolyn Jorgensen, 
           Treasurer, Castle Dale City; Bevan Wilson, Emery County 
           Commissioner; Donald McCourt, Councilman, East Carbon 
           City; Murray D. Anderson, Councilman East Carbon City; 
           Mark McDonald, Councilman, Sunnyside City; Ryan 
           Hepworth, Councilman, Sunnyside City; Dale Black, 
           Mayor, Monticello City; John Black, Councilman, 
           Monticello City.
         Grant Warner, Mayor, Glenwood, Utah; Grant Stubbs, Mayor, 
           Salina, Utah; Afton Morgan, Mayor, Circleville, Utah; 
           Ronald Bushman, Mayor, Marysvale, Utah; Eugen 
           Blackburn, Mayor, Loa, Utah; Robert Allred, Mayor, 
           Spring City, Utah; Neil Breinholt, Carbon County 
           Commissioner; Bill Krompel, Carbon County Commissioner; 
           Dale Mosher, Grand County Councilman; Den Ballentyne, 
           Grand County Councilman; Frank Nelson, Grand County 
           Councilman; Steve Bringhurst, Price City Councilman; 
           Joe Piccolo, Price City Councilman; Tom Stocks, Mayor, 
           City of Moab; Judy Ann Scott Mayor, Green River City; 
           Art Hughes, former Councilman, Green River.
         Gary Price, Mayor,, Clawson Town; Marvin Thayne, 
           Councilman Elmo Town; Dale Roper, Mayor, Town of 
           Ferron; Garth Larsen, Ferron Town Council; Paul Kunze, 
           Recorder, Ferron Town; Don Gordon, Huntington City 
           Councilman; Jackie Wilson, Huntington City Council; 
           Howard Tuttle, Councilman, Orangeville City; Dixon 
           Peacock, Councilman, Orangeville City; Roger Warner, 
           Mayor Castle Dale City; Kent Peterson, Grand County 
           Commissioner; Randy Johnson, Grand County Commissioner; 
           L. Paul Clark, Mayor, East Carbon City; Darlene 
           Fivecoat, Councilwoman, East Carbon City; Barbara 
           Fisher, Councilwoman, East Carbon City.
         Grant McDonald, Mayor, Sunnyside City; Nick DeGiulio, 
           Councilman, Sunnyside City; Bernie Christensen, 
           Councilwoman, Monticello City; Mike Dalpiaz, Helper 
           City; Lee Allen, Box Elder County Commissioner; Royal 
           K. Norman, Box Elder County Commissioner; Jay E. Hardy, 
           Box Elder County Commissioner; Darrel L. Gibbons, Cache 
           County Councilman; C. Larry Anhder, Cache County 
           Councilman; Guy Ray Pulsipher, Cashe County Councilman; 
           James Briggs, Daggett County Commissioner; Sharon 
           Walters, Daggett County Commissioner; Chad L. Reed, 
           Daggett County Commissioner; Curtiss Dastrup, Duchesne 
           County Commissioner.
         Larry Ross, Duchesne County Commissioner; John Swasey; 
           Duchesne County Commissioner; Dale C. Wilson, Morgan 
           County Commissioner; Jan K. Turner, Morgan County 
           Commissioner; Jeff D. London, Morgan County 
           Commissioner; Kenneth R. Brown, Rich County 
           Commissioner; Blair R. Francis, Rich County 
           Commissioner; Keith D. Johnson, Rich County 
           Commissioner; Ty Lewis,

[[Page S2749]]

           San Juan County Commissioner; Bill Redd, San Juan 
           County Commissioner; Mark Maryboy, San Juan County 
           Commissioner; Sheldon Richins, Summit County 
           Commissioner; Thomas Flinders, Summit County 
           Commissioner; Jim Soter, Summit County Commissioner; 
           Teryl Hunsaker, Tooele County Commissioner; Gary 
           Griffith, Tooele County Commissioner; Lois McArther, 
           Tooele County Commissioner; Odell Russell, Mayor, Rush 
           Valley, Utah; Cosetta Castagno, Mayor, Vernon, Utah; 
           Frank Sharman, Tooele County Sheriff.
         Glen Caldwell, Tooele County Auditor; Donna McHendrix, 
           Tooele County Recorder; Gerri Paystrup, Tooele County 
           Assessor; Valerie B. Lee, Tooele County Treasurer; H. 
           Glen McKee, Uintah County Commissioner; Lorin Merrill, 
           Uintah County Commissioner; Lewis G. Vincent, Uintah 
           County Commissioner; Laren Provost, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; Keith D. Jacobson, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; Sharron J. Winterton, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; David J. Gardner, Utah County 
           Commissioner; Jerry D. Grover, Utah County 
           Commissioner; Gary Herbert, Utah County Commissioner; 
           Gayle A. Stevenson, Davis County Commissioner; Dannie 
           R. McConkie, Davis County Commissioner.
         Carol R. Page, Davis County Commissioner; Leo G. Kanel, 
           Beaver County Attorney; Monte Munns, Box Elder County 
           Assessor; Gaylen Jarvie, Daggett County Sheriff; 
           Camille Moore, Garfield County Clerk/Auditor; Brian 
           Bremner, Garfield County Engineer; Karla Johnson, Kane 
           County Clerk/Auditor; Richard M. Baily, Director, 
           Administrative Services; Lamar Guymon, Emery County 
           Sheriff; Eli H. Anderson, District 1, Utah State 
           Representative; Peter C. Knudson, District 2, Utah 
           State Representative; Fred Hunsaker, District 4, Utah 
           State Representative; Evan Olsen, District 5, Utah 
           State Representative; Martin Stephens, District 6, Utah 
           State Representative; Joseph Murray, District 8, Utah 
           State Representative; John B. Arrington, District 9, 
           Utah State Representative.
         Douglas S. Peterson, District 11, Utah State 
           Representative; Gerry A. Adair, District 12, Utah State 
           Representative; Nora B. Stephens, District 13, Utah 
           State Representative; Don E. Bush, District 14, Utah 
           State Representative; Blake D. Chard, District 15, Utah 
           State Representative; Kevin S. Garn, District 16, Utah 
           State Representative; Marda Dillree, District 17, Utah 
           State Representative; Karen B. Smith, District 18, Utah 
           State Representative; Sheryl L. Allen, District 19, 
           Utah State Representative; Charles E. Bradford, 
           District 20, Utah State Representative; James R. 
           Gowans, District 21, Utah State Representative; Steven 
           Barth, District 26, Utah State Representative; Ron 
           Bigelow, District 32, Utah State Representative; 
           Orville D. Carnahan, District 34, Utah State 
           Representative; Lamont Tyler, District 36, Utah State 
           Representative; Ray Short, District 37, Utah State 
           Representative; Sue Lockman, District 38, Utah State 
           Representative; Michael G. Waddoups, District 39, Utah 
           State Representative.
         J. Reese Hunter, District 40, Utah State Representative; 
           Darlene Gubler, District 41, Utah State Representative; 
           David Bresnahan, District 42, Utah State 
           Representative; Robert H. Killpack, District 44, Utah 
           State Representative; Melvin R. Brown, District 45, 
           Utah State Representative; Brian R. Allen, District 46, 
           Utah State Representative; Bryan D. Holladay, District 
           47, Utah State Representative; Greg. J. Curtis, 
           District 49, Utah State Representative; Lloyd Frandsen, 
           District 50, Utah State Representative; Shirley V. 
           Jensen, District 51, Utah State Representative; R. Mont 
           Evans, District 52, Utah State Representative; David 
           Ure, District 53, Utah State Representative; Jack A. 
           Seitz, District 55, Utah State Representative; 
           Christine Fox, District 56, Utah State Representative; 
           Lowell A. Nelson, District 57, Utah State 
           Representative; John L. Valentine, District 58, Utah 
           State Representative.
         Doyle Mortimer, District 59, Utah State Representative; 
           Norm Nielsen, District 60, Utah State Representative; 
           R. Lee Ellertson, District 61, Utah State 
           Representative; Jeff Alexander, District 62, Utah State 
           Representative; Jordan Tanner, District 63, Utah State 
           Representative; Byron L. Harward, District 64, Utah 
           State Representative; J. Brent Hammond, District 65, 
           Utah State Representative; Tim Moran, District 66, Utah 
           State Representative; Bill Wright, District 67, Utah 
           State Representative; Michael Styler, District 68, Utah 
           State Representative; Tom Mathews, District 69, Utah 
           State Representative; Bradley T. Johnson, District 69, 
           Utah State Representative; Keele Johnson, District 71, 
           Utah State Representative; Demar ``Bud'' Bowman, 
           District 72, Utah State Representative; Tom Hatch, 
           District 73, Utah State Representative.
         Bill Hickman, District 75, Utah State Representative; 
           Wilford Black, District 2, Utah State Senator; Blaze D. 
           Wharton, District 3, Utah State Senator; Howard 
           Stephenson, District 4, Utah State Senator; Brent 
           Richard, District 5, Utah State Senator; Stephen J. 
           Rees, District 6, Utah State Senator; David L. Buhler, 
           District 7, Utah State Senator; Steve Poulton, District 
           9, Utah State Senator; L. Alma Mansell, District 10, 
           Utah State Senator; Eddie P. Mayne, District 11, Utah 
           State Senator; George Mantes, District 13, Utah State 
           Senator; Craig A. Peterson, District 14, Utah State 
           Senator; LeRay McAllister, District 15, Utah State 
           Senator; Eldon Money, District 17, Utah State Senator; 
           Nathan Tanner, District 18, Utah State Senator; Robert 
           F. Montgomery, District 19, Utah State Senator; Joseph 
           H. Steel, District 21, Utah State Senator; Craig L. 
           Taylor, District 22, Utah State Senator; Lane Beattie, 
           District 23, Utah State Senator; John P. Holmgren, 
           District 24, Utah State Senator; Lyle W. Hillyard, 
           District 25, Utah State Senator; Alarik Myrin, District 
           26, Utah State Senator; Mike Dmitrich, District 27, 
           Utah State Senator; Leonard M. Blackham, District 28, 
           Utah State Senator; David L. Watson, District 29, Utah 
           State Senator.
                                                                    ____


                           Laws of Utah--1995


                               H.C.R. 12

       Whereas the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued its 
     final Environmental Impact Statement and recommended 
     designating approximately 1.9 million acres of land in Utah 
     as wilderness;
       Whereas the state is willing to cooperate with the United 
     States government in the designation process and in 
     protecting Utah's environment;
       Whereas designating lands as wilderness affects many 
     communities and residents of the state by permanently 
     prohibiting certain kinds of economic development;
       Whereas a federal reservation of water could seriously 
     affect the potential for development in growing areas of the 
     state;
       Whereas the designation of wilderness would depreciate the 
     value of state inholdings and adjacent state lands, reducing 
     an important source of revenue for the education of Utah's 
     schoolchildren;
       Whereas it is the state's position that there should be no 
     net loss of state or private lands and no increase in federal 
     ownership as a result of wilderness designation;
       Whereas lands that may be designated as wilderness are 
     subject to existing rights and uses under current law, such 
     as mining, timber harvesting, and grazing.
       Whereas the BLM has extensively studied public lands in 
     Utah for the purpose of determining simtability for 
     wilderness designation;
       Whereas it is vitally important for Utah to maintain the 
     ability to develop its mineral resources, such as the 
     Kaparowits Coal Field, for the economic and financial well 
     being of the state, its trust lands, and counties;
       Whereas much of Utah's municipal, industrial, and 
     agricultural wear supply comes from public lands, requiring 
     continued management and maintenance of vegetation, 
     reservoirs, and pipelines, and
       Whereas the definition of wilderness lands established by 
     Congress in the 1964 Wilderness Act should be used to 
     determine the designation of wilderness lands.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature of the 
     state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, encourage the 
     Congress to enact at the earliest possible opportunity a fair 
     and equitable Utah wilderness bill regarding BLM lands, with 
     the Legislature's and Governor's support of the bill 
     contingent upon its containing the following provisions:
       (1) that any BLM lands designated as wilderness must meet 
     the legal definition of wilderness lands as contained in the 
     1964 Wilderness Act;
       (2) that all lands not designated as wilderness be released 
     from Wilderness Study Area status and that the BLM be 
     directed to manage those released lands under multiple use 
     sustained yield principles and be prohibited from making or 
     managing further study area designations in Utah without 
     express authorization from Congress;
       (3) that no reserve water right be granted or implied in 
     any BLM wilderness bill for Utah inasmuch as federal agencies 
     are able to apply for water through the state appropriations 
     system in keeping with the 1988 opinion of Solicitor Ralph W. 
     Tarr of the United States Department of the Interior.
       (4) that federal agencies be required to cooperate with the 
     state in exchanging state lands that are surrounded by or 
     adjacent to or adversely affected by wilderness designation 
     for federal lands of equivalent value; and additionally, 
     because designation of wilderness lands is a federal action, 
     that federal funds be appropriated to pay for appraisals of 
     state lands and federal lands to be exchanged;
       (5) that every effort be made to ensure that there be no 
     net loss of state or private lands and no increase in federal 
     ownship as a result of wilderness designation in Utah;
       (6) that the designation of wilderness not result in the 
     creation, either formally or informally, of buffer zones and 
     management zones around, contiguous, or on lands affected by 
     wilderness designation;
       (7) that all valid existing rights and historical uses be 
     allowed to be fully exercised

[[Page S2750]]

     without undue restriction or economic hardship on lands 
     designated as wilderness as provided in the Wilderness Act of 
     1964; and
       (8) that management of vegetation, reservoirs, and similar 
     facilities on watershed lands designated as wilderness be 
     continued by state or private means.
       Be it further Resolved that the Legislature and the 
     Governor conclude that elected country officials, after 
     extensive public input, should develop the wilderness 
     proposals and the conditions for acceptable designation of 
     wilderness lands within their respective counties, with the 
     aggregate of those respective county recommendations 
     constituting the basis of the state proposal for BLM 
     wilderness designation in Utah. The county officials should 
     be consulted regarding any changes to their respective county 
     recommendations.
       Be it further Resolved that copies of this resolution be 
     sent to President Clinton, the President of the United States 
     Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the directors of both the state 
     and federal offices of the Bureau of Land Management, and 
     Utah' congressional delegation.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over 93 percent of the State 
legislators and county elected officials in Utah did not misread public 
opinion at home. If we were talking about New Jersey, the Senator's 
State, and Federal elected Representatives took the identical stance in 
support of their constituency, my good friend from New Jersey would 
occupy the Senate floor for the next month defending their rights, and 
I would admire that, against the intervention of a Senator from another 
State who represents only a few special interests.
  So let us keep this in perspective, Mr. President. New Jersey has 
10,341 acres of wilderness, Arkansas has 127,000, and Utah, with this 
provision, will have 2.8 million acres of wilderness.
  Further, reference has been made by the Senator from New Jersey in a 
press statement dated March 22 saying that ``20 million acres of Utah 
lands can never be designated as wilderness in the future.''
  He then goes on to say: ``If it becomes law, it would permit the 
transformation of these lands from wilderness to strip mines, roads and 
commercial development.''
  Come on, Mr. President. These statements are scare tactics. They are 
untrue. They are unrealistic. Congress, as the Senator from New Jersey 
knows, can at any time revisit this issue and designate additional 
wilderness. The field professionals after 15 years of study, review and 
court cases, found that 20 million acres do not meet the strict 
definition of wilderness. Under the act, these lands are not wilderness 
but many do qualify under other designations. The BLM is already using 
other management schemes on much of this acreage, including designated 
areas of critical environmental concerns, outstanding natural areas, 
natural landmarks, research, national areas, wild and scenic rivers, 
national trails, primitive areas, visual resources, management class 1 
areas, and each of these designations offer a host of protected 
measures.
  To suggest that the residents of and visitors to Utah will desecrate 
these lands or to imply that the Federal managers will turn their eyes 
when this destruction descends upon us is simply a gross exaggeration 
of facts. One only has to visit Utah, view the lands, look at the 
national parks and the forests and the State lands that have been set 
aside to know that they care about their resources. They were 
protecting these lands long before the elitists arrived on the scene. 
For those lands which might be developed, and there will be some, there 
are additional protections.
  To suggest the enactment of this bill would destroy 20 million acres 
contributes little fact to this debate and only brings it up to a 
hysteric level. The list of Federal laws and State laws I previously 
submitted for the Record still must be complied with. If these lands 
will not afford protection, why do we have them?
  Further, much has been made of the holds on this legislation and the 
consequences associated therewith. I have worked with my good friend 
from New Jersey from time to time, and we have reached accords from 
time to time, not necessarily all the time by any means. But I noticed 
a ``Dear Colleague'' the Senator from New Jersey sent around was joined 
by some 17 Members of this body, and it stated:

       Many of us have provisions important to our respective 
     States within the omnibus parks legislation.

  The letter goes on to say:

       They need to be uncoupled from the Utah wilderness 
     provision.

  The majority of these bills were placed on the calendar of the Senate 
on April 7, 1995, almost a year ago. They have been on the calendar 
almost a year. The Senator from New Jersey could have let these 
environmental bills, land bills, make their way to the House and to the 
President months ago. Unfortunately, for reasons of his own, he chose 
not to do so. The direct result of those actions is this package. The 
Senator from New Jersey, by his own actions, is the ghost writer of 
this bill that we are considering. So as we look at where to finger the 
delay and why there is a package, I think we should ask the Senator 
from New Jersey to explain why he would put a hold on virtually every 
bill of this nature coming through the process starting back to when it 
was introduced and placed on the calendar in 1995.
  I have accommodated many times the Senator from New Jersey on 
interests of his, certainly on the Sterling Forest, a bill, I might 
add, that is not totally without some controversy, and, in my opinion, 
there is reason that he should attempt to accommodate others. When this 
bill passes, Mr. President, Americans will get 2 million acres of new 
wilderness, and there is nothing in this legislation that will prevent 
another Congress from adding additional lands in Utah to the wilderness 
inventory.
  I think it is appropriate that we take this discussion a little 
further and find out just who and what and why this onslaught of well-
financed propaganda by a small group of elitists in opposition to this 
bill. This has come up in the forms of expensive full-page ads, calls 
from telephone banks, multicolored brochures, posters, a raft of letter 
writing campaigns.

  There was an editorial from the San Francisco Examiner, one example, 
suggesting that I am the guy who caused the Presidio bill to be held 
hostage and added on the riders.
  I am not the guy, Mr. President. It suggested that this bill is a 
Christmas tree of special goodies, including, the inference was, 
opening up ANWR, the Alaska Arctic oil reserve. This bill does not have 
anything to do with Alaskan oil. It is not even mentioned in the bill 
and the San Francisco Examiner should know that. But they chose to make 
an issue and draw a parallel, when none existed. I think that is 
irresponsible reporting.
  I am attempting to get these bills moving in the direction of the 
White House. Without this effort, the Presidio will not pass Congress. 
It needs to be passed, as do other titles, and they are all important 
to our colleagues. That is just the hard, cold fact existing on the 
other side, the House side.
  There is a small group of elitists, self-anointed saviors of the 
West, perhaps the Senator from New Jersey is among them, who would 
prefer to see the entire package of noncontroversial, needed measures 
simply choked together, because they do not want to see 2 million acres 
added to the Nation's wilderness inventory. They want 5 million acres, 
6 million acres, or nothing.
  Environmentalism is big business. I am going to show some charts 
here, to show just how big it is. The campaigns of this big business 
enterprise, the environmental lobby, are well financed, well staffed. 
They attach themselves rapidly to any issue that expands more 
membership, will raise more money for their coffers. They almost 
consume their causes. I am not suggesting the causes are not 
meritorious in many cases. But, by the same token, I do want to point 
out the significance of just how large these organizations have become 
and why they would dwell on an issue such as Utah wilderness.
  Here we have environmental organizations, their revenues, their 
expenses, their assets, and the fund balances. These are the 12 major 
environmental organizations in the United States. There are more. I am 
not suggesting this is the entire list. We have the Nature 
Conservancy--these figures are as of fiscal 1993. I suspect they are 
higher now. These are the last figures we were able to generate. If you 
look at the revenue generated--$278 million; expenses, $219 million; 
assets, basically what they own, $915 million; and fund balances, $855 
million.

[[Page S2751]]

  Then you go to the National Wildlife Federation. Let us just look at 
the fund balances: $13 million; World Wildlife Fund, $39 million; 
Greenpeace, $23 million; Sierra Club, $14 million; the Sierra Club 
Legal Defense Fund, $5.9 million; National Audubon Society, $61 
million; Environmental Defense Fund, $5 million; Natural Resources 
Defense Council, $11 million; Wilderness Society, $4 million; National 
Parks and Conservation Association, $769,000; Friends of the Earth, 
they are not doing too well looks like; Izaak Walton League of America, 
$414,000.
  If we just look these up we will get an idea of the significance of 
these groups, in their totality. The revenue, $633 million; expenses, 
they expend about $556 million. Their assets, what they own, $1.2 
billion. That would be among the Fortune 500. Fund balances, over $1 
billion.
  Let us look at some of the salaries paid, because I think, here 
again, this reflects on the significance that these groups are big 
business. The Nature Conservancy, John Sawhill, this is, I believe, as 
of 1994, $185,000. I think the President's salary is somewhere in the 
area of a little over $200,000. So here we have salaries, the National 
Wildlife Federation, Jay Hair, $242,000, more than the President of the 
United States; World Wildlife Fund, $185,000; Sierra Club Legal Defense 
Fund, $106,000; Environmental Defense Fund, $193,000; National 
Resources Defense Council, $145,000; National Parks and Conservation 
Association, $185,000.
  I think these show, in detail, the significance of just how big the 
environmental communities' efforts and organizations have become.
  Mr. President, I have another chart here. While staff is getting it, 
I want to amplify, again, the fact that these organizations need 
legitimate causes. The question of how extreme, how far is there room 
for compromise, is a legitimate question here. The State of Utah has 
proposed adding 2 million acres. But that is not enough, 
environmentalists want 5 or 6 million. They generate extreme reasons, 
in my opinion, inflammatory suggestions, suggesting that the residents 
of the State cannot be trusted, are irresponsible. I just do not buy 
that. I think we have to recognize their legitimate contribution, and 
when they are off line and unrealistic, take them to task.
  It is interesting to note the investments of these organizations. I 
wish I had a third chart to show, but I am going to have it printed in 
the Record of investment summaries, the market value of these 
organizations as they invest in stocks, bonds. And I am also going to 
have printed in the Record the benefits associated with the officers, 
directors, the salaries and wages, the pension plans and the other 
employee benefits which clearly substantiate my claim that this is now 
big business.
  I am also going to have printed in the Record the major corporate 
contributors to these organizations. In some cases that is rather 
amusing, because we find a direct contrast between the objectives and 
efforts of some of the organizations and some of the donors who, you 
would think, would have conflicting points of view. But I will leave 
that up to them to explain.
  So, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the major corporate 
contributors, the officers' income, staff, wages and benefits, 
executive compensation, environmental organization incomes, and a list 
of the top 12 organizations, be printed in the Record from the report 
of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise entitled, ``Getting 
Rich, the Environmental Movement's Income, Salary, Contributor, and 
Investment Patterns, With an Analysis of Land Trust Transfers of 
Private Land to Government Ownership.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise]

Getting Rich--The Environmental Movement's Income, Salary, Contributor, 
 and Investment Patterns, With an Analysis of Land Trust Transfers of 
                  Private Land to Government Ownership


                              introduction

       The environmental movement is arguably the richest power 
     and pressure center in America. This report examines the 
     question, ``What is the public paying for with its money for 
     the environment?'' It profiles the twelve richest and best-
     known environmental organizations in the United States, 
     including two subgroups, one within Greenpeace, one related 
     to the Sierra Club. It focuses on their internal finances, 
     how they spend the money the public gives them--usually a 
     well-guarded secret even though the law requires non-profit 
     organizations to make full public disclosure.
       Simply put, where does the money go?
       Certainly environmental group money goes to programs that 
     ``protect the environment from the ravages of humanity.'' 
     None of the twelve major groups and their subgroups examined 
     here fail to expend substantial funds on their publicly 
     announced programs.
       However, none of the groups examined here announce the fat 
     salaries of their executives, the huge amounts paid for staff 
     wages and pensions, or the donations spent playing Wall 
     Street in professionally managed investment portfolios. And 
     few loudly advertise their gifts from large corporations.
       In addition, many environmental groups have fallen under 
     control of the nation's richest private foundations. Private 
     foundations have forced their own social-change agendas on 
     many environmental organizations through ``grant driven 
     projects,'' with ominous implications for the unwitting 
     public.
       This report also focuses on the most troublesome aspects of 
     a citizen movement grown powerful: the ability of wealthy 
     land trusts to funnel private property into the federal 
     government at prices above the approved appraised value, to 
     ``lowball'' prices paid to private owners based on inside 
     information provided by federal agencies, and to persuade 
     congressional allies to put their properties at the top of 
     the list for federal payments.


                            acknowledgments

       This report was sponsored by the Center for the Defense of 
     Free Enterprise, which is solely responsible for its content. 
     Ron Arnold, Executive Vice President, managing editor. Fact 
     checking, Janet Arnold. Data gathering and compilation were 
     performed by numerous organizations and individuals in the 
     Wise Use Movement, including American Land Rights 
     Association, Charles S. Cushman, Executive Director, Putting 
     People First, Kathleen Marquardt, Executive Director, William 
     Wewer; Erich Veyhl; Motherlode Research; Henry Batsel.
       All raw data used in this report were obtained from public 
     records, including IRS Form 990 reports, and annual financial 
     filings required by the States of New York, Virginia, and 
     California. Statistical and political analyses were performed 
     by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.
       This report is copyright  1994 by the Center for 
     the Defense of Free Enterprise. Permission to reproduce 
     portions of this report is granted. Please acknowledge the 
     Center in publications.


                      The Twelve Top Organizations

       1: The Nature Conservancy (Founded 1951).
       Annual budget: $278,497,634 (1993).
       Staff: 1,150 total.
       Members: 708,000 individuals; 405 corporations.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 1815 North Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia 
     22209, Phone: (703) 841-5300 Fax: (703) 841-1283.
       2: National Wildlife Federation (Founded 1936).
       Annual budget: $82,816,824 (1993).
       Staff: 608 total.
       Members: 4 million members.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 1400 16th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, 
     Phone: (202) 797-6800 Fax: (202) 797-6646.
       3: World Wildlife Fund (Founded 1961: predecessor in 1948).
       Annual budget: $60,791,945 (1993).
       Staff: 244 total--172 professional: 72 support.
       Members: 1 million members.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037, 
     Phone: (202) 293-4800 Fax: (202) 293-9211.
       4: Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (Founded 1971, formerly Greenpeace 
     USA).
       Annual budget: $48,777,308 (Combined 1993 with Greenpeace, 
     Inc.), $157 million internationally (1991).
       Staff: 250 staff members plus 20 interns (reorganized in 
     1992), Offices in 30 countries.
       Members: 1.7 million members and supporters U.S. (1993), 
     4.5 million worldwide.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3) [Greenpeace, Inc. is a 
     (501)(c)(4)].
       Headquarters: 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, 
     Phone: (202) 462-1177 Fax: (202) 462-4507.
       5: Sierra Club (Founded 1892).
       Annual budget: $41,716,044 (1992).
       Staff: 325 total--180 professional, 145 support, plus 
     volunteers.
       Members: 550,000 individuals.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(4); Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund is 
     501(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 730 Polk Street, San Francisco, California 
     94109, Phone: (415) 776-2211, Fax: (415) 776-0350, and 408 C 
     Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002, Phone: (202) 797-6800, 
     Fax: (202) 797-6646.
       6: National Audubon Society (Founded 1905, precursors in 
     1886 and 1896).
       Annual budget: $40,081,591 (1992).
       Staff: 315 total.
       Members: 542,000 individuals (1993).
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 950 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, 
     Phone: (212) 832-3200, Fax: (212) 593-6254, and 801 
     Pennsylvania Avenue

[[Page S2752]]

     SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, Phone: (202) 547-9009, Fax: (202) 
     547-9022.
       7: Natural Resources Defense Council (Founded 1970).
       Annual budget: $20,496,829 (1993).
       Staff: 128 total--83 professional; 45 support.
       Members: 170,000 individuals.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 40 West 20th Street, New York, New York 
     10011, Phone: (212) 727-2700, Fax: (212) 727-1773, and 1350 
     New York Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: 
     (202) 783-7800, Fax: (202) 783-5917.
       8: Environmental Defense Fund (Founded 1967).
       Annual budget: $17,394,230 (1993).
       Staff: 110 total--80 professional, 30 support.
       Members: 250,000 individuals (1994) [source: telephone 
     inquiry].
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 257 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 
     10010, Phone: (212) 505-2100, Fax: (212) 505-2375, and 1616 P 
     Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Phone: (202) 387-3500, 
     Fax: (202) 234-6049.
       9: The Wilderness Society (Founded 1935).
       Annual budget: $16,093,764 (1993).
       Staff: 136 total.
       Members: 293,000 individuals.
       Tax Status: (501)(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 900 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, 
     Phone: (202) 833-2300 Fax: (202) 429-3959.
       10: National Parks and Conservation Association (Founded 
     1919).
       Annual budget: $11,285,639 (1993).
       Staff: 43 total.
       Members: 400,000 individuals.
       Tax Status: 501(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 1015 31st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20007, 
     Phone: (202) 223-6722 Fax: (202) 944-8535.
       11: Friends of the Earth (Founded 1969, reconstituted 
     1990).
       Annual budget: $2,467,775 (1993).
       Staff: 45 total--38 professional, 7 support.
       Members: 50,000 individuals.
       Tax Status: 501(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 218 D Street, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, 
     Phone: (202) 544-2600 Fax: (202) 543-4710.
       12: Izaak Walton League of America (Founded 1922).
       Annual budget: $2,074,694 (1992).
       Staff: 23 total--14 professional, 9 support.
       Members: 52,700 individuals.
       Tax Status: 501(c)(3).
       Headquarters: 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Level B, Arlington, 
     Virginia 22209, Phone: (703) 528-1818 Fax: (202) 528-1836.

                                       ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION INCOMES                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Organization                      Revenue          Expenses          Assets       Fund balances 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy (fiscal 1993)........     $278,497,634     $219,284,534     $915,664,531     $855,115,125
National Wilflife Federation (1993)*........       82,816,324       83,574,187       52,891,144       13,223,554
World Wildlife Fund (fiscal 1993)*..........       60,791,945       54,663,771       52,496,808       39,460,024
Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (1992)................       11,411,050        7,912,459       25,047,761       23,947,953
    (Combined different years)..............       48,777,308                                                   
Greenpeace Inc. (1993)......................       37,366,258       38,586,239        5,847,221        5,696,375
Sierra Club (1992)..........................       41,716,044       39,801,921       22,674,244       14,891,959
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (1993)...        9,539,684        9,646,214        9,561,782        5,901,690
National Audubon Society (fiscal 1992)......       40,081,591       36,022,327       92,723,132       61,281,006
Environmental Defense Fund (fiscal 1992)....       17,394,230       16,712,134       11,935,950        5,279,329
Natural Resources Defense Council (fiscal                                                                       
 1993)......................................       20,496,829       17,683,883       30,061,269       11,718,666
Wilderness Society (fiscal 1993)............       16,093,764       16,480,668       10,332,183        4,191,419
                                                                                                                
National Parks and Conservation Association                                                                     
 (1993).....................................       12,304,124       11,534,183        3,530,881          769,941
Friends of the Earth (1993).................       23,467,775        2,382,772          694,386          120,759
Izaak Walton League of America (1992).......        2,036,838        2,074,694        1,362,975          414,309
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...............................      633,014,090      556,359,986    1,234,824,267    1,030,377,841
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES: All figures most recent reporting year available. Some organizations had not filed reports for either    
  calendar or fiscal 1993 as of September 1, 1994. Calendar year used unless noted. The Nature Conservancy      
  obtained $76,318,014 of this amount from sale of private land to the government and $20,402,672 from          
  government grants. National Wildlife Federation fiscal year 1993 ended August 31, 1993. World Wildlife Fund   
  fiscal year 1993 ended June 30, 1993. Greenpeace Fund (a 501(c)(3)) and Greenpeace, Inc. (a 501(c)(4)) have   
  substantial financial interactions annually. Most recent Form 990 year avalable for Greenpeace Fund, Inc., is 
  1992. Greenpeace, Inc. figures are from 1993 financial staement. National Audubon Society icome includes      
  $93,623 in mineral royalties from natural gas wells on its Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary and $505,850 from        
  government grants.                                                                                            


                                             EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Expense  
          Organization                 Executive              Title           Salary      Benefits     account  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy..........  John Sawhill.......  President and          $185,000      $17,118         None
                                                        Chief Executive.                                        
National Wildlife Federation....  Jay Hair...........  Executive Director      242,060       34,155      $23,661
World Wildlife Fund.............  Kathryn Fuller.....  Executive Director      185,000       16,650         None
Greenpeace Fund.................  Barbara Dudley.....  Executive Director       65,000         None         None
                                                        Acting*.                                                
Greenpeace Inc..................  Stephen D'Esposito.  Executive Director       82,882         None         None
Sierra Club.....................  Carl Pope..........  Executive Director       77,142         None         None
    Sierra Club Lebal Defense     Vawter Parker......  Executive Director      106,507       10,650         None
     Fund.                                                                                                      
National Audubon Society........  Peter A.A. Berle...  President.........      178,000       21,285         None
Environmental Defense Fund......  Fred Krupp.........  Executive Director      193,558       17,216         None
Natural Resources Defense         John H. Adams......  Executive Director      145,526       13,214         None
 Council.                                                                                                       
Wilderness Society..............  Karin Sheldon......  Acting President..       90,896       22,724         None
National Parks and Conservation   Paul C. Pritchard..  President.........      185,531       26,123         None
 Association.                                                                                                   
Friends of the Earth............  Jane Perkins.......  President.........       74,104        2,812         None
Izaak Walton League of America..  Maitland Sharpe....  Executive Director       76,052        5,617         None
                                                                          --------------------------------------
        Total...................  ...................  ..................    1,887,258      187,564       23,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenpeace: Stephen D'Esposito subsequently took the position of head of Greenpeace International in Belgium,   
  leaving Barbara Dudley as executive director of both Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc., according to 
  the Washington office.                                                                                        


                                    OFFICER INCOMES, STAFF WAGES AND BENEFITS                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Officer and      Other                        Other   
                      Organization                         director    salaries and   Pension plan    employee  
                                                         compensation      wages     contributions    benefits  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy.................................    $1,786,432   $45,824,545     $1,913,453    $3,832,110
National Wildlife Federation...........................       475,512    23,607,589         80,000       640,291
World Wildlife Fund....................................       663,531    11,515,186           None       934,687
Greenpeace Fund (1991).................................       148,900     5,928,454           None       300,318
    Greenpeace Inc. (1991).............................        35,600     9,904,344           None       545,985
Sierra Club............................................       272,381     8,234,250         73,275     1,011,847
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.....................       384,502     3,612,083        447,700       461,607
National Audubon Society...............................     1,010,723    10,382,800        913,397     1,265,623
Environmental Defense Fund.............................             0     6,163,645        220,769       422,141
Natural Resources Defense Council......................       421,730     8,258,420           None          None
Wilderness Society.....................................       757,541     4,470,572        403,581       569,163
National Parks and Conservation Association............       185,531     1,864,451         56,195       142,122
Friends of the Earth...................................        74,104       958,580         28,797       123,762
Izaak Walton League of America.........................             0       659,365         31,985       173,958
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................................    62,164,487   141,384,284      4,169,152    10,423,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      MAJOR CORPORATE CONTRIBUTORS                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Donor corporation or
                   Organization                       corporate funded  
                                                         foundation     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy............................  Allied-Signal, Inc.;
                                                     ARCO; Boeing; BP   
                                                     Oil; Chevron; Dow  
                                                     Chemical; DuPont;  
                                                     Enron; Exxon;      
                                                     Newmont Gold       
                                                     Company; Times-    
                                                     Mirror Corporation;
                                                     others.            
National Wildlife Federation......................  Amoco; ARCO; Coca-  
                                                     Cola; Dow Chemical;
                                                     DuPont; Exxon;     
                                                     General Electric;  
                                                     General Motors;    
                                                     IBM; Miller        
                                                     Brewing; Mobil Oil;
                                                     Monsanto; Pennzoil;
                                                     others.            
World Wildlife Fund...............................  ARCO; AT&T Ford    
                                                     Motor Company;     
                                                     General Electric;  
                                                     H.J. Heinz; Mobil  
                                                     Oil; New York Times
                                                     Company; Procter & 
                                                     Gamble; Shell Oil; 
                                                     Weyerhaeseser;     
                                                     others.            
Greenpeace Fund...................................     Greenpeace, Inc. 
                                                        is a lobbying   
                                                        group not       
                                                        eligible for tax
                                                        deductible      
                                                        donations.      

[[Page S2753]]

                                                                        
    Greenpeace Inc................................  Greenpeace. Inc. is 
                                                     a lobbying group   
                                                     not eligible for   
                                                     tax deductible     
                                                     donations.         
Sierra Club.......................................  The Sierra Club is a
                                                     lobbying group not 
                                                     eligible for tax   
                                                     deductible         
                                                     donations.         
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund................  New York Times      
                                                     Company.           
National Audubon Society..........................  Alcoa; Bank of      
                                                     Boston Corporation;
                                                     Ford Motor Company;
                                                     General Electric;  
                                                     H.J. Heinz;        
                                                     Monsanto; New York 
                                                     Times Company;     
                                                     Procter & Gamble;  
                                                     others.            
Environmental Defense Fund........................  Times Mirror        
                                                     Company.           
Natural Resources Defense Council.................  Ametek; Corning     
                                                     Glass Works; Dakin 
                                                     Corporation;       
                                                     Mayfair            
                                                     Supermarkets;      
                                                     Morgan Bank; New   
                                                     England Biolabs;   
                                                     New York Times     
                                                     Company; Dean      
                                                     Witter.            
Wilderness Society................................  Archer Daniels      
                                                     Midland;           
                                                     Guardsmark, Inc.;  
                                                     Morgan Guaranty    
                                                     Trust Co.; New York
                                                     Times Company;     
                                                     Timberland Co.;    
                                                     Waste Management,  
                                                     Inc.; others.      
National Parks and Conservation Association.......  First National Bank 
                                                     of Boston.         
Friends of the Earth..............................  American Railroad   
                                                     Association;       
                                                     Recreational       
                                                     Equipment, Inc.    
Izaak Walton League of America....................  Amoco; Anhaeuser-   
                                                     Busch; ARCO;       
                                                     Chevron USA;       
                                                     DuPont; Exxon; FMC 
                                                     Corp.; Pennzoil;   
                                                     Phillips Petroleum;
                                                     Procter & Gamble;  
                                                     Tenneco; 3M;       
                                                     Unocal.            
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                       INVESTMENT SUMMARIES, MARKET VALUE                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       U.S.                                                                     
          Organization              Government     Common stocks    Bonds, all         Other           Total    
                                    obligations                        types                        investments 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy..........     $49,017,000    $138,508,000     $27,262,000     $65,597,600    $245,322,000
National Wildlife Federation....       6,739,754       4,592,752       1,426,093    See analysis      12,758,599
World Wildlife Fund.............       2,704,914     *27,262,802      *6,216,714      *6,760,934      42,945,391
Greenpeace Fund.................       2,470,393            None            None       1,112,134       3,582,527
    Greenpeace Inc..............          Note 1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Sierra Club.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       8,886,605
    Sierra Club Legal Defense                                                                                   
     Fund.......................          Note 1  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,870,716
National Audubon Society........      12,366,647      34,237,474       9,640,927         830,425      57,075,473
Environment Defense Fund........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,744,086
Natural Resources Defense                                                                                       
 Council........................       2,139,751         155,245      *1,461,277       5,335,167       9,091,440
Wilderness Society..............       1,808,092      *3,913,949            None         180,000       5,950,957
National Parks and Conservation                                                                                 
 Association....................       1,227,342        *728,255         511,889         369,137       2,836,623
Friends of the Earth............          Note 1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Izaak Walton League of America..            None            None          72,756            None          72,756
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................      78,473,983     209,398,477      46,591,656      80,563,456     396,137,173
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Wildlife Fund: Common stock entry is listed on Form 990 as ``Equities,'' Bonds entry as ``Corporate       
  obligations,'' and Other entry as ``Cash and cash equivalents.'' Greenpeace Inc. Note 1: Greenpeace Inc.      
  claims to have no investments in securities. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Note 1: See Investment Analysis on
  page 14 for details. *Natural Resources Defense Council-owned corporate obligations may include instruments   
  other than bonds. *Wilderness Society: $3,913,949 is entered as cash equivalents on the balance sheet. The    
  Wilderness Society also maintains a financial reserve called The Wilderness Fund with a 1993 market value of  
  $3,890,898. National Parks and Conservation Association: Stocks: Includes preferred and common stock; Bonds:  
  Includes corporate notes and bonds; Other: See analysis. Friends of the Earth Note 1: FOE claims to have no   
  investments in securities. Izaak Walton League of America owns only these investments in bonds according to   
  their Form 990.                                                                                               

                           Investment Analysis

                                             THE NATURE CONSERVANCY                                             
                      [Fiscal 1993 Form 990, Part IV--Investments Securities, Statement 7]                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Beginning of                  
                                  Description                                         year         End of year  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Obligations..............................................................  ...............      $49,017,000
Bonds.........................................................................  ...............       27,017,000
Endowment Investments.........................................................     $138,228,753  ...............
Planned Giving Investments....................................................       26,890,767  ...............
Current & Land Acquisition....................................................      102,941,039  ...............
Common Stock..................................................................  ...............      138,508,000
Preferred Stock...............................................................  ...............          976,000
Mutual Funds..................................................................  ...............       29,559,000
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................      268,060,559      245,322,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: The classification of beginning-of-year figures is different from end-of-year figures in order to reflect
  groupings previously reported). The Nature Conservancy refused to release its list of investments in corporate
  stocks.                                                                                                       


                                          NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION                                          
            [Taxable Year Ended July 31, 1993--Form 990, Part IV--Invements--Securities, Schedule 9]            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Book value           
                                  Description                                  ---------------------------------
                                                                                    FY 1993          FY 1992    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government and Agency Securities.........................................       $6,739,754       $8,216,943
Corporate Stock...............................................................        4,592,752        4,423,380
Corporate Bonds...............................................................        1,426,093        3,343,893
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................       12,758,599       15,984,216
                                                                               =================================
Investments-Other Schedule 10.................................................  ...............  ...............
Investments-Mutual Funds......................................................  ...............  ...............
Merrill Lynch Investment Portfolio Government Plus............................                0         206,9999
Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account.........................................          378,059          554,666
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................          378,059          761,665
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The National Wildlife Federation refused to release its list of investments in corporate stock and        
  corporate bonds.                                                                                              


                           World wildlife fund                          
1993 Form 990, Part IV, Line 54-Investments:                            
    Cash and cash equivalents.............................    $6,760,934
    Government Securities.................................     2,704,914
    Corporate obligations.................................     6,216,714
    Equities..............................................    27,262,802
                                                           -------------
      Total...............................................    42,945,391
                                                                        
                                                                        
Notes to Financial Statements as of June 30, 1993.                      
Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.                     
Cash and Investment: Investments are recorded in the financial          
  statements at the lower of cost or market value. Investments received 
  as contributions are recorded at their fair market value at the date  
  of donation. Market value of cash and investments at June 30, 1993 and
  June 30, 1992 were approximately $47,972,000 (1993) and $40,671,000   
  (1992). The World Wildlife Fund refused to release its list of        
  investments in corporate obligations and equities.                    

  

[[Page S2754]]



                                                 GREENPEACE FUND                                                
                                   [Financial Statement--Note 4--Investments]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Amortized cost    Market value 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 1991, investments consist of:                                                                   
  Current investments:                                                                                          
      Certificates of deposit.................................................         $680,000         $680,000
      U.S. Government securities..............................................        1,134,451        1,152,051
      Other...................................................................          101,765          105,154
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total current investments.............................................        1,916,216        1,937,205
  Long-term investments:                                                                                        
      Certificates of deposit.................................................           90,000           90,000
      U.S. Government securities..............................................        1,279,703        1,318,342
      Municipal Bonds.........................................................           99,139           95,213
      Other...................................................................          137,965          141,767
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total long-term investments...........................................        1,916,216        1,937,205
                                                                               =================================
        Total investments.....................................................        3,523,023        3,582,527
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                   SIERRA CLUB                                                  
 [1992 Form 990, Page 3, Part IV, Line 54--Investments--Beginning of Year: $7,979,267; End of Year: $8,886,605; 
       Analysis of 1992 Not Available; Most Recent Analysis Available, Year Ended: 09/30/90--Statement 9]       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest                                                                          Balance 09/30/  Balance 09/30/
  rate                                  Description                                     89              90      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   15.75 Stripped Coupon Treasury Bonds                                              $470,867        $470,867   
         Cash Held for Investment                                                     384,966         657,718   
         Bond Amortization                                                            740,079       1,030,083   
         Investment in Subsidiary                                                     250,000         250,000   
   11.25 Stripped Coupon Treasury Bonds                                                65,128          65,128   
         U.S. Strip Bond                                                              330,278         330,278   
         FNMA                                                                         175,000               0   
     6.5 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           229,973               0   
    8.75 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           201,187         201,187   
   8.625 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           200,879               0   
         U.S. Strip Bond                                                              294,122         294,122   
         U.S. Strip Bond                                                              207,493         207,493   
         U.S. Strip Bond                                                              181,791         181,791   
   8.125 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           244,765         244,765   
    8.25 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           243,125         243,125   
   8.875 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           246,679         246,679   
     8.6 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           241,211         241,211   
    8.25 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           244,414         244,414   
   8.875 U.S. Treasury Note                                                           295,875         295,875   
         U.S. Strip Bond                                                              154,754         154,754   
    7.15 FHLB                                                                               0         246,563   
    8.05 FHLB                                                                               0         329,794   
   8.913 Resolution Fund                                                                    0         169,999   
     8.7 U.S. Strip Bond                                                                    0         369,504   
                                                                               ---------------------------------
             Total                                                                  5,402,586       6,475,328   
             Less: Investments held by Affiliate S.C.C.O.P.E.                        (237,311)        (83,674)  
             Net Investment for Balance Sheet                                       5,165,275       6,391,654   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Note: S.C.C.O.P.E. is the Sierra Club Committee on Political Education, a Political Action Committee.  


                                      SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.                                      
                       [Taxable Year Ended July 31, 1993--Form 990, Part IV--Investments]                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fair market value       
                                  Description                                  ---------------------------------
                                                                                      1993             1992     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonds.........................................................................          $14,150          $12,975
Mutual Beacon Fund, Inc.......................................................           97,753           78,530
Mutual Qualified Fund.........................................................           51,190           42,329
Brown Brothers Harriman.......................................................        3,374,107        3,181,536
Meritor Mortgage Corp--GNMA...................................................           19,564           29,731
U.S. Trust Company............................................................           90,648              n/a
U.S. Trust Company............................................................          901,078          626,353
Franklin Trust Company........................................................          322,586          166,799
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................        4,870,716        4,138,253
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY                                            
                           [Form 990, Part IV, Line 54--Investment Securities--6/30/92                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Description                                         Cost            Market    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government and Agency obligations........................................      $11,789,173      $12,366,647
Money Market Funds............................................................          830,425          830,425
Corporate Bonds...............................................................        9,267,238        9,640,927
Corporate Stock...............................................................       28,811,560       34,237,474
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................       50,698,396       57,075,473
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Audubon Society breaks down these funds into two investment pools, general investment and life     
  income trusts. Values of these components were: Current Funds, Cost: $12,716,026, Market, $14,273,514;        
  Endowment and Similar Funds, Cost, $34,147,894, Market, $38,598,119; Life Income Trusts, Cost, $1,689,572,    
  Market, $1,846,105; Non-Pooled Investments, Cost, $2,144,904, Market, $2,357,735. The National Audubon Society
  refused to release its list of investments in corporate bonds and common stocks.                              


                       Environmental defense fund                       
    [Fiscal 1992 Form 990, Part IV--Investments--Securities, Line 54]   
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Total investments, End of Fiscal Year at September 30,                  
 1992: $2,744,086.                                                      
    Investments include the following:                                  
        Morgan Fixed Fund, Endowment.......................       $8,658
        Morgan Fixed Fund, Board Designated Endowments.....       40,558
        Vanguard Fund--GNMA................................      820,493
        Short Term, Vanguard Fund--GNMA....................      823,773
        Vanguard GNMA--Endowment...........................       65,923
                                                                        
Other Investments--Line 56--Form 990.                                   

[[Page S2755]]

                                                                        
EDF has invested a portion of its endowment funds in a limited          
  partnership. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 1992, the     
  market value of the partnership investment decreased from $527,882 to 
  $480,454. The assets reported in the financial statements reflect the 
  September 30, 1992 market value.                                      



                                        NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL                                       
                      [Fiscal 1993 Form 990, Part IV--Investments--Securities, Statement 7]                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Beginning of                  
                                  Description                                         year         End of year  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money Market Funds............................................................        2,601,982        4,255,984
U.S. Government and Agency Obligations........................................        2,031,624        2,139,751
Corporate Obligations.........................................................        1,005,222        1,461,277
Common Trust Funds............................................................          951,016        1,079,183
Common Stocks.................................................................             None          155,245
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................        6,589,844        9,091,440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Resources Defense Council refused to release its list of investments in corporate obligations and   
  common stocks.                                                                                                


                                               WILDERNESS SOCIETY                                               
                             [Investment in Securities (Most recent year available)]                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Cost         Market value 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment at September 30, 1988 are as follows:                                                                
  Cash Equivalents:                                                                                             
    General Motors Acceptance Corp.--repurchase agreements....................          385,000          385,000
    Kidder, Peabody--premium account..........................................          597,030          597,030
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................          982,030          982,030
                                                                               =================================
  Principal Cash; Fiduciary Trust Co..........................................            4,202            4,202
                                                                               =================================
  Securities of U.S. Government and Agencies:                                                                   
    U.S. Treasury notes, due 5/31/89 8%.......................................          200,000          199,688
    Federal Home Loan Bank, due 9/25/89, 6.75%................................          150,541          147,375
    Federal Home Loan Bank, due 7/25/91, 7.5%.................................           99,719           96,719
    Federal National Mortgage Association, due 12/10/93, 7.375%...............          149,625          140,156
    Federal National Mortgage Association, due 7/10/96, 8%....................          200,500          187,000
    Government National Mortgage Association Guaranteed Mortgage Pool #167158                                   
     due 6/15/01, 8%..........................................................          176,948          173,185
    Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Participation Certificate Group #20-0043,                                  
     due 7/01/01, 9%..........................................................          153,169          151,153
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................        1,130,502        1,095,276
                                                                               =================================
  Debentures:                                                                                                   
    General Motors Acceptance Corp., due 3/01/95, 7.25%.......................           46,058           44,375
    Pacific Gas & Electric, due 7/1/95, 8.375%................................           49,688           47,008
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................           95,746           91,383
                                                                               =================================
  Convertible Debentures:                                                                                       
    Circle K Corp., due 11/01, 7.25%..........................................           18,700           19,600
    Dreyers Grand Ice Cream, due 6/01/11 6.5%.................................           18,775           15,800
    General Dynamics, due 7/15/11 5.75%.......................................           32,887           27,150
    Masco Industries, Inc., due 12/15/11, 6%..................................           37,163           30,450
    Sci Systems, Inc., Due 3/01/12, 5.625%....................................           30,000           23,400
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................          137,525          116,400
                                                                               =================================
  Convertible Preferred Issues:                                                                                 
    Baxter International, Inc.................................................           41,560           30,438
    Warner Communications, Inc................................................           26,431           25,850
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................           67,991           56,288
                                                                               =================================
  Equity Securities:                                                                                            
    Preferred Stocks (Shares and Security):                                                                     
        1,395  Keland Holding Co., preferred 6%...............................            1,395           87,815
        366  Keland Holding Co., 2nd preferred 6.25%..........................              366           23,424
                                                                               ---------------------------------
            Total.............................................................            1,761          111,239
                                                                               =================================
    Common Stocks (Shares and Security):                                                                        
        600  AMP, Inc.........................................................           26,092           25,200
        800  AMR Corp.........................................................           37,546           38,000
        640  Abbott Labs......................................................           27,415           30,880
        600  American International Group.....................................           37,169           39,675
        800  Apple Computer, Inc..............................................           31,800           34,600
        900  Baltimore Gas & Electric Co......................................           29,219           28,463
        600  Banc One Corp....................................................           15,372           15,228
        440  Bell Atlantic Corp...............................................           29,180           31,680
        400  Caterpillar, Inc.................................................           25,732           23,000
        500  Consolidated Edison Co. of New York..............................           21,313           22,313
        1,000  Consolidated Rail Corp.........................................           29,370           33,125
        1,000  Compania Telefonica Nacional de Espana.........................           20,875           22,625
        400  Corestates Financial Corp........................................           15,550           16,400
        700  Deere & Co., Inc.................................................           25,256           31,063
        700  Cummins Engine Co., Inc..........................................           37,446           34,037
        500  Digital Equipment Corp...........................................           51,324           46,938
        750  Eaton Corp.......................................................           39,196           39,094
        1,800  Emerson Electric Co............................................           55,110           54,000
        1,200  FPI Group, Inc.................................................           35,327           37,500
        700  Gannett, Inc.....................................................           24,672           22,925
        1,102  General Electric, Inc..........................................           44,869           47,799
        300  IBM Corp.........................................................           34,307           34,613
        1,000  Illinois Tool Works............................................           20,706           35,125
        1,050  Intel Corp.....................................................           26,089           28,875
        400  J. P. Morgan & Co., Inc..........................................           24,128           15,050
        400  Johnson & Johnson................................................           27,511           34,350
        700  Loral Corp.......................................................           24,584           24,063
        750  McDonalds Corp...................................................           34,460           35,625
        402  Merck & Co., Inc.................................................            7,883           23,216
        624  Midsouth Corp....................................................            4,160            7,020
        400  Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co..............................           23,424           25,750
        600  Nynex Corp.......................................................           39,272           39,600
        1,000  Pacific Telesis Group..........................................           23,176           30,750
        700  Pepsico, Inc.....................................................           21,784           27,475
        1,000  Policy Management System Corp..................................           21,625           22,375
        800  Prime Motor Inns.................................................           29,196           27,900
        4,166  Prospect Group, Inc............................................           44,998           34,370
        800  Reuters Holdings, PLC............................................           18,725           20,700

[[Page S2756]]

                                                                                                                
        600  Ryder Systems, Inc...............................................           14,832           14,178
        700  Sara Lee Corp....................................................           23,972           30,188
        1,000  Southern California Edison Co..................................           34,183           32,750
        800  Tambrands, Inc...................................................           49,909           44,000
        600  U.S. Bancorp.....................................................           14,925           14,478
        600  Walt Disney Co...................................................           25,747           38,925
        600  Wells Fargo & Co.................................................           27,132           40,500
        1,000  Yellow Freight Systems, Inc....................................           36,313           31,500
                                                                               ---------------------------------
            Total.............................................................        1,312,874        1,387,921
                                                                               =================================
        Other Interests--at nominal value.....................................              103            2,770
                                                                               =================================
        Total Investment at September 30, 1988................................        3,732,734        3,847,509
                                                                               =================================
        Total investments in securities as displayed on the balance sheet,                                      
         Exhibit A:                                                                                             
        1988:                                                                                                   
            Unrestricted......................................................        3,334,858        3,449,633
            Endowment Fund....................................................          397,876          397,876
                                                                               ---------------------------------
              Total...........................................................        3,732,734        3,847,509
                                                                               =================================
        1987:                                                                                                   
            Unrestricted......................................................        3,889,814        4,376,821
            Endowment Fund....................................................          397,876          397,876
                                                                               ---------------------------------
              Total...........................................................        4,287,690        4,774,697
                                                                               =================================
1993 Financial Statements, Note 3: Investment in Securities Investments at                                      
 September 30, 1993 are as follows:                                                                             
    Cash equivalents..........................................................        3,913,949        3,913,949
    Certificates of Deposit...................................................          180,000          180,000
    Securities of U.S. Government and agencies................................        1,808,092        1,843,776
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total investments at September 30, 1993...............................        5,902,041        5,937,725
                                                                               =================================
Permanent financial reserve, The Wilderness Fund, assets at September 30,                                       
 1993, consist of the following:                                                                                
    Mutual Funds..............................................................        2,144,923        2,614,602
    Charitable remainder unitrusts............................................          858,379        1,232,176
    Cash value of life insurance..............................................           44,118           44,118
                                                                               ---------------------------------
        Total.................................................................        3,047,420        3,890,898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilderness Society has not filed for public inspection a list of investments in securities as displayed     
  above since 1989 in any state jurisdiction investigated (New York, California, Virginia) nor with the IRS.    



                                   NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION                                  
                      [Fiscal 1993 Form 990, Part IV--Investments--Securities--Statement 7]                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Beginning of                  
                                  Description                                         year         End of year  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common and preferred stock....................................................          340,048          728,255
U.S. Government securities....................................................          737,467        1,227,342
Corporate notes and bonds.....................................................          684,814          511,889
Short term securities.........................................................             None          369,137
                                                                               ---------------------------------
    Total.....................................................................        1,762,329        2,836,623
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See next pages for NPCA's Capital Gains and Losses.                                                             


                                                       NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION                                                      
                                              [Form 990, Page 1, Part 1, Line 7--Capital Gains and Losses]                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shares                               Security                               Date acquired     Date sold      Cost basis       Proceeds      Gain (loss)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       6 General Electric                                                 ..............        03/30/93          154.50          513.73       359.23   
      49 New York Times                                                   ..............        03/30/93        1,000.00        1,467.83       467.83   
      27 AT&T                                                             ..............        03/30/93        1,000.00        1,519.03       519.03   
     100 Amerada Hess                                                     ..............        03/31/93        5,000.00        5,124.82       124.82   
     100 Toys R Us                                                        ..............        03/29/93        4,266.00        4,346.85        80.85   
      25 Paramount Comm                                                   ..............        03/29/93        1,162.50        1,192.26        29.76   
     180 FMP International                                                ..............        03/31/93        3,638.10        3,638.10         0.00   
      18 FMP International                                                ..............        05/21/93          406.50          406.50         0.00   
       1 Rockwell International                                           ..............  ..............           29.63           29.63         0.00   
       1 Philip Morris                                                    ..............  ..............           47.00           47.00         0.00   
       3 General Electric                                                 ..............        05/05/93          256.49          256.49         0.00   
  35,000 Fed Farm Cr Bks Con                                                    02/15/90        09/01/92       35,380.00       35,000.00      (380.00)  
     300 Citicorp                                                               12/20/91        10/02/92        3,091.00        4,585.00     1,494.00   
     100 Chem Bank Corp                                                         12/20/91        10/02/92        2,103.00        3,035.00       932.00   
  35,000 New York Tele Co                                                       06/26/90        10/15/92       35,743.00       30,000.00      (743.00)  
 100,000 Associates Corp No. Amer                                               09/12/91        11/16/92      105,619.00      100,000.00    (5,619.00)  
     300 CSMTX                                                                  01/22/92        12/01/92       13,340.00       11,795.00    (1,545.00)  
  30,000 Federal Home Ln Bks Cons                                               01/06/91        12/28/92       30,658.00       30,000.00      (658.00)  
     200 ANR Corps Cel Con                                                      01/22/92        02/10/93       14,240.00       12,425.00    (1,815.00)  
     200 General Electric                                                       12/20/91        02/10/93       13,615.00       17,276.00     3,650.00   
     300 Hong Kong Telecommunication                                            03/04/92        02/10/93        9,750.00       11,174.00     1,424.00   
  50,000 Sears Med Term Nts                                                     11/27/91        02/16/93       50,102.00       50,490.00       388.00   
  35,000 United States Treasury                                                 02/13/90        02/16/93       35,792.00       35,000.00      (792.00)  
 100,000 General Motors Acceptance                                              11/26/91        03/15/93      103,819.00      100,000.00    (3,819.00)  
     300 ASTA Research Inc                                                      12/20/91        03/19/93        5,555.00        4,080.00    (1,475.00)  
   1,000 ASTA Research Inc                                                      12/07/92        03/19/93       20,481.00       13,601.00    (6,880.00)  
     200 ALZE Corp CL                                                           12/20/91        03/19/93       17,815.00        6,691.00   (11,124.00)  
     300 ALZE Corp CL                                                           12/07/92        03/19/93       12,206.00       10,037.00    (2,169.00)  
     300 Glaxo Holdings                                                         03/11/92        03/19/93        8,578.00        5,366.00    (3,212.00)  
     200 IBM                                                                    12/20/91        03/19/93       17,690.00       10,700.00    (6,990.00)  
     300 Merck & Co Inc                                                         03/11/92        03/19/93       15,446.00       10,732.00    (4,714.00)  
     100 Merck & Co Inc                                                         12/21/92        03/19/93        4,787.00        3,577.00    (1,210.00)  
     500 National Health Labs                                                   01/21/92        03/19/93       14,535.00        7,351.00    (7,184.00)  
     200 National Health Labs                                                   12/21/92        03/19/93        4,710.00        2,940.00    (1,770.00)  
     300 Price Co                                                               06/15/92        03/19/93       10,165.00        9,809.00      (356.00)  
     300 Price Co                                                               12/21/92        03/19/93       12,055.00        9,809.00    (2,246.00)  
     500 Time Warner Inc                                                        03/11/92        03/29/93       25,167.00       25,850.00       683.00   
 100,000 United States Treasury                                                 08/26/91        03/29/93      100,711.00      103,984.00     3,273.00   
  35,000 United States Treasury                                                 02/07/90        03/29/93       35,299.00       37,209.00     1,910.00   
 100,000 United States Treasury                                                 09/18/91        03/29/93      105,802.00      106,312.00       510.00   
 100,000 Chrysler Corp                                                          02/14/92        04/05/93       93,384.00      104,375.00    10,991.00   
  20,000 Conner Peripherals                                                     12/03/91        04/05/93       16,172.00       17,850.00     1,678.00   

[[Page S2757]]

                                                                                                                                                        
     300 Bombay Co                                                              11/19/92        05/25/93        8,220.00       13,057.00     4,837.00   
     300 Bombay Co                                                              12/21/92        05/25/93        9,561.00       13,054.00     3,493.00   
     300 Movell Inc                                                             12/01/92        05/25/93        9,026.00        8,903.00      (123.00)  
  50,000 Citicorp Sr Nt                                                         11/14/92        06/14/93       50,209.00       52,547.00     2,338.00   
     500 Bank of Boston Corp                                                    03/11/92        06/29/93       18,188.00       22,802.00     4,614.00   
     200 Ford Motor Co                                                          11/29/91        06/29/93       10,268.00       17,699.00     7,431.00   
     200 Aerco Inc                                                              03/11/92        10/02/92        5,927.00        4,738.00    (1,189.00)  
     300 Bio Magnetic Technologies                                              03/12/92        10/02/92        4,715.00        2,797.00    (1,918.00)  
     500 WWC Financial Corp                                                     03/12/92        10/02/92        4,133.00        5,224.00     1,091.00   
     400 Abbott Labs                                                            03/11/92        02/10/93       12,665.00       10,983.00    (1,682.00)  
     300 Hechinger Company                                                      11/19/92        03/19/93        3,318.00        2,611.00      (707.00)  
     400 ICF International                                                      11/19/92        03/19/93        2,857.00        2,494.00      (363.00)  
   1,000 Naviator Intl                                                          02/26/92        03/19/93        3,841.00        2,547.00    (1,294.00)  
     100 National Health Labs                                                   12/21/92        03/19/93        2,377.00        1,460.00      (917.00)  
  25,000 US Treas Secs Stripped                                                 02/15/90        03/29/93       18,878.00       24,640.00     5,762.00   
     200 Bombay Company                                                         12/17/92        05/25/93        6,708.00        8,687.00     1,979.00   
  25,000 Citicorp Sr Nt                                                         11/14/91        06/14/93       25,105.00       26,274.00     1,169.00   
                                                                                                                                                        
             Total                                                        ..............  ..............    1,186,766.72    1,181,801.24    (4,963.48)  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                      FUNDRAISING AND LOBBYING EXPENDITURES                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Four year       Four year     Total 4 year                 
                  Organization                        direct        grassroots       lobbying       Fundraising 
                                                     lobbying        lobbying      expenditures         \1\     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy..........................      $3,352,135         $12,508      $1,913,453     $24,791,449
National Wildlife Federation....................       2,334,138         486,947       3,115,866       3,994,986
World Wildlife Fund.............................           7,069          76,792          83,861       4,447,034
Greenpeace Fund.................................         111,992            None         111,992       9,050,944
    Greenpeace Inc..............................           (\2\)           (\2\)      12,617,895       3,896,596
Sierra Club.....................................           (\2\)           (\2\)       8,793,421       5,098,599
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund..............         165,864         107,027         272,891       1,813,426
National Audubon Society........................       1,732,047         549,012       2,281,059       4,338,227
Environmental Defense Fund......................         624,030            None         624,030       3,168,754
Natural Resources Defense Council...............         246,526         182,821         429,347       2,158,637
Wilderness Society..............................       1,155,264         207,198       1,362,462       2,485,395
National Parks and Conservation Association.....         192,192         189,235         381,427         988,806
Friends of the Earth............................         116,378               0         116,378         266,948
Izaak Walton League of America..................          54,773           2,929          57,702         159,023
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      10,092,408       1,814,469      32,161,784      66,658,824
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fundraising: amounts shown appear in Line 15, Form 990, ``Fundraising.''                                    
\2\ Greenpeace, Inc. and the Sierra Club are 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations that do not report under Section  
  501(h) of the U.S. Tax Code. The amounts shown are from Form 990, Part III, under Program Services and may    
  include educational expenses as well as actual lobbying expenses to influence public policy.                  


                         MAJOR FOUNDATION DONORS                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Organization                       Donor foundation  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy............................  Mildred Andrews Fund
                                                     ($10 million in    
                                                     1989); W. Alton    
                                                     Jones Foundation;  
                                                     MacArthur          
                                                     Foundation; C.S.   
                                                     Mott Foundation; R.
                                                     K. Mellon          
                                                     Foundation.        
National Wildlife Federation......................  American            
                                                     Conservation       
                                                     Association        
                                                     (Rockefeller);     
                                                     Beldon Fund; W.    
                                                     Alton Jones        
                                                     Foundation; Joyce  
                                                     Foundation; C.S.   
                                                     Mott Foundation;   
                                                     Pew Charitable     
                                                     Trusts.            
World Wildlife Fund...............................  Champlin            
                                                     Foundations;       
                                                     Geraldine R. Dodge 
                                                     Foundation; Ford   
                                                     Foundation; W.     
                                                     Alton Jones        
                                                     Foundation;        
                                                     MacArthur          
                                                     Foundation; R.K.   
                                                     Mellon Foundation. 
Greenpeace Fund...................................  Bydale Foundation;  
                                                     Cheeryble          
                                                     Foundation; William
                                                     H. Donner          
                                                     Foundation; Dreyfus
                                                     Foundation; Fanwood
                                                     Foundation; Town   
                                                     Creek Foundation.  
    Greenpeace Inc................................  Greenpeace, Inc. is 
                                                     a lobbying group   
                                                     not eligible for   
                                                     tax deductible     
                                                     donations.         
Sierra Club.......................................  The Sierra Club is a
                                                     lobbying group not 
                                                     eligible for tax   
                                                     deductible         
                                                     donations.         
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund................  Compton Foundation; 
                                                     Gerbode Foundation;
                                                     C.S. Mott          
                                                     Foundation; Mary   
                                                     Flagler Cary       
                                                     Charitable Trust;  
                                                     W. Alton Jones     
                                                     Foundation.        
National Audubon Society..........................  Compton Foundation; 
                                                     Ford Foundation; W.
                                                     Alton Jones        
                                                     Foundation; Joyce  
                                                     Foundation;        
                                                     MacArthur          
                                                     Foundation; C.S.   
                                                     Mott Foundation;   
                                                     Rockefeller Family 
                                                     Fund.              
Environmental Defense Fund........................  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, $6,133,625.  
                                                     Ford Foundation,   
                                                     Richard King Mellon
                                                     Foundation,        
                                                     Rockefeller Family 
                                                     Fund.              
Natural Resources Defense Council.................  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, MacArthur    
                                                     Foundation         
                                                     $1,576,403; Beineke
                                                     Foundation         
                                                     $1,450,000. W.     
                                                     Alton Jones        
                                                     Foundation;        
                                                     Rockefeller        
                                                     Foundation.        
Wilderness Society................................  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, $2,285,111.  
                                                     Goldman Foundation;
                                                     George Gund        
                                                     Foundation;        
                                                     MacArthur          
                                                     Foundation; R.K.   
                                                     Mellon Foundation. 
National Parks and Conservation Association.......  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, $196,268.    
                                                     Mary Flagler Cary  
                                                     Charitable Trust;  
                                                     Andrew W. Mellon   
                                                     Foundation.        
Friends of the Earth..............................  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, $1,573,996.  
                                                     Beldon Fund; C.S.  
                                                     Mott Foundation;   
                                                     Rockefeller        
                                                     Brothers Fund;     
                                                     Rockefeller Family 
                                                     Fund.              
Izaak Walton League of America....................  Foundation grants   
                                                     1993, $498,309.    
                                                     Beldon Fund; R.K.  
                                                     Mellon Foundation; 
                                                     George Gund        
                                                     Foundation; Joyce  
                                                     Foundation.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               foundation control of environmental groups

                          The Surdna Instance

       Surdna Foundation, Inc. (a member of Environmental 
     Grantmakers Association), 1155 Avenue of the Americas, 16th 
     Floor) New York, New York 10036, Tel: 212-730-0030 Fax: 212-
     391-4384.
       Contacts: Edward Skloot, Executive Director; Hooper Brooks, 
     Program Officer for the Environment.
       The Surdna Foundation, Inc., is a family foundation 
     established in 1917 by John E. Andrus (d. 1934., whose 
     businesses included gold, oil, timber, and real estate. 
     Surdna is Andrus spelled backward. About half of its annual 
     grants go to two programs: Community Revitalization and the 
     Environment.
       Documents show that Surdna Foundation, as part of an 
     investment portfolio of $338,074,279 in assets, owns and 
     operates approximately 75,000 acres of timberlands in 
     Northern California. Andrus timber partners also own and 
     operate approximately 90,000 acres of timberlands in Northern 
     California. Frederick F. Moon III is a director of both 
     Surdna Foundation and Andrus timber partners. According to 
     federal tax forms, Surdna Foundation realized $2.7 million 
     income from timber in 1992-93.
       Documents show that Surdna Foundation made contributions of 
     $35,000 to Environment Now, an environmental organization 
     that held training seminars teaching activists group leaders 
     how to file appeals to stop federal timber harvest plans. 
     Surdna Foundation grant recipients known to have filed Timber 
     Harvest Plan appeals include Sierra Club ($90,000), Oregon 
     Natural Resources Council, Wilderness Society ($325,000), 
     Western Ancient Forest Campaign ($175,000), Audubon Society 
     ($100,000), and Natural Resources Defense Council ($557,000), 
     stopping timber harvests and log supplies to mills in the 
     Sierra Nevada market area. Thirty-six sawmills in Northern 
     California have shut down because of log shortages since 
     1990, rendering 8,000 unemployed. As a result, timber prices 
     on Surdna Foundation's private lands have increased 
     dramatically. Some of the Timber Harvest Plans that were 
     appealed lie in the same watershed as the timberlands owned 
     by Surdna Foundation and Andrus timber partners, yet no 
     appeals were filed on the State Timber Harvest Plans 
     submitted by Surdna Foundation under California law.
       The sequence of events of Surdna Foundation's grantmaking 
     history shows that they made no grants to groups involved in 
     restricting federal timber supplies in Northern California 
     during 1987-88; during 1988-89 they made a grant to The 
     Nature Conservancy; in 1989-90, grants went to Conservation 
     Law Foundation, 1000 Friends of Oregon. Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, Project LightHawk, Sierra Club, Wilderness 
     Society and Western Ancient Forest Campaign; during 1991-92, 
     grants went to Americans for the Ancient Forest, National 
     Audubon Society, Environment Now, Conservation Law 
     Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Natural 
     Resources Council, Eco Trust, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Western 
     Ancient Forest Campaign, and the Wilderness Society.
       Two Northern California residents filed numerous Timber 
     Harvest Plan appeals on behalf of several groups, and also 
     occupied leadership positions: Linda Blum, leader positions: 
     Western Ancient Forest Campaign; Tulare Audubon Society; 
     Friends of Plumas; Sierra Nevada Alliance; and Wilderness 
     Society. Erin Noel, leader positions; Western Ancient Forest 
     Campaign; Friends of Plumas; Sierra Nevada Issues Group.
       During 1992-93 Surdna Foundation realized $2.7 million 
     income from its Northern California timberlands.
       A substantial effort to control major non-profit 
     environmental organizations through

[[Page S2758]]

     the power of the purse was discussed in the 1992 annual 
     retreat of the:
       Environmental Grantmakers Association (Founded 1985).
       Budget: $40,000.
       Staff: 1, operated by Rockefeller Family fund dba EGA, 1290 
     Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10104. Phone: 212-
     373-4260 FAX: 212-315-0996.
       Pam Maurath, Assistant Coordinator.
       The Environmental Grantmakers Association is a coalition of 
     160 private foundations that provide most of the $340 million 
     in environmental grants each year. The annual retreats are 
     strategy planning sessions during which grantmakers lay their 
     plans for the coming year. The following dialog was 
     transcribed verbatim from tapes of a session titled 
     ``Environmental Legislation.'' Ed Skloot and Hooper Brooks of 
     Surdna Foundation spoke during this panel.
       Anne Fitzgerald: Do you detect, though, a resistance in the 
     larger organizations to becoming grant driven?
       Donald Ross [Rockefeller Family Fund]: Yeah. I think a lot 
     of them resist.
       Chuck Clusen [American Conservation Association]: A number 
     of us have been involved in this, Anne. Yeah. There's 
     definitely a feeling on the part of the not-for-profit 
     organizations that in cases of some of the campaigns like the 
     Ancient Forests Campaign that they resent funders, not just 
     picking the issues, but also being directive in the sense of 
     the kind of campaign, the strategy, the style, and so on. I 
     guess, coming out of the advocacy world, and having spent 
     most of my career doing it, I look at it as, if they're not 
     going to do it on their own, thank God funders are forcing 
     them to start doing it. . . .
       Donald Ross: I think that there are things that could be 
     done. I think funders have a major role to play. And I know 
     there are resentments in the community towards funders doing 
     that. And, too bad. We're players, they're players.
       But I think we touched on a lot of problems, the internal 
     problems within these big groups, the warring factions within 
     them who are all trying to get resources, and there's too 
     many groups and too few resources, and all that. I think the 
     fundamental effort that has to be made is a reorganization of 
     the movement, whether you're talking--I don't think it's 
     realistic to think that groups like Sierra Club or NRDC are 
     going to disappear and reform into something new. They'll 
     stay, and they'll still send out those newsletters. I think 
     we have to begin to look much more at a task force approach 
     on major issues that is able to pool. And the funders can 
     drive that. And part of the reason these groups have been 
     resistant to work with each other is precisely because they 
     want the credit, they want the name, so they can get more 
     funding, either from us--from foundations--or from members.
       And I think there isn't one of them, even the biggest, 
     National Wildlife, or Audubon or Sierra Club, that has the 
     capacity to wage full scale battles on major issues by 
     themselves. They don't have the media, lobbying, grass roots 
     organizing, Washington base, etc., litigation, all wrapped in 
     one organization.
       And so the trick, I think, is to figure out how we can 
     duplicate some of the early successes like the Alaska lands 
     fight that you were involved in, Chuck, back in--or this 
     transportation one. I think it can be, where funders can play 
     a real role is helping, is using the money to drive, to 
     create ad hoc efforts in many cases that will have a 
     litigation component coming from one group, a lobbying 
     component coming from another group, a grass roots organizing 
     component coming from yet a third group with a structure that 
     enables them to function well.
       Individual audio tapes of all 1992 EGA retreat sessions can 
     be purchased for $11.00 each from Conference Recording 
     Service, 1308 Gilman Street, Berkeley, California 94706, 
     Phone: (510) 527-3600, Fax: (510) 527-8404. The complete 
     conference audio set is available in a vinyl binder for $150 
     including shipping. If EGA attempts to block release of these 
     tapes by Conference Recording Service, the Center for the 
     Defense of free Enterprise will provide copies to legitimate 
     members of the media. Verbatim transcriptions of major 
     sessions are available from the Center for the Defense of 
     Free Enterprise.


       non-profit land trusts selling private land to governments

       There are presently more than 900 non-profit land trusts in 
     the United States. These land trusts commonly buy property 
     from individual private owners with the understanding that 
     the land will be kept in trust for environmental purposes by 
     the non-profit purchaser. Many non-profit land trusts, in 
     addition to keeping these private purchases in private 
     trusts, also sell purchased private land to government 
     agencies.
       Many individual private land owners have complained about 
     non-profit land trust practices and cite numerous abuses that 
     should receive congressional scrutiny and wide public 
     attention. The most commonly cited abuses are:
       Failure to advise the individual private seller that his or 
     her land will in turn be sold to a government agency.
       Individual land owners are underpaid by non-profit trusts.
       Individual land owners are not advised that they may sell 
     directly to the government.
       Non-profit land trusts receive inside information from 
     government agencies about ``approved appraised value'' of 
     individual privately owned parcels in advance of purchase, 
     promoting underpayment.
       Government agencies secretly request non-profit land trusts 
     to buy desired properties and hold them until congressional 
     appropriations are available to pay for government purchase.
       Government agencies pay non-profit land trusts prices 
     ``above approved appraised value.''
       Government agencies pay non-profit land trusts additional 
     ``carrying costs'' including interest, travel, telephone, 
     postage, appraisal and survey costs, title premiums, closing 
     costs, property taxes owed, and overhead.
       Non-profit land trusts commonly retain all mineral rights 
     and gas and oil rights to properties they sell to the 
     government.
       Government agency employees who have arranged favorable 
     purchases for non-profit land trusts for years then accept 
     employment by those non-profit land trusts often takes the 
     property off the tax rolls, harming local and country 
     government revenues.
       Sales of non-profit land trust property to government 
     centralizes power and feeds an insatiable appetite for more 
     private property to be nationalized.
       Non-profit land trusts keep their government sales quiet 
     and refuse to release details of individual transactions in 
     progress or completed.
       Government agencies refuse to release details of land 
     transactions in progress or completed with nonprofit land 
     trusts, claiming private sales to government are exempt from 
     the Freedom of Information Act.
       Non-profit land trusts justify their secret complicity with 
     government agencies by pointing out that it is not illegal, 
     setting a standard of behavior of merely avoiding 
     prosecution.
       Non-profit land trusts use their reputations to purchase 
     private property for conservation purposes and then convert 
     it to ``trade lands'' which are sold to developers at high 
     profits, using the justification that the funds will 
     eventually be plowed back into purchases of actual 
     conservation lands.
       Non-profit land trusts advertise only their private land 
     activities, and do not provide the public with remedial 
     advertising openly describing their extensive land sales to 
     the government, thus leaving the public with a false 
     impression of their real operations.
       Government agencies commonly whitewash their abuses in 
     reports written by government appointees formerly employed by 
     environmental organizations and still loyal to those private 
     non-profit organizations.


                            Bait and Switch

       The Bait: This charming Nature Conservancy ad with its 
     appealing tag line, ``Conservation Through Private Action''.

  ``We Get a Good Return on Our Investment. ``The Nature Conservancy 
takes a business approach to protecting our natural world. Each day in 
 the U.S. we invest in over 1,000 additional acres of critical habitat 
  for the survival of rare and endangered species. ``Through creative 
 techniques like debt-for-nature swaps, we are also saving millions of 
     acres of tropical rainforest throughout Latin America and the 
Caribbean. ``On these protected acres, migratory waterfowl return each 
 year. Trout return to the streams. Antelope return to the grasslands. 
  And in many areas plant and animal species previously driven to the 
brink of extinction are returning to their native habitats. ``Join us, 
 and make an investment in our natural heritage. Future return, isn't 
                   that what investment is all about?

       ``Conservation Through Private Action.''

       The Switch: The Nature Conservancy sells private purchases 
     to the federal government--
       Without the prior knowledge of the private land seller;
       Often at secret government request;
       Using privileged appraisal information supplied by agents 
     of the federal government;
       Above ``approved appraised value'';
       Paying ``lowball'' prices below ``approved appraisal 
     value'' by offering tax breaks to the seller because of TNC's 
     non-profit tax status;
       Keeping the mineral and oil and gas rights;
       Taking land off the tax rolls;
       Obtaining influence within federal agencies for 
     Congressional appropriations to pay for TNC purchases;
       $76,318,014 income from government sales in fiscal 1993;
       All at taxpayer expense.
       Conservation Through Private Action?


    other non-profit land trusts selling private land to governments

     The Conservation Fund
       Staff: 19 professionals on contractual basis.
       Non-membership.
       Tax Status: 501(c)(3).
       1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120, Arlington, Virginia 22209, 
     Phone: (703) 522-8008 Fax: (703) 525-4610.
       Total revenue, 1993, $13,886,902.
       President: Patrick Noonan. Salary, $148,500, Benefits 
     $16,542.
       Vice President: David Sutherland, $64,000 salary, $6,426 
     benefits.
       Chief Operating Officer: John Turner, $68,000 salary, 
     $3,743 benefits.
       Secretary: Kiku Hoagland Hanes, $55,000 salary, $9,800 
     benefits.
       Assistant Treasurer: Joann Porter, $64,500 salary, $10,000 
     benefits.
       Board Member: Charles Hordan, $14,000 compensation.

[[Page S2759]]

       Compensation of Officers and Directors, $400,000.
       Other Salaries and Wages, $1,084,714.
       Pension Plan Contributions, $64,160.
       Other Employee Benefits, $86,318.
     American Farm and Trust
       Total revenue, 1993, $22,744,704.
       Total expenses $21,263,591.
       Fund balances at end of year, $27,539,148.
       Compensation of officers, $1,621,300.
       Other salaries and wages, $4,057,727.
       Pension plan contributions, $237,343.
       Other employee benefits, $1,518,784.
       Investments--securities, $15,182,446.
       Total assets, $58,840,830.
       Grants and conveyances of properties to government and 
     private groups, $4,544,270.
       Legal fees, $402,389.
       Telephone, $328,335.
       Travel and meetings expenses, $726,702.
                                                                    ____


[Letter from the Deputy Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
   Service to the Nature Conservancy dated August 30, 1985, showing 
    systematic government request for TNC to buy private land. The 
 government clearly agrees to pay TNC ``your overhead, financing, and 
   handling charges in excess of the approved appraisal value.'' The 
  information in this letter was not made known to private owners who 
                  sold to TNC. The practice continues]

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                               Newton Corner, MA, August 30, 1985.
     LA--Connecticut; Connecticut Coastal NWR.
     Dennis Wolkoff,
     The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, MA.
       Dear Dennis: We are appreciative of The Nature 
     Conservancy's continuing effort to assist the Service in the 
     acquisition of lands for the Connecticut Coastal National 
     Wildlife Refuge. As a result of your assistance and 
     cooperation approximately 90% of the acreage identified in 
     the enabling legislation has received long term protection.
       Our appraisal of the tract on Sheffield Island has been 
     completed and we are currently awaiting funding prior to 
     making an offer on the property. We understand that the 
     proceeds from the eventual sale of this parcel to the Service 
     will in turn, be used to purchase the 8-acre Milford Point 
     tract.
       Since the availability of additional funding is not 
     currently known, we request that The Nature Conservancy 
     continue their preservation efforts and acquire the Milford 
     Point tract. We will make every effort to purchase the 
     property when funds become available.
       It is understood that our purchase price will be based on 
     the Service approved value plus an amount, to be agreed upon, 
     which will cover your overhead, financing, and handling 
     charges in excess of the approved appraisal value. If we are 
     not able to purchase this property within a reasonable period 
     of time, it is further understood that The Nature Conservancy 
     may recover its investment by a sale on the open market.
       Your effort to purchase property on Milford Point and to 
     hold for subsequent conveyance to the Service are greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    ------ ------,
     Deputy Regional Director.
                                                                    ____


  [Letter from TNC legal counsel Philip Tabas to Robert Miller of the 
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showing the elastic payment policy of 
 taxpayer money to a private nonprofit organization. Tabas boasts in a 
  footnote that The Nature Conservancy is the ``Agency with The Most 
    Complete File'' on Milford Point, indicating access to insider 
information. Miller was later hired by The Nature Conservancy at a high 
                                salary.]

                                           The Nature Conservancy,


                                       Eastern Regional Bldg.,

                                     Boston, MA, November 7, 1986.
     Robert Miller,
     Chief, Realty Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton 
         Corner, MA.
       Dear Bob: Attached please find the so-called letter of 
     intent for Milford Point. It gives you pretty broad authority 
     to pay what we both agree to for the property, even ``. . . 
     in excess of the approved appraisal value.'' Let's talk after 
     you have had a chance to review your files.
       I look forward to receiving the FWS appraisal on Milford 
     Point which was done in January 1986 and any revisions 
     thereof.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Philip Tabas,
                                    Legal Counsel, Eastern Region.

       P.S. I guess TNC wins the ``Agency with The Most Complete 
     File'' award on this one!
                                                                    ____


  [Letter from TNC Director of Protection Camilla M. Herlevich to Al 
 Bonsack of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showing TNC billing the 
 federal government for numerous expenses involved in a land sale. TNC 
states that, ``as is customary, the oil and gas rights will not go with 
                            the property.'']

                                           The Nature Conservancy,


                                    Southeast Regional Office,

                               Chapel Hill, NC, December 23, 1988.
     A. Bonsack,
     U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
         Atlanta, GA.
     RE: Big Pine Key (Granada Continuing Presbyterian Church), 
         FL--TNC to USFWS.
       Dear Mr. Bonsack: The Nature Conservancy acquired the 
     above-referred tract at Big Pine Key on November 15, 1988. We 
     would like to transfer the property to the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service by January 31, 1989. Our costs through 
     January 31, 1989 are $78,322.00. Costs would increase in an 
     amount equal to prime plus one percent (1%) per annum times 
     the purchase price for any period of holding after January 
     31, 1989. Current per diem cost is $23.00. Our costs for this 
     transaction are, itemized as follows:

Purchase price.............................................   $73,000.00
Coop interest @ 11.5% 2.5 mos..............................     1,748.00
Travel.....................................................        50.00
Telephone..................................................        50.00
Postage....................................................         0.00
Appraisals/surveys.........................................         0.00
Title premium..............................................       310.00
Closing costs..............................................       127.00
Property taxes.............................................       846.00
Overhead @ 3% 73,000=......................................     2,190.00
                                                            ------------
  Total....................................................    78,322.00
                                                                        

       As is customary, the oil and gas rights will not go with 
     the property, although the Conservancy will restrict its 
     mineral activity to subsurface methods.
       If you would please indicate the acceptance of The Nature 
     Conservancy's offer by having the appropriate person sign for 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the space 
     provided below and return to me. A copy is provided for your 
     records.
           Best regards,
                                             Camilla M. Herlevich,
     Director of Protection.
                                                                    ____


  [Letter from TNC legal counsel Philip Tabas to Robert Miller of the 
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showing the solicitation of Miller's 
   superiors in the national office to place one of TNC's properties 
higher on a government purchase priority list to avoid the oversight of 
 a Congressman and ``make the job of securing Congressional funds for 
                   this project that much easier.'']

                                           The Nature Conservancy,


                                       Eastern Regional Office

                                     Boston, MA. January 24, 1990.
     Robert Miller,
     Chief, Reality Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton 
         Corner, MA.
       Dear Bob: * * *
       Third, we recently saw the regional LAPS list and, as you 
     may know, the James River Eagle project was ranked #78, I 
     know, that there are logical inconsistencies in the LAPS list 
     process, but this ranking of the James River project is 
     likely to make it difficult for us to secure the support we 
     need in Congress to get the money to fund this project. As 
     you know, Congressman Sisitsky pointed to the LAPS list in 
     the last round as the reason for his failure to support the 
     project and we would like to avoid having to fight with him 
     on that issue again this year. If there is anything you can 
     do with the powers that be in your national office to revise 
     the James River project to a higher ranking, it would make 
     the job of securing Congressional funds for this project that 
     much easier.
       Thanks very much for your help on these matters. I look 
     forward to catching up with you when you return from your 
     travels. Best regards.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Philip Tabas,
     Attorney, Eastern Region.
                                                                    ____



                State Government-Non-Profit Land Trusts

     Scenic Hudson, Inc.
       Total revenue, 1993, $1,112,787.
       Total expenses, $1,013,288.
       Fund balances, $2,398,803.
       Salaries and wages, $561,878.
       Employee benefits, $51,115.
       Investments--securities, $1,667,771.
       Total assets, $3,799,224.
       Executive Director, Klara Sauer, $72,000 salary, $3,600 
     benefits.
       Land Preservation Director, Steven Rosenberg, $51,500 
     salary, $2,575 benefits.
       Associate Director, Carol Sonderheimer, $49,000 salary, 
     $2,450 benefits.
       Environmental Director, Cara Lee Box, $33,897 salary, 
     $1,695 benefits.
       Waterfront Specialist, John J. Anzevino, $32,569 salary, 
     $571 benefits.
       Deferred grants and contributions $10,000 and over:
       Lila Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the Hudson 
     Highlands, $345,500.
       Hudson River Foundation, $14,800.
       Surdna Foundation, $26,762.
       Compton Foundation, $20,000.
       The Cohen Charitable Trust, $10,000.
       Total deferred grants and contributions, $428,480.
       Investments:
       U.S. Treasury Notes, $462,259.
       Bonds, $326,107.
       Common stock, $644,339.
       Preferred stock, $235,066.
       Total, $1,667,771.
     Scenic Hudson Land Trust Inc.
       Land buying affiliate of Scenic Hudson, Inc.
       Total revenue, 1993, $4,794,870.
       Total expenses, $345,380.
       Fund balances, $13,298,300.
       Salaries and wages, $13,716.
       Employee benefits, $1,001.

[[Page S2760]]

       Total assets, $17,964,088.
       Executive Director Klara Sauer of Scenic Hudson, Inc., is a 
     director of Scenic Hudson Land Trust, Inc.
       Foundation and trust grants received, $4,756,694.
       Support and revenue designated for future periods: Lila 
     Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the Hudson Highlands 
     $3,228,095.


                  State Government-Private Land Trusts

       Scenic Hudson, Inc. and Scenic Hudson Land Trust, Inc., 
     based in Poughkeepsie, New York, are operating a secretive 
     land buying operation along the 148-mile Hudson River Valley 
     corridor from New York City to Albany. Some operations are 
     carried out in cooperation with Open Space Institute in 
     Ossining, New York. The organizations are carrying out the 
     plan of ``Conserving Open Space in New York State,'' approved 
     by Governor Mario Cuomo in 1993, a document available only 
     upon special request from the state and not of general 
     knowledge. These organizations are beneficiaries of over $40 
     million from the Lila Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund (the 
     Readers Digest fortune) for the Hudson Highlands.
       Once Scenic Hudson holds title to local real estate, its 
     officers and executives demand that municipalities take their 
     ``non-profit'' purchase off the tax rolls--or face 
     devastating lawsuits. The non-profits' financial clout and 
     backing by New York elites gives them leverage against 
     beleaguered municipalities that cannot afford extensive 
     lawsuits.
       Scenic Hudson, Inc. enjoys corporate support and invests in 
     corporate stocks. Chevron awarded Scenic Hudson a $2,000 
     grant in May, 1994. A gift of 400 shares of Chevron common 
     stock to Scenic Hudson on May 25, 1989, netted the non-profit 
     $6,133.07 when sold on May 12, 1992. Scenic Hudson owns 
     substantial oil stock: On August 16, 1990, SH purchased 400 
     shares of Texaco valued at more than $25,000; two weeks later 
     they bought another 300 shares worth nearly $19,000; in June, 
     1993, they still owned the 700 shares of Texaco. On May 12, 
     1992, they bought 400 shares of Exxon ($24,014); on August 7, 
     1992, 400 shares of Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil) worth 
     $35,498; on March 10, 1993, 800 shares of Sun America.
       Scenic Hudson also acquired 700 shares of Phillip Morris on 
     May 4, 1989, sold 100 of the shares October 13, 1992 at a 
     $5,004.15 profit, and sold the remaining 600 shares in 
     February and April, 1993, reaping $16,987.34. A gift of 600 
     shares of DuPont stock was reduced by sale of 200 shares on 
     October 5, 1992 for a $5,322.09 profit; Scenic Hudson 
     retained the 400 shares of DuPont at the 1993 tax reporting 
     period. Scenic Hudson held Georgia-Pacific common stock for 
     15 months before selling it.
       Wealthy donors enjoy tax breaks by giving appreciated stock 
     to Scenic Hudson. On April 2, 1989, SH received 500 shares of 
     British Petroleum worth $28,747.50 and sold it 16 months 
     later at a capital gain of $41,563.11.
       New York State has targeted for acquisition 157 private 
     properties comprising hundreds of thousands of acres in 
     Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster 
     Counties. These properties, combined with the already vast 
     state, county and federally-owned lands in the region, would 
     create a tax free park stretching from the Hudson Highlands 
     through the Adirondacks to the Canadian border, further 
     impoverishing local communities.


                             documentation

       All factual information in this report was taken from 
     public information or published reports readily available to 
     the journalist.
       Most financial data were found in U.S. Internal Revenue 
     Service Form 990 annual reports filed by the respective 
     organizations under examination. Other sources include 
     financial statements prepared by the environmental 
     organizations and provided to the Secretary of State of New 
     York, the Division of Consumer Affairs of the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia and the Attorney General's Office of the State of 
     California. Lists of investments were obtained from both of 
     these sources, or from California Attorney General's Office 
     filings on Form CT-2. Many organizations do not file their 
     list of investments with any public agency. In such cases, 
     the authors of this report requested such lists by telephone 
     directly from the environmental organization in question. All 
     organizations thus solicited for investment information 
     refused to divulge it.
       Information on Foundation Control of Environmental Groups 
     came from tape recorded discussions among foundation staff 
     and officers at the Environmental Grantmakers Association 
     1992 Annual Retreat at Rosario Resort in Washington State. 
     Documentation of the Surdna Instance came from U.S. Forest 
     Service timber harvest plans, Form 990 filings, California 
     state filings, and internal documents discovered in public 
     filings.
       Major documentation of Non-Profit Land Trust abuses was 
     obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the 
     Freedom Of Information Act. Additional documentation was 
     obtained from individual land owners in personal interviews 
     or through third-party correspondents.
       The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise is the sole 
     author of this report, and is solely responsible for the 
     accuracy of the data here presented.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I indicated, out of necessity, these 
organizations have to consume their causes, and Utah wilderness 
currently is one of their causes. We have seen their efforts in mining 
reform, just last week in grazing reform, and the week before the 
forest issue. Now they have turned their efforts to Utah wilderness.
  I do not mind constructive input. It is invaluable in the development 
of quality legislation. It is good for everyone, but this type of big 
business, well-financed campaigns that they establish are really not 
constructive. It is a case of ``We're going to protect you from 
yourselves whether it is good for you or not, but we're going to do it 
at your own expense.''
  Mr. President, I think it is time to get real.
  I would like to chat a little bit about Sterling Forest, because 
while I support the proposal of my friend from New Jersey, it is not 
without some exceptions. The purpose of title XVI is to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to the Palisades 
Interstate Park Commission in order to facilitate the acquisition of 
the Sterling Forest in New York. I am not sure what the status is, but 
I am sure my friend from New Jersey will tell us, if this bill goes 
through, in what status that land will be held.
  The 17.5 million dollars authorized by this legislation states that 
funds may be transferred to the commission only to the extent that they 
are matched with funds contributed by non-Federal sources. So the State 
of New York and the State of New Jersey are going to have to, 
obviously, contribute funds.
  The funds may only be used for the procurement of conservation 
easements along--this is where it gets interesting, Mr. President--
along the Appalachian Trail. That is National Park Service administered 
but privately owned which runs through the Sterling Forest but not in 
the same watershed that they are currently trying to protect.
  So, it is interesting to pick up that difference. In actuality, 
scarce Federal appropriated funds are being used to trigger the flow of 
appropriated funds from New York and New Jersey. While the protection 
of the States' watershed may be meritorious, there are higher 
priorities currently within the National Park Service that need to be 
addressed.
  Notwithstanding my concerns, the Senator from New Jersey was 
accommodated, and I support his efforts in this regard because I 
recognize that he is from that State, he is held responsible by his 
constituents, and he ought to know what is best for his State and, as a 
consequence, I am going to support the Sterling Forest, as I have 
indicated to him. But it is technically not just a home run or a couple 
of free throws. The Federal funds may only be used for the procurement 
of conservation easements along the Appalachian Trail, which is Park 
Service administered but privately owned, which runs through the 
Sterling Forest but not in the same watershed that they are trying to 
protect.
  So, Mr. President, we have a situation before us where this is really 
not a debate about the merit of adding 2 million acres of new 
wilderness to the national inventory. This is really a battle between 
some of the well-financed elitists and the people who live in the State 
of Utah.
  Would the world be better off with 2 million acres of wilderness? I 
believe it would. Would we be better off with an additional 3 million 
acres that did not meet the definition of wilderness? I think not.
  Unfortunately, the playing field does not happen to be level. We find 
ourselves being tied up by a group of elitists. This debate is really a 
difference of opinion between the well-financed elitist lobby who wants 
all or nothing and the rest of us who are looking for resource 
protection and balance and trying to represent the people of the 
affected States.
  As I have indicated and the chart shows, this is a well-financed 
lobby. Environmentalism is big business, as the chart shows, and, as a 
consequence, it does show that environmental money does go for the 
purpose of protecting the environment, while at the same time it shows 
that little goes to achieve balance, compromise or resolution.

  As I have indicated, the environmental community does need a cause 
for additional membership, for added dollars. As I have indicated, this 
week it is Utah wilderness, last week it was grazing, before that 
timber.

[[Page S2761]]

  Let me reflect, finally, on how the people of Utah, as they look to 
the future of their State--a relatively large Western State, 52 million 
acres of land--proposes to increase the wilderness by some 2 million 
acres, increasing that to a special classification of wilderness which 
would be BLM wilderness of 2 million acres and Forest Service 
wilderness of 800,000 acres.
  The overwhelming base of support, as evidenced by the statements from 
those in Utah, and the realization that here we are with a package that 
can meet its objective in adding wilderness to Utah, that can meet its 
objective with regard to the concerns of my friend from New Jersey, 
who, at least to this Senator, has established himself as perhaps the 
self-anointed savior of the West, but, again, I ask, who does he really 
represent with regard to this issue? Is it the big environmental groups 
that have no compassion, no understanding, no willingness to negotiate 
a reasonable settlement that has been identified time and time again as 
being in the interest of the people? And is this a continued attack on 
resource development on public land, whether it be grazing, timber, or 
mining? Is it going to be concessions next? Is this the attitude 
prevailing from this administration?
  As we look at resource development in this country, we recognize that 
we are exporting dollars, we are exporting jobs overseas, and as we 
depend more and more on imports, our current balance-of-payment deficit 
is half of the cost of imported oil. Fifty-four percent of our oil is 
now imported. We are increasing our timber and wood fiber imports. We 
are losing high-paying, blue-collar jobs. Can we not, through science 
and technology, continue to develop our resources in a responsible 
manner? That is what the people of Utah are talking about, relative to 
the additional acreage that they want to use for their school system, 
for the education of their children.
  It seems to me that we should listen to the people of Utah today, Mr. 
President. They are not extreme. They are not elitists. They are 
realists. They know what they need for their State. They have 
recommended 2 million acres of wilderness. It is a responsible 
compromise.
  So, Mr. President, as we go through this debate throughout the day, 
and perhaps a portion tomorrow, I encourage all Members to look at this 
package, recognize it for what it is, an attempt to accommodate some 17 
or 18, close to 20 States, with individual recommendations on land 
within their States, recognizing the significance of including the 
Presidio in this package and the realization that the trust that has 
been formed to manage the Presidio under the scope of this legislation 
is realistic, it will work, it will take the burden off of the Federal 
Government. Last, this legislation will meet the needs of the people of 
Utah.


                  Modifications to Amendment No. 3564

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment 
to the desk. I ask that each of the measures be added at the 
appropriate place, and the titles and section numbers be renumbered 
accordingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it would add provisions for the Big 
Thicket in Texas, the Big Horn County school district in Wyoming, a 
right-of-way in Wyoming, the Tallgrass provisions in Kansas. I think 
that takes it up to nearly 60, Mr. President. I do not think further 
reading is required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The modifications follow:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

                                TITLE --

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Big Thicket National Preserve Addition Act of 
     1993 (Public Law 103-46), Congress increased the size of the 
     Big Thicket National Preserve through authorized land 
     exchanges;
       (2) such land exchanges were not consummated by July 1, 
     1995, as required by Public Law 103-46; and
       (3) failure to consummate such land exchanges by the end of 
     the three-year extension provided by this Act will 
     necessitate further intervention and direction from Congress 
     concerning such land exchanges.

     SEC. 2. TIME PERIOD FOR LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) Extension.--The last sentence of subsection (d) of the 
     first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the 
     establishment of the Big Thicket National Preserve in the 
     State of Texas, and for other purposes'', approved October 
     11, 1974 (16 U.S.C. 698(d)), is amended by striking out ``two 
     years after date of enactment'' and inserting ``five years 
     after the date of enactment''.
       (b) Independent Appraisal.--Subsection (d) of the first 
     section of such Act (16 U.S.C. 698(d)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary, in 
     considering the values of the private lands to be exchanged 
     under this subsection, shall consider independent appraisals 
     submitted by the owners of the private lands.''.
       (c) Limitation.--Subsection (d) of the first section of 
     such Act (16 U.S.C. 698(d)), as amended by subsection (b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     authority to exchange lands under this subsection shall 
     expire on July 1, 1998.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       Not later than six months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act and every six months thereafter until the earlier 
     of the consummation of the exchange or July 1, 1998, the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall each submit a report to the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate concerning the progress in 
     consummating the land exchange authorized by the amendments 
     made by Big Thicket National Preserve Addition Act of 1993 
     (Public Law 103-46).

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE IN LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS.

       If, within one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) the owners of the private lands described in subsection 
     (b)(1) offer to transfer all their right, title, and interest 
     in and to such lands to the Secretary of the Interior, and
       (2) Liberty County, Texas, agrees to accept the transfer of 
     the Federal lands described in subsection (b)(2),

     the Secretary shall accept such offer of private lands and, 
     in exchange and without additional consideration, transfer to 
     Liberty County, Texas, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the Federal lands described in 
     subsection (b)(2).
       (b) Lands Described.--
       (1) Private lands.--The private lands described in this 
     paragraph are approximately 3.76 acres of lands located in 
     Liberty County, Texas, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Big Thicket Lake Estates Access--Proposed''.
       (2) Federal lands.--The Federal lands described in this 
     paragraph are approximately 2.38 acres of lands located in 
     Menard Creek Corridor Unit of the Big Thicket National 
     Preserve, as generally depicted on the map referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Administration of Lands Acquired by the United 
     States.--The lands acquired by the Secretary under this 
     section shall be added to and administered as part of the 
     Menard Creek Corridor Unit of the Big Thicket National 
     Preserve.
       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC. ____01. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY TO THE BIG HORN 
                   COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1, WYOMING.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall convey, by quit claim 
     deed, to the Big Horn County School District Number 1, 
     Wyoming, all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to the following described lands in Big Horn County, 
     Wyoming: Lots 19-24 of Block 22, all within the town of 
     Frannie, Wyoming, in the S\1/2\NW\1/4\NW\1/4\ and N\1/2\SW\1/
     4\NW\1/4\ of section 31 of T. 58N., R. 97 W., Big Horn 
     County.
       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SECTION 1. RELINQUISHMENT OF INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--The United States relinquishes all right, 
     title, and interest that the United States may have in land 
     that--
       (1) was subject to a right-of-way that was granted to the 
     predecessor of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation 
     Company under the Act entitled ``An Act granting to railroads 
     the right of way through the public lands of the United 
     States'', approved March 3, 1875 (43 U.S.C. 934 et seq.), 
     which right of way the Company has conveyed to the city of 
     Douglas, Wyoming; and
       (2) is located within the boundaries of the city limits of 
     the city of Douglas, Wyoming, or between the right-of-way of 
     Interstate 25 and the city limits of the city of Douglas, 
     Wyoming,

     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior in 
     consultation with the appropriate officials of the city of 
     Douglas, Wyoming.
       (b) Conveyance.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     file for recordation in the real property records of Converse 
     County, Wyoming, a deed or other appropriate form of 
     instrument conveying to the city of Douglas, Wyoming, all 
     right, title, and interest in the land described in 
     subsection (a).
       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following:
            TITLE ____--TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATIONAL PRESERVE

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Tallgrass Prairie National 
     Preserve Act of 1996''.

     SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page S2762]]

       (1) of the 400,000 square miles of tallgrass prairie that 
     once covered the North American Continent, less than 1 
     percent remains, primarily in the Flint Hills of Kansas;
       (2) in 1991, the National Park Service conducted a special 
     resource study of the Spring Hill Ranch, located in the Flint 
     Hills of Kansas;
       (3) the study concludes that the Spring Hill Ranch--
       (A) is a nationally significant example of the once vast 
     tallgrass ecosystem, and includes buildings listed on the 
     National Register of Historic Places pursuant to section 101 
     of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a) 
     that represent outstanding examples of Second Empire and 
     other 19th Century architectural styles; and
       (B) is suitable and feasible as a potential addition to the 
     National Park System; and
       (4) the National Park Trust, which owns the Spring Hill 
     Ranch, has agreed to permit the National Park Service--
       (A) to purchase a portion of the ranch, as specified in 
     this title; and
       (B) to manage the ranch in order to--
       (i) conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and 
     wildlife of the ranch; and
       (ii) provide for the enjoyment of the ranch in such a 
     manner and by such means as will leave the scenery, natural 
     and historic objects, and wildlife unimpaired for the 
     enjoyment of future generations.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to preserve, protect, and interpret for the public an 
     example of a tallgrass prairie ecosystem on the Spring Hill 
     Ranch, located in the Flint Hills of Kansas; and
       (2) to preserve and interpret for the public the historic 
     and cultural values represented on the Spring Hill Ranch.

     SEC. ____03. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the Advisory Committee established under section 
     ____07.
       (2) Preserve.--The term ``Preserve'' means the Tallgrass 
     Prairie National Preserve established by section ____04.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the National Park 
     Trust, Inc., a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, or 
     any successor-in-interest.

     SEC. ____04. ESTABLISHMENT OF TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATIONAL 
                   PRESERVE.

       (a) In General.--In order to provide for the preservation, 
     restoration, and interpretation of the Spring Hill Ranch area 
     of the Flint Hills of Kansas, for the benefit and enjoyment 
     of present and future generations, there is established the 
     Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve.
       (b) Description.--The Preserve shall consist of the lands 
     and interests in land, including approximately 10,894 acres, 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Boundary Map, Flint 
     Hills Prairie National Monument'' numbered NM-TGP 80,000 and 
     dated June 1994, more particularly described in the deed 
     filed at 8:22 a.m. of June 3, 1994, with the Office of the 
     Register of Deeds in Chase County, Kansas, and recorded in 
     Book L-106 at pages 328 through 339, inclusive. In the case 
     of any difference between the map and the legal description, 
     the legal description shall govern, except that if, as a 
     result of a survey, the Secretary determines that there is a 
     discrepancy with respect to the boundary of the Preserve that 
     may be corrected by making minor changes to the map, the 
     Secretary shall make changes to the map as appropriate, and 
     the boundaries of the Preserve shall be adjusted accordingly. 
     The map shall be on file and available for public inspection 
     in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service of 
     the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. ____05. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PRESERVE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     Preserve in accordance with this title, the cooperative 
     agreements described in subsection (f)(1), and the provisions 
     of law generally applicable to units of the National Park 
     System, including the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a 
     National Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2 through 4) and the Act of 
     August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (b) Application of Regulations.--With the consent of a 
     private owner of land within the boundaries of the Preserve, 
     the regulations issued by the Secretary concerning the 
     National Park Service that provide for the proper use, 
     management, and protection of persons, property, and natural 
     and cultural resources shall apply to the private land.
       (c) Facilities.--For purposes of carrying out the duties of 
     the Secretary under this title relating to the Preserve, the 
     Secretary may, with the consent of a landowner, directly or 
     by contract, construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate, or develop 
     essential buildings, structures, and related facilities 
     including roads, trails, and other interpretive facilities on 
     real property that is not owned by the Federal Government and 
     is located within the Preserve.
       (d) Liability of Landowners.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no person that owns any land or interest in 
     land within the Preserve shall be liable for injury to, or 
     damages suffered by, any other person that is injured or 
     damaged while on the land within the Preserve if--
       (1) the injury or damages result from any act or omission 
     of the Secretary or any officer, employee, or agent of the 
     Secretary or of a person other than the owner, a guest of the 
     owner, or a person having business with the owner; or
       (2) the injury or damages are suffered by a visitor to the 
     Preserve, and the injury or damages are not proximately 
     caused by the wanton or willful misconduct of, or a negligent 
     act (as distinguished from a failure to act) of, the person 
     that owns the land.
       (e) Unit of the National Park System.--The Preserve shall 
     be a unit of the National Park System for all purposes, 
     including the purpose of exercising authority to charge 
     entrance and admission fees under section 4 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a).
       (f) Agreements and Donations.--
       (1) Agreements.--The Secretary may expend Federal funds for 
     the cooperative management of private property within the 
     Preserve for research, resource management (including pest 
     control and noxious weed control, fire protection, and the 
     restoration of buildings), and visitor protection and use.
       (2) Donations.--The Secretary may accept, retain, and 
     expend donations of funds, property (other than real 
     property), or services from individuals, foundations, 
     corporations, or public entities for the purposes of 
     providing programs, services, facilities, or technical 
     assistance that further the purposes of this title.
       (g) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the end of the third full 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives a 
     general management plan for the Preserve.
       (2) Consultation.--In preparing the general management 
     plan, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
     National Park Service, shall consult with--
       (A)(i) appropriate officials of the Trust; and
       (ii) the Advisory Committee; and
       (B) adjacent landowners, appropriate officials of nearby 
     communities, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, and 
     the Kansas Historical Society, and other interested parties.
       (3) Content of plan.--The general management plan shall 
     provide for the following:
       (A) Maintaining and enhancing the tallgrass prairie within 
     the boundaries of the Preserve.
       (B) Public access and enjoyment of the property that is 
     consistent with the conservation and proper management of the 
     historical, cultural, and natural resources of the ranch.
       (C) Interpretive and educational programs covering the 
     natural history of the prairie, the cultural history of 
     Native Americans, and the legacy of ranching in the Flint 
     Hills region.
       (D) Provisions requiring the application of applicable 
     State law concerning the maintenance of adequate fences 
     within the boundaries of the Preserve. In any case in which 
     an activity of the National Park Service requires fences that 
     exceed the legal fence standard otherwise applicable to the 
     Preserve, the National Park Service shall pay the additional 
     cost of constructing and maintaining the fences to meet the 
     applicable requirements for that activity.
       (E) Provisions requiring the Secretary to comply with 
     applicable State noxious weed, pesticide, and animal health 
     laws.
       (F) Provisions requiring compliance with applicable State 
     water laws and Federal and State waste disposal laws 
     (including regulations) and any other applicable law.
       (G) Provisions requiring the Secretary to honor each valid 
     existing oil and gas lease for lands within the boundaries of 
     the Preserve (as described in section ____04(b)) that is in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (H) Provisions requiring the Secretary to offer to enter 
     into an agreement with each individual who, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, holds rights for cattle grazing within 
     the boundaries of the Preserve (as described in section 
     ____04(b)).
       (4) Hunting and Fishing.--The Secretary may allow hunting 
     and fishing on Federal lands within the Preserve.
       (5) Financial analysis.--As part of the development of the 
     general management plan, the Secretary shall prepare a 
     financial analysis indicating how the management of the 
     Preserve may be fully supported through fees, private 
     donations, and other forms of non-Federal funding.

     SEC. ____06. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall acquire, by donation, 
     not more than 180 acres of real property within the 
     boundaries of the Preserve (as described in section 
     ____04(b)) and the improvements on the real property.
       (b) Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--For the purposes of 
     payments made under chapter 69 of title 31, United States 
     Code, the real property described in subsection (a)(1) shall 
     be deemed to have been acquired for the purposes specified in 
     section 6904(a) of that title.
       (c) Prohibitions.--No property may be acquired under this 
     section without the consent of the owner of the property. The 
     United States may not acquire fee ownership of any lands 
     within the Preserve other than lands described in this 
     section.

     SEC. ____07. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an advisory 
     committee to be known as the ``Tallgrass Prairie National 
     Preserve Advisory Committee''.

[[Page S2763]]

       (b) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the 
     Secretary and the Director of the National Park Service 
     concerning the development, management, and interpretation of 
     the Preserve. In carrying out those duties, the Advisory 
     Committee shall provide timely advice to the Secretary and 
     the Director during the preparation of the general management 
     plan under section ____05(g).
       (c) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 13 
     members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (1) Three members shall be representatives of the Trust.
       (2) Three members shall be representatives of local 
     landowners, cattle ranchers, or other agricultural interests.
       (3) Three members shall be representatives of conservation 
     or historic preservation interests.
       (4)(A) One member shall be selected from a list of persons 
     recommended by the Chase County Commission in the State of 
     Kansas.
       (B) One member shall be selected from a list of persons 
     recommended by appropriate officials of Strong City, Kansas, 
     and Cottonwood Falls, Kansas.
       (C) One member shall be selected from a list of persons 
     recommended by the Governor of the State of Kansas.
       (5) One member shall be a range management specialist 
     representing institutions of higher education (as defined in 
     section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1141(a))) in the State of Kansas.
       (d) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Each member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be appointed to serve for a term of 3 years, except 
     that the initial members shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) Four members shall be appointed, one each from 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (c), to serve 
     for a term of 3 years.
       (B) Four members shall be appointed, one each from 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (c), to serve 
     for a term of 4 years.
       (C) Five members shall be appointed, one each from 
     paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (c), to serve for a 
     term of 5 years.
       (2) Reappointment.--Each member may be reappointed to serve 
     a subsequent term.
       (3) Expiration.--Each member shall continue to serve after 
     the expiration of the term of the member until a successor is 
     appointed.
       (4) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Advisory Committee shall 
     be filled in the same manner as an original appointment is 
     made. The member appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve 
     until the expiration of the term in which the vacancy 
     occurred.
       (e) Chairperson.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
     shall select 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson.
       (f) Meetings.--Meetings of the Advisory Committee shall be 
     held at the call of the Chairperson or the majority of the 
     Advisory Committee. Meetings shall be held at such locations 
     and in such a manner as to ensure adequate opportunity for 
     public involvement. In compliance with the requirements of 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the 
     Advisory Committee shall choose an appropriate means of 
     providing interested members of the public advance notice of 
     scheduled meetings.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Advisory 
     Committee shall constitute a quorum.
       (h) Compensation.--Each member of the Advisory Committee 
     shall serve without compensation, except that while engaged 
     in official business of the Advisory Committee, the member 
     shall be entitled to travel expenses, including per diem in 
     lieu of subsistence in the same manner as persons employed 
     intermittently in Government service under section 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Charter.--The rechartering provisions of section 14(b) 
     of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall 
     not apply to the Advisory Committee.

     SEC. ____08. RESTRICTION ON AUTHORITY.

       Nothing in this title shall give the Secretary authority to 
     regulate lands outside the land area acquired by the 
     Secretary under section 6(a).

     SEC. ____09. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Interior such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     title.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I think 
the Senator from New Jersey may want to be heard from. If not, there 
are a couple more of us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska for his statement, and I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Utah for their strong advocacy of one of the provisions in this bill. I 
know how much they care about this legislation. I know how long they 
have worked on it. We have a basic disagreement, which I will try to 
explore in as much depth as I can for the next--I do not know how long 
it will take, but I want to do it with comprehensive explanations so 
they can then respond to what I have said.
  I would only make one point with regard to this bill as a package. As 
one Senator, I am prepared to have virtually every one of the 33 
titles, maybe with 2 or 3 exceptions, moved through the Senate right 
now. I do not oppose those sections. What I have a problem with is the 
Utah wilderness bill, which I will get to, to explain. So I want the 
Senate to know that all of the other provisions in this bill I have no 
objection to passing today on voice vote with the exception of two or 
three, maybe four maximum, of the titles in the underlying bill.
  It is clearly the chairman's prerogative to put these together in a 
package. I am not sure, if I were someone who was interested in a 
particular provision--I might say that this bill has several provisions 
that I want for my State--that it would be the wisest course if the 
President actually does veto this package. We could get down several 
months only to find that the President has vetoed not only Utah land, 
the wilderness bill, but he has vetoed all of the other smaller 
provisions that are totally noncontroversial that could move through 
the Senate today and, in some cases, through the House easily.
  I think that ought to be established. I think the wiser course here 
would be to detach from this package the Utah wilderness bill and to 
have some more time to talk about that, and then move the other 
elements of this bill. I know there are a number of Senators who are 
interested in their particular provisions. I have no objection to 
moving them.
  What I would like to do if I could this morning is take my time to 
really talk a little bit about the history of public lands. I would 
like to focus on Federal lands in the United States and in Utah. I 
would like to focus on the economic development pressures in Utah. I 
would like to talk about sustainable development. I would like to put 
this bill in the context of how we got here, and how the bill does in 
relation to the concept of sustainable development. Then I would like 
to talk about the effect on the rest of the country, and why I think 
that the Utah wilderness bill is clearly a national bill in a very, 
very deep sense. I say that with great respect for the knowledge and 
the commitment of the Senators from Utah, whom I know care as deeply 
about their State as any Senator in this body cares about his or her 
own State. So I make these comments with respect for them and at the 
same time with a very profound disagreement.

  Mr. President, the idea that America has public land, public 
patrimony that belongs to all of us, really began in 1778, when the 
small State of Maryland led a protest against those States that had 
made vast claims of territory west of the Appalachian Mountains, our 
original frontier.
  Under their royal charters, Virginia had laid claim to territory 
reaching to the Mississippi and up to what is now Michigan, and 
Massachusetts claimed much of what remained in the then United States. 
The Senators, Congressmen, the statesmen from Maryland had a different 
idea. They said that the land, which was the defining feature of the 
new Nation, should be owned and used in common. And Maryland refused to 
sign the Articles of Confederation until this idea of common land won 
respect.
  By 1802, the young Nation had taken 233 million acres for the public 
good between the Thirteen Colonies and the Mississippi River, and with 
the Louisiana Purchase, and over the next 51 years, the common domain 
grew to more than 1.4 billion acres of public land. While the Nation 
came together around Maryland's idea of public land, the question of 
what to do with it remained.
  The fundamental conflict between divisions expressed by Thomas 
Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton dominated this debate, as it did so 
many others. Jefferson believed that land should be put in the hands of 
small farmers even if it meant giving it away, while Hamilton believed 
that land sales could be the steadiest source of income for the Nation.
  With the oppressive debt from the Revolutionary War, the Hamilton 
view prevailed. And the principle for most of the first half of the 
19th century was that ``lands were to be sold, and the proceeds 
appropriated toward shrinking or discharging the debts.'' That was a 
quote. But the land being what it is,

[[Page S2764]]

Jefferson was also correct in his prediction that Americans looking for 
open space ``would settle the lands in spite of everybody.''
  Land sales never made up more than 10 percent of the Federal revenue 
because people simply laid claim to the lands, moved onto the lands. 
With the passage of the Preemption Act of 1841, the Jeffersonian view 
prevailed, giving the land away, in hope that it would extend across 
the continent a nation of small farmers.

  The Homestead Act followed in the 1860's with its promise of 160 
acres for a family, a blessing in the fertile ground of the Great 
Plains--160 acres. Beyond the 100th meridian, the north-south line 
running roughly from Minot, ND, to Laredo, TX, the 160 acres was almost 
useless. As Senator William Borah said of the Homestead Act, ``The 
Government bets 160 acres against the filing fee that the settlers 
cannot live on the land for 5 years without starving to death.'' 
Indeed, only 35 percent of the claims ever lived up to full ownership, 
with the rest left to be assembled in very large parcels.
  Just as selling the land did not fulfill Hamilton's vision, giving it 
away did not live up to Jefferson's vision of a country of independent, 
self-sufficient young farmers passing their modest legacy of land from 
generation to generation, renewing themselves by tilling the land. 
Neither vision, the sale of the land nor giving it away, really lived 
up to either of the Founders' idea.
  Instead, mining interests laid the first claim to the land. Every 
single major mining strike in the history of the West--gold in 
California, Colorado, and Montana, silver in Idaho, Nevada--was made on 
public land. Then ranchers who had quickly exhausted the capacity of 
the public land of the high plains, moved West, taking vast acreage of 
thin, fragile grassland in the northern range and fencing it in to keep 
homesteaders out.
  Mr. President, about this time Americans finally began to really look 
at their land. The reports of the great surveyors, Ferdinand V. Hayden, 
George M. Wheeler, and John Wesley Powell, these reports came East, 
along with the photographs of William Henry Jackson and the paintings 
of Thomas Moran. Tales of great geysers and Powell's vivid descriptions 
of a canyon opening like a beautiful portal to a region of glory led to 
a popular campaign to protect something of this legacy.
  The creation of Yellowstone National Park, the first national park, 
in 1872, was a moment of great national pride. The truer reflection of 
our view toward our national lands, our public lands, in that same year 
was the passage of the General Mining Act of 1872, setting fees of 
$2.50 an acre for a permanent mining claim, an error at the time and an 
outdated disgrace today.
  As the new century approached, the parks movement accelerated and the 
country finally escaped the old question, ``Should we sell it or should 
we give it away?'' In 1891, the National Forest System was created. By 
1907, nearly 10 percent of the Nation's land had been rescued from the 
cycle of transfer and destruction. The great barbecue, as the historian 
C. Vernon Parrington called the abuse of the land in the 19th century, 
had come to an end, but the struggle had really only begun.
  Miners, ranchers, farmers, and timber interests began a long fight to 
reclaim the unlimited gold, silver, copper, grasslands, water, and tall 
trees which had been given away for so long that they had convinced 
themselves that they had earned them. In Charles Wilkinson's phrase, 
the ``Lords of Yesterday,'' the interests and ideas that pull us back 
toward the 19th century, grew and grew in Washington, especially after 
Theodore Roosevelt left the White House and Gifford Pinchot left the 
Interior Department.
  In 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act gave oil companies access to 
petroleum reserves on public lands, even national forests. But the 
Teapot Dome scandal led President Hoover to ban the oil reserves from 
exploitation. And the dust storms of the 1930's, which blackened the 
skies from New Mexico to the Dakotas as a result of overgrazing and 
overfarming, led to the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 which 
closed 142 million acres of public land and was called ``the Magna 
Carta of conservation.'' The New Deal economist Rexford Tugwell 
declared ``the day on which the President signed the Taylor Act * * *. 
laid in its grave a land policy which had long since been dead and 
which walked abroad only as a troublesome ghost within a living 
world.''
  Tugwell's analysis was seriously premature. The land policy of the 
19th century has not yet been buried. Indeed, it lives on in this bill, 
in the grazing bill, and in several others before this Congress in this 
year.
  The advocates of a return to the free-for-all of the past used their 
power in Congress and the appealing image of the brave, solitary 
westerner--an image at odds with reality then and now--to lead the 
assault on this protective impulse to protect the land.
  Senator Patrick McCarran of Nevada accused the Grazing Service of 
seeking ``to legislate the trailblazers of the West out of existence,'' 
and launched what one historian called ``the lengthiest, most 
concerted, and in some respects, the most successful attempt made in 
the 20th century by one person to force a reinterpretation of land 
policy more in accordance with the wishes of the using interests.'' I 
repeat, ``the using interests.''
  McCarran succeeded in turning the bureaucracy in favor of the using 
interests. He abolished the Grazing Service and merged it with another 
large agency, creating the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of 
Land Management was given so many responsibilities--leasing of oil, 
gas, coal, oil, shale, and geothermal sites. Management of hard rock 
mining claims on its own land, plus on the lands of the national 
forests, management of 8 million acres of commercial forests, wetlands 
and fishable streams, thousands of archaeological sites as well as 
grazing, all of these responsibilities, so much given that McCarran and 
his backers reasonably assumed that the agency would become 
``Unconvincing Goliath,'' in the words of Prof. Sally Fairfax.
  By 1973, the BLM had plainly abandoned the task of protecting grazing 
lands from the next Dust Bowl. Only 16 percent of its rangeland was in 
good condition. The 341 million acres managed by the BLM are often 
called the leftover lands or the lands nobody wanted. They are what 
remains of the 2.1 billion acres that had not been sold, given away, or 
set aside as national park or national forest.
  The BLM does not have the clear sense of mission of the Forest 
Service or the Park Service. Indeed, in the 1950's, its nickname was 
the ``Bureau of Livestock and Mining.'' It gives a sense of what the 
Agency thought its lands were most valuable for in those days. Yet, 
those lands include some of the most breathtaking and fragile places in 
the Nation: The Potosi Mountains of Nevada; Glacier Peak in Washington; 
Mount Lester in Wyoming; California's Lake Ediza; and in Utah, the 
Valley of Dirty Devil, the Kaiparowits Plateau, Grand Staircase, 
Escalante Canyon, the Henry Mountains, and many others in the State of 
Utah. These are lands that if we sacrifice their quiet peace for a 
short-term economic gain, it will be to the lasting regret--the lasting 
regret--of many Americans.
  Let me just frame that by focusing on one of these areas. The 
Kaiparowits Plateau in southern Utah, an extraordinary place, is one of 
the most remote places in the United States. I would like to quote from 
what one person said about that. His name is Charles Wilkinson, a 
professor at the University of Colorado. He says:

       Kaiparowits, the interior of the Colorado Plateau, itself 
     the interior of the nation, is not just for coal. Few people 
     come to this southern Utah plateau because modern 
     conveniences are so distant, traditional beauty so scarce, 
     normal recreational opportunities so limited. Precipitation 
     measures ten to twelve inches a year. There are just two or 
     three perennial streams, and they carry little water. One 
     dirt road, usable by passenger cars, runs up to Escalante. 
     Otherwise, it is all jeep trails. Pinon-juniper stands offer 
     almost no cover from the sun. Cross-country backpacking is 
     for experts only. You have to scour the topographic maps, 
     plan your trip with care (being sure to hit the springs), and 
     stock to your plan. Even a short hike is a challenge. From a 
     distance, Kaiparowits looks flat on top but in fact it is up-
     and-down, chipped-up, confusing. You can get lost, snakebit, 
     or otherwise injured. There's no one to call.
       Kaiparowits is, in a word, wild--``wilderness,'' as Raymond 
     Wheeler put it, ``right down to its burning core.'' Eagles, 
     hawks, and peregrines are in here, especially in the wind 
     currents near the cliffs, and so are bighorn sheep, trophy 
     elk, and deer. Archaelologists have recorded some 400 sites

[[Page S2765]]

     but there are many more--there has been lttle surveying, 
     except near some of the mine sites. From Kaiparowits you are 
     given startling Plateau vistas in all directions, vivid views 
     more than 200 miles if the winds have cleared out the haze, 
     views as encompassing as those from the southern tip of Cedar 
     Mesa, the east flank of Boulder Mountain, the high LeSals, 
     DeadHorse Point, long, stretching expanses of sacred country. 
     If you climb the rocky promontories on top of Kaiparowits, 
     you can see off to Boulder Mountain, the Henrys, Black Mesa, 
     Navajo Mountain, the Kaibab Plateau, the Vermilion Cliffs.
       The languid stillness of Kaiparowits turns your mind gently 
     and slowly to wondering about time, to trying to comprehend 
     the long, deep time all of this took, from Cretaceous, from 
     back before Cretaceous, and to comprehend, since Lake Powell 
     and the seventy-story stacks of Navajo Generating Station 
     also now play part of the vista, how it is that our culture 
     has so much might and how it is that we choose to exert it so 
     frantically, with so little regard of the time that you can 
     see, actually see, from here. Perhaps somehow by taking some 
     moments now, here, here in this stark pinon-juniper rockland 
     place, here in this farthest-away place, a person can nurture 
     some of the fibers of constancy and constraint that our 
     people possess in addition to the might. The silence is 
     stunning, the solitude deep and textured.
       Kaiparowits makes you decide on the value of wildness and 
     remoteness. Kaiparowits is where the dreams for the West 
     collide. Coal, jobs growth. Long vistas, places to get lost 
     in, places to find yourself in.
       The BLM wild lands teach us, also, about the people who 
     once lived and worked and loved and worshipped for such a 
     long time in what has been called BLM land for such a short 
     time.
       Last year, my son Seth, then twenty, and I took a long, 
     home-from-college trip to the canyon country. We hiked most 
     of one day up to our calves in a creek that over the course 
     of some seven million years has cut a thousand feet down 
     through the fiery, aeolian Wingate Sandstone and the layers 
     of rock above it.
       In a rare wide spot in the canyon, behind a cluster of 
     junipers, we found a panel of pictographs on the Wingate. The 
     artisan painted this row of red and white images--
     supernatural and life-size--two thousand years ago, perhaps 
     more. The three stolid figures had wide shoulders, narrow 
     waists. We could see straight through the round staring eyes, 
     and the eyes could see through us. We called it ``Dream 
     Panel.''
       It would be so contemptuous of time to deal away 
     Kaiparowits and Dream Panel. Perhaps the states would protect 
     these and other wild places of national worth as well as they 
     are protected now. But do we want to risk it?

  Mr. President, until the 1960's, none of the public lands were fully 
protected for mining, automobiles, construction, and other uses. The 
concept of wilderness did not exist, not only on the BLM lands, but 
even in the national parks and forests.
  As a way of preserving public land, the idea of wilderness really 
owes its origin to Arthur Carhart, a landscape architect hired by the 
Forest Service in 1919 and sent to design a road encircling Trappers 
Lake in Colorado's San Isabel National Forest. Instead of laying out 
the road, he bombarded his bureaucratic supervisors with memos urging 
that they abandon the project and retain some area ``to which the lover 
of the outdoors can return without being confronted by a settlement, a 
country store, telephone pole, or other sights of civilization.'' After 
Carhart built a friendship and alliance with Aldo Leopold, the great 
naturalist and author of ``A Sand County Almanac,'' the Forest Service 
accepted his idea and made Trappers Lake the first development project 
it had ever denied because of the threat to the natural integrity of 
the land.
  The legacy of Carhart and Leopold fell to Robert Marshall, a slightly 
eccentric man, who during college decided to walk 30 miles in every 
State of the Union, covering that distance in a single day in each 
State. Once he covered 62 miles in a day. Well, Marshall joined the 
Forest Service in 1930 and advocated not just protection of some land 
as wilderness, but the importance of sheer size--vast tracts of 
wilderness rather than small parks in every State. He compared 
wilderness to the ``Mona Lisa'' and he said, ``If you cut up the `Mona 
Lisa' into little pieces one inch square and distribute them among the 
art galleries of the world so millions might see it, where hundreds now 
see it, neither the millions nor the hundreds would get any genuine 
value.''
  The point here is that wilderness has a size factor that is itself 
valuable. Although Marshall rose to a high position in the Forest 
Service, his greatest legacy came when he left to found the Wilderness 
Society in 1935. The society came into its own with the successful 
fight against a plan to build two major dams on the grounds of Dinosaur 
National Monument in Utah. Instead of moving from fight to fight 
against this development or that, the society developed the idea of 
permanently classifying some portion of the public lands to be 
protected from development. When Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced 
such a bill in 1957, not only the commercial interests and the western 
Senators and Congressmen, but even the Park Service and Forest Service 
were flatly opposed. Above all, they were offended by the idea that 
citizens from the areas affected should participate in the decisions 
about what should be protected.

  Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah argued that a permanent wilderness 
designation would ``hamstring economic development,'' but at the same 
time, like opponents of the Yellowstone in the 1870's, he insisted that 
``Millions of acres are already preserved in the wilderness state and 
probably always will be.''
  The bill which finally passed in 1964 contained the following 
definition of wilderness:

       A wilderness, in contrast to those areas where man and his 
     own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an 
     area where the earth and the community of life are 
     untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does 
     not remain.

  That is the definition of wilderness in the 1964 act. It ordered the 
agencies that manage Federal land to review their own holdings and 
recommend those that qualify for wilderness designation--wilderness, a 
``community of life untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor 
who does not remain.''
  But this review omitted the over 300 million acres managed by the 
BLM. Those lands came under the purview of the Wilderness Act only in 
1976. At that time BLM was given 15 years to review its own holdings 
and recommend those to be protected. However, Mr. President, that was 
in 1976. It was not long before James Watt took the reins of the 
Department of the Interior and in the long tradition of deliberately 
crippling the bureaucracy at BLM moved the deadline up from 1991 to 
1984--one would assume not in an effort to protect the land quickly but 
to overwhelm the agency and destroy the review process. In other words, 
what was supposed to take 15 years of careful, painstaking, accurate 
analysis of public land under the control of BLM with designation of 
specific wilderness was now contrasted into a very short time. And it 
is the legacy of that action that brings us to where we are today in 
consideration of the Utah lands bill.
  The Wilderness Act, if it is allowed to work as intended, can be the 
final step in our escape from the lords of yesterday--the compulsion to 
transfer lands and to let their soil and mineral resources, their trees 
and their vistas to be exploited for short-term gain rather than 
preserved for future generations. Bernard DeVoto urged us to ``maintain 
portions of the wilderness untouched, so that a tree will rot where it 
falls, a waterfall will pour its curves without generating electricity, 
a trumpeter swan may float on uncontaminated water--and moderns may at 
least see what their ancestors knew in their nerves and in their 
blood.''
  That is what is possible, if the Wilderness Act is allowed to work.
  Mr. President, what about the Federal lands generally in the United 
States and in Utah? The Federal Government currently owns approximately 
650 million acres, or nearly 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acre land 
area of the United States. However, this is far less than the 
Government has owned in the past. Since 1775 the Federal Government has 
acquired through purchase and war over 1.8 billion acres, and at 
various times in U.S. history has held title to nearly 80 percent of 
the Nation's total area. Nearly two-thirds of the land once owned by 
the Federal Government has been transferred to the States, or to 
private interests.
  Where did the land come from? Well, the original 13 and the move over 
to the Mississippi is about 236 million acres. If you add the Louisiana 
Purchase, you add 529 million acres. If you take the Oregon compromise, 
you add 183 million acres. If you take the secession from Mexico at the 
end of the Mexican-United States war, you add 338 million acres. If you 
take the Alaska purchase, you add 378 million acres.

[[Page S2766]]

 Those are the main places that the land came from.
  How were the Federal lands disposed of? During the 19th century a 
number of Federal laws encouraged transfer of Federal lands to 
homesteaders; as I said, earlier, the Homestead Act of 1862 to miners, 
the Mining Act of 1872, and to railroads and to others. In general, the 
purpose of the act was to encourage development and settlement of the 
West. Lands were also sold to raise money and granted to States for 
specific purposes--funding for education, for example.
  As a result of the land acts, over 1.1 billion acres have been 
transferred out of Federal ownership in the following ways. 
Homesteaders got 287 million acres. Railroad companies got 94 million 
acres. As a frame of reference, that is the equivalent of all of the 
land of Washington and Oregon given to railroad companies. Military 
bounties got 61 million acres, and grants to States were around 328 
million acres. Those were the largest chunks of who got the land--the 
homesteaders, the railroad companies, military, and States.
  Altogether, private interests have acquired title to 69 million acres 
of Federal lands through patents associated with either extraction of 
minerals or fossil fuels.
  So that is where the Federal lands went.
  Who manages these public lands? Four agencies administer 96 percent 
of the Federal land. For conservation, preservation, or development 
they are the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The 
majority of lands managed by these agencies are in the West, which is 
ironically the most urbanized part of the country in terms of per 
capita.
  In 1891, as I pointed out, Congress granted the President the 
authority--now repealed--to establish forest reserves from the public 
domain.
  In 1906 and 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt more than doubled the 
acreage of the forest reserves which resulted in Congress limiting the 
authority of the President to add to the forest system.
  Here is one of the more interesting images that I have ever come 
across. Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and he kept a big chunk of 
national forest claiming it for national protection. He did that 
essentially by his Executive power. And then Congress passed an 
amendment saying that no further Presidential reservations would be 
permitted unless they were approved by Congress. There was a date by 
which that was to go into effect. And the story is that the night, or 
two, before the law was supposed to go into effect, Teddy Roosevelt was 
in the White House with Gifford Pinchot, his great national forester. 
They had the maps of all of the West laid out, and by Executive order 
he cut out of the maps prior to the law going into effect vast acreages 
that he had then preserved.
  At present, the National Forest System includes 155 national forests 
covering 187 million acres, 20 national grasslands with 4 million 
acres, and 103 other units such as land utilization projects and 
research and experimental areas with less than 500,000 acres.
  So that is the National Forest System.
  The BLM, Bureau of Land Management, again as I said earlier, was 
created in 1946 as a result of the merger of the General Land Office 
and the Grazing Service, and the BLM currently manages about 268 
million acres, about a third of which is in Alaska. Its lands are used 
for multiple purposes including grazing and wilderness.
  So in addition to the National Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management is the National Wildlife Refuge System. Following Pelican 
Island in 1903, the number of refuges continued to grow, and in 1966 
the National Wildlife Refuge System was established under the 
management of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the 
Interior, and the Fish and Wildlife Service manages 494 refuges 
covering 91 million acres.
  The National Park Service. The National Park Service manages 368 
million units including 55 national parks. The basic mission of the 
National Park Service is to conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret 
the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Nation for the 
public. To a considerable extent, the Service also contributes to 
meeting the public demand for certain types of outdoor recreation 
opportunities. Scientific research is another activity encouraged by 
the Service in units in the National Park System.
  Then the final body is the National Wilderness Preservation System 
which was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and today contains 
nearly 104 million acres in 44 States.
  So these are the four principal land management agencies of the 
United States. They administer a total of 621 million acres of which 
104 million acres or 17 percent is wilderness.
  So what about the State of Utah, the public lands of Utah? Of the 
land that makes up Utah, frankly, along with Nevada, California, and 
parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota, totaling 334 
million acres, approximately 52 million acres came into Federal 
ownership when it was ceded to the United States by Mexico in 1848 at a 
cost of $16 million, roughly.
  In 1896, having agreed forever to abandon polygamy, Utah was granted 
statehood. At that time, in exchange for giving up plural marriage, and 
because Utah did not receive internal improvement and swampland grants, 
the Federal Government granted 14 percent of Utah territory's land area 
to the State. That was substantially more than the 6 to 7 percent that 
the omnibus States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and 
Washington received just 5 years earlier. These land grants were 
allocated to specific activities, and I ask unanimous consent that this 
chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


        Purpose                                                 Acreage
School........................................................5,844,196
Public buildings.................................................64,000
University......................................................156,080
Agricultural college............................................200,000
Irrigation......................................................500,000
Insane Asylum...................................................100,000
School of Mines.................................................100,000
Deaf and dumb institution.......................................100,000
Reform school...................................................100,000
Institution for the blind.......................................100,000
Miners' hospital (Act Feb. 20, 1929).............................50,000
Normal School...................................................100,000

  Mr. BRADLEY. Remaining Federal lands currently constitute 
approximately 32 million acres in Utah or 62 percent of the State. That 
is what most people in United States do not understand, and that is why 
when the Senator from an eastern State, particularly one as densely 
populated as New Jersey, stands up to speak about this subject, they 
frequently say, ``Well, you don't understand what it means to have 60 
percent of your State owned by the Federal Government.''
  Indeed, New York State has only 1 percent, Michigan has 9 percent, 
Nevada has 90 percent, and Utah has 62 percent. Four Federal agencies 
dominate, and very little land in Utah has been designated as 
wilderness. In fact, out of the 32 million acres, about 800,000 of 
those acres have been currently designated as wilderness. The bulk of 
the land, 22 million acres, is managed by the BLM. Next highest is the 
Forest Service with about 8 million acres, and the National Park 
Service about 2 million acres. However, approximately 3.2 million acres 
in Utah which have not received wilderness designation are currently 
managed as wilderness. Official wilderness, 800,000 but 3.2 million 
acres now being managed as wilderness.
  What about economic development, the pressures in Utah on economic 
development? The issue before us is not just what to do with the public 
lands in Utah, the lands owned by all the taxpayers, but also what is 
the best path for Utah's future. Utah's economy is being transformed. I 
am sure the Senators from Utah can speak to this with much more 
knowledge and probably much more direct interest, so my comments are in 
the way of observation.
  The State is rapidly urbanizing and policies which reflect the old 
patterns of agriculture and extractive industries have little or 
nothing to do with the current economic realities. For example, from 
1979 to 1993, Utah jobs in mining and agriculture declined by 5,000 
while jobs outside these sectors increased by 360,000. In 1993, less 
than 1 job out of 100 was associated with mineral extraction during a 
period of rapid expansion in the State economy. The entire spectrum of 
extractive industries from minerals and agriculture to forestry and 
wood products has been in

[[Page S2767]]

relative decline since the 1960's and contributes just one-eighth as 
much income as do service industries to the State income. Even worse, 
many extractive industries such as mining are subject to boom and bust 
conditions and resulting economic instability.
  A study by Prof. Thomas Power, chairman of the department of 
economics at the University of Montana, found that extractive 
industries such as agriculture and mining are playing a decreasing role 
in Utah's economy and that ``wilderness protection does not in any 
significant way threaten the ongoing development of the Utah economy.''
  Wilderness protection is not a threat to the Utah economy. In fact, 
Power finds that the most likely economic effect of additional 
wilderness protection will be positive, not negative. While alternative 
economic uses of wilderness are marginal and primarily the product of 
speculative mineral activities, additional wilderness designation is 
linked with more predictable economic activity, the kinds associated 
with a high quality natural environment which is increasing in demand 
across America.
  Utah's population has also undergone rapid expansion in the last 25 
years. While the population as a whole in the United States increased 
by 29 percent, Utah enjoyed an 80-percent jump. Much of this was 
directly attributable to the attraction of the State's largely 
unspoiled environment. For example, St. George grew by 35 percent just 
in the last 5 years largely due to retirees moving in from California, 
and I can understand why. It is a beautiful, beautiful place--not so 
far from the Zion National Park.

  Utah's greatest asset is its unique natural beauty, a beauty which 
draws tourists from around the world. According to Power,

       Lands with wilderness qualities are a relatively scarce 
     resource that has significant alternative uses that satisfy 
     important human needs and desires. . . Wildlands provide a 
     broad range of benefits that make the lives of Utah residents 
     more satisfying and fulfilling in at least the same way that 
     most of their purchases in commercial markets do.

  In the competition to attract new businesses and residents, the 
quality of natural and social environments will be particularly 
important. Power views wilderness designations themselves as a sort of 
advertisement that the natural beauty of the State will remain 
available for future generations.
  Preservation of public lands also has direct and measurable economic 
benefits. Tourism has grown to be Utah's most important industry. 
Spending by travelers in Utah accounts for roughly 69,000 jobs and the 
$3.35 billion they spend generates some $247 million in direct tax 
impact for State and local governments in Utah. The Governor's Office 
of Planning and Budget expects the State's tourism industry to continue 
to be one of the fastest growing segments of Utah's economy.
  Utah's special attractions lured about 15 million tourists including 
1 million foreigners to the State in 1994. Visitation to the State's 
dozen national parks has increased more than 20 percent in the past 5 
years; there has been a corresponding increase in visitation to the 
surrounding BLM lands, most of which would not be protected under S. 
884. In some of the counties with lands under consideration for 
inclusion in the wilderness system, tourism provides over 60 percent of 
total jobs.
  Wilderness designation has little of the claimed negative effects 
cited by its most vigorous opponents. When 3.2 million acres were set 
aside in the wilderness study areas through the BLM's inventory 
process, agriculture accounted for 1.3 percent of the income earned in 
Utah. Ten years later the figure was virtually the same. The protection 
afforded by wilderness management in the study areas had made no change 
in Utah's agricultural economy.
  The same neutral or beneficial effect is also true for grazing. 
According to a University of Arizona study published in the Journal of 
Range Management, in designated wilderness in Arizona, forage 
allocation for grazing has actually increased. And wilderness 
designation allows the continuation of existing grazing uses.
  But even if designation had a significant impact on grazing, the 
Federal grazing lands in Utah currently contribute just eight 
hundredths of 1 percent of the total State income.
  With mining, too, the impact of wilderness designations is less than 
might be assumed. Since lands currently being mined are not suitable 
for wilderness, designation will not result in any losses of existing 
mining jobs.
  Oil and gas drilling are also declining contributors to the State's 
economy. Utah has the second highest drilling cost per barrel for any 
State containing significant oil and gas reserves, as a result of 
difficult access and complex geology. Small decreases in global oil 
prices have phased-out exploration and production in many parts of 
Utah.
  Utah's demonstrated coal base is significantly smaller than Montana, 
Wyoming's, Colorado's, and even North Dakota's. Significant advances in 
longwall mining technologies has increased productivity in Utah's 
underground coal mines, thereby decreasing the size of coal mining work 
forces. Thus, while productivity is at its highest in history, coal 
industry employment has decreased steadily.
  Then there is uranium. Huge deposits of uranium ore have been opened 
in Australia and Canada and Russian uranium may also be coming on to 
the United States market. U.S. production is more likely to come from 
the lowest-cost uranium reserves in Wyoming, New Mexico, and northern 
Arizona, not from wilderness deposits in Utah.
  As these figures show, extractive industries are not going to 
provide, I think, a stable future for the State, that is, simply 
looking at the data, looking at the materials, looking at where the 
economic growth has come, looking at where the employment has come. One 
might conclude, simply looking at the data, that extractive industries 
are not going to provide a stable future for the State of Utah.
  Statistics for Washington County, which is Utah's fastest growing, 
total and per capita personal income are rising in the region as a 
direct result of growth in the service sector.
  The conservation of 3.2 million acres by the BLM as wilderness study 
areas in 1980 did not devastate the affected county economies. Growth 
that occurred in each of these counties through the 1960's and 1970's 
continued through the 1980's and 1990's despite the negative economic 
effects caused by the drop in energy prices.
  Yet even with the decline in extractive industries and their 
decreasing impact on job creation, S. 884 was put together to reflect 
the old economic thinking and old economic patterns with boundaries set 
to accommodate a series of new extractive developments which threaten 
currently pristine areas. These include a proposal for a large tar 
sands mining development on the edge of Glen Canyon National Recreation 
Area and in the Book Cliffs; a 3,000 megawatt coal-burning power plant 
in the heart of the Kaiparowits Plateau--as I said earlier, one of the 
three or four largest undeveloped areas in the lower 48 States--coal 
strip mining south and west of Bryce Canyon National Park; a petroleum 
and carbon dioxide gas extraction field in the headwaters of the 
Escalante River, involving as many as 97 production wells and 11 four-
story compressor plants; chaining of thousands of areas of forests, 
some of which would be visible from Bryce Canyon National Park; and, 
even construction of a railroad. One tar sands project alone, in the 
Dirty Devil area, would entail the drilling of 35,000 injection and 
recovery wells, the construction of at least 100 miles of associated 
roads, 30,000 acres of soil disturbed, 14,000 acres of vegetation 
stripped away, and 2,000 archaeological sites disturbed or destroyed. 
In order to support these projects, hundreds of miles of new roads to 
gain access and new facilities to feed and house workers would be 
needed.
  The bill itself includes damaging language which allows unprecedented 
incompatible uses even in supposedly protected areas. These include 
allowing jeeps, motorcycles, and other off-road vehicles on remote dirt 
tracks, low-level military overflights which disturb wilderness 
solitude and even future dams, pipelines, and communications antennas 
in some areas. Accommodating these proposed uses, no matter how 
speculative or damaging, was the principal reason many important areas 
were dropped from consideration for wilderness designation under S. 
884. Boundaries seemed to be altered and entire regions omitted in 
order to permit new, large damaging projects which would fuel yet 
another cycle of economic boom and bust.

[[Page S2768]]

  Unfortunately, these projects proposed for the Colorado Plateau look 
familiar. They are the same types that have failed in the past because 
of unfavorable world commodity prices, lack of demand, or simply the 
high cost of doing business in a remote and forbidding area. While it 
is unlikely that most of them would ever be completed or be 
economically viable, even preliminary site work, such as roadbuilding, 
would destroy their wilderness qualities forever.

  So, that is what I see is the economic circumstance in Utah. The 
extractive industries declining both as a percent of the State economic 
product and the numbers in employment, and this bill going in the 
direction of trying to keep that future available, to the great 
detriment of the fastest growing areas, the service sector, and in 
particular tourism, that is growing every year as more people want to 
come and see and experience these remarkable lands on the Colorado 
plateau and in the Basin Range.
  The way to look at Utah's future, from my own view, and this is just 
my view, and the role that this bill will play in that future, is not 
from an absolutist perspective, however, not from an absolutist 
perspective that elevates environmental values above economic growth. 
Development is not wrong, and it has a place in both the publicly held 
and private lands of Utah. The principle that it must apply, in my 
view, is that of sustainable development.

  (Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BRADLEY. Sustainable development is not pure abstraction, but a 
real plan for action with a specific definition. The definition 
endorsed by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, in a 
report issued last month, is as follows:
  Sustainable development means:

       To meet the needs of the present without compromising the 
     ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

  It is a concept with an imperative behind it that is much like the 
imperative to balance the Federal budget, only much broader. It brings 
together the idea of a growing economy in which every adult has the 
opportunity to earn a living and support a family with the promise of a 
healthy life and a high quality of life for this and future 
generations.
  What does sustainable development mean in the American West? Charles 
Wilkinson, a law professor and historian of Western lands, puts it 
well. He says:

       Good science, good laws, good economics, and good 
     communities come together in the idea of sustainability. At 
     its core are the responsibilities lodged in the idea of 
     intergenerational equity which [has been described] as the 
     principle that ``every generation receives a natural and 
     cultural legacy in trust from its ancestors and holds it in 
     trust for its descendants.'' Development cannot wear the land 
     and waters down but rather must maintain their vigor. A 
     working policy of sustainability encompasses a practical and 
     phased-in, but still rigorous and comprehensive, program of 
     conservation so that consumption can be reduced. But the 
     obligation to provide for the next generations also includes 
     the duty to maintain a vital economy. Sustainability, then, 
     affirmatively recognizes the need for development. . .
       The first step in approaching sustainability is to identify 
     exactly what must be sustained--the ``natural and cultural 
     legacy'' that we have received and must pass on. Traditional 
     extractive development in the West has focused only on the 
     specific resources being extracted. Water projects, for 
     example, were designed to meet only the demand for water, by 
     which was meant water as a commodity--for mining, farming and 
     ranching, energy development, and industrial, municipal, and 
     domestic use. Any other benefits, such as the blue-ribbon 
     trout stream on the Navajo Dam on the San Juan River, were 
     purely secondary and often accidental. Avoidance of negative 
     effects, such as loss of the salmon runs, was largely a 
     matter of luck, as when the Army Corps of Engineers' fish 
     ladder at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia actually turned out 
     to be workable. The overriding goal was to create commodity 
     benefits, which were viewed as being nearly infinitely 
     sustainable in those simpler times. . .
       But our thinking has evolved. In many national forests, a 
     broader view of sustainability is not being achieved. Only 
     the specific resources being extracted--commercial timber --
     is being renewed. Other parts of the forest, which must be 
     taken into account to achieve true sustainability, are in 
     jeopardy. The health of certain fish and wildlife 
     populations. Soil on steep slopes. The recreation 
     economy. Species diversity. The ancient forests. Views. 
     Beauty. Glory. Awe. Sustainability is measured not by 
     board feet but by the whole forest.

  Unless you disagree with the concept of sustainable development, that 
we owe our descendants the legacy we have received from our ancestors, 
it is imperative to compare the Utah wilderness bill with this idea. 
Before I go into great detail about the specifics of the bill, I want 
to briefly consider the question, Does the bill live up to the idea of 
sustainable development?
  First, the bill elevates one set of resources above all others, both 
within and without the areas designated wilderness. Grazing, mining, 
timber sales and commercial development are protected. The wilderness 
designation boundaries creep carefully around the sites of planned 
development. The wilderness value is secondary and incidental to the 
other aims, and appears to be almost accidental. All evidence suggests, 
as I will show later, that the ``using interests'' of Utah, and their 
friends at the BLM, seem to have asked the question: ``What areas don't 
we want for mining and development?'' before they asked ``What areas do 
we want protected for the future?''
  Second, the uses that are given priority are not those which will 
lead Utah to a sustainable, prosperous future. Minerals, timber, water, 
and grasses are not infinite resources, and cannot be sustained without 
limits. Mining and agriculture add up to about $800 million of the 
total income of the State. That is down from $1.1 billion in 1980 and 
steadily declining. The rest of the Utah's economy, all that earned 
from other sources, has grown from $20 to $30 billion in the same time. 
So mining and agriculture, from $1.1 billion to $800 million, the rest 
of the economy growing from $20 billion to $30 billion at the same 
time. In extractive industries, it costs more and more to bring fewer 
and fewer returns as resources are exhausted. The economic values of 
tourism, quality of life, nonextractive industries, such as software 
development, high technology, grow and grow as more is invested in 
them.
  Third, the bill not only fails to protect the natural legacy for 
future generations, it affirmatively denies them the right to protect 
it for themselves, and that is the section on managing it for 
suitability for wilderness.
  Fourth, there is yet another component which Wilkinson describes as 
part of sustainable development in the West: the idea that a community 
can best determine for itself how to preserve its legacy for its 
children. He writes:

       After identifying all economic, environmental, cultural and 
     abstract (or spiritual) elements that need to be sustained, 
     [I envision] a community coming together; identifying 
     problems; setting goals--a vision--for a time period such as 
     twenty or forty years; adopting a program to fulfill those 
     goals; and modifying the program as conditions change.

  The process that led to this bill was the opposite of this idea. 
Instead, an agency in Washington, crippled by politics and captive of 
interests, decided on its own which elements needed to be sustained. It 
ignored, denounced, and shouted down the county commissioners and 
citizens who had other thoughts. Finally, the process brought us a plan 
that cannot be altered if conditions change.
  So now, Mr. President, I want to put the bill in some context. I have 
already spent some time this morning talking about the history of 
public lands in our country and how the Federal Government's 
stewardship of our Nation's environmental heritage has evolved over the 
years. I think this history provides the context within which to 
address the situation that faces us today: how do we achieve a 
balanced, reasonable plan for conserving America's natural heritage 
while providing opportunity for economic growth and development across 
our public lands? This is the challenge we face today as we consider 
the Utah Public Lands Management Act.

  This bill--I have not seen all of the changes in the modification 
that was sent to the desk, so I would add a couple other hundred 
thousand acres here or there--but this bill would designate between 1.8 
and 2 million acres of wilderness in Utah. It would release 
approximately 20 million BLM acres of land that are not designated as 
wilderness areas. It would allow the State to exchange land with the 
Federal Government. It would deny Federal reserved water rights on 
lands designated as wilderness. It would provide new management 
directions for the designated wilderness areas, some of

[[Page S2769]]

which are exceptions to the standards established in the Wilderness Act 
of 1964 that would allow military overflights and allow motorized 
access. It will allow motor boat access in designated areas. The 
legislation, in my view, fails to strike the balance between using our 
natural resources, which is the right of all U.S. citizens as 
stakeholders in a common heritage, and abusing natural resources which 
are the shared heritage of the entire people of the country.
  This legislation designates too little of Utah's spectacular 
landscape as wilderness. Of the almost 22 million acres of BLM land in 
Utah, only about 1.8 to 2 million, less than 10 percent, would be 
designated as wilderness. Vast tracts of America's most magnificent 
public lands would be left open to development; the wilderness that is 
designated by the act would be managed in a manner contrary to the 
protections afforded by the Wilderness Act, and the unprecedented 
inclusion, now modified somewhat, of hard release language would 
attempt to bar the rest from forever being protected by the shield of 
wilderness designation.
  Before I begin to talk about the specific shortcomings of the bill--
and there are several serious flaws that I want to call to the 
attention of the Senate--I would like to take a moment to sketch the 
history of public lands management in Utah since the adoption of the 
Wilderness Act in 1964, because I think that history paints a clear 
picture of how we arrived at our present dilemma.
  In 1964, Congress enacted what Charles Wilkinson called one of our 
Nation's noblest, most future-looking innovations. The Wilderness Act 
of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and 
marked the first time any government had ever legislated in favor of 
wild lands. Today more than 125 other nations protecting more than half 
a billion acres have followed the lead of the United States in 
establishing protection for their wilderness acres.
  However, the 1964 act did not include, as I said earlier, Bureau of 
Land Management lands; only national forest, parks, wildlife refuges 
were covered under the protective umbrella of the act. However, in 
1976, in response to concerns raised by citizens in southwestern Utah, 
Congress finally called for a wilderness study of all BLM lands 
nationwide. Each BLM State office was directed to inventory all 
roadless areas with wilderness characteristics. Following on the heels 
of the inventory, each State office was directed to study, hold 
hearings, and recommend--after giving full weight to all issues, 
including economic concerns--which areas in the inventory should be 
defined as wilderness areas. Every State complied with this directive 
with the exception of Utah.

  BLM officials in Utah failed to produce an initial comprehensive 
inventory of roadless areas with wilderness characteristics in their 
State. Instead, they embarked on a course that I think mirrors the 
debate we have here today. In 1980, after only a 1-year period of 
study, the Utah BLM eliminated nearly 20 million acres from wilderness 
consideration. In one fell swoop, the BLM removed an area of land that 
was five times the size of my own State of New Jersey from wilderness 
consideration. This move left just 2.6 million acres protected, which 
was later increased to 3.2 million acres after appeals by Utah 
conservationists. Finally, in 1991, the Utah BLM delivered its final 
recommendation of lands to be designated wilderness areas--and that 
figure was a mere 1.9 million acres. This low-ball figure was derived 
as a result of the BLM inventory process that was, I think, much too 
sensitive to the developmental interests.
  The history of the BLM inventory is crucial, and it is a crucial part 
of the story of public lands in Utah. We need to understand that Utah's 
BLM wilderness inventory was not an unbiased, scientific study, but it 
was the result of a highly politicized process. The inventory work done 
in the 1970's and 1980's was politically driven, and the results were 
seriously flawed. The flawed product, with its recommendations of 1.9 
million acres to be designated as wilderness is replicated in the bill 
S. 884 we are considering today.
  Criticism of the BLM inventory process has come from all corners, 
with the most striking group being BLM employees involved in conducting 
the inventory.
  In response to these criticisms, in August 1980, just prior to the 
BLM's final inventory decision, Terry Sopher, the national director of 
the BLM wilderness program, traveled to Utah to investigate charges 
that the inventory had been misdirected for some reason or another. 
Sopher reported that, ``Based on what we had seen, there was an 
egregious violation of policies.'' Sopher returned to the District of 
Columbia to recommend that the inventory be redone. However, that 
recommendation and that effort was halted after the 1980 election.
  A decade and a half later--go forward a decade and a half; that was 
1980--1995, BLM employees were still voicing strong criticisms of the 
way the inventory process was conducted. On July 7, 1995, Janet Ross, 
who worked as a BLM employee on the BLM official inventory work in 
Utah, held a press conference with the former BLM national director, 
Jim Baca, and coordinator, Keith Corrigan. All three told the press 
that BLM's wilderness inventory excluded wilderness for reasons that 
were not exactly clear.
  Ms. Ross, now director of the Four Corners School of Outdoor 
Education located in southern Utah, said,

       It is my experience and professional judgment that we did 
     not perform and were not allowed to perform a competent 
     wilderness inventory. The result was that substantial 
     wilderness-quality acreage was arbitrarily excluded from 
     further study and proper consideration.''

  Utah newspapers following the inventory process were also extremely 
critical of the inventory process. Following the inventory work, in 
August 1982, the Salt Lake City Desert News editorialized against the 
BLM's work. It wrote, ``* * * there was much Utah land that should have 
been considered for possible designation as wilderness, but the BLM 
`just' did not study it.''

  Additionally, in the 1980's, Utah citizens filed a series of legal 
challenges with the Interior Board of Land Appeals against the BLM's 
inventory, appeals which covered 925,000 acres in 29 roadless areas. In 
1983, the administrative court responded with a stunning indictment of 
the BLM's work in the largest appeal of its kind in the history of the 
court. The Utah BLM had been in error, the board ruled, on 90 percent 
of the lands in question. Citizens were unable to challenge all of the 
wilderness areas the BLM dropped during the inventory because they 
faced a 30-day deadline, and a single one of the appeals often required 
filings that were 2,000 pages, several hundred photographs, and over 
100 affidavits.
  The belief that the BLM inventory process was seriously flawed was 
shared by congressional committees that held oversight hearings on the 
process. In 1984 and 1985, House Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman 
John Seiberling held a series of oversight hearings to investigate 
charges that the Utah BLM's inventory was flawed. After the 
investigation, Seiberling told reporters, ``They've left out areas that 
obviously qualify for wilderness * * * their position is absolutely 
absurd.''

  Spurred on by the realization that the Utah BLM's erroneous work 
would result in millions of acres of wild lands being subject to the 
possibility of development, Utah citizens conducted their own 
inventory. The citizens' work took years, requiring thousands of hours 
of field work. Unlike the BLM, these citizens walked every one of the 
roadless areas on foot and determined that there were actually 5.7 
million acres of remaining wilderness. Their work was published in a 
400-page book entitled ``Wilderness at the Edge.'' There was a bill 
that their proposal recommended that was introduced in 1989 by 
Congressman Wayne Owens. When he left the House, Representative Maurice 
Hinchey reintroduced H.R. 1500.
  Now, Mr. President, now that I have had the opportunity to chronicle 
the controversy that has surrounded the development of this 
legislation, I want now to discuss the specific flaws in the bill. S. 
884 suffers from several major flaws, each of which merits serious 
consideration.
  First, and most alarming, is the hard release language. Not only the 
4 million acres which Utahans seek immediate designation, but also the 
additional 16 million acres of Utah BLM lands. As I heard the 
modification, the

[[Page S2770]]

bill has been modified, and it has been improved. The change is 
helpful, but I will argue later why that change is not sufficient, and 
how it is in its present structure, a back-door way for doing the exact 
thing that the original bill had intended to do, while at the same time 
doing it a little more skillfully.
  Second, the bill leaves nearly 4 million acres of America's Red Rock 
Wilderness open for development. These 4 million acres, some of our 
most magnificent national treasures, landscapes that would no longer be 
protected for our future generations, include Fish and Owl Creek 
Canyons on the east side of Cedar Mesa, that is the home to 1,500-year-
old Anasazi cliff dwellings; the wild country of the Kaiparowits 
Plateau that I talked about earlier; the heart of the Dirty Devil 
canyon system; the slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains; the White 
Canyon, with its important habitat for desert bighorn sheep and lands 
adjacent to Zion National Park; and countless others in the basin range 
region. I will save for another day the discussion of the basin range 
region.
  Third, the bill transfers a large chunk of the Kaiparowits Plateau 
Wilderness out of Federal ownership to the State of Utah for the 
development of a coal mine, with no regard for its outstanding actual 
quality or value.
  The Kaiparowits, as I described earlier, is inhabited by a wide 
variety of wildlife species, including mule deer, mountain lions, 
coyotes, foxes, and over 210 species of birds. Several areas on the 
Kaiparowits contain examples of the marine and terrestrial fossils 
found nowhere else in the world. If the Kaiparowits were to become 
State land, the national public would have no voice in how the land is 
managed.
  Mr. President, S. 884 would designate no wilderness in the half-
million-acre Kaiparowits region of south central Utah between a slice 
of Fifty Mile Mountain on the east and a sliver of Paria River on the 
west. Instead, more than 50,000 acres in the heart of this omitted 
region would be turned over to the State of Utah to facilitate coal 
development.
  Fourth, the bill expressly denies a water right to wilderness areas 
designated by this act. In the two most recent BLM wilderness bills 
enacted--for California and Arizona, and I think also in Nevada--
Congress reserved a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the 
purposes of the act, which is protecting lands designated as wilderness 
areas. This bill would deny the right to water for lands that are 
protected under this act, thereby preventing protected lands from 
having the right to the very water which gives it life. Ironically, one 
of the reasons for granting wilderness protection to desert wild lands 
in Utah is to shelter relatively rare riparian ecosystems. Protecting 
the lands which contain the habitat of species that live on the banks 
of rivers and lakes without protecting the water which sustains these 
same systems is shortsighted, to say the least.

  Fifth, the bill includes provisions permitting the State of Utah to 
exchange State land within or adjacent to wilderness areas for Federal 
lands in other locations, so long as the lands exchanged are of 
approximate equal value. Taken at face value this would benefit both 
parties. However, Sylvia Baca, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and 
Minerals Management, at the Department of Interior has testified that 
``equal value'':

       * * * is clearly not the case when the specific tracts 
     shown on the map are reviewed. The tracts proposed to be 
     obtained by the State have high economic value for mineral, 
     residential, or industrial development. The fair market value 
     of the lands may be 5 to 10 times more than the value of the 
     lands that would be transferred to the Federal Government.

  Mr. President, S. 884 also permits partial exchanges that would allow 
the State to acquire desirable Federal land in exchange for whatever 
land the State wants to give up. The State gets to arrange, in other 
words, both sides of the transaction. It identifies both the lands it 
wants to dispose of and the lands it wants to acquire. The Federal 
Government must approve the transaction, once again, provided the lands 
are of approximate equal value.
  Sixth, this bill makes broad exceptions to the Wilderness Act of 
1964, dangerous precedents, which the act affords protections that 
preserve the unique and spectacular wilderness qualities of public 
lands. These exemptions would allow and in some circumstances even 
encourage new nonwilderness activities in designated wilderness areas.
  For example, passage of this bill would restrict the Secretary of 
Interior's authority to control motorized vehicles in wilderness, even 
on new routes; allow new dams to be constructed under the guise of 
modifying existing small spring catchments; allow new water users to 
dry up wilderness streams; allow the construction of permanent 
buildings and roads and wilderness under the guise of interpreting 
cultural resources; allow the military to construct new communication 
sites in wilderness; and include special unnecessary overbroad language 
permitting low-level military flights and the establishment of new 
special-use airspace over wilderness; and provide livestock permittees 
an argument for special treatment on allotments in wilderness.
  Mr. President, those are what I consider to be the major flaws in 
this bill. I know that some of my colleagues will argue that 
preservation of Utah's unique national heritage is a matter best left 
to the State's own delegation with its considerable wisdom and 
considerable talent. In this case, I have to disagree. Wilderness is a 
gift we give to our children and grandchildren, a gift that once 
destroyed can never be reconstructed. The children of New Jersey 
deserve it, as much as the children of California or Colorado.

  As a Southwestern poet, Ann Weilern Walka, has written of southern 
Utah, this beautiful, vast, unique area of the world:

       Why not acknowledge that there is something here more 
     important to our beleaguered society than a marginal mine, an 
     overgrazed permit? A great American myth is embodied in wild 
     lands, and it is myth, ultimately, that holds people 
     together.
       The bits of this continent, too formidable to penetrate by 
     road the last of what drew our ancestors to North America, be 
     it ten or ten thousand years ago, an opportunity to breathe 
     deep and re-imagine their lives. The scraps of Eden still 
     afford us awe in an age of cynicism, steady us when human 
     affairs are dizzyingly complicated, reaffirm our eroding 
     sense of American innocence and courage.
       Places like these, places to get lost, to become grounded, 
     to meet our Maker, to rediscover our forebears' 
     resourcefulness and grit, to take heart, are promised in our 
     most abiding stories.

  I might close my opening statement with a quote from the Oakland 
Tribune that reminds us that ``The battle over public lands in the West 
is a battle between two philosophies: one that says untouched land is 
inherently valuable to all Americans, from those who use it for 
solitude and recreation to those who simply enjoy knowing that there 
are still pockets of nature left on the continent; and one that says 
all lands, including those owned by the public, should be put to work 
in one way or the other.'' These public lands belong, I believe, to the 
former group, and so do I.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been intrigued by the comments and 
remarks of my colleague from New Jersey. But I have to say that during 
the course of this debate, we are going to show a number of those 
remarks to be in error. Let me mention a couple of things right off the 
top of my head. He mentioned the beauties of the Kaiparowits Plateau, 
which I have tramped on and been around.
  I might add that, in this bill, if you include just Fifty Mile 
Mountain in that area and the Paria-Hackberry area, you are talking 
about 220,628 acres out of that area that are going into wilderness. 
The implication is that we are not doing anything about wilderness. My 
gosh, almost 221,000 acres. With the Dirty Devil area, which was 
mentioned, we are designating more than 75,000 acres. We are talking 
about 2 million acres here. Since the BLM began studying this issue 
almost 18 years ago, more than than $10 million has been spent, 
countless hearings held, town meetings scheduled--many efforts to bring 
people together. The affected county people are upset, many not wanting 
any acres at all in wilderness. Then, there is the other extreme 
wanting 5.7 million acres.
  The BLM, looking at it all, said that the only acres that even came 
close to qualifying for true wilderness are 3.2 million. That is the 
study area. Nobody in their right mind expected that whole

[[Page S2771]]

study area to become wilderness. Everybody knows that once it is 
designated wilderness, it is used only basically for backpacking. You 
can walk on it, and that is about it.
  The people of Utah and everybody else would be basically frozen out 
from using any mechanization, including a bicycle, on the property. So 
even if you assume that the whole 3.2 million acres might qualify for 
wilderness and that the entire amount should be taken, that still is 
all there would be. These people who are so extreme want 5.7 million 
acres.
  Keep in mind, the definition of wilderness is this. Section 2 of the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 says: ``A wilderness, in contrast with those 
areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby 
recognized as an area where the Earth and its community of life are 
untrammeled by man and where man himself is a visitor who does not 
remain.''
  Further, it is defined as:

       An area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 
     character and influence without permanent improvements or 
     human habitation, which is protected by man so as to preserve 
     natural conditions and one, which generally appears to have 
     been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the 
     implants of man where it is substantially unnoticeable; two, 
     has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 
     unconfined type of recreation; three, has at least 5,000 
     acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable 
     its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; four, 
     may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 
     scientific, scenic, or historical value.

  Furthermore, it said that you cannot put mechanization on this land. 
We in Utah understand wilderness. I was one of the pivotal people in 
getting it passed a number of years ago, along with Senator Garn and 
Congressman Hansen. We passed 800,000 acres of Forest Service. There 
was a lot of screaming and shouting then. Today, virtually everybody 
admits that was a wonderful bill. It has worked well. We are proud of 
it. We are proud of our wilderness in Utah. We do not want people from 
other States coming in and accusing us of raping the land or robbing 
the people of the country as a whole, or taking away their rights, when 
we understand our land and we know it. We have been there and we have 
walked over it and we have driven many of these areas.
  Frankly, it does make sense to me for those who come into our State 
demanding 5.7 million acres when the total study area was only 3.2 
million. They should listen to a leading BLM figure, Mr. James Parker, 
the former Associate and Assistant Director of BLM, former BLM State 
director for Utah, who stated in testimony before the Senate 
Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management on S. 884, the 
following:

       Based on my personal experience with, and review of, the 
     detailed reports and analysis prepared by the professional 
     staff of BLM and other entities of the Department of 
     Interior, I believe that S. 884 is appropriate and that it 
     includes most of the areas that truly deserve to be 
     designated as wilderness in Utah. I believe the acreage 
     figure is both credible and in line with what meets the 
     criteria for wilderness designation. I also believe that it 
     meets both the spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act of 
     1964, and the proposed designations fit well into the overall 
     management scheme provided for by FLPMA for management of the 
     public lands.

  This is the first time I have heard these indications, except from 
the most extreme people, that the BLM is an organization that is not 
tremendously concerned about the environment. It has always been 
environmentally oriented in our State. With regard to the BLM Utah 
State process, Mr. Parker said:

       The process was open to every citizen of the United States, 
     it was well defined, the criteria well-documented, appeals 
     and protest rights were all publicized and used by groups and 
     individuals on both sides of the issue, and extensive 
     documentation was completed for all aspects of the process. 
     Undoubtedly, this is one of the longest running, most 
     expensive, and most intensive public involvement efforts in 
     the history of Utah.

  On the factual aspect of public involvement of this process, Mr. 
Parker provided the following information:

       During the 15 years it took to complete this wilderness 
     process in Utah, more than 16,000 written comments were 
     received, analyzed, and incorporated into the decision 
     process. More than 75 formal public meetings and hearings 
     were held by BLM, and hundreds of face-to-face discussions 
     and workshops were conducted. Thousands of pages of 
     documentation were prepared, printed, and distributed for 
     public review and comment, and countless briefings were held 
     and questions responded to. For the draft environmental 
     impact statement alone, 16 separate hearings were conducted, 
     over 700 people testified, and over 6,000 people commented in 
     writing. The resulting EIS fills 10 large books and consists 
     of 7 volumes, plus analysis of public input and agency 
     response.

  Let me make the point that the people arguing against us, have 
produced a beautiful book that contains their recommendation. It is 
done in this book here. That is their work. I give them credit for it. 
It is a beautiful book and there is a lot of good information. But this 
is just part of the study of the Federal Government and the BLM. Here 
are some more parts of the study, from the Geological Survey on 
through. That is what we have gone through, not just the study in the 
interests of a few, but the interests of everybody.
  I am glad that we have done that. The fact is there has been a lot of 
study there. There has been some suggestion here that the BLM 
development process was flawed. Let us see what Mr. Parker had to say. 
We are not quoting some liberal, environmentally-oriented professor 
from Colorado who does not even live in Utah. We are talking about the 
head of the Utah State BLM Office.

       I came to the conclusion that, while it was not a perfect 
     process, it was carried out in a very open, professional, and 
     orderly manner. The criteria had been adhered to and 
     procedures had been followed.

  Just look at it right here.

       There was extensive documentation of the decision process.

  Just look at it. It is enough to blow your mind.

       There had also been a great deal of oversight in testing 
     the decisions by higher levels of the organization, the 
     Department of the Interior, and by special interest groups on 
     both sides of the issue through the appeals and judicial 
     challenges. I believe that the professional staff of BLM and 
     the other agencies involved--

  It was not just BLM; there are a number of Federal agencies involved 
in all these studies.

     involved in both Utah and in the headquarters level in 
     Washington. . .

  Let us get with it. People here in Washington are not going to let us 
make mistakes here. The people out there are not going to let us make 
mistakes. Both areas are environmentally oriented, almost to the 
extreme in some areas. But Mr. Parker says:

       I believe that the professional staff of BLM and the other 
     agencies involved in both Utah and at the headquarters level 
     in Washington and elsewhere did a very credible job in 
     carrying out the mandate of the law.

  In the process pursued by the Utah congressional delegation to 
develop S. 884--remember, this is the head of BLM in Utah, former 
Associate and Assistant Director of BLM and former BLM State Director 
for Utah on this process pursued by our Utah congressional delegation--
Mr. Parker stated,

       I believe the recent process used by the delegation and the 
     Governor was not only appropriate but was a rather gracious 
     gesture--

  I have to tell you it was. But let me continue.

     given the extent of previous public involvement in the 
     numerous opportunities that have existed over the past 17 
     years for individuals and groups to become involved in and to 
     impact the process.

  Regarding the future use of lands that are not designated in our 
wilderness bill, S. 884, Mr. Parker continues:

       All of the public lands in Utah are covered by land use 
     plans. Some of the plans are not as current as they might be 
     but they do provide protection for the resources. These 
     plans, along with other laws and regulations, provide many 
     options for land managers to use to protect the land and 
     their resources. While allowing for appropriate authorized 
     use and enjoyment of the public lands, no lands in Utah would 
     be unprotected, nor will they be open to uncontrolled 
     development if they are not designated as wilderness.

  That says it all. These lands are not going to be ripped off. These 
lands are not just automatically developed. There are not going to be 
shopping centers everywhere. The fact is they will be subject to the 
environmental rules and laws in existence today. Mr. Parker also has 
written the following in a recent newspaper article about H.R. 1500, 
the bill which apparently our colleague from New Jersey supports as 
well as people who have never stepped foot in Utah, who have never 
looked at it, and who do not understand our State. I might add they 
include many

[[Page S2772]]

environmental organizations that are very sincere in what they are 
doing, but on this issue they are sincerely wrong:

       This ill-conceived proposal--

  Mr. Parker is talking about H.R. 1500, the environmental bill that 
would have 5.7 million acres--

       This ill-conceived proposal includes in its boundaries 
     private homes and buildings, cultivated fields, chained 
     areas, thousands of acres of private and school trust lands, 
     and other areas that cannot be designated as wilderness. It 
     also includes hundreds of miles of roads.

  In this study book of theirs we have placed a tab demonstrating where 
there exist many miles of roads. They try to say these roads are 
abandoned or not used, and so forth--some of them may be. The fact of 
the matter is that hundreds of miles of roads have been included in 
their proposed wilderness areas. We have gone over many of those areas. 
A lot of it is low-lying sagebrush land along highways. That is how 
ridiculous this is. Mr. Parker goes on to say:

       Also included are--

  Mr. Parker criticizing H.R. 1500, the environmental bill or I should 
say the environmentally extreme bill.

       Also included are oil and gas wells, hundreds of mineral 
     leases and mining claims, rights of ways, et cetera, all of 
     which would conflict with wilderness designation. Many of the 
     areas in the proposal lack the 5,000-acre minimum specified 
     by the Wilderness Act and are ``cherry stemmed'' in the 
     extreme leaving narrow necks of land that would make them 
     totally unmanageable as wilderness.

  That is what a lot of this stuff is. I would prefer to go with these 
things. I do not always agree with what the Federal Government has done 
in all of these wilderness studies, but we have spent millions getting 
to the point where we brought people together from all over the State 
of Utah and, frankly, from all over the country, to achieve what we 
have been trying to do.
  So you have a study area of 3.2 million acres that is well studied, 
well documented. It is misleading to indicate that the BLM did not do 
its job here. In fact, we thought that it did too good of a job. Many 
people in Utah did.
  After reviewing the 3.2 million acres, the BLM in its final 
recommendation, after all of this work, concluded that we should have 
1.9 million acres. That would be the right figure. This bill as 
originally filed proposed 1.8 million acres, 100,000 acres less than 
the 1.9 million that the BLM called for. To accommodate our colleagues 
here in the Senate, because we know that our colleagues are sincere in 
wanting more wilderness acres, we have gone from 1.8 to 2 million.
  Let us take a look at what 2 million acres equals, just so people 
realize how vast this amount is, and why we are so upset that certain 
groups are coming into our State and telling us what we can and cannot 
do in our own State. And, all this after Senator Bennett, I, and the 
Members of Congress in the House have worked on this issue for, in my 
case, 20 years, to get to this point where we can resolve this matter. 
I should point out that both sides on this issue are mad at us most of 
the time--those who do not want any acreage and those who want 
everything, like our friend from New Jersey. The affected counties 
wanted just over 1 million acres, that is all. They did not want any 
more, and in some area they did not want that, to be honest with you. 
They really want zero, especially in the mainly affected counties. But, 
at the most, we finally got them to agree to 1 million acres.
  To those who never have budged from 5.7 million acres, not one acre, 
we propose an amount of 2 million acres, which is 100,000 above that 
recommended by the BLM. Look at what it means. Just so you get the idea 
of how vast this is. Two million acres is equal to 100 percent of the 
whole State of Delaware--they only have 1.2 million acres in Delaware; 
63 percent of the whole State of Connecticut, which is only 3 million 
acres; 41 percent of Senator Bradley's New Jersey--in other words, our 
2 million acres is almost half of his State--he has 4.8 million acres 
in New Jersey; 41 percent of the whole State of Massachusetts; 35 
percent of the whole State of New Hampshire; and 34 percent of the 
whole State of Vermont.

  I think people ought to stop and look at this. We live in Utah. We 
believe it is the most beautiful State in the Union. We do not think 
there is any question about it. We think many people will confirm that. 
We think all States have much beauty in them. But the fact of the 
matter is that after all these years of study, all of these years of 
conflict, and all these years of having both sides mad at the 
congressional delegation, with some wanting none and always the 
environmentalists wanting at least 5.7 million, if not more, since 
Wayne Owens originally filed the bill in 1988, it is time to settle 
this matter. Representative Owens' bill totaled 5.2 million, by the 
way, as I recall. The New York Congressman, who at the time he filed 
his bill had never stepped foot inside of Utah, introduced a measure to 
designate 5.7 million acres, and that becomes the battle cry for these 
people. It is an extreme battle cry.
  At the outset, my colleagues should understand one very important 
fact. We in Utah love our State. We love and cherish our land, which is 
comprised of some of the most beautiful and picturesque scenery in the 
world. I am going to get into it in just a few minutes as to what we 
are doing.
  When we talk about the Kaiparowits Plateau, we have 220,000 acres in 
there, and of the other areas cited by my friend from New Jersey, there 
are 75,000 acres of the Dirty Devil, and 16,000 acres of the Fish and 
Owl Creek. Even this proposal is being criticized as well.
  Mr. President, I really cannot say how disappointed I am that some of 
the Members of this body have chosen not only to oppose the Utah 
wilderness provisions of this bill but also to engage in such 
questionable debate about it.
  My friend from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, issued a press release on 
Friday announcing that he would try to block the Utah wilderness 
legislation from passing. He has a right to do that if he wants to. 
Actually, for those of us involved, this is not big news. The Senator 
from New Jersey has done a pretty good job of blocking it so far, as 
well as most of the rest of the bills in this amendment, since last 
April. It is because he has that Chairman Murkowski has included our 
wilderness bill in this overall package, knowing that it is the just 
thing to do. It just seems to me that this press release is a public 
way of throwing down the gauntlet and, believe me, I am sincerely sorry 
for that. The Senator from New Jersey has announced that he intends to 
take down legislation that is critical to our State. What am I supposed 
to do? What would any Member of this body do if he or she found himself 
or herself in our shoes? If anyone here does not know the answer to 
that question, he or she does not belong in the Senate.

  I have heard all the rhetoric about Utah land belonging to the Nation 
as a whole. And it may surprise some of my colleagues to hear that to a 
certain degree I agree with that. I believe certain problems and 
concerns affecting some States must be shared nationally. But let us 
get one thing straight. The impact of this legislation, and in fact the 
adverse impact of failing to pass this bill, is going to fall on Utahns 
only--not on New Jerseyites, but on Utahns. It will not matter to a 
citizen of New Jersey or Florida or Wisconsin that a small town in 
rural Utah like Kanab, UT, dies a slow death because its land has been 
locked up, unjustly locked up. It will not matter to the average 
Illinoisan that the town of Summit, UT, faces a water crisis because 
existing water rights have not been respected in the second driest 
State in the Union.
  Just who do my colleagues think is going to bear the heaviest 
consequences of our decision with respect to the Utah wilderness issue? 
In all honesty, this press release sounds like it could have been 
written by the lobbyists for the National Resources Defense Council. I 
simply cannot believe Senator Bradley would have personally approved 
its content. It says that ``The current Senate Utah wilderness 
legislation would direct that 20 million acres of Utah lands can never 
be designated as wilderness in the future.''
  Now, where on Earth did this come from? Neither the original bill 
that Senator Bennett and I filed nor the substitute says any such 
thing. Moreover, the BLM has never even identified 20 million acres of 
land as wilderness worthy, as I have pointed out earlier. This figure 
represents 91 percent of the BLM's total landownership in Utah.
  (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

[[Page S2773]]

  Mr. HATCH. My friend from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, knows the 
difference between the BLM inventory and the study areas, which is why 
I really do not believe he really approved of this press release. He 
goes on to say that ``If the bill becomes law, it would permit the 
transformation of these lands from pristine wilderness to strip mines, 
roads and commercial development.''
  Now, Mr. President, these statements are patently untrue. Someone in 
the Senator's office has been grossly misled, and unfortunately these 
untruths are being distributed to the press as though they are truths. 
In essence, these are the facts. First, the upper number of acreage 
involved in this debate is over 5 million, not 20 million. Second, 
nowhere in our bill does it say that no more wilderness can ever be 
designated in the future.
  Third, the land not designated as wilderness is still managed and 
controlled by the Federal Government in accordance with Federal land 
policy laws and regulations. I feel very safe in saying that there will 
be no environmentally irresponsible activity taking place on these 
lands now or in the future.
  Fourth, there has not been a new strip mine in Utah in many years, 
even decades, and there will not be even after this bill passes. Yet 
the opponents of this bill know that using the term ``strip mine'' 
conjures up all sorts of horrible images. Its use in this debate is 
simply not justified.
  In the same press release from Senator Bradley's office, he states 
that he will continue fighting for legislation to protect 17,500 acres 
along the New Jersey-New York border, the so-called Sterling Forest 
bill. The Senator from New Jersey is quite correct that the Sterling 
Forest bill passed the Senate without an objection. As public lands 
policy, I do not think the Sterling Forest bill was perfect, but I did 
not stand in the way of its passage. The Senators from New Jersey, New 
York, and surrounding areas wanted it. They represent their States. 
This legislation, the Sterling Forest legislation primarily affects New 
Jersey. If both Senators from New Jersey believe this legislation is in 
the best interest of their State and the country, I am going to defer 
to their judgment. Ditto the legislation for the Presidio and the Taos 
Pueble land exchange and the Arkansas-Oklahoma land exchange, et 
cetera, et cetera.

  So I am a little annoyed, when Senator Bennett and I propose 
legislation that has the support of our Governor, our legislature, our 
Utah association of counties, our educators throughout the State, and 
thousands of individual Utahns, that we are being second-guessed by 
Senators who do not represent this State.
  Keep in mind, look at how much acreage we are putting in and how it 
relates to the States in the northeast where a lot of the complaints 
are coming from. The fact is that we are being sandbagged not so much 
by our colleagues but by a well-orchestrated and well-financed campaign 
staged by huge, huge national environmental lobbies who are pursuing 
their own national agenda.
  Guess what. Their agenda is too much for the rural areas of my State. 
It would overwhelm them. We cannot support their agenda. And guess what 
else. The citizens of rural Utah and their local representatives cannot 
even afford to fight back. The National Resources Defense Council ran a 
half-page ad in the Washington Post that cost I believe $54,000. Good 
grief. For that amount Kane County School District could pay three 
schoolteachers. And that is only one of dozens of full-page ads in 
newspapers in this area and I guess other areas as well.
  Actor Robert Redford has been a spokesperson for the 
environmentalists. I admire Bob Redford's convictions, but let us face 
it; what TV station would not want an interview with Robert Redford? 
The deck is surely stacked against rural Utah. It is an area small in 
population and small in financial resources and big in tourism, and 
they have to provide the tax base to provide for all the emergency 
services--the helicopter services, the hospital services, the law 
enforcement services, et cetera--in some areas where they just do not 
have the moneys to do it.
  I urge my colleagues not to let these Utahns become victims of 
election-year politics, and I hope the President is not trying to show 
how committed he is to the environment on the backs of rural Utahns. I 
suggest to my friends in these other States that you are going to have 
peculiar problems in your States that you are going to have to deal 
with and you are going to have to have good-faith help from other 
Senators here to be able to resolve them. And we will try to help you 
resolve them as we Utah Senators always have.
  If we allow our rural States to be abused in this manner, if we allow 
this to happen, then the integrity of this body will have been brought 
to a new low. We will have allowed the Senate to become a blatant 
instrument for electioneering. While I am not so naive as to think that 
political speeches will not be given or that politics does not play a 
part, I cannot remember a time when the interests of a specific State 
on a parochial issue were sacrificed in that way. So I really urge my 
colleagues to support the Utah wilderness provisions in the substitute 
amendment offered by Senator Murkowski.
  Let me, at this point, have printed the press release, so people can 
read it for themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the press release 
from Senator Bradley's office be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [For immediate release: Mar. 22, 1996]

Bradley Preparing to Block Environmentally Destructive Utah Wilderness 
                                  Bill

       Washington, DC.--Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) said today 
     he's ready to take the floor on Monday and point out all of 
     the problems with the Utah Wilderness Bill, if it is offered 
     as part of an omnibus lands package.
       ``The battle to preserve America's wilderness legacy has 
     been joined. The Utah Wilderness bill is so bad for the 
     environment that I will pursue any possible way of stopping 
     it. It contains unprecedented anti-environmental language 
     that must be debated at length,'' Bradley said.
       Bradley pointed out that the current Senate Utah Wilderness 
     legislation would direct that 20 million acres of Utah lands 
     can never be designated as wilderness in the future. If it 
     becomes law, it would permit the transformation of these 
     lands from pristine wilderness to strip mines, roads and 
     commercial development.
       ``It is unfortunate that this bad Utah wilderness provision 
     is being folded into a package with less controversial and 
     much needed legislation such as the already-passed Sterling 
     Forest measure and a bill for the Presidio in the San 
     Francisco Bay area. If passed with the Utah wilderness 
     legislation, the package would set a horrible precedent by 
     making drastic changes to our precious lands policies.''
       ``It isn't right to swallow a pill that would be poison to 
     so much of America's great western lands just because it is 
     sugar-coated with some good smaller preservation bills. Our 
     public lands belong to all Americans, whether they live in 
     Utah or New Jersey. They should never be given away to a few 
     special interests,'' Bradley stated.
       As for Sterling Forest, the Senator was firm in his refusal 
     to give up on the measure that would protect 17,500 acres 
     along the New York-New Jersey border. He pointed out that 
     Sterling Forest has already passed the Senate without a 
     single objection, and is awaiting action in the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``If Sterling Forest is included in a bill along with this 
     destructive Utah Wilderness measure, I believe President 
     Clinton will veto it. If we are to save Sterling Forest, we 
     must stop the packaging of these bills, which is no more than 
     an attempt to get us to accept a bad public lands bill by 
     wrapping it up in shiny paper.'' Senator Bradley said.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, much has been made about Utahns and how 
they feel about these issues. But my colleagues might say they do not 
know what Secretary Babbitt has to say about our proposal. That makes 
100 of us, because, frankly, I do not know. I do not know what specific 
problems the Secretary has with our bill. I do not know what his 
specific thinking is on the water language, the military overflight 
section, the section dealing with cultural and archeological sites 
found within designated areas on the State's school trust land 
exchange, proposed in the bill. I do not know how he might modify them. 
Honestly, I do not know.
  I have used the term AWOL, absent without leadership, on this floor 
in recent months to describe the administration's efforts in addressing 
our drug problem. This strategy of criticizing without putting anything 
positive on the table was also evident during consideration of the 
budget. It seems to be typical of the Clinton administration across the 
board.

[[Page S2774]]

  To date, the Interior Department has not even sent us the letter in 
which Secretary Babbitt says he will recommend a veto of the omnibus 
package if the Utah wilderness bill is included. I suppose the 
Secretary assumed that we would have the privilege of reading his 
letter in the newspaper, which of course we have. I do not know why the 
Secretary has not tried to work with us in order to come to an 
agreement on the many critical issues contained in this measure. We 
have been working on it, just this measure alone, for the last 20 
years; but, in particular, writing it for the last 15 months. The 
Secretary has not attempted to contact me or to have his staff contact 
my staff to discuss how certain boundaries for designated areas might 
pose management problems for his agency, the application of wilderness 
criteria, the special management directives, or any other concerns he 
has with this legislation.
  It is true that last July, during the Energy Committee's hearing on 
our bill, Sylvia Baca, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management for the Department of Interior, presented testimony 
on behalf of the Department and the Secretary on the bill as it was 
introduced. She included the following statement in her written 
testimony: ``If the bill were presented to the President in its current 
form, Secretary Babbitt would recommend that he veto it.'' What is even 
more amazing to me is that Ms. Baca's explanation for this position is 
based on the Interior Department's noninvolvement in the wilderness 
issue. The Department admitted that it has been AWOL on this issue, 
which is so important to our State.
  When Senator Craig asked her why the Department did not agree with 
the 1991 BLM recommendation for wilderness and why there was no attempt 
by the current administration to modify it, here was her response:

       Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to point out that 
     the Interior Department did not think that wilderness 
     legislation was going to come forward. We did not come here 
     today with a specific wilderness acreage number. I explained 
     earlier that is because we have not been involved in the 
     wilderness issue.

  The Secretary has done nothing but criticize. He has offered nothing 
in the way of constructive suggestions for improving the bill. This can 
only mean he intended to recommend a veto without regard to what the 
bill was going to say. This strikes me very much as a knee jerk 
approach to protecting the environment, and it is as bad as those who 
say we should have no environmental protection at all--and there are 
plenty in my State who would like that position.
  But we have had to be responsible here. We are the people who have 
had to handle this issue. We have been blasted by both sides, both 
extremes on this issue, for the last 20 years--but certainly the last 
few years in particular.
  Fortunately, my colleagues in the Senate have been more helpful and 
more sincerely interested in resolving this matter. They have offered 
constructive suggestions for changes, many of which we have 
incorporated in this bill, many of which have changed some of the areas 
criticized by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. Apparently he 
has not read the bill yet, at least the substitute, but I hope he will.

  The bill before us today is not the same bill that was discussed last 
July. The bill we are debating today is a much changed bill. I am not 
sure it is better, but for those on the other side of this issue, on 
the environmental side, it is a better bill. It is fair. It is 
reasonable. And, above all, it is balanced. And we are trying to bring 
together everybody in Utah, not just one side of the equation.
  The Secretary now thinks this issue of such import that he is 
threatening a veto of this entire package of public land legislation. 
This does not square with Ms. Baca's testimony that the Department has 
just been too busy to focus on wilderness. We in Utah have been 
focusing on it for 2 decades. We have forged ahead in the 104th 
Congress, to attempt to resolve this issue once and for all. I would 
like to have the Secretary with us, I really would. I would have been 
pleased to work with him every step of the way. I really would.
  I know Senator Bennett feels the same way. But, even as other 
Senators have offered amendments in the Energy Committee and during 
informal discussions, Secretary Babbitt is content to be silent except 
for a veto threat. His position today is the same as it was in July, 
when Ms. Baca testified for the Clinton administration. This is a 
little like a country threatening the use of nuclear weapons without 
bothering to tell the world why it is attacking.
  It is time to move ahead with this legislation. The question of 
wilderness in Utah has gone on long enough. It has been studied to 
death. We are tired of it. It is time to designate new wilderness in 
Utah and to remove millions of acres from the regulatory limbo that 
they have been in. Let us give them legal status as wilderness, or 
responsibly manage them for other uses. I hope the Secretary will 
determine this is an important objective, because it is.
  Let me answer the question many of my colleagues have posed to me 
over the past few years and certainly in recent months and that is: 
Where are the citizens of Utah on this issue? Over the last several 
days we have seen advertisements in the Washington Post, Washington 
Times, Rollcall and the Hill magazine, claiming several things. First, 
there is the claim that 3 out of 4 Utahns support the so-called 
citizens proposal, that would designate 5.7 million acres of land as 
wilderness.
  Second, it is claimed that Americans are opposed to our program by a 
margin of 9 to 1.
  This first statement refers to the process the Utah congressional 
delegation and Governor Leavitt followed last year to obtain input from 
our local citizens. During our statewide regional hearings we requested 
that any further comments and proposals on the wilderness issue be 
submitted in writing or by telephone to Governor Leavitt's office. The 
Governor's office made a tally of these letters and phone calls. The 
inaccurate claims made in these newspaper advertisements by the 
opponents of this bill stem from the summary report developed by 
Governor Leavitt's office on these additional calls and letters. Rather 
than explain this discrepancy to my colleagues, I have asked Governor 
Leavitt to tell us in his own words the truth about the comments and 
calls in his office. His letter says this:

       Dear Senator Hatch: As you know, there has been substantial 
     confusion about the public sentiment in Utah concerning the 
     BLM wilderness issue. Please accept this letter as an 
     explanation of the public response which my office received 
     with respect to this issue. Personnel in the Governor's 
     Office of Planning and Budget read, recorded, and responded 
     to each of the 3,031 individual letters which were received 
     last year and also categorized the 551 individual public 
     testimonies received at the public hearings held in Utah last 
     spring and summer.
       In examining this information, 51% of these letters and 
     testimonies were in favor of no wilderness designation 
     whatsoever or something less than the 5.7 million acre 
     proposal.
       Certain groups throughout the state have publicly stated 
     that support for 5.7 million acres of wilderness has ranged 
     from 70% at a minimum, to upwards of 75%. In Utah and 
     throughout the country, these numbers have been quoted in 
     numerous newspaper stories and in various correspondence, yet 
     no one has ever contacted my office for verification of the 
     numbers. As is evident by the above numbers, this is most 
     definitely a misrepresentation of actual public sentiment.
       In addition, there have been numerous surveys conducted on 
     the wilderness issue over the last year. These surveys show 
     that those respondents supporting 5.7 million acres have 
     ranged from 19% to 36% depending on how the survey was 
     structured and the way in which questions were asked. In 
     these same surveys, 29% to 60% favored 2 million acres or 
     less, also depending on survey structure and format of 
     questions.
       It is important that lawmakers in Washington have factual 
     information when making decisions as important as this. The 
     information supporting the numbers I have offered is all on 
     file in the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and 
     available for anyone with questions or concerns. Thank you 
     for your commitment to this issue and for the work you have 
     done in the pursuit of the resolution of the wilderness 
     debate.

  Mr. President, this letter is clear enough. The figure utilized by 
the opponents of our measure misconstrues the information tallied by 
the Governor's office. It is interesting to note, this figure has 
mysteriously risen during this debate. First I saw a report that 
indicated the figure was 68 percent. Then it went to 70 percent. These 
recent adds have it at 73 percent, and one ad indicated it was 3 out of 
4 Utahns, or 75 percent. Where are they getting these numbers?

[[Page S2775]]

  The second statement that Americans oppose the Utah wilderness bill 
by a ratio of 9 to 1 comes from a straw vote conducted by USA Weekend. 
This feature in many of the weekend's Sunday papers asked me to present 
my position on wilderness opposite Robert Redford, the well-known Utahn 
who owns the Sundance ski resort, which is located by the way, among 
some of the most beautiful acres in the world.

  At the conclusion of the article, the editors asked readers to write, 
phone or e-mail their votes for which position they supported.
  Similar to the barrage of advertisements, letters and phone calls and 
mailers my colleagues are receiving, the USA Weekend was bombarded with 
responses. In fact, the responses were 9 to 1 against the wilderness 
proposal.
  But USA Weekend was careful to point out that this is not a 
scientific poll. It was self-selected, which is a nice way of saying 
that people could vote early and often. The results of this call-in 
were, of course, skewed by those who responded to the urgings of 
national environmental organizations that they call in. In fact, just 
one of these groups, the Wilderness Society, has almost four times as 
many members as I have constituents. Think about that, four times as 
many members as Senator Bennett and I have constituents in our whole 
State. To their credit, they can mobilize these members at a moment's 
notice, which is what they have been doing on this matter for months--
for years now--but certainly over the past few weeks and certainly 
during that particular USA Weekend article.
  Let us talk about real polls.
  Dan Jones & Associates, Utah's most prominent and well-respected 
pollster, who has a tremendous record for accuracy, has conducted 
several surveys on this matter. Last April, he conducted a poll for 
Representative Waldholtz, which revealed the following: Survey for 
Representative Waldholtz, April 26, 1995--Dan Jones & Associates: 36 
percent were for 1.2 million acres; 24 percent for 2.0 million acres. 
We are a little over 2 million acres in the substitute bill that is in 
the substitute amendment. 23 percent of those polled wanted 5.7 million 
acres. In other words, a lot more people were for 1.2 million acres or 
2.0 million acres than there were for the 5.7 million acres, which 
received only 23 percent; 17 percent of those polled were not reported.
  Later in the year, in May 1995, Dan Jones conducted a poll for the 
Wilderness Education Project, and the results were generally the same: 
21 percent preferred 1 million acres; 16 percent for 1.2 million acres; 
20 percent for 1.9 million acres; 15 percent for 2.8 million acres; 19 
percent for 5.7 million acres. It actually had gone down; 8 percent did 
not know.
  In June of last year, Dan conducted a poll for the Deseret News, 
which had the following results: 4 percent for zero acres, which means 
4 percent did not want any wilderness at all in Utah; 18 percent were 
for 1 million acres; 26 percent for 1.8 million acres; 36 percent for 
5.7 million acres; 7 percent for other, and 8 percent did not know. The 
highest percentage it has ever been for 5.7 million acres has been 36 
percent, and then only after a massive publicity and advertising 
campaign done by these environmental organizations who have more money 
than anybody in Utah, certainly more than anybody on our side, and 
certainly more than the poor little people in these rural areas. The 
rural people, for the most part, do not want any or at least want very 
little acreage, but they have agreed to 1 million acres. And, now 
reluctantly they have gone along with the delegation--some of them have 
gone along with the delegation--for the 2 million acres but are very 
upset about it.
  In addition to these polls, KUTV Channel 2 and the Coalition for 
Utah's Future conducted a poll in May. Their results were similar to 
the Dan Jones polls. This survey was conducted from May 5 to 17, 1995, 
by Valley Research: 5 percent for zero acres; 12 percent for 1 million 
acres; 12 percent for 1.9 million acres; 10 percent for 2.9 million 
acres; 23 for 3.2 million acres; and 31 percent for 5.7 million acres; 
8 percent do not agree with any.
  The summary of these polls is twofold. First, a majority of 
respondents in almost every poll, except for the respondents in the 
KUTV/Coalition poll, favored a designation of 2 million or fewer acres. 
In the Waldholtz poll, it was 60 percent; Deseret News, 48 percent; 
wilderness education was 57 percent.

  Second, the 5.7 million acre proposal was not supported by a majority 
of respondents in any poll: Waldholtz, 23 percent; KUTV, 31 percent; 
Deseret News, 36 percent; wilderness education, 19 percent.
  So, if my colleagues are looking for a definitive answer on how the 
majority of Utahns feel when it comes to a final acreage figure on BLM 
designation, these are the more reliable numbers. They are from 
reputable sources, polling organizations that use scientific methods, 
from both the left and the right.
  I think a far more accurate assessment of where Utahns stand on this 
issue should be a letter that we recently received, Senator Bennett and 
I, dated March 22, last Friday. This letter is on behalf of 300 of 
Utah's top officials--Democrats, Republicans, moderates, liberals, 
conservatives--300 of the elected officials in Utah, the vast majority 
of them:

       Dear Senator: You recently received a letter dated March 
     15, 1996 from a group of twenty calling themselves ``The 
     Coalition of Utah Elected Officials,'' asking the ``Utah 
     Congressional Delegation to withdraw S. 884 and reconsider 
     the direction they have taken on wilderness.'' The letter 
     states, ``most Utahns oppose S. 884.'' It further states that 
     ``most local people consider this to be stridently anti-
     environmental legislation, not the carefully balanced package 
     the Utah Congressional Delegation has been claiming it to be.

  The letter goes on to say this:

       These statements are not only preposterous--but blatantly 
     untrue. The facts are that most Utahns do not want large 
     amounts of acreage designated as wilderness in Utah. We the 
     undersigned Democrats and Republicans strongly support 
     Senators Hatch and Bennett in their balanced approach to Utah 
     wilderness.
       In reality, the Utah State Senate endorsed the provisions 
     contained in the Hatch-Bennett proposal unanimously (27 to 
     0)--I might add that the leader of the AFL-CIO in Utah, a 
     member of the Utah State Senate, voted in support of this 
     resolution. . .

  While the Utah State house voted 62 to 6, or 92 percent in favor. 
Across the State, elected commissioners in 27 of 29 counties support 
this bill. As this letter indicates, over 90 percent of Utah's elected 
county leaders support the Utah wilderness proposal now before the 
Senate.

       Early in 1995, the Governor of Utah and all members of the 
     Utah Congressional Delegation specifically tasked the elected 
     county officials in each county where wilderness is being 
     proposed, to hold public hearings and from those public 
     hearings, develop a proposal for wilderness designation on 
     the Bureau of Land Management lands in the affected counties. 
     Numerous public hearings were held in every county where 
     lands were proposed for wilderness designation. The county 
     officials then designated their proposals for designating 
     lands as wilderness from the public hearings. In every county 
     where lands were proposed for wilderness designation, the 
     county officials made their recommendations based on what 
     they heard at the hearings. Many county officials recommended 
     more acreage than they knew their citizens wanted, but they 
     knew they had to do so in order to make a bill acceptable to 
     Congress. Some of those county officials have paid a dear 
     political price for their recommendations.

  I can certainly affirm that.

       After the county officials made their recommendations, the 
     Governor and Congressional Delegation held five regional 
     hearings around the State. The environmental community, both 
     in and outside Utah, was well organized and paid its 
     partisans to testify. They even rented buses and vans to 
     transport these people from location to location.

  And I can testify to that. We had almost the same people at every 
location, demanding to testify, saying the same things each time, and 
making it look like they had more numbers than they really did.

       The testimony they gave was based on emotion and not the 
     requirements of the Wilderness Act itself. Their testimony 
     ignored the professional recommendations of the BLM which 
     based its proposals on the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness 
     Act.
       The Governor and Congressional Delegation then developed 
     what is now title XX of omnibus package S. 884. Many in Utah 
     believe it contains too much acreage. It represents more than 
     was recommended by the elected county officials who held 
     the local public hearings. It represents more than the 
     State legislature has recommended at least twice in the 
     last 4 years by nearly unanimous votes.
       The people of Utah live in a State with approximately 67 
     percent Federal land ownership and another 13 percent State 
     ownership, but managed under the Federally enacted

[[Page S2776]]

     State Enabling Act. Utah already has millions of acres in 
     five National Parks, two National Recreation Areas, four 
     National Monuments, 13 Forest Service wilderness areas, and 
     BLM areas of Critical Environmental Concern. The unelected 
     State Director of the BLM manages more of Utah than does its 
     elected Governor.
       The BLM wilderness debate in Utah has dragged on for more 
     than 15 years at a cost to taxpayers of over $10 million. We 
     believe it is time to end the debate, pass the balanced 
     Hatch-Bennett proposal and bring some peace and stability to 
     people of Utah who must live daily with results of this 
     debate. We the undersigned are a few of the elected officials 
     in Utah who support Title XX of this bill. We want it passed 
     and enacted into law.

  As I said, there are 300-some Democrat and Republican elected 
officials who have endorsed this letter. I ask unanimous consent that 
this letter and the attachments thereto be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Truth About Utah Wilderness

                                                    March 22, 1996
       Dear Senator: You recently received a letter dated March 
     15, 1996 from a group of twenty calling themselves ``The 
     Coalition of Utah Elected Officials,'' asking the ``Utah 
     Congressional Delegation to withdraw S. 884 and reconsider 
     the direction they have taken on wilderness.'' The letter 
     states that ``most Utahns oppose S. 884.'' It further states 
     that ``most local people consider this to be stridently anti-
     environmental legislation, not the carefully balanced package 
     the Utah Congressional Delegation has been claiming it to 
     be.''
       These statements are not only preposterous, but blatantly 
     untrue. The facts are that most Utahns do not want large 
     amounts of acreage designated as wilderness in Utah. We the 
     undersigned Democrats and Republicans strongly support 
     Senators Hatch and Bennett in their balanced approach to Utah 
     wilderness.
       In reality, the Utah State Senate endorsed the provisions 
     contained in the Hatch-Bennett proposal unanimously (27-0), 
     while the Utah State House voted 62-6, or 92% in favor. 
     Across the state, elected commissioners in 27 of 29 counties 
     support this bill. As this letter indicates, over 90% of 
     Utah's elected county leaders support the Utah wilderness 
     proposal now before the Senate.
       Early in 1995, the Governor of Utah and all members of the 
     Utah Congressional Delegation specifically tasked the elected 
     county officials in each county where wilderness was being 
     proposed, to hold public hearings and from those public 
     hearings, develop a proposal for wilderness designation on 
     Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands in the affected 
     counties. Numerous public hearings were held in every county 
     where lands were proposed for wilderness designation. The 
     county officials then developed their proposals for 
     designating lands as wilderness from the public hearings. In 
     every county where lands were proposed for wilderness 
     designation, the county officials made their recommendations 
     based on what they heard at the hearings. Many county 
     officials recommended more acreage than they knew their 
     citizens wanted, but they knew they had to do so in order to 
     make a bill acceptable to Congress. Some of those county 
     officials have paid a dear political price for their 
     recommendations.
       After the county officials made their recommendations, the 
     Governor and Congressional Delegation held five regional 
     hearings around the state. The environmental community, both 
     in and outside of Utah was well organized and paid its 
     partisans to testify. They even rented busses and vans to 
     transport these people from location to location. The 
     testimony they gave was based on emotion and not the 
     requirements of the Wilderness Act itself. Their testimony 
     ignored the professional recommendations of the BLM which 
     based its proposals on the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness 
     Act.
       The Governor and Congressional Delegation then developed 
     what is now Title XX of omnibus package, S. 884. Many in Utah 
     believe it contains too much acreage. It represents more than 
     was recommended by the elected county officials who held the 
     local public hearings. It represents more than the State 
     Legislature has recommended at least twice in the last four 
     years by nearly unanimous votes.
       The people of Utah live in a state with approximately 67% 
     federal land ownership and another 13% state ownership, but 
     managed under the federally enacted State Enabling Act. Utah 
     already has millions of acres in five National Parks, two 
     National Recreation Areas, four National Monuments, thirteen 
     Forest Service wilderness areas, and BLM Areas of Critical 
     Environmental Concern (ACEC). The unelected State Director of 
     the BLM manages more of Utah than does its elected Governor.
       The BLM wilderness debate in Utah has dragged on for more 
     than 15 years at a cost to taxpayers of over $10 million. We 
     believe it is time to end the debate, pass the balanced 
     Hatch-Bennett proposal and bring some peace and stability to 
     the people of Utah who must live daily with results of this 
     debate. We the undersigned are a few of the elected officials 
     in Utah who support Title XX of this omnibus bill. We want it 
     passed and enacted into law.
           Sincerely,
         John Hansen, Millard County Auditor; Linda Carter, 
           Millard County Recorder; Ed Philips, Millard County 
           Sheriff; LeRay Jackson, Millard County Attorney; John 
           Henrie, Millard County Commissioner; Donovan Dafoe, 
           Mayor, Delta Utah; Merrill Nielson, Mayor, Lynndyl, 
           Utah; Phil Lovell, Mayor, Leamington, Utah; B. DeLyle 
           Carling, Mayor, Meadow, Utah; Terry Higgs, Mayor, 
           Kanosh, Utah; Mont Kimball, Councilman, Konosh, Utah; 
           Roger Phillips, Councilman, Konosh, Utah; Robert 
           Decker, Councilman, Delta, Utah; Gary Sullivan, Beaver 
           County Commissioner; Ross Marshall, Beaver County 
           Commissioner.
         Chad Johnson, Beaver County Commissioner; Howard Pryor, 
           Mayor, Minversville Town; Louise Liston, Garfield 
           County Commissioner; Clare Ramsay; Garfield County 
           Commissioner; Guy Thompson, Mayor, Henrieville Town; 
           Shannon Allen, Mayor, Antimony Town; John Matthews, 
           Mayor, Cannonville Town; Julee Lyman, Mayor, Boulder 
           Town; Robert Gardner, Iron County Commissioner; Thomas 
           Cardon, Iron County Commissioner; Worth Grimshaw, 
           Mayor, Enoch City; Dennis Stowell, Mayor, Parowan City; 
           Norm Carroll, Kane County Commissioner; Stephen Crosby, 
           Kane County Commissioner; Viv Adams, Mayor, Kanab City; 
           Scot Goulding, Mayor, Orderville Town.
         Gayle Aldred, Washington County Commissioner; Russell 
           Gallian, Washington County Commissioner; Gene Van 
           Wagoner, Mayor, Hurricane City; Chris Blake, Mayor, 
           Ivins Town; Rick Hafen, Mayor, Santa Clara City; Paul 
           Beatty, Mayor, New Harmony Town; Terrill Clove, Mayor, 
           Washington City; David Zitting, Mayor, Hildale City; 
           Ike Lunt, Juab County Commissioner; Martin Jensen, 
           Piute County Commissioner; Joseph Bernini, Juab County 
           Commissioner; J. Keller Christensen, Sanpete County 
           Commisssioner; Eddie Cox, Sanpete County Commissioner; 
           Ralph Okerlund, Sevier County Commissioner; Meeks 
           Morrell, Wayne County Commissioner; Stanley Alvey, 
           Wayne County Commissioner; Kevin Young, Mayor, Mona, 
           Utah.
         Steve Buchanan, Mayor, Gunnsion, Utah; Roger Cook, Mayor, 
           Moroni, Utah; Mary Day, Millard County Treasurer; James 
           Talbot, Millard County Assessor; Marlene Whicker, 
           Millard County Clerk; Lana Moon, Millard County 
           Commissioner; Tony Dearden, Millard County 
           Commissioner; Ken Talbot, Mayor, Hinkley, Utah; Elzo 
           Porter, Mayor, Oak City, Utah; Keith Gillins, Mayor, 
           Fillmore, Utah; Barry Monroe, Mayor, Scipio, Utah; C. 
           R. Charlesworth, Mayor, Holden, Utah; Vicky McKee, 
           Daggett Clerk Treasurer; Bob Nafus, Councilman, Konosh, 
           Utah; Roger Phillips, Councilman, Konosh, Utah.
         Chad Johnson, Beaver County Commissioner; James Robinson, 
           Mayor, Beavuer City; Mary Wiseman, Mayor, Milford City; 
           Maloy Dodds, Garfield County Commissioner; Jean Seiler, 
           Mayor, Tropic Town; Laval Sawyer, Mayor, Hatch Town; 
           Wade Barney, Mayor, Escalante, Utah; Elaine Baldwin, 
           Mayor, Panguitch, Utah; Roy Urie, Iron County 
           Commissioner; Bill Weymouth, Mayor, Kanarraville Town; 
           Harold Shirley, Mayor, Cedar City; Constance Robinson, 
           Mayor Pro-Tem, Paragonah; Joe Judd, Kane County 
           Commissioner; Garaldine Rankin, Mayor, Big Water.
         Eric Brinkerhoff, Mayor, Glendale Town; Orval Palmer, 
           Mayor, Alton Town; Jerry Lewis, Washington County 
           Commissioner; Daniel McArther, Mayor, City of St. 
           George; A. Morley Wilson, Mayor, Enterprise City; 
           Raymond Jack Eves, Mayor, LaVerkin City; David Everett, 
           Mayor, Toquerville Town; Brent DeMille, Mayor, Leeds 
           Town; Joy Henderlider, Mayor, Virgin Town; Gordon 
           Young, Juab County Commissioner; Paul Morgan, Piute 
           County Commissioner; Don Julander, Piute County 
           Commissioner; Robert Bessey, Sanpete County 
           Commissioner; Tex Olsen, Sevier County Commissioner; 
           Peggy Mason, Sevier County Commissioner; Bliss 
           Brinkerhoff, Wayne County Commissioner; Bob Steele, 
           Mayor, Nephi, Utah; Connie Dubinsky, Mayor, Levan, 
           Utah; Kent Larsen, Mayor, Manti, Utah; Chesley 
           Christensen, Mayor, Mt. Pleasant, Utah.
         Lawrence Mason, Mayor, Aurora, Utah; Eugene Honeycutt, 
           Mayor, Redmond, Utah; James Freeby, Mayor, Sigurd, 
           Utah; Orlin Howes, Mayor, Junction, Utah; Sherwood 
           Albrecht, Mayor, Bicknell, Utah; Dick Davis, Mayor, 
           Lyman, Utah; Mike Milovich, Carbon County Commissioner; 
           Pay Pene, Grand County Council; Bart Leavitt, Grand 
           County Council; Lou Colisimo, Mayor, Price City; Roy 
           Nikas, Councilman, Price City; Paul Childs, Mayor, 
           Wellington, Utah; Bill McDougald, Councilman, City of 
           Moab; Terry Warner, Councilman, City of Moab; Richard 
           Seeley, Councilman, Green River City; Karen Nielsen, 
           Councilwoman, Cleveland Town.

[[Page S2777]]

         Gary Petty, Mayor Emery Town; Dennis Worwood, Councilman, 
           Ferron City; Brenda Bingham, Treasurer, Ferron City; 
           Ramon Martinez, Mayor, Huntington City; Ross Gordon, 
           Councilman, Huntington City; Lenna Romine, Piute County 
           Assessor; Tom Balser, Councilman, Orangeville City; 
           Richard Stilson, Councilman, Orangeville City; Murene 
           Bean, Recorder, Orangeville City; Carolyn Jorgensen, 
           Treasurer, Castle Dale City; Bevan Wilson, Emery County 
           Commissioner; Donald McCourt, Councilman, East Carbon 
           City; Murray D. Anderson, Councilman, East Carbon City; 
           Mark McDonald, Councilman, Sunnyside City; Ryan 
           Hepworth, Councilman, Sunnyside City; Dale Black, 
           Mayor, Monticello City.
         John Black, Councilman, Monticello City; Grant Warner, 
           Mayor, Glenwood, Utah; Grant Stubbs, Mayor, Salina, 
           Utah; Afton Morgan, Mayor, Circleville, Utah; Ronald 
           Bushman, Mayor, Marysvale, Utah; Eugen Blackburn, 
           Mayor, Loa, Utah; Robert Allred, Mayor, Spring City, 
           Utah; Neil Breinholt, Carbon County Commissioner; Bill 
           Krompel, Carbon County Commissioner; Dale Mosher, Grand 
           County Councilman; Den Ballentyne, Grand County 
           Councilman; Frank Nelson, Grant County Councilman; 
           Steve Bainghurst, Price City Councilman; Joe Piccolo, 
           Price City Councilman; Tom Stocks, Mayor, City of Moab; 
           Judy Ann Scott, Mayor, Green River City; Art Hughes, 
           former Councilman, Green River.
         Gary Price, Mayor, Clawson Town; Marvin Thayne, 
           Councilman Elmo Town; Dale Roper, Mayor, Town of 
           Ferron; Garth Larsen, Ferron Town Council; Paul Kunze, 
           Recorder, Ferron Town; Don Gordon, Huntington City 
           Councilman; Jackie Wilson, Huntington City Council; 
           Howard Tuttle, Councilman, Orangeville City; Dixon 
           Peacock, Councilman, Orangeville City; Roger Warner, 
           Mayor, Castle Dale City; Kent Peterson, Grand County 
           Commissioner; Randy Johnson, Grand County Commissioner; 
           L. Paul Clark, Mayor, East Carbon City; Darlene 
           Fivecoat, Councilwoman, East Carbon City; Barbara 
           Fisher, Councilwoman, East Carbon City; Grant McDonald, 
           Mayor, Sunnyside City.
         Nick DeGiulio, Councilman, Sunnyside City; Bernie 
           Christensen, Councilwoman, Monticello City; Mike 
           Dalpiaz, Helper City; Lee Allen, Box Elder County 
           Commissioner; Royal K. Norman, Box Elder County 
           Commissioner; Jay E. Hardy, Box Elder County 
           Commissioner; Darrel L. Gibbons, Cache County 
           Councilman; C. Larry Anhder, Cache County Councilman; 
           Guy Ray Pulsipher, Cache County Councilman; James 
           Briggs, Daggett County Commissioner; Sharon Walters, 
           Daggett County Commissioner; Chad L. Reed, Daggett 
           County Commissioner; Curtiss Dastrup, Duchesne County 
           Commissioner; Larry Ross, Duchesne County Commissioner; 
           John Swasey, Duchesne County Commissioner; Dale C. 
           Wilson, Morgan County Commissioner.
         Jan K. Turner, Morgan County Commissioner; Jeff D. 
           London, Morgan County Commissioner; Kenneth R. Brown, 
           Rich County Commissioner; Blair R. Francis, Rich County 
           Commissioner; Keith D. Johnson, Rich County 
           Commissioner; Ty Lewis, San Juan County Commissioner; 
           Bill Redd, San Juan County Commissioner; Mark Maryboy, 
           San Juan County Commissioner; Sheldon Richins, Summit 
           County Commissioner; Thomas Flinders, Summit County 
           Commissioner; Jim Soter, Summit County Commissioner; 
           Teryl Hunsaker, Tooele County Commissioner; Gary 
           Griffith, Tooele County Commissioner; Lois McArther, 
           Tooele County Commissioner; Odell Russell, Mayor, Rush 
           Valley, Utah; Cosetta Castagno, Mayor, Vernon, Utah; 
           Frank Sharman, Tooele County Sheriff.
         Glen Caldwell, Tooele County Auditor; Donna McHendrix, 
           Tooele County Recorder; Gerri Paystrup, Tooele County 
           Assessor; Valerie B. Lee, Tooele County Treasurer; H. 
           Glen McKee, Uintah County Commissioner; Lorin Merill, 
           Uintah County Commissioner; Lewis G. Vincent, Uintah 
           County Commissioner; Laren Provost, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; Keith D. Jacobson, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; Sharron J. Winterton, Wasatch County 
           Commissioner; David J. Gardner, Utah County 
           Commissioner; Jerry D. Grover, Utah County 
           Commissioner; Gary Herbert, Uintah County Commissioner; 
           Gayle A. Stevenson, Davis County Commissioner; Dannie 
           R. McConkie, Davis County Commissioner; Carol R. Page, 
           Davis County Commissioner.
         Leo G. Kanel, Beaver County Attorney; Monte Munns, Box 
           Elder County Assessor; Gaylen Jarvie, Daggett County 
           Sheriff; Camille Moore, Garfield County Clerk/Auditor; 
           Brian Bremner, Garfield County Engineer; Karla Johnson, 
           Kane County Clerk/Auditor; Richard M. Baily, Director, 
           Administrative Services; Lamar Guymon, Emery County 
           Sheriff; Eli H. Anderson, District 1, Utah State 
           Representative; Peter C. Knudson, District 2, Utah 
           State Representative; Fred Hunsaker, District 4, Utah 
           State Representative; Evan Olsen, District 5, Utah 
           State Representative; Martin Stephens, District 6, Utah 
           State Representative; Joseph Murray, District 8, Utah 
           State Representative; John B. Arrington, District 9, 
           Utah State Representative; Douglas S. Peterson, 
           District 11, Utah State Representative.
         Gerry A. Adair, District 12, Utah State Representative; 
           Nora B. Stephens, District 13, Utah State 
           Representative; Don E. Bush, District 14, Utah State 
           Representative; Blake D. Chard, District 15, Utah State 
           Representative; Kevin S. Garn, District 16, Utah State 
           Representative; Marda Dillree, District 17, Utah State 
           Representative; Karen B. Smith, District 18, Utah State 
           Representative; Sheryl L. Allen, District 19, Utah 
           State Representative; Charles E. Bradford, District 20, 
           Utah State Representative; James R. Gowans, District 
           21, Utah State Representative; Steven Barth, District 
           26, Utah State Representative; Ron Bigelow, District 
           32, Utah State Representative; Orville D. Carnahan, 
           District 34, Utah State Representative; Lamont Tyler, 
           District 36, Utah State Representative; Ray Short, 
           District 37, Utah State Representative; Sue Lockman, 
           District 38, Utah State Representative; Michael G. 
           Waddoups, District 39, Utah State Representative.
         J. Reese Hunter, District 40, Utah State Representative; 
           Darlene Gubler, District 41, Utah State Representative; 
           David Bresnahan, District 42, Utah State 
           Representative; Robert H. Killpack, District 44, Utah 
           State Representative; Melvin R. Brown, District 45, 
           Utah State Representative; Brian R. Allen, District 46, 
           Utah State Representative; Bryan D. Holladay, District 
           47, Utah State Representative; Greg. J. Curtis, 
           District 49, Utah State Representative; Lloyd Frandsen, 
           District 50, Utah State Representative; Shirley V. 
           Jensen, District 51, Utah State Representative; R. Mont 
           Evans, District 52, Utah State Representative; David 
           Ure, District 53, Utah State Representative; Jack A. 
           Seitz, District 55, Utah State Representative; 
           Christine Fox, District 56, Utah State Representative; 
           Lowell A. Nelson, District 57, Utah State 
           Representative; John L. Valentine, District 58, Utah 
           State Representative.
         Doyle Mortimer, District 59, Utah State Representative; 
           Norm Nielsen, District 60, Utah State Representative; 
           R. Lee Ellertson, District 61, Utah State 
           Representative; Jeff Alexander, District 62, Utah State 
           Representative; Jordan Tanner, District 63, Utah State 
           Representative; Byron L. Harward, District 64, Utah 
           State Representative; J. Brent Hammond, District 65, 
           Utah State Representative; Tim Moran, District 66, Utah 
           State Representative; Bill Wright, District 67, Utah 
           State Representative; Michael Styler, District 68, Utah 
           State Representative; Tom Mathews, District 69, Utah 
           State Representative; Bradley T. Johnson, District 69, 
           Utah State Representative; Keele Johnson, District 71, 
           Utah State Representative; Demar ``Bud'' Bowman, 
           District 72, Utah State Representative; Tom Hatch, 
           District 73, Utah State Representative.
         Bill Hickman, District 75, Utah State Representative; 
           Wilford Black, District 2, Utah State Senator; Blaze D. 
           Wharton, District 3, Utah State Senator; Howard 
           Stephenson, District 4, Utah State Senator; Brent 
           Richard, District 5, Utah State Senator; Stephen J. 
           Rees, District 6, Utah State Senator; David L. Buhler, 
           District 7, Utah State Senator; Steve Poulton, District 
           9, Utah State Senator; L. Alma Mansell, District 10, 
           Utah State Senator; Eddie P. Mayne, District 11, Utah 
           State Senator; George Mantes, District 13, Utah State 
           Senator; Craig A. Peterson, District 14, Utah State 
           Senator; LeRay McAllister, District 15, Utah State 
           Senator.
         Eldon Money, District 17, Utah State Senator; Nathan 
           Tanner, District 18, Utah State Senator; Robert F. 
           Montgomery, District 19, Utah State Senator; Joseph H. 
           Steel, District 21, Utah State Senator; Craig L. 
           Taylor, District 22, Utah State Senator; Lane Beattie, 
           District 23, Utah State Senator; John P. Holmgren, 
           District 24, Utah State Senator; Lyle W. Hillyard, 
           District 25, Utah State Senator; Alarik Myrin, District 
           26, Utah State Senator; Mike Dmitrich, District 27, 
           Utah State Senator; Leonard M. Blackham, District 28, 
           Utah State Senator; David L. Watson, District 29, Utah 
           State Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. Just last Sunday we read comments that one large newspaper 
in the State has editorialized against this. That is true. There is no 
doubt that they are very sincere in what they are doing. We have 
respect for them. But the other large newspaper, the other large major 
newspaper in Utah--we have five that are quite large--but the other 
major large paper in Utah that has written on this said, ``Let's get 
off dead center on the Utah

[[Page S2778]]

wilderness debate.'' This is the Deseret News editorial. I will just 
read a little bit of it and then put it in the Record as well.

       Politics is supposed to involve the art of compromise. But 
     that sensible notion seems to be lost on some members of 
     Congress when it comes to deciding how much public land in 
     Utah should be designated as wilderness.
       Consequently, unless some key figures in Washington can be 
     persuaded to change their minds, more federal foot-dragging 
     seems likely even though this controversy has persisted for 
     two decades without a final decision.
       The latest development centers on Senator Bill Bradley of 
     New Jersey. Bradley so strongly opposes the 1.8-million-acre 
     proposal drafted by Utah's Republican-dominated congressional 
     delegation that he may seek to scuttle an omnibus parks bill 
     containing it even though such a move would thwart a pet 
     project of his to protect the Sterling Forest along the New 
     York-New Jersey border.
       If the Utah proposal survives that challenge, Interior 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt is threatening to recommend that 
     President Clinton veto it.
       But then there's nothing particularly new about the extent 
     and intensity of the emotions aroused by the Utah proposal 
     and the opposing plan offered by environmentalist groups, 
     which insist that 5.7 million acres be designated as 
     wilderness.
       Washington is supposed to resolve such controversies, not 
     let them fester. For that to happen, more flexibility is in 
     order--which is exactly what the Utah congressional 
     delegation has been doing. Last year it backed off from some 
     provisions objectionable to the environmentalists involving 
     roads, motorboats, and industries. Now there are indications 
     some members of the delegation may be willing to designate 
     more land as wilderness beyond the additional previously 
     agreed to [which we have].

  More than the whole State of Delaware; 63 percent of Connecticut; 41 
percent of my friend's State of New Jersey; 41 percent of 
Massachusetts; 35 percent of New Hampshire; 34 percent of Vermont. That 
is what our proposal amounts to as compared with other States.

       But what flexibility, if any, is there on the part of the 
     environmentalists? Though continuing to speak about the need 
     for compromise, they doggedly insist that their 5.7 million 
     proposal is a compromise.
       In sorting through the tangled and overheated controversy, 
     Congress needs to keep a few points firmly in mind.
       First, there is no such thing as a Utah wilderness bill 
     that will not antagonize some major segments of the 
     population.
       Second, claims that most Utahns want more wilderness are 
     based on self-serving interpretations of polls whose results 
     are at best mixed and somewhat confusing.
       Third, the wilderness proposal being pushed by Utah's 
     congressional delegation is an attempt to reach a reasonable 
     middle ground between the 5.7 million acres demanded by the 
     environmentalists and the little or no new wilderness acreage 
     demanded by many officials and citizens alike in rural Utah.
       Fourth, the 1.8-million-acre proposal--with its various 
     modifications and additions--is in line with the original 
     recommendation from the Bureau of Land Management. Only years 
     later did the BLM start waffling, opting for what it thought 
     the Clinton administration wanted rather than for what the 
     agency really thought was best.
       Fifth, as long as Congress declines to act, the BLM will 
     continue to manage 3.2 million acres of Utah as if it were 
     wilderness--but for no better reason than that this is the 
     amount of land the agency studied for possible wilderness 
     designation. That is more acreage than many Utahns want as 
     wilderness.
       To let the dispute over Utah wilderness drag on year after 
     emotion-filled year without a formal and final decision is a 
     sorry reflection on some of this Nation's key figures. They 
     were sent to Washington to act, not temporize. A decision in 
     the direction of the proposal of the Utah delegation would be 
     better than one in the direction of the environmentalists. 
     But whichever way the vote goes, let us bring this long 
     debate to an end and get on to other matters.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Deseret News, Mar. 23, 1995]

          Let's Get Off Dead Center on Utah Wilderness Debate

       Politics is supposed to involve the art of compromise. But 
     that sensible notion seems to be lost on some members of 
     Congress when it comes to deciding how much public land in 
     Utah should be designated as wilderness.
       Consequently, unless some key figures in Washington can be 
     persuaded to change their minds, more federal foot-dragging 
     seems likely even though this controversy has persisted for 
     two decades without a final decision.
       The latest development centers on Sen. Bill Bradley of New 
     Jersey. Bradley so strongly opposes the 1.8-million-acre 
     proposal drafted by Utah's Republican-dominated congressional 
     delegation that he may seek to scuttle an omnibus parks bill 
     containing it even though such a move would thwart a pet 
     project of his to protect the Sterling Forest along the New 
     York-New Jersey border.
       If the Utah proposal survives that challenge, Interior 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt is threatening to recommend that 
     President Clinton veto it.
       But then there's nothing particularly new about the extent 
     and intensity of the emotions aroused by the Utah proposal 
     and the opposing plan offered by environmentalist groups, 
     which insist that 5.7 million acres be designated as 
     wilderness.
       Washington is supposed to resolve such controversies, not 
     let them fester. For that to happen, more flexibility is in 
     order--which is exactly what the Utah congressional 
     delegation has been doing. Last year it backed off from some 
     provisions objectionable to the environmentalists involving 
     roads, motorboats and industries. Now there are indications 
     some members of the delegation may be willing to designate 
     more land as wilderness beyond the additions previously 
     agreed to.
       But what flexibility, if any, is there on the part of the 
     environmentalists? Though continuing to speak of the need for 
     compromise, they doggedly insist that their 5.7-million-acre 
     proposal is a compromise.
       In sorting through this tangled and overheated controversy. 
     Congress needs to keep a few points firmly in mind.
       First, there is no such thing as a Utah wilderness bill 
     that won't antagonize some major segments of the population.
       Second, claims that most Utahns want more wilderness are 
     based on self-serving interpretations of polls whose results 
     are at best mixed and somewhat confusing.
       Third, the wilderness proposal being pushed by Utah's 
     congressional delegation is an attempt to reach a reasonable 
     middle ground between the 5.7 million acres demanded by the 
     environmentalists and the little or no new wilderness acreage 
     demanded by many officials and citizens alike in rural Utah.
       Fourth, the 1.8-million-acre proposal--with its various 
     modifications and additions--is in line with the original 
     recommendation from the Bureau of Land Management. Only years 
     later did the BLM start waffling, opting for what it thought 
     the Clinton administration wanted rather than for what the 
     agency really thought was best.
       Fifth, as long as Congress declines to act, the BLM will 
     continue to manage 3.2 million acres of Utah as if it were 
     wilderness--but for no better reason than that this is the 
     amount of land the agency studied for possible wilderness 
     designation. That is more acreage than many Utahns want as 
     wilderness.
       To let the dispute over Utah wilderness drag on year after 
     emotion-filled year without a formal and final decision is a 
     sorry reflection on some of this nation's key figures. They 
     were sent to Washington to act, not temporize. A decision in 
     the direction of the proposal of the Utah delegation would be 
     better than one in the direction of the environmentalists. 
     But whichever way the vote goes, let's bring this long debate 
     to an end and get on to other matters.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent that 
the following also be inserted: a letter from the Governor, Mike 
Leavitt; a letter from the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives 
and the president of the Utah State Senate, along with a resolution 
adopted last year by the Utah State Legislature. I also put in the 
Record a letter signed by over 300 elected officials we received just 
this morning; a letter from the Utah Parent Teacher Association; a 
letter from the Utah State Board of Education; a letter from the Utah 
Farm Bureau; and a resolution from the board of trustees of the School 
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of those be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    State of Utah,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                               Salt Lake City, UT, March 14, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: Utah is a beautiful and unique state. 
     It comprises 55 million acres of diverse landscapes ranging 
     from high alpine ranges of the Rocky Mountains, red rock 
     wonderlands of the Colorado Plateau, deserts of the Great 
     Basin and rich river valleys. We Utahns feel blessed with 
     what we have been entrusted to care for.
       These beautiful lands are attracting millions of visitors 
     and tens of thousands of new residents annually. Due partly 
     to this attraction, Utah is also experiencing an era of 
     robust economic growth. During this time of growth and 
     prosperity it is more evident than ever before that it is our 
     responsibility to preserve and carefully manage these diverse 
     landscapes and eco-systems for current

[[Page S2779]]

     and future generations of Utahns and all Americans.
       Of Utah's 55 million acres, some 37 million acres, or over 
     67%, is owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Most 
     of these federal lands are managed by the Forest Service, 
     National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. Much of 
     this public land is already preserved for future generations. 
     Two million acres have been set aside as National Parks, 
     Monuments and Recreation Areas. Another one million acres 
     have been set aside as National Forest Wilderness or as 
     wildlife refuges. However, we do believe that an additional 2 
     million acres should be protected for America's future.
       Wilderness is certainly one important way in which we can 
     and should protect land for the future. However, it is not 
     the only way. Other means of protection include designation 
     as: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers, Natural Areas, Primitive Areas or withdrawals for 
     specific purposes. Also, the State of Utah has cooperated 
     with organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, the Rocky 
     Mountain Elk Foundation and private land trusts to preserve 
     state and private lands for wildlife habitat and watershed. 
     We believe that land preservation and management must utilize 
     all available tools and be a cooperative process among all 
     federal, local and state agencies as well as involving the 
     general public.
       I believe we can all agree that Wilderness is one important 
     tool for protecting public land. How much land should be 
     protected as Wilderness is more difficult. The process of 
     determining how much BLM land in Utah should be preserved as 
     Wilderness has taken more than 17 years, at a total cost of 
     more than $10 million in federal dollars. Many more millions, 
     yet unquantified, have been spent by state and local 
     governments, businesses and the general public. Literally 
     hundreds of hearings have been held and thousands upon 
     thousands of comments written, read and heard.
       During the last year along more than 50 public meetings 
     were held in Utah. Seven public meetings were attended by me 
     and members of Utah's Congressional Delegation. Also, two 
     field hearings were held in Utah by the House Subcommittee on 
     National Parks, Forests and Lands. I have received more than 
     22,000 comments on the issue in my office alone.
       What is evident from the discussion over the last year and 
     the last 17 years is that all Utahns care deeply about the 
     land. Yet, there is and will always be a great divisiveness 
     in the eyes of the public on how much Wilderness should be 
     designated. Most citizens of rural Utah, where these lands 
     are located, are strongly opposed to any Wilderness. Yet some 
     citizens of Utah's urban areas would like to protect an 
     additional 5.7 million acres.
       Over the last year, Utah's Congressional Delegation and I 
     have attempted to develop a Wilderness proposed which 
     balances these differing points of view. The result is S 884, 
     ``Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995,'' which has been 
     introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett. 
     Senators Hatch and Bennett have worked long and hard with me 
     and many Utahns of diverse opinions to develop this proposal. 
     They deserve a great deal of credit for their diligence.
       S 884 is an honest approach to resolving this issue and 
     proposes over 50 Wilderness areas. The bill includes Utah's 
     ``Crown Jewels,'' which are such well known areas as Grand 
     Gulch, Desolation Canyon, San Rafael Swell, Escalante 
     Canyons, Westwater Canyon and Parunuweap Canyon. S 884 
     includes areas which represent numerous ``eco-systems'' 
     including: high mountain ranges, river canyons, red rock 
     desert and unique areas in Utah's West Desert.
       The Utah Congressional Delegation and I have committed 
     considerable time and resources to this process. This bill 
     reflects our commitment to the importance of what is fair, 
     balanced and good for the citizens of Utah and the United 
     States. It will not please either extreme but presents the 
     best solution for Utah and the nation and has the support of 
     the mainstream citizens of our state. As the Governor of the 
     great State of Utah, I fully support S 884 which designates 
     two million acres of BLM land in Utah as Wilderness, an area 
     larger than the State of Delaware. With these lands protected 
     as Wilderness, we as a state will move forward to properly 
     managed and protect all of Utah's diverse public lands in 
     cooperation with federal land agencies. I respectfully 
     encourage you to support S 884.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael O. Leavitt,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____



                                       Utah State Legislature,

                          Salt Lake City, Utah, February 14, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: As legislative leaders, we want to 
     reaffirm the position taken by the Fifty-first Legislature of 
     the State of Utah as it relates to the amount of BLM land 
     designated as wilderness in Utah.
       HCR 12, Resolution Supporting Wilderness Designation, by 
     Representative Bradley Johnson, states very clearly the 
     process by which wilderness was to be identified and 
     quantified. That process was followed, and the local 
     political entities acted very responsibly when they 
     recommended that a little more than 1 million acres receive 
     wilderness status.
       The addition of acreage bringing the total amount to be 
     added to the wilderness proposal to 1.8 million was an 
     unsettling surprise. Yet, in a spirit of compromise, this 
     total amount would be acceptable. We believe the addition of 
     any more acreage, however, would be an affront to the 
     citizens of this state and the process put in place that made 
     the original recommendation. Furthermore, we believe the 
     addition of more land would be tantamount to rhetoric which 
     is without a rational or factual basis.
       The Fifty-first Legislature has spoken clearly on BLM 
     wilderness designation. To lock up more land to an uncertain 
     future in a state where 80 percent of the land area is 
     subject to some form of government restriction and control is 
     a policy which lacks sensitivity and foresight. This policy 
     blind spot is simply inappropriate. To shackle future 
     generations in this state with the unbendable restrictions 
     wilderness designation imposes is nothing more than a 
     ``takings'' of the hopes and dreams of Utahns whose heritage 
     and economic roots are tied to these lands. These lands are 
     not threatened and wilderness designation will not provide 
     any additional protection that is already provided for by law 
     governing the management of these lands.
       For more than 100 years, there has been a harmony between 
     the land and the land user. A dependence on the part of both 
     has grown up with a healthy mutual respect. Questionable 
     science has been injected into the wilderness decision-making 
     process by those who are disjointed and removed from the land 
     they claim to befriend.
       We reaffirm our position on wilderness designation 
     articulated in the last legislative session and as that you 
     consider it to be the position of the State of Utah. If we 
     can be helpful and answer your questions in addressing your 
     concerns relative to this issue, we would be most amenable to 
     doing what is necessary so that your decision is made with 
     the very best, accurate information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Melvin R. Brown,
                                                          Speaker.
                                                  R. Lane Beattie,
     President.
                                                                    ____


                           Laws of Utah--1995


                               h.c.r. 12

       Whereas the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued its 
     final Environmental Impact Statement and recommended 
     designating approximately 1.9 million acres of land in Utah 
     as wilderness;
       Whereas the state is willing to cooperate with the United 
     States government in the designation process and in 
     protecting Utah's environment;
       Whereas designating lands as wilderness affects many 
     communities and residents of the state by permanently 
     prohibiting certain kinds of economic development;
       Whereas a federal reservation of water could serious affect 
     the potential for development in growing areas of the state;
       Whereas the designation of wilderness would depreciate the 
     value of state inholdings and adjacent state lands, reducing 
     an important source of revenue for the education of Utah's 
     schoolchildren;
       Whereas it is the state's position that there should be no 
     net loss of state or private lands and no increase in federal 
     ownership as a result of wilderness designation;
       Whereas lands that may be designated as wilderness are 
     subject to existing rights and uses under current law, such 
     as mining, timber harvesting, and grazing;
       Whereas the BLM has extensively studied public lands in 
     Utah for the purpose of determining suitability for 
     wilderness designation;
       Whereas it is vitally important for Utah to maintain the 
     ability to develop its mineral resources, such as the 
     Kaiparowits Coal Field, for the economic and financial well 
     being of the state, its trust lands, and counties;
       Whereas much of Utah's municipal, industrial, and 
     agricultural water supply comes from public lands, requiring 
     continued management and maintenance of vegetation, 
     reservoirs, and pipelines, and
       Whereas the definition of wilderness lands established by 
     Congress in 1964 Wilderness Act should be used to determine 
     the designation of wilderness lands:
       Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Legislature of the 
     state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, encourage the 
     Congress to enact at the earliest possible opportunity a fair 
     and equitable Utah wilderness bill regarding BLM lands, with 
     the Legislature's and Governor's support of the bill 
     contingent upon its containing the following provisions:
       (1) that any BLM lands designated as wilderness must meet 
     the legal definition of wilderness lands as contained in the 
     1964 Wilderness Act;
       (2) that all lands not designated as wilderness be released 
     from Wilderness Study Area status and that the BLM be 
     directed to manage those released lands under multiple use 
     sustained yield principles and be prohibited from making or 
     managing further study area designations in Utah without 
     express authorization from Congress;
       (3) that no reserve water right be granted or implied in 
     any BLM wilderness bill for Utah inasmuch as federal agencies 
     are able to apply for water through the state appropriations 
     system in keeping with the 1988 opinion of Solicitor Ralph W. 
     Tarr of the United States Department of the Interior;

[[Page S2780]]

       (4) that federal agencies be required to cooperate with the 
     state in exchanging state lands that are surrounded by or 
     adjacent to or adversely affected by wilderness designation 
     for federal lands of equivalent value; and additionally, 
     because designation of wilderness lands is a federal action, 
     that federal funds be appropriated to pay for appraisals of 
     state lands and federal lands to be exchanged;
       (5) that every effort be made to ensure that there be no 
     net loss of state or private lands and no increase in federal 
     ownership as a result of wilderness designation in Utah;
       (6) that the designation of wilderness not result in the 
     creation, either formally or informally, of buffer zones and 
     management zones around, contiguous, or on lands affected by 
     wilderness designation;
       (7) that all valid existing rights and historical uses be 
     allowed to be fully exercised without undue restriction or 
     economic hardship on lands designated as wilderness as 
     provided in the Wilderness Act of 1964; and
       (8) that management of vegetation, reservoirs, and similar 
     facilities on watershed lands designated as wilderness be 
     continued by state or private means.
       Be it further RESOLVED that the Legislature and the 
     Governor conclude that elected county officials, after 
     extensive public input, should develop the wilderness 
     proposals and the conditions for acceptable designation of 
     wilderness lands within their respective counties, with the 
     aggregate of these respective county recommendations 
     constituting the basis of the state proposal for BLM 
     wilderness designation in Utah. The county officials should 
     be consulted regarding any changes to their respective county 
     recommendations.
       Be it further RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be 
     sent to President Clinton, the President of the United States 
     Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the directors of both the state 
     and federal offices of the Bureau of Land Management, and 
     Utah's congressional delegation.
                                                                    ____

                                                  Utah Congress of


                                    Parents and Teachers, Inc.

                               Salt Lake City, UT, March 20, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: Utah PTA encourages your support of S. 
     884, Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995. This bill 
     impacts the school of our state. Federal land designations 
     capture school trust lands which were set aside at statehood 
     to support Utah schools because 69% of our state is untaxed. 
     Historically, promises to trade the captured land for land 
     outside those designations have not been honored. We support 
     S. 884 because the bill:
       provides a responsible wilderness designation;
       provides a process of equitable compensation to the school 
     children;
       provides for responsible water development under existing 
     state laws.
       We strongly oppose H.R. 1500, America's Redrock Wilderness 
     Act of 1995 because the bill:
       captures over a million acres of the school children's land 
     without any provision for exchange;
       designates wilderness lands that do not meet the 
     Congressional definition of wilderness;
       is not supported by the Utah Congressional delegation.
       We rely on your commitment to the future generations of the 
     school children of Utah by supporting S. 884.
           Sincerely,
     Linda M. Parkinson,
       President.
     Paula M. Plant,
       Legislative Vice President.
                                                                    ____



                               Utah State Office of Education,

                               Salt Lake City, UT, March 20, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I strive to be an advocate for 
     children, as I am sure you do also. I am concerned that 
     Utah's school children stand to lose critical resources which 
     would fund their education under H.R. 1500.
       Therefore, I urge your support of S. 884. This legislation 
     includes provisions to protect the school trust lands within 
     Utah. It is vital that these lands be capable of producing 
     income which in turn supports the public education of Utah's 
     children.
       Utah receives minimal federal dollars for education when 
     compared to other states. At the same time, we have more 
     children per taxpayer to educate than any other state.
       Please align your position on the side of the children. 
     Vote in favor of S. 884.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Janet A. Cannon,
     Member, Utah State Board of Education.
                                                                    ____



                                  Utah Farm Bureau Federation,

                             Salt Lake City, UT, October 27, 1995.
     Re S. 884.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: This letter is to reaffirm the support 
     of the Utah Farm Bureau Federation for Senate Bill 884, the 
     Utah Wilderness bill introduced by you and Senator Bennett, 
     with a companion bill in the House. The Utah Farm Bureau 
     Federation has nearly 22,000 member families, spread across 
     the entire state with members in every single county of the 
     state. It is responsibly estimated that there are about 
     93,000 citizens of Utah in these 22,000 families. A large 
     majority of the farms and ranchers in Utah are members of 
     Farm Bureau. Also, we have members who are not currently 
     farming or ranching, but who may be absentee owners of farms 
     or ranches or who are sons and daughters or grandsons and 
     granddaughters of active farmers.
       The basic provisions of this bill have been the subject of 
     widespread discussion among our members. Some would have 
     liked an even smaller total acreage than the 1.8 million in 
     the bill. But we recognize this is a good compromise between 
     the radical 5.7 million acre bill proposed by some groups, 
     and the ``zero wilderness'' position of some.
       We are particularly pleased with the release language, the 
     effort to protect vitally important water rights, the 
     protection against de-facto buffer zones, and the overall 
     attempt in the bill to comply with the original intent of 
     Congress in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Above all, it is 
     critically important that we end this long, divisive and very 
     costly debate over what is and what is not formally 
     designated wilderness in Utah. Public lands are absolutely 
     essential to the economic viability of rural Utah. We need to 
     get this issue settled.
       We compliment you and other sponsors of this legislation. 
     We assure you of our support and urge every effort to obtain 
     passage of the bill.
           Sincerely,

                                          C. Booth Wallentine,

                                      Executive Vice President and
     Chief Administrative Officer.
                                                                    ____


                          Resolution No. 95-05

       Whereas, legislation currently pending in Congress, H.R. 
     1745 and S. 884, would designate wilderness areas on Bureau 
     of Land Management lands in the State of Utah; and
       Whereas, the designated wilderness areas would encompass 
     school and institutional trust lands; and
       Whereas, said legislation provides for the exchange of the 
     included school and institutional trust lands for other lands 
     owned by the federal government outside of the designated 
     wilderness areas; and
       Whereas, the federally-owned lands are currently subject to 
     leasing under the federal Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 180 et seq.); and
       Whereas, the federal Mineral Leasing Act provides that the 
     State of Utah shall receive fifty per cent (50%) of the 
     revenues from the leasing or production of minerals on those 
     lands; and
       Whereas, the valuation which the School and Institutional 
     Trust Lands Administration has placed upon the lands to be 
     exchanged has taken into account the rights of the state of 
     Utah under the Mineral Leasing Act; and
       Whereas, federal and state laws do not currently allow the 
     School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration to sell 
     the mineral estate; and
       Whereas, the proposed language in the federal bills would 
     make the obligation to share revenue a valid existing right 
     applicable to all subsequent owners, should the School and 
     Institutional Trust Lands Administration no longer own the 
     mineral estate; and
       Whereas, the trust is seeking to acquire the targeted 
     federal lands listed in the federal bills because of the 
     potential for development; and
       Whereas, the Board of Trustees desires to ensure that, 
     based upon the valuation provided by the School and 
     Institutional Trust Lands Administration and accepted by this 
     Board as of the date of this resolution, the State of Utah 
     receives revenues from the production of minerals on the 
     lands which become school trust lands as result of the 
     exchange provided for in H.R. 1745 and S. 884.
       Therefore, be it Resolved, That, subject to the condition 
     that the lands to be exchanged with the federal government as 
     part of the directed exchange currently included in H.R. 1745 
     and S. 884 are of approximately equal value, as approved by 
     this Board, such valuation taking into account the right of 
     the State of Utah to receive fifty per cent (50%) of the 
     revenue from the production of minerals that are leased 
     pursuant to the federal Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 180 et seq.), the Board of Trustees of the School 
     and Institutional Trust Lands Administration supports the 
     inclusion of language in H.R. 1745 and S. 884 which provides 
     for the distribution of fifty per cent (50%) of the proceeds 
     resulting from the production of leased minerals on the lands 
     acquired by the state, which minerals would have been covered 
     by the federal Mineral Leasing Act (as amended through the 
     date of enactment of H.R. 1745 and S. 884) if the lands had 
     been retained in federal ownership. The Board also supports 
     language in H.R. 1745 and S. 884 which provides that;
       1. the proceeds shall be collected by the Administration 
     and distributed, after deduction of a pro rata share of 
     administrative costs, to the state of Utah;
       2. disputes concerning the collection and distribution of 
     the revenue shall be resolved pursuant to Utah state law;
       3. that such obligation to collect and distribute proceeds 
     shall end if the trust no longer owns the mineral estate; and
       4. the collection and sharing of the proceeds from timber 
     production shall also be shared in accordance with current 
     applicable law.
       The language supported by the Board is attached hereto and 
     incorporated herein by

[[Page S2781]]

     this reference, consisting of the Committee Draft of H.R. 
     1745 and amendments proposed by this Board.
       Adopted this 20th day of November, 1996.
       Ruland J. Gill, Jr., Chair, Board of Trustees of the School 
     and Institutional Trust Lands Administration.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have taken a long time here, but, 
frankly, this needed to be said. I realize that many people on the 
other side of the issue are very sincere people. I happen to believe in 
the environment myself. But I also know if we do not worry about human 
beings, there will not be an environment in the end, because sooner or 
later someone is going to rise up and an extremist on the other side is 
going to take control if we act like you cannot have balance on these 
matters.
  All the sincerity in the world does not make it right. I think we 
have done a very good job of crafting a bill here that brings the vast 
majority of all people together, while leaving the extremists still 
screaming at us; but even they will die down once the bill is passed, 
just like the two ends of the extremist spectrum who moaned and groaned 
about the Utah Forest Service wilderness proposal.
  We went through this with that bill, too, when we came up with 
800,000 acres. Once it was passed, the screaming basically went away. 
Everybody understood that it was a good bill. Today, people are 
bragging about it all over Utah. The elected leaders and 
environmentalists are because we did a good job. I was here. I worked 
on it. I worked on it with Senator Garn and Congressman Hansen, and 
others. The fact is, we worked hard to get it done. That is what we 
have done here. I hope our colleagues will give some credibility to 
that.
  Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of this bill has been the so-
called release language. Let me take a moment to explain this in 
greater detail. The release language in the bill would release those 
public lands not designated wilderness by this legislation from any 
further wilderness study or review by the BLM. In other words, they 
would fall back into the pool of lands the BLM manages for various 
purposes but without the official status of wilderness. It would still 
be managed by the BLM. We would still be subject to the environmental 
rules and regulations. It just would not be wilderness, which means 
that it would not be land that only backpackers could walk on. There 
would be some reasonable use of the land, but very, very stringently 
controlled by the BLM.
  This is an important point. The land is still managed by the BLM. It 
does not go into private hands. Some would have you believe we are 
going to build a shopping center on every acre of that land.
  Under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, the Secretary of the Interior studies those roadless areas of 
5,000 acres or more and roadless islands of public lands for their 
wilderness characteristics and reports to the President on the 
suitability or nonsuitability for each designation of wilderness. The 
President submits a recommendation to the Congress, and a designation 
of wilderness shall become effective only if as approved by an Act of 
Congress.
  There was supposed to be a beginning of the study process--initiated 
by the BLM--and an end. The Wilderness Act of 1964, together with 
FLPMA, provides the recipe for designating wilderness. This was not a 
process designed to go on in perpetuity, causing the BLM or the Forest 
Service to manage lands as if they were wilderness forever, which is 
what we have been living with in Utah.
  Our bill follows the plan for designations set out under these 
laws. It is a plan that allows lands to be protected for their 
wilderness values and character and at the same time brings closure and 
finality to the process.

  The conception of releasing lands not chosen for wilderness 
designation has never been controversial. The Congress has made it 
through countless bills to designate wilderness in the time I have been 
a Senator. Each time a bill is passed into law, the lands not 
designated were released. That is the normal process. Why is release in 
this bill such a lightning rod issue? I suspect it is because the lands 
in the study areas have been managed as wilderness for almost 20 years. 
In addition, the lands included in H.R. 1500, the so-called 
environmentalist bill--or at least, the environmentalist extreme bill--
have been managed as de facto wilderness in recent years.
  All it takes for all of this land to be de facto wilderness is to let 
this process go on forever. Face it, it is hard to let something go 
once you have it. Environmentalists are loath to pass legislation 
designating less land in the wilderness than what is already basically 
wilderness now or de facto wilderness. I am not unsympathetic to their 
motives, but I disagree with the result. It holds millions of acres in 
legal limbo, some think illegal limbo; our people in Utah feel illegal 
limbo.
  Our bill contains release language that would have prevented BLM land 
managers, the on-the-ground professionals, from being able to manage 
nondesignated lands for their wilderness value and character.
  Our concern was the Federal managers would continue to manage land as 
wilderness even though Congress has made a conscious decision that 
certain land did not have the wilderness characteristics and values 
meriting formal designation. We included the term ``nonwilderness'' 
multiple use in our bill which we believed would accomplish this goal.
  As my colleagues know, that phrase in and of itself caused more 
concerned to be expressed about our bill than possibly any other 
section in our bill. In fact, it led to a lively debate last December 
during the full committee markup on our bill.
  That was then. This is now.
  In today's proposal before this body that term has been eliminated. 
Our release provision has been modified substantially. The new release 
language which is contained in the substitute amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It simply states that the BLM lands located in Utah 
have been properly studied for their wilderness characteristics, and 
that those not designated as wilderness by our bill need not be studied 
or pursued any further by the Secretary.
  In addition, these lands will be managed for the full range of 
multiple use as defined in section 103(C) of FLPMA in accordance with 
land management plans adopted by the BLM pursuant to section 202 of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
  What this says to the Federal managers is that, now that wilderness 
has been designated, assuming this bill passes, the balance of the land 
should be managed under existing laws and regulations where 
appropriate. It is not a signal to the mythical lineup of bulldozers to 
start their engines, as some might say, because it simply does not 
leave these lands unprotected.
  I repeat, it will not leave nondesignated lands open for unrestrained 
and uncontrolled development. There are other designations available to 
the BLM other than wilderness to protect our natural resources from 
this occurring. These designations are proposed, examined and 
eventually undertaken through the land use planning process outlined in 
section 202 of FLPMA.
  To give comfort to those who remain convinced that our language will 
not afford these lands the protection they deserve, let me recount the 
criteria to be reviewed by the Secretary when developing and revising 
land use plans. In subsection (c) of section 202, the Secretary shall:

       (1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and 
     sustained yield;
       (2) achieve integrated consideration of physical, 
     biological, economic, and other sciences;
       (3) give priority to the designation and protection of 
     areas of critical and environmental concern;
       (4) rely on the inventory of the public lands, their 
     resources and other values;
       (5) consider present and potential use of the public lands;
       (6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved 
     and the availability of alternative means and sites for 
     realization of those values;
       (7) weigh long-term benefit to the public against short-
     term benefits;
       (8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution 
     control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise 
     or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and
       (9) coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and 
     management activities for such lands with other Federal 
     departments and agencies and of the States and local 
     government within which the lands are located.

  Just look at these Bureau of Land Management special designations to 
which we will be subject to. It is not that the lands are going to be 
just

[[Page S2782]]

opened up for any kind of use. Look at the list of these various things 
they will be subject to.
  Subsection (f) directs the Secretary to provide an opportunity for 
Federal, State, and local governments and the general public to comment 
upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating 
to the management of public lands.
  Certainly my colleagues would agree that there is no better way to 
manage these nondesignated lands than by the book and in accordance 
with FLPMA. There is not any better way. That is what our release 
language does. It provides they be managed the way FLPMA says they will 
be managed.
  In Utah, all of the public lands are covered by land use plans 
developed pursuant to section 202 of FLPMA. I understand some of the 
plans in Utah are not as current as they might be; but, nevertheless, 
they provide protection for the resources, particularly those not 
designated as wilderness. Within each plan, the BLM will consider the 
resources present in an area and what protection they need.
  Last week, I asked the Utah State BLM director to provide me with a 
summary of those special designations that can be developed through the 
land use planning process for Federal managers to protect specific 
resources.
  I have produced these two charts that list those special designations 
and a brief summary of what each designation is for. These designations 
include:
  Areas of critical environmental concern--for those areas that have 
special unique or rare values;
  Outstanding natural areas--to protect unusual natural characteristics 
for education and recreational purposes;
  Visual resources management designations--that are utilized to 
maintain a landscape that appears unaltered, to retain the existing 
character of a landscape, and to manage activities that may lead to 
modifications in that landscape;
  Coal management designations--indicating where coal leasing and 
development can occur and the types of methods that can be used. I 
might mention in that regard, Utah is the Saudi Arabia of coal. By the 
way, it is environmentally sound, high-moisture content, low-sulfur 
content coal that will be necessary to keep the rest of the country 
environmentally clean.
  Continuing with the designations:
  Designations for locatable energy and nonenergy leaseable minerals--
indicating in what areas the mining laws are open or closed;
  Off-highway vehicle designations--I am only listing a few--indicating 
where such use is open and closed.
  These are just a few of the special management designations available 
to the local BLM manager that can be used to protect this country's 
resources and our State's resources.

  If a designation is made and a particular activity is inconsistent 
with this designation, it will not occur. The only ``golden arches'' 
dotting the protected Utah landscape will be the ones covered by the 
elements over centuries.
  While I may not always agree with them, I have faith that our local 
BLM managers will use these designations in the proper way after 
establishing their merit through the proper public process.
  Again, the substitute bill does not exempt nondesignated wilderness 
lands from being designated in any of these categories. There are also 
designations that can be made by Congress or the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish systems of national importance and to include 
components within these national systems. The Utah State BLM office 
provided a list of these authorities, which I have produced on another 
chart.
  These designations include: national wild and scenic rivers, national 
conservation areas, national outstanding natural areas, critical 
habitat areas, national historic landmarks, and national scenic areas, 
just to mention a few. There are others, as well, on the list. There is 
a wide latitude available to Congress and the Secretary to utilize 
these designations in a manner befitting the resources and the 
management scheme they mandate to protect them in their true character.
  In addition to all of these designations, there is a plethora of 
environmental laws and regulations to which the management of our 
public lands must adhere.
  Again, I asked the Utah State BLM Director to provide me with a list 
of those Federal laws--and I am only talking about Federal laws, not 
State laws; we have a lot of State laws, too. These are Federal laws 
that involve BLM activities, to which the BLM managers, as they manage 
the Federal lands, must adhere. Look at these. We have discussed many 
of these authorities so far. But, my colleagues need to consider all of 
these legislative authorities that involve BLM.
  An abbreviated list of these laws is located on the two charts I have 
produced here. I emphasize that these lists are not full lists. I have 
listed these legislative authorities which I thought were more 
pertinent to this debate than others. I have not prioritized them in 
any particular fashion, other than to place them in groups according to 
their particular management emphasis. I will mention a few that are on 
this list for the benefit of my colleagues. I understand Senator 
Murkowski has submitted this list for the Record in his remarks, but I 
will mention a few. These include:
  FLPMA; National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA; Clean Air Act; 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking 
Water Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act; Superfund; Mining Law; Mineral Leasing Act; Federal Coal Leasing 
Amendments; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, or SMCRA; 
Energy Policy Act of 1992;
  Public Rangelands Improvement Act; Endangered Species Act; Wild and 
Free-Roaming Burro Act; Act for protecting Bald and Golden Eagles; 
Toxic Substances Control Act; Migratory Bird Conservation Act; Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, an Rodenticide Act; Water Resources Development 
Act; Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act; National Historic 
Preservation Act; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Wilderness Act; 
Archaeological Resource Protection Act; and Antiquities Act.
  This is just to mention a few. It is mind boggling. I am sure my 
colleagues will agree that this is a ``Who's Who'' list of 
environmental laws, and the activities that occur on public lands not 
designated wilderness by our proposal will be subject to each and every 
one.
  I will repeat what I said a moment ago in relation to this list of 
environmental laws. Our bill does not exempt nondesignated wilderness 
lands--any of those lands released for regulated multiple use under the 
bill--from any provision, contained in any of these laws and their 
corresponding regulations.
  Our release language does contain a sentence that has raised 
questions. This sentence says: ``Such lands shall not be managed for 
the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness 
designation.'' What does this mean? This means that Federal managers 
will not manage a tract of land for the purpose of its possible 
inclusion by Congress within the National Wilderness Preservation 
System.
  As my colleagues will note from the chart listing the special 
designations available for BLM managers, ``Future wilderness 
designation'' is not listed because it does not exist. There is no 
designation or direction from Congress to the agency, outside of 
section 603(c) of FLPMA, that says you should manage land for the 
purpose of its future designation as wilderness. There is no such rule 
or law.
  But we have told the agency that we want lands protected for their 
unique geographical and geological traits, for their special and rare 
topographical values and qualities, historical values, and so forth.
  The way to do this is through the existing authorities and 
designations available to the BLM.
  This sentence in the substitute does not foreclose a Federal manager 
from managing an area of land to protect its wilderness character. This 
sentence does not prohibit a BLM district manager from managing an area 
of land for its wilderness values. Statements to the contrary are 
false.
  And, more importantly, it does not foreclose a future Congress from 
revisiting this issue and designating additional lands as wilderness. 
We cannot bind a future Congress, and we do not in our bill.

[[Page S2783]]

  During last year's markup on our bill, there was lively discussion 
regarding our release language. On two separate votes, the committee 
voted to keep our release language in the bill.
  However, it was clear from the statements made at the markup, and 
shortly thereafter to me and Senator Bennett, that committee members 
hoped we would address the issues that they raised during the markup.
  We have done that with this language. As I said, the term 
``nonwilderness'' multiple use has been removed, and there is no 
language preventing the agency from managing lands to protect their 
wilderness character.
  I want to thank all the members of the Senate Energy Committee, 
particularly Senators Johnston and Bumpers and Murkowski, for their 
constructive criticism of our original language and for their 
suggestions for ways to amend it. The amendment offered by Senator 
Johnston at the December markup of the committee provided the impetus 
for this change.
  I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the comment Senator Johnston 
made prior to the vote on his amendment. He said that the effect of his 
amendment would be to ``do away with what is a present practice, which 
is also offending, which is managing for the purpose of some future 
designation as wilderness.''
  That also is the effect of our language. We think it is a worthwhile 
effect.
  Now, I know I have taken enough time. But this is an important 
issue--one of the most important issues in my whole time in the U.S. 
Senate. I am hopeful that our colleagues will help Senator Bennett and 
myself to get this through. Should it be that they do not, it is going 
to come back and come back and come back again because we have to get 
this problem solved in our State.

  Frankly, I do not mean to disparage anybody who feels otherwise about 
this, as there are very sincere people on both extremes of this issue. 
We have tried to achieve a compromise in the middle, where the vast 
majority of people can agree. I think people of good will who realize 
what we are trying to do will agree. I think we have given reason for 
every one of our colleagues here to consider the hard work we have done 
and the pain we have been through, and the efforts that we have made to 
get this done.
  In that regard, I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague and 
my friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. When he was on this committee, he 
did yeoman work with other members to apprise them of this matter. 
Since he has not been on the Energy Committee, he has worked very close 
with his former colleagues on that committee to help get this done. We 
have worked side by side, and we are going to continue working side by 
side. We both have tried to be reasonable in every way in this Congress 
as we serve here in the Senate. We are going to continue to try and be 
reasonable.
  I want to pay tribute to him because he has been a voice of reason on 
this issue--an intelligent voice of reason. I personally believe that, 
when this passes, he will deserve a great deal of the credit, as will 
our dear friend and colleague, Congressman Hansen, in the House, who 
has carried this proposal very strongly over there. Some in the media 
have said that this cannot pass the House. That is not true. If we pass 
it, it will pass the House whenever the vote comes.
  I hope our colleagues will give some consideration to the efforts we 
have made, the good faith that we have shown, and the fact that we 
believe we are representing our State and the Nation in the very best 
way on this very critical issue to us. This is a very, very important 
Utah wilderness bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to start by saying how much 
I admire Senators Hatch and Bennett for working on this bill--
particularly Senator Hatch, who has worked on some form of this bill 
for almost two decades. Having worked 10 years on the Colorado 
wilderness bill, I know of the difficulty of doing it, because they are 
all highly charged, emotional debates.
  I think the American public may not quite know what they want with a 
balanced budget amendment or with health care, but, believe me, they 
all know what they want when it comes to their land. All of them own 
the public lands, the areas in or without wilderness, either one. But 
some want to hunt on it, or run their off-road vehicles on it, and some 
want to graze on it, and some want to fish or take pictures, or dig for 
gold and use timber. And they would like everybody else off of it.
  Coming from a western State, the Presiding Officer certainly knows 
the difficulty we get between the special interest groups, who 
understand that it belongs to everybody, but would prefer that their 
particular interest gets a priority in using that public land. But it 
does not happen that way.
  For 3\1/2\ hours, we have been talking about one section of this 
bill, really--the title of the Presidio omnibus bill, not the Utah 
wilderness bill. Utah Wilderness is just 1 title of 33. There are 33 
titles in this bill, and all of them are very important. In just title 
II alone, in fact, there are 16 different areas that probably will not 
get too much debate because they are not as controversial as the Utah 
wilderness bill, which is just 1 title. Certainly, when we are 
something like 30 years behind on finding the money to purchase land 
that we have already authorized to go into the Park Service and over 20 
years behind on the appropriations for building the buildings in the 
parks, those are all just as important as any other section.
  Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to several bills within 
the Omnibus package that are of particular interest to me and my home 
State of Colorado. Each of these bills deserves distinction in its own 
right, being crafted with years of collaborative hard work and 
dedication. I would like to make brief comments on each of them, and 
urge my colleagues to support these noncontroversial bills in final 
passage.
  One little section under section 224, ``Volunteers in Parks 
Increase.'' I do not think anyone has a doubt that in this day of 
fiscal responsibility that we are supposed to be trying to save some 
money. But the importance of volunteers throughout America is going up. 
That probably will not get into the debate today and tomorrow. But 
there are many others.
  Over 50 Senators, it is my understanding, either have sponsored or 
cosponsored some of these titles, and many of them are extremely 
important.
  The Corinth, MS, Battlefield Act, the Walnut Canyon National Monument 
Boundary Modification, Greens Creek Land Exchange, Butte County Land 
Exchange, on and on. Title XXIII, Colonial National Historical Park--
all extremely important. And yet, because the Utah wilderness bill, 
which is just one section, is so controversial, it seems to be getting 
all of the debate so far.
  Let me just talk a little bit about the things that we have worked so 
hard for in Colorado that are also part of this bill.
  Title IV, Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Center is one of the 
largest and most visited in America. This bill provides the authority 
for the National Park Service to use appropriated and donated funds to 
operate a visitor center outside of the boundary of Rocky Mountain 
National Park.
  We worked on this a number of years. And it is a good bill. But it is 
only one part of the bigger omnibus bill.
  The Park Service has been in need of a visitor's center at the 
eastern entrance to Rocky for many years now, but due to fiscal 
constraints, they have been unable to get adequate appropriations. 
Thanks to a generous private-public partnership proposal, the Park 
Service has an opportunity to provide a visitor service outside the 
park boundaries. This legislation would simply make this type of 
partnership possible for the Park Service. This type of private-public 
opportunity is exactly what the Federal Government should be taking 
advantage of these days, and I am encouraged by the proposal for the 
Fall River visitor center that has been put forth. This center would 
help the thousands of visitors that flock to the park each year, and 
would save the Government millions in taxpayer dollars.


                        TITLE X: CACHE LA POUDRE

  This bill would designate approximately 35,000 acres between the 
cities

[[Page S2784]]

of Fort Collins and Greeley, CO, as the Cache La Poudre River National 
Water Heritage Area.
  Senator Brown, my colleague from Colorado, has worked almost 20 years 
since he has been in the House and on the Senate side to get that bill 
passed. It is just one section of this larger omnibus bill.
  The headwaters of the streams that flow into this river tell the 
story of water development and river basin management in the westward 
expansion of the United States. This historical area holds a special 
meaning for Coloradans, and we feel that it deserves national 
recognition as a heritage area. In addition to the designation, this 
title will help establish a local commission to develop and implement a 
long term management plan for the area.
  This bill holds great distinction for me, for I have been working on 
it for many years with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator 
from Colorado. The good Senator has been trying to get this bill 
enacted into law for over 20 years now, and each revision of the bill 
has been a more worthy product than the last. There are always a couple 
of bills that hold special meaning for us personally, and the Cache La 
Poudre is a good example of one that the senior Senator from Colorado 
has a particular interest in. I urge my colleagues to support this 
worthy bill, and see to it that it is enacted into law before the 
senior Senator from Colorado retires from our Chamber.


            TITLE XI: GILPIN COUNTY, COLORADO LAND EXCHANGE

  This bill is a simple, straightforward land exchange bill that will 
convey 300 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in Gilpin County, 
CO, for the acquisition of 8,733 acres of equal value within the State.
  I do not think there is any doubt that the Federal Government and the 
taxpayers of this country get the best of that trade. They are going to 
get 8,733 acres for just 300 acres of BLM land.
  The bill seeks to address a site-specific land management problem 
that is a result of the scattered mining claims of the 1800's. The 
Federal selected lands for conveyance are contained within 133 
scattered parcels near the communities of Black Hawk and Central City, 
most of which are less than 1 acre in size. These lands would be 
exchanged to the cities of Black Hawk and Central City to help 
alleviate a shortage residential lots.
  In return for these selected lands, the Federal Government will 
receive approximately 8,773 acres of offered lands, which are 
anticipated to be of approximately equal dollar value to the selected 
lands. These lands are in three separate locations, described as 
follows:
  Circle C Church Camp: This 40-acre parcel is located within Rocky 
Mountain National Park along its eastern boundaries, and lies 
approximately 5 miles south of the well known community of Estes Park. 
This acquisition can provide additional public camping sites and 
address a current shortage of employee housing in the popular national 
park.
  Quilan Ranches tract: This 3,993-acre parcel is located in Conejos 
County, in southern Colorado. This land has excellent elk winter range 
and other wildlife habitat, and borders State lands, which are managed 
for wildlife protection.
  Bonham Ranch--Cucharas Canyon: This 4,700-acre ranch will augment 
existing BLM land holdings in the beautiful Cucharas Canyon, identified 
as an area of critical environmental concern [ACEC]. This ranch has 
superb wildlife habitat, winter range, riparian areas, raptor nesting, 
and fledgling areas, as well as numerous riparian areas, raptor 
nesting, and fledgling areas.
  Any equalization funds remaining from this exchange will be dedicated 
to the purchase of land and water rights--pursuant to Colorado water 
law--for the Blanca Wetlands Management Area, near Alamosa, CO.
  It is clear that the merits of this bill are numerous. Moreover, the 
bill is noncontroversial, and while it may not have dramatic 
consequence for people outside of the State of Colorado, it represents 
a tremendous opportunity for citizens within my State. Due to the time-
sensitive and fragile nature of the various components of this bill, I 
would urge my colleagues to act expeditiously and support this 
legislation.


                         title xviii: ski fees

  For years a number of us in the west have supported legislation that 
tries to find some common sense and reason for the administration of 
Forest Service ski area permits. This title will take the most 
convoluted, subjective, and bizarre formula for calculating ski fees, 
developed by the Forest Service, and replace it with a simple, user 
friendly formula in which the ski areas will be able to figure out 
their fees with very little effort. We think this is important.
  The current formula utilized by the Forest Service is encompassed in 
40 pages and contains hundreds of definitions, rulings, and policies. 
It is simply government bureaucracy at its worst. For the ski industry, 
this formula is a monstrous burden, and with the expansion and 
diversification of many ski resorts, this burden grows increasingly 
more complex each year.
  Mr. President, in the 5 years that I have worked on this issue I have 
heard virtually no opposition to this bill. It enjoys broad bipartisan 
support, and I hope that my fellow Senators will act swiftly and 
resoundingly in supporting it.


                    title xxix: grand lake cemetery

  Mr. President, this title simply directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to authorize a permit for the town of Grand Lake, CO, to 
permanently maintain their 5-acre cemetery, which happens to fall 
within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park. This cemetery 
has been in use by the town since 1892, and continues to carry strong 
emotion and sentimental attachments for the residents. This is a 
little, tiny cemetery near Grand Lake that started over 100 years ago--
104 years ago. For 104 years that little cemetery has been in effect. 
And this cemetery has been used by the town. This portion of the 
omnibus bill will give the town a long-term permit to maintain that 
little cemetery.

  Currently, the cemetery is operated under a temporary special use 
permit, which is set to expire this year. By granting permanent 
maintenance authority to the town, this title creates lasting stability 
to this longstanding issue. It is completely noncontroversial, and 
widely supported by both the community and the Park Service.


                     TITLE XXXI: OLD SPANISH TRAIL

  This bill was just introduced a year ago. So it has not been worked 
as some others have been nearly so long. But we think it is important 
in this day and age when everybody is trying to preserve the cultural 
parts of America which is fast declining and going under concrete.
  Mr. President, the last bill in this package that I would like to 
speak on today is another bill that holds special meaning for me. I 
have been working on this legislation for many years now, and I am 
pleased to see that this title has seven different cosponsors from both 
sides of the aisle.
  This title would designate the Old Spanish Trail and the northern 
branch of the Old Spanish Trail for study for potential addition to the 
National Trails System as a national historic trail.
  The Old Spanish Trail has rightly been called ``the longest, 
crookedest, most arduous pack mule route in the history of America.'' 
It is that, and more. The Old Spanish Trail tells a dramatic story that 
spans two centuries of recorded history and originated in prehistoric 
times. This trail witnessed use by Utes and Navajos, Spaniards, 
Mexicans, and American trappers, explorers, and settlers, including the 
Mormons. Its heyday spans the development of the West, from the native 
on foot to the mounted Spaniard to the coming of the transcontinental 
railroad. Few routes, if any, pass through as much relatively pristine 
country. It is time to recognize and celebrate our common heritage, and 
I would request that my colleagues support this title.
  These bills are all noncontroversial and somewhat parochial. They may 
not mean a whole lot to many Members in this Chamber, but they mean a 
great deal to me and my constituents. I am not sure what course this 
debate will take, or even what role I will have in the next few days. 
But I would like to say for the Record, Mr. President, these bills that 
I have highlighted in my speech today are worthy of passage and are 
worthy to be enacted into law. Let us not forget the elements of this 
debate that may not be as star-studded, but are equally important.

[[Page S2785]]

  Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to try to add a little bit 
of perspective to what this bill is all about. It is very complicated. 
It is tremendously difficult. But the vast majority of the 33 titles 
have been worked out and have no opposition at all. Very few of them 
have any opposition. To spend all of the time on one on which I think 
the majority of the disagreements have been worked out already--which 
is the Utah wilderness bill--I think is going to be time consuming and 
not very productive.
  So I wanted to add my voice to those who are saying there is more to 
this bill than just Utah wilderness. Utah wilderness is extremely 
important. But through the work that Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett 
have done I think they have gotten a pretty good compromise. I know 
from the years that we worked on the Colorado bill that it does not 
make any difference how much land you put into a wilderness bill. There 
will be people who say that it is not nearly enough, and that it should 
be twice the size, or three times the size, or four times the size.
  That is what we have gone through in virtually every wilderness bill 
that we have dealt with here.
  I want to compliment Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch for the work 
that they have already done on it, and to tell my other colleagues that 
hopefully we will keep this in perspective and recognize there is an 
awful lot of other extremely important parts of this omnibus bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Colorado for giving us that perspective which I think perhaps we 
needed.
  If any of our colleagues are watching in their offices, they may 
think that the Utah wilderness bill is the only issue and that we are 
involved in overkill, perhaps. However, there are some things that I 
think appropriately should be said in this circumstance. And I will do 
my best not to repeat what has been said by my colleagues, Senator 
Murkowski, and Senator Hatch.
  I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Johnston, 
my colleague from Louisiana, for his kind words at the beginning of 
this debate. He provided a tremendous amount of help on this issue when 
it was before the committee. And, as he said accurately, it was his 
proposal backed unanimously by all of the Democrats on the committee 
that became the basis for the final wording of the bill in terms of the 
release language.
  I agree with Senator Hatch--that many of those who are now attacking 
the bill in newspaper advertisements and elsewhere have not read that 
language and need to understand that they are attacking a bill that no 
longer exists. I know that does not meet their needs because their 
political needs require them to attack the very worst possible bill. I 
do not happen to think our first proposal was the worst possible bill. 
But they do, and they can keep the emotion up, if they continue to 
attack that which we have long since abandoned.
  Mr. President, I have a different view perhaps of this issue. And I 
apologize if this is unduly personal. But this is the only way I can 
really describe how I come to this issue.
  I am a city slicker. That is a term used perhaps in some places. But 
I grew up in a city, went to school in a city, and raised my family in 
a city. I knew little or nothing about these issues until I decided to 
run for the Senate. I came with the perspective of somebody for whom 
wilderness meant a drive in the country on a Sunday afternoon.
  My opponent for the Senate was the author of H.R. 1500, the bill that 
called for at that point 5.4 million acres of wilderness in Utah, and 
he was lionized by all of the same groups that are now buying the full-
page ads in national publications to attack the bill that we are 
debating here today.
  It was interesting to me to follow him around the State of Utah and 
see him back away from his original proposal the more exposure he had 
to real voters.
  It is also interesting that now that the voters of Utah decided to 
retire him from public life that he has become the chairman of the 
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the group that has been paying for 
these advertisements around the country. I do not know how much they 
spent. I would guess it would be millions of dollars, knowing what I do 
know about the cost of advertisement--perhaps even in the tens of 
millions of dollars. We will never know. The group will never tell us. 
The group does not tell us where their financial support comes from. 
The group does not tell us who is behind their efforts. But they have 
mounted this effort and run these ads in attack of this bill.
  As I say, I am a city slicker. I came to this issue really with no 
preconceptions one way or the other. I was forced into it by virtue of 
the fact that my campaign was against Wayne Owens who was the primary 
mover of this effort, and who continues, as I say, today as one of the 
primary forces behind it. I decided I had better learn something about 
the issue. I know that strikes some people as a little strange in 
politics. But I decided that I was not going to be able to run on 
discussion of this if I did not know anything about it.
  So this is what I did to try to find out about it. The first thing I 
did was talk to the people who lived on the land.
  I went out to the land, and I sat down with the people who live 
there, and I asked them to tell me about it. I will not bore you with 
all the things they told me, but one conversation sticks in my mind. A 
woman down in southeastern Utah walked out with me. We had been in an 
area where we had been having dinner with a group of people. We walked 
out into the open air, and she said, ``Bob, look around. What do you 
see?'' Well, I did not know what I was supposed to see, so I had to 
make up some kind of comment. I did not know what I was looking for. 
But she said, ``Look around at this land. What do you see?''
  I shrugged my shoulders a little, and I said, ``It's pretty.'' She 
said, ``It's pristine.'' I said, ``Yes, that's right. It's pristine. 
That's wonderful.'' She said, ``Bob, my family and I have been making 
our living off this land for five generations. Tell me we don't love it 
and we can't take care of it properly.''
  So that was the first experience I had as I went out and talked to 
people who live there and have their feeling of stewardship for the 
land. It is very real. I submit to the Senator from New Jersey that it 
is as real as his sense of stewardship or that of anybody else who 
sends in their subscriptions to the various environmental groups but 
who has never had the experience of living on the land from generation 
to generation.
  These people are not despoilers. These people are not exploiters. 
These people are stewards, and they are good stewards, of the land. The 
reason the land is in the condition it is in that we can be talking 
about it as needing to be preserved for our children is that these 
people have preserved it in that condition for five generations and 
more.
  All right. That is the first thing I did. I talked to those who live 
on the land. Then I decided, well, I better talk to the professional 
managers, the people who make their living managing this land for the 
Federal Government. As Governor Leavitt pointed out in his letter that 
Senator Hatch quoted, the professional managers run more of the State 
of Utah than the elected Governor does. The head of the BLM in Utah 
geographically has wider sway than the Governor and the State 
legislature put together.
  So I went and talked to these professional managers, and I asked them 
to tell me about this wilderness thing, help me understand it. They 
looked at me. They had to take my measure for a little while. They had 
to decide whether I was really serious about trying to get their view. 
When they finally decided that I was serious about wanting to know 
without any preconception, they said, ``Senator''--by this time I had 
been elected so they used that term. They said, ``Senator, we can't 
manage 5.7 million acres of wilderness. You give us 5.7 million acres 
as wilderness, and we are going to have all kinds of incursion into 
that land because we don't have enough police force to keep people off 
land that they have been traditionally entering for many, many years. 
We are finding it

[[Page S2786]]

already in the study areas; the 3.2 million acres that are being 
studied cannot in perpetuity be managed as wilderness. We are already 
seeing incursions that we can't control.''
  They said, ``One of the reasons the BLM came up with 1.8 million 
acres of wilderness is that we decided that was the maximum amount we 
could effectively protect as wilderness. The rest of it simply could 
not be managed.''
  They gave me this example of why some acreage is not appropriate for 
wilderness. They said the 5.7 proposal talks about land that comes 
right up to the highway. They said, ``Senator, we cannot stop people 
out there along the highway from parking their cars on the side of the 
highway and picnicking on that land.''

  Now, the land has no wilderness characteristics in the terms of the 
bill as Senator Hatch has described; that is, the original Wilderness 
Act. The reason it is included in the 5.7 is that these people want it 
as buffer land for wilderness area that is maybe 5, 6, 10, 20 miles 
away. So they have taken the wilderness area that is 20 miles away from 
the highway and decided that in order to protect it, in their view, 
they are going to put the wilderness designation right up to the 
highway itself.
  They said, ``Now, Senator, stop and think about it. Are you getting 
the wilderness experience in an area untrammeled by man when you are 
standing 50 feet away from an interstate highway?''
  That is not the kind of solitude that the Senator from New Jersey 
waxed so lyrical about earlier this morning. That land does not qualify 
in any sense for a wilderness designation, and yet, according to these 
professional managers, it is included in some of the proposals that we 
have.
  So I thought, well, OK, I have talked to the people who live there. I 
have talked to the managers. Maybe I ought to go see the land myself. 
So I went out to see the land, and I discovered something that as a 
city slicker I would never ever have known, something that I think is 
being ignored in this debate, something that has been ignored in this 
Chamber, and something that I would like to talk about as being crucial 
to this issue, and that is this. I discovered that human beings do not 
automatically degrade the quality of the environment. Indeed, I 
discovered that in some circumstances human beings improve the quality 
of the environment.
  Is that not a radical notion? Everything we have been hearing about 
preserving wilderness is that we have to preserve this in its pristine, 
magnificent quality, or something really worthwhile will be lost and we 
will get in place of it something terrible that comes from human 
beings.
  Let me show you some pictures, Mr. President, some that we have 
brought together and some that I saw for the first time as I was 
presiding the other night when the Senator from Wyoming was talking 
about grazing. Let us take first some of the pictures from the Senator 
from Wyoming because I think there is a significant point to make. I 
will not go through all of them as he did.
  It so happens that in 1870 a photographer got loose in Wyoming, and 
he went around and took some pictures of areas that he thought were 
particularly significant. The picture on the top is in Jackson. It was 
taken on August 12, 1870. In 1976, a little over 100 years later, 
modern photographers going over these magnificent old photographs 
decided they wanted to go back to the same place and take a picture of 
exactly the same scene. So they did.
  What do you see between 1870 on the top and 1976 on the bottom? You 
see a lusher environment. You see more trees, more vegetation, 
healthier grass than you saw 100 years ago. What is the difference? The 
difference is that for the succeeding 100 years wise stewardship by 
human beings has been practiced on that land, and environmentally it 
has gotten better and not worse.
  We have another one by the same process, same photographers. This is 
also in Wyoming. I wish I had some pictures like this of Utah. I have 
one that I will get to.
  Again, Jackson, August 20, 1870, on the top. You see the kinds of 
things that we hear on this floor about overgrazing and the range in 
terrible condition and the grasses having been destroyed, and so on. 
Now you look at it 100 years later with wise management and you see 
trees in the riparian area; you see lusher grass; you see healthier 
plants because human beings have exercised wise stewardship.
  Now let us go to the one in Utah. The Senator from Wyoming had a 
whole series of these and built his whole presentation around them. I 
was tremendously impressed.
  This one is not 100 years. This one is only about 50. I picked this 
one because the Escalante River is one of the areas of high controversy 
in this wilderness debate. The top photograph was taken in 1949. It 
shows the Escalante River. The bottom photograph was taken in 1992. 
What do you see in the bottom photograph? You see lush vegetation 
through the riparian area, so lush you cannot even see the river 
because there is so much foliage there. And where did that come from? 
That came from human intervention into the area. That came, primarily, 
from cattle.
  We have heard so much about how terrible cattle are for the 
environment. We heard from the Senator from New Jersey the basic 
assumption that when cattle get into an area, there is automatic 
overgrazing. As I said, I walked the land myself. This city slicker 
went out and went over some land and discovered a fascinating thing 
that I would never have learned, growing up in Salt Lake City, UT. I 
had a guide who took me through it and he showed me two tracts of land, 
side by side. We walked over both. The one tract of land had cattle 
grazing on it on a regular basis. The vegetation was healthy. The 
watershed was good. The grasses were healthy and strong and lush.
  We then went to another area, which, ironically, was BLM land where 
cattle permits had been denied. The first piece of land was private 
land, right next to it a piece of BLM land where permits had been 
denied. Here the land was beginning to turn to desert. There were no 
grasses. Such vegetation as was there was scrawny and drying up, 
showing, if you will, something very similar to the contrast in those 
two photographs.
  I said to the man who was guiding me through, ``All right, now tell 
me why this is?''
  He says, ``It is very simple.'' He said, ``Out here in Utah and 
Arizona''--actually, this particular tract of land was in Arizona, 
right on the Utah border--``it is so dry that the land cakes, and when 
the water finally comes in the infrequent rainstorms, it hits this 
caked-over land, this dried-over land, and it runs off and does not get 
in below the surface to nurture anything, unless something comes along 
to break through the surface of that land.'' He said, ``The something 
that most often comes along that can do the land most good is a cow.''
  When a cow comes along, every time it steps, before a rainstorm, 
afterward there is a little puddle of water in every one of those steps 
where the cow goes by. And then the seeds are coming through the air as 
the wind blows along. And where do those seeds get caught? They get 
caught in those little indentations made by the places where the cattle 
have stepped. And if there is water there and seeds there, and then 
fertilization--the cow carries that process with it and drops it along 
the way--you begin to get what you see in this patch of land, strong 
plants and lush grass, rather than the desert effect that you get in 
this patch of land where the cattle have been kept away.
  That is exactly what has happened in the Escalante River. Yet, in the 
name of protecting the environment and doing what is best for the 
environment, there are people who would say the top photograph is 
better than the bottom photograph. The top photograph represents 
something we must preserve for our children and our grandchildren, and 
the bottom photograph represents exploitation and despoilation of our 
natural resources.

  That is a moral judgment that I cannot make. I do not find any moral 
superiority in deserts over vegetation. Some people might be able to 
make that moral judgment. I cannot.
  So I came away from that experience, talking to the people who lived 
on the land and finding them to be good stewards who loved the land 
every bit as much as anybody who ever sent off his card to the Sierra 
Club, talking to the

[[Page S2787]]

managers who run the process and finding them to be conscientious and 
intelligent people who want to do the right thing for the land, and 
then finally walking the land myself and going through this process, I 
came away with the conviction that there is no single magic bullet for 
us to solve our environmental problems, such as slapping a wilderness 
designation on a map and then saying nature will take care of this and 
human beings, stay away forever and ever.
  Let me give another example of why it is the people of Utah are so 
concerned about this question. Why do we care? Why do we care whether 
land is designated as wilderness or left in BLM inventory? What big 
difference does it make? Let me give one example in Juab County, UT, 
where there is a little town called Mona.
  I have driven through Mona. I would like to say for the sake of this 
debate I have stayed there and talked with some folks, but I have not. 
I must be honest. I just kept right on driving, and you get through 
Mona pretty quick when you are driving. It does not slow you down very 
much. Mona's secondary source of culinary water is a spring located on 
Forest Service land. Unfortunately for the people of Mona, this spring 
extends into the Mt. Nebo Wilderness Area, which was designated in 
1984. It is a small spring. It has a flow of only 5 to 20 cubic feet a 
second, depending on the time of year. The pipeline is operated by the 
tiny little Mona Irrigation Company.
  For the last 2 years, Mona has been prevented by the Forest Service 
from accessing and maintaining the spring, even though the first 
historic use of the spring began in 1870.
  Under the terms of the Wilderness Act, prior activities are 
grandfathered in and allowed to go on. If you had a grazing permit, 
according to the act, you can continue to graze. If you had a mining 
permit, according to the act, you can continue to mine. In fact, we 
know that once something is designated as wilderness, all that goes out 
the window, it is walled off, no human activity whatsoever regardless 
of what may have been going on there before. The historic use of this 
spring began in the 1870's. There has been over 120 years of use of 
this water.

  The Forest Service, now, will not give permission for the tiny town 
of Mona to access and maintain its source of drinking water until an 
environmental assessment is completed.
  I will say the Forest Service has not been obstructionist about this, 
in any kind of confrontational way. They have simply said this is what 
the regulations are and we are going to enforce them. We are sorry 
about it. They have not been particularly cooperative. They have just 
enforced the rules.
  So, for 2 years now, Mona cannot deal with maintaining this source of 
water that they have been using for 120 years.
  I would be a little more sympathetic with the wilderness advocates if 
this spring were, say, 3 miles inside the wilderness boundary. Mr. 
President, it is 900 feet from the wilderness boundary. But they are 
forbidden from crossing that boundary to go provide maintenance on a 
source of water that they have been using for 120 years. That is the 
kind of thing that scares the living daylights out of the people in 
Utah, who live next to these wilderness designations and are saying, 
``What is going to happen to us when we start facing the bureaucracy 
that surrounds the enforcement of a wilderness designation?''
  Much has been said about the process. I will not revisit that except 
to give my version quickly of what happened, and some of the things 
that we have gone through here.
  As Senator Hatch pointed out, the BLM started the study here. I 
should point out for the sake of partisan clarity that the decision as 
to what would be studied and what would not was not made by Jim Watt. 
It was made during the Carter administration by those environmentally 
friendly folks who President Carter appointed to the Department of the 
Interior.
  They did their study, they came up with their conclusion, and then 
they opened it up for standard appeals, comments and so on. The Utah 
Wilderness Association, a group not to be confused with the Southern 
Utah Wilderness Alliance, protested that the Department of the Interior 
and the BLM had missed some very significant areas. Their protest was 
not only heard; it was upheld. Some 800,000 acres were added to the 
study area in response to the protests of the Utah Wilderness 
Association. I happen to believe that that protest was wise and that 
the decision that was made to add those additional acres to the study 
area was the correct decision.
  There were other protests that were made that were defeated in court. 
I made that point at the press conference where we all got together to 
announce our intention to try to resolve this issue, and some folks 
came up to me after the press conference and said, ``Oh, no, no, 
Senator, we've never lost any of our appeals, we've never lost any of 
our challenges.''
  I said, ``Well, then, my staff is misleading me and the folks at the 
BLM are misleading me. They said every time you have challenged this 
original designation you've lost.''
  ``Well,'' he said, ``we did have to withdraw some of our appeals, but 
it was withdrawn because we didn't have enough money. We couldn't 
afford to proceed.''
  I find that a very interesting statement in the light of what we have 
heard on this floor today from the chairman of the committee of roughly 
$1 billion of liquid assets in the hands of those who are fighting this 
bill. If they have enough money to buy a full-page ad in the New York 
Times, they have enough money to pursue their effort in behalf of some 
of these court challenges.
  No, I do not think they withdrew the challenges because they did not 
have enough money; they withdrew the challenges because they knew they 
were without merit and they were going to lose and they did not want 
the embarrassment of having that loss on the record.
  We decided--that is, the members of the delegation--in concert with 
the Governor that we were going to start this whole thing from scratch 
again. Senator Hatch has described the hearings that were held at the 
county level, the hearings that were held statewide and all of the rest 
of that. We are being told now that 75 percent of the people who 
responded to those hearings were in favor of 5.7 million acres. I can 
only agree with Senator Hatch that that is an incorrect figure, 
incorrect statement.
  What was very clear to me as we went from place to place was that the 
caravan of protesters went with us. It became kind of a ballet. As the 
delegation would move into a new area, then all the protesters would 
move and they would have the same buttons on. They would come in and 
demand the places and then tell us the same thing they told us in the 
previous location. Then we would get in our cars and drive to this 
location and they would get in their buses and come, and we would go 
through the same charade.
  For them to say 73 percent of the people who testified were all in 
favor of this other proposal, I would say it is the old story used when 
you turn down somebody for a job and he said, ``But I've had 10 years 
experience,'' and the answer is, ``No, you haven't, you've had 1 year 
experience repeated 10 times.''

  We had this same group of people repeating the same arguments over 
and over and over again. On one occasion, the Governor turned to say 
something to a member of his staff and the witness stopped and said, 
``Governor, I'm speaking to you.'' The Governor turned back and 
apologized, listened, and then said to me, ``The reason I felt I didn't 
have to listen to her is because I had heard the same testimony from 
her four times and I thought I knew what it was she was going to say.''
  It was interesting to me that when we were through with this process, 
we came up with roughly the same result that the BLM had produced in 
their 15 years of activity. We did not try to do that. We did not 
deliberately set out to validate what they had done, but we found it 
fascinating that when we were through, we had the same result.
  This is what we were told at those hearings, and we have heard some 
of it on the floor today. I would like to respond to it. We were told: 
``Wilderness will make money.'' We heard that from the Senator from New 
Jersey. ``Tourists come to Utah, tourism is Utah's No. 1 industry. If 
we just add wilderness to the mix, we will make money.''
  Mr. President, I have a map of the State of Utah, and you will see 
that it is filled with bright colors. What are

[[Page S2788]]

all these bright colors? The yellow is BLM land. You will see if you 
get close to it that there are a bunch of little tiny squares of purple 
all the way through there. Those purple squares belong to the State of 
Utah. Those are the school trust lands that came in the enabling act 
when the State was created. But all of the yellow you see here is BLM 
land. This happens to be a military reservation, the Utah Testing and 
Training Range. I do not recommend you go out there on your vacation; 
they are likely to drop bombs on you. That is what they do when they 
take off from the airfield.
  The dark blue is water, Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake.
  The green is Forest Service land. When we talk about the Federal 
Government owning 67 percent of the State of Utah, it is the 
combination of Forest Service land and BLM land.
  The salmon color lands are Indian reservations. Interestingly, this 
area where it shows a great deal of white land is, in fact, an Indian 
reservation. I will tell you what the white is in just a moment.
  This land is national recreation area, also not available for any 
kind of private development.

  The white land that you see left over, that is private land. That is 
the amount of land that the citizens of Utah own. The Senator from New 
Jersey says Utah is one of the most urbanized States in the Union. 
Maybe when you see the land pattern you can understand. There is not 
any private land available except in the urban areas. That is a bit of 
an overstatement, but I think it comes closer than some may realize.
  You may ask, ``What is all this private land on what is supposed to 
be an Indian reservation?'' That is land the Indian tribes handed out 
to their members, so it is still an Indian reservation but it is held 
by title by the members of the Indian tribe.
  So if we are going to talk about exploitation of private landowners, 
you are going to see that the amount of land that the private owners 
can exploit is very, very minimal, compared to all of the other land 
uses.
  But I came to the chart for this purpose, because we are talking 
about the issue of making money off wilderness.
  You see this dark green place inside the green Forest Service land. 
This is wilderness, and that is not obscure wilderness. This is 
wilderness so popular that the Forest Service has to issue permits to 
people to go in. They do not want anybody in there in any higher levels 
of visitation than they are getting right now.
  This is wilderness that for its tourist potential has reached the 
saturation point. The Forest Service will not let anybody else in, and 
it happens to be in the two poorest counties in the State of 
Utah. Wilderness has not made them wealthy, the way some of the 
proponents of this proposal would have you believe.

  The other green that you see here in the yellow area is the 
wilderness that is included in our bill. This is the 2 million acres 
that we have been talking about, and the various places where it will 
be, including--yes, including--the Kaiparowits Plateau that we heard so 
much about earlier in the debate.
  Mr. President, I put that out because, again, I am a city slicker. I 
did not know this until I came to the Senate. I had no understanding of 
the way the land in Utah is allocated and owned until I came to the 
Senate and got into this debate. I love to go out into the wilds. I 
love to go out and commune with nature and have the kinds of 
experiences that Senator Bradley quoted the professor from Colorado was 
having. ``The silence is stunning,'' he said.
  I have had that kind of experience in Utah. I have gone off by myself 
and had that kind of tremendously uplifting experience. I did not know 
at the time I had the experience where I was in terms of who owned the 
land. I have gone back and checked. I was on BLM land. I was on land 
exploited. Why? Because some cattle had been through there. I did not 
know that. I had my experience without knowing that.
  I guess I am deficient somehow in that I do not require the knowledge 
that nobody else has ever set foot on the land for me to have that kind 
of experience on the land. The vast majority of the people who come to 
Utah to have that kind of experience have it in the green areas, that 
is, the national forest. We have 8 million acres of national forest in 
the State of Utah.
  The only difference, from my perspective, between the national forest 
and the other lands that we are talking about setting aside as 
wilderness is that you can get to the national forest. I can go to the 
national forest in my automobile. There is no way in the world I am 
going to be able to go to these areas we have designated as wilderness 
in an automobile. That is fine. So 2 million acres; it meets the 
criteria of the Wilderness Act. I agree that that ought to be set 
aside, primarily for ecological reasons.
  But most people who are talking about wanting more wilderness have 
the mistaken impression that what they are talking about is pretty 
country. They are saying we want to keep the country pretty and keep 
away the strip malls and the hamburger stands and so on. There are 8 
million acres where there will never be a strip mall or a hamburger 
stand or any other kind of commercial exploitation in the State of 
Utah. There are 8 million acres right now in national forests. You add 
to that the 2 million acres that we have of national parks,--I am 
surprised at how many of my constituents think wilderness means 
national parks--add the 2 million acres that we are proposing in 
wilderness, taken off the BLM land, and you will have 12 million acres 
of Utah set aside that can never ever be used for any kind of 
commercial exploitation, plus 20 million acres left to be managed in 
the way that we saw in the first photograph I showed of Escalante 
Canyon.
  There are 20 million acres left to be exploited, the way that picture 
on the bottom indicates it is exploited, plus 12 million acres where 
there will never be any commercial activity of any kind. That comes to 
32 million acres. I think that is enough. That all meets the standard 
of what the law has said that gives us all the legacy that we need to 
pass on to our children.
  Mr. President, I have two other things I want to say that I found as 
I went around on my odyssey to talk with the people who lived there, 
talk with the managers, and to look at the land myself.
  The first one has to do with the issue that Senator Bradley raised 
with respect to Kaiparowits. As Senator Hatch very appropriately 
pointed out, our bill protects hundreds of thousands of acres in 
Kaiparowits. The real issue in Kaiparowits, however--we must be honest 
about it, Mr. President--is not the number of acres; the real issue of 
Kaiparowits is called, ``Will we allow any exploitation of the coal 
reserves that are under the surface in the Kaiparowits Plateau?''
  You see the full page ads that talk about ripping out all of this 
magnificent scenery so that coal can be ripped from the Earth, flung 
around the world, and as the final statement in the advertisement says, 
``A foreign corporation gets all of the profits, and Utah is left with 
a hole in the ground.''
  In the first place, the particular foreign corporation that they are 
talking about happens to be a very good corporate citizen of the State 
of Utah and has been mining coal in the State of Utah for close to 100 
years.
  But, quite aside from that, let us talk about it from the 
environmental impact standpoint. The Senator from New Jersey talked 
about long-wall technology in coal mining. I have been down in a coal 
mine in Utah. I have seen long-wall technology. I say to anybody who 
has not had that experience, it is one of the most fascinating 
experiences you are going to have in your life because you cannot 
conceive, or at least I could not conceive, how any engineer would ever 
be bright enough to sit down and figure out how that whole thing works. 
It is just absolutely stunning.
  With the long-wall technology that now occurs in coal, it will be 
possible for the mining company to go into the coal seam at Kaiparowits 
and take out virtually all of the available coal through a single mine 
opening. We are not talking about strip mining here. We are not talking 
about tearing the top off of the Kaiparowits Plateau. We are talking 
about a hole on the side of a mountain roughly the size from that door 
to that door in this Chamber and maybe 16 to 20 feet high. That is 
about all the bigger the hole has to be.
  How much coal are we talking about? You figure you have a good seam 
of

[[Page S2789]]

coal if it runs anywhere from 6 to 8 feet in height. The seam under 
Kaiparowits is about 16 to 18 feet in height, more than twice the size 
of the coal seam that you would consider very good. There is enough 
coal under Kaiparowits to provide the power needs of several Western 
States for the next 100 years.

  As Senator Hatch pointed out, it is environmentally friendly coal. It 
has the right kind of chemical makeup and is the kind of coal you want 
to burn instead of the kind of coal from other parts of the country, 
parts that are very well represented in this body, I might add.
  How do we get to this opening where this coal can be taken out? In 
order to get to the opening where the coal can be taken out, you have 
to go down into a circular canyon. That is good from an environmental 
standpoint because it means if you are not standing closer than about 
100 feet from the edge of the canyon, you cannot see it. How many acres 
are we talking about? How big a platform? How big a footprint is going 
to be placed on the land when this thing is fully operative? Forty 
acres, Mr. President.
  At the bottom of this circular canyon, virtually hidden by the nature 
of the way the canyon was formed, 40 acres at the bottom of this canyon 
will be admittedly despoiled and exploited, 40 acres will be filled 
with buildings that are not particularly pretty to look at, 40 acres 
will be filled with sheds and equipment. And for that 40 acres which 
cannot be seen anywhere on the Kaiparowits Plateau--I stood on the 
Kaiparowits Plateau and looked at it directly myself--for that 40 acres 
that cannot be seen anywhere on the Kaiparowits Plateau, we could 
produce enough coal to furnish the energy for several Western States 
for over 100 years.
  Now, in this book, ``Wilderness at the Edge,'' where we see the whole 
5.7 million acres laid out in all their glory--and it is glory--they 
tell us all of the places we ought to designate as wilderness that we 
do not have as wilderness. There is an interesting little suggestion. 
One of the places they designate as wilderness happens to have a 
railroad tunnel running underneath it. The railroad tunnel is already 
in. The trains are already going back and forth. They say it should 
still be designated wilderness because the activity beneath the surface 
does not detract from the glorious wilderness experience on top of it.
  I say to those who wrote this book, what is the difference between 
coal mining that is going on underneath the surface, hundreds if not 
thousands of feet below the magnificent scenery up above, and railroad 
cars going back and forth? If you can live with railroad cars, saying 
that does not detract from the experience on the surface, I tell you, 
you should be able to live with coal mining, particularly with the long 
wall technology to which the Senator from New Jersey referred.
  Now, Mr. President, in conclusion, I know those are very welcome 
words, and for most of the people who are listening, I go back to the 
comment made by the Senator from New Jersey in his conclusion. He 
quoted an editorial from a newspaper, the editors of which, I would 
guess, have little or no personal experience with any of these issues 
we have been talking about. The editorial says there are two 
philosophies, and we have a clash between the two philosophies: Whether 
we want to support solitude and recreation, one philosophy; or whether 
all things on the Earth should be exploited for human development, the 
other philosophy. Of course, they came down on the side of the first, 
as does the Senator from New Jersey, which is his right. I respect him 
for it. I respect the thoughtful, intelligent way in which he proposed 
his arguments.
  I suggest, however, based on what I now know about this, that these 
are not the two philosophies at stake here at all. I suggest, Mr. 
President, that, yes, this is an argument between two philosophies, but 
these two philosophies have nothing to do with the question of, are you 
in favor of solitude and recreation, or are you in favor of human 
development?
  The two philosophies are these, Mr. President: Do you believe that 
nature is perfect and benign and must be left alone to achieve the 
highest moral goal; or do you believe that nature is constantly 
changing, moving from one moral circumstance to the other with such 
rapidity that there is no moral judgment that can be found, and 
therefore nature can be managed without any moral implications. Based 
on what we have seen here, based on what I have seen as I have gone 
throughout the western lands, I believe that there is moral 
justification for managing nature, for planting trees where they did 
not exist before, for running cattle on areas that will produce greater 
vegetation than was there before. That is my philosophy. I do not run 
from it nor apologize for it.
  I close with this real-life example that illustrates what I am 
talking about. There is in Utah--there was in Utah; I must put it in 
the past tense, unfortunately--there was in Utah in Garfield County, 
one of the counties that would be most affected by this legislation, a 
magnificent field--beyond field; a magnificent area--filled with 
buttercups. I did not ever see it myself, but I am told, and I am 
quoting from those who did see it. It was one of the most awe-inspiring 
sights anyone could experience, going out and seeing this huge field, 
lush and gorgeous, at the proper time with buttercups blooming. Cattle 
grazed in that field, and people who belonged to the organizations 
listed by the Senator from Alaska decided that field of buttercups was 
so magnificent that it must be preserved; it must be protected from the 
degradation of human beings.

  Since there was no legislative way to do it, they raised the money--
the money presumably they could not find to bring the lawsuits to 
protect their position elsewhere--they raised the money, purchased this 
piece of land, and then fenced it off so that the beauties of nature as 
manifested in these buttercups would be protected forever and ever.
  That was just a few years ago, Mr. President. If you were to go to 
Garfield County today and ask the residents of Garfield County, ``Where 
are your buttercups,'' they would tell you there are no buttercups. 
They would take you out to the piece of land that had been fenced off 
and preserved from any human management. You can see that. What it is 
filled with is dead grass. Why? Because no longer were human beings 
allowed to run their cattle through that area, so that the grasses that 
choked out the buttercups were able to grow up, unmolested and uneaten. 
The manure that the cattle normally brought with them into the area 
disappeared, and now the heavy grasses have grown up, choked out all 
the buttercups, and then, unfertilized themselves, have died, and you 
have one of the most sterile, uninspiring pieces of real estate on the 
planet to which somebody paid a fairly pretty penny in order to 
preserve the buttercups.
  Mr. President, human involvement in the environment is not 
automatically bad for the environment. Human involvement in the 
environment, if properly managed, can produce good results for the 
environment. Saying that we are not going to allow someone that does 
not have any personal stake in this issue to lock up huge chunks of the 
environment in the name of the environment does not mean we are opposed 
to the environment.
  In my view, Mr. President, sound stewardship by intelligent human 
beings who love the environment can be good for the environment. 
Locking humans out arbitrarily by legislative fiat is not automatically 
the proper environmental thing to do.
  I close as I began, Mr. President, by taking you back with me to that 
moment when I first began my odyssey in understanding this issue, as I 
stood with this woman in southeastern Utah, looking out over absolutely 
pristine territory, and having her say to me, ``Look at the land. What 
do you see? It is pristine. My family and I have been making our 
livings off of this land for five generations. Tell me we do not love 
the land and that we cannot be trusted to manage the land.'' I could 
not tell her that. I cannot tell this Senate that. I cannot tell the 
President of the United States that.
  The bill we have crafted is not only the right bill for the people of 
Utah, it is, Mr. President, the right bill for the environment and the 
environmentalists. If they will simply come out of their carports and 
come away from their mailing lists and come with us, to go through the 
land and talk with the people who live there and spend time

[[Page S2790]]

with the land managers, the true lovers of the environment will come to 
agree with us that our bill for wilderness in the State of Utah is the 
proper environmental response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The distinguished senior Senator 
from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague for his 
very good remarks and his ability to put into prosaic and also simple 
terms just what is involved here.
  In fact, both of us have been fighting for this for a long time. It 
is a moderate, reasonable approach. We really appreciate our colleagues 
who cooperated to help us on this, because it is not going to go away 
for us or for anybody else here until we get it resolved. It is a 
reasoned, moderate, decent approach.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________