[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.
____________________