[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 42 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2792-S2795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1995
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning my friend from New Jersey
reflected a little history of public lands. I listened intently, and
while I appreciate his point of view, I suggest there are two points of
view relative to the history of public lands and the transition that
has occurred in this country.
Under the Northwest Ordinance, which, as a matter of fact, predated
the Constitution, the prevailing philosophy was simply to dispose of
lands either to the States or the territories or to private
individuals. And as the several States obtained their inheritance, they
for obvious reasons began to lose interest in further Federal
transfers. In other words, they had achieved what they wanted.
Mr. President, this goes back to the period of about 1788 when this
Northwest Ordinance prevailed. So they lost the incentive once they
received their land and further Federal transfers simply were not
necessary. The State of Arkansas obtained over 11 million acres from
the Federal Government, over one-third of its total acreage. Only about
3 percent of New Jersey currently is in Federal ownership.
So the history of public lands is a history of those States, mainly
the Eastern States, that have already obtained the lands needed for
their schools, their roads, their economy, and other purposes. Then we
have the Western States and territories that basically remain captive
to the Federal Government and the interests of those Eastern States.
The definition of ``West,'' as we all know, steadily moved west. It
moved from what was West, in 1790, Ohio, to Utah and my State of Alaska
in 1990.
According to the 1984 BLM public lands statistics, Florida obtained
over 24 million acres from 1803 to 1984 out of a total of 34 million
acres in that entire State. Arkansas, as I mentioned, obtained over
one-third of its entire acreage. Now, there was a time when the State
of New Jersey looked at the western lands as a source of raising money
for needs in New Jersey--roads and docks, the harbors, other public
works in New Jersey--and there was a time when New Jersey wanted the
western lands basically to feed its industry.
It was a concept that is not unknown to us, Mr. President. The
Eastern States had the capital base, and where did they look? They
looked to the West to put that capital to work in investments that
could generate a handsome return because the money centers at that time
were in the East, as they are today for the most part. So the eastern
at that time, I think it is fair to say, elitists chose to invest in
the West and generate a return, and they could continue to live in the
more luxurious lifestyle that existed in the East because the West was
considered pretty much a frontier. So States like New Jersey and New
York invested in western lands to feed, if you will, the fruits
associated with the productivity of the West.
Now we have seen a change in that, a rather remarkable change. Let us
be realistic and recognize New Jersey and other States now want western
lands not necessarily as a return on the investment that was initially
generated there, although some of it is fourth and fifth generation
wealth, but they look at the West as a playground, a recreation area
for themselves and others of that elitist group.
If the State of Utah is unable to use its school lands to fund
education, that is even better, because then Utah will become even more
dependent on the Federal Government and the preferred social agenda of
Washington, DC. Make no mistake about it. This is not unique to the
State of Utah.
Those of us who are westerners question when is enough enough. There
has been no change in the policy of some of these eastern seaboard
States and many of the other original States from 1790 until now. What
has changed is what they want western lands for. There would be a
considerable difference if New Jersey as a State were 63 percent owned
by the Federal Government, like Utah, but it is not. The State of New
Jersey is only 3 percent owned by the Federal Government, so it has the
luxury to assume that two-thirds of Utah is, one might interpret, for
the private pleasure of the residents of New Jersey.
We can get into a long discussion over the various conservation
measures mentioned by the Senator from New Jersey, but I think the
Senate should remember that the primary purpose of the national
forests--a lot of us seem to have forgotten this--the primary purpose
of the national forests, when they were withdrawn from public domain,
was simply to ensure a steady supply, a renewable supply, of timber.
That is almost seen as a joke today, but that was the concept; the
forests were to be conserved, used, and managed to provide a steady
supply of timber.
The Wilderness Act, speaking of history, was originally intended to
set
[[Page S2793]]
aside pristine areas, untrammeled areas where mankind was not evident.
Now, in our zealous efforts, we seem to be ready to put almost anything
into wilderness--roads, structures. Whatever the objective, a
wilderness designation is not to preserve pristine areas but to prevent
other uses that some organization or group wants to prevent.
So, I hope, as we reflect on history, we do reflect on this dichotomy
associated with the traditions of the influence of the Eastern States,
which have virtually no public land in those States, which have
virtually no wilderness in those States, setting the precedent for the
rest of the Nation.
I am going to try to leave us with a little understanding of what
this business of public land and wilderness land is all about,
reflecting on how some States, like mine, enjoy a significant amount of
wilderness. My State of Alaska has 365 million total acres. We are 2\1/
2\ times the size of the State of Texas. I am glad my friends from
Texas are not here to be reminded of that. Out of that 365 million
acres, we have 57.4 million acres of wilderness. That is quite a bit of
wilderness. We are proud of that wilderness. We take good care of that
wilderness. But we think enough is enough.
If you took the State of Arkansas with 33 million acres of
wilderness, you add the State of New Jersey with 4.8 million acres,
West Virginia with 15 million acres, Vermont with 5 million acres, you
come up with about 57 million acres--equal to what is in my State of
Alaska. So there are four States. The difference here is we are not
talking about wilderness in Arkansas, New Jersey, West Virginia, or
Vermont. We are talking about their total acreage. So I do not want to
mislead the Presiding Officer when I say Alaska has 57 million acres of
wilderness out of 365 million acres. If you take the entire landmass of
the State of Arkansas at 33 million, New Jersey 4.8, West Virginia 15,
and Vermont 5, you come up with a combined area of 57.8 million acres
for those four States. That equates to what is in my State alone as
wilderness.
Let us go one step further. Let us look at some of these States and
recognize that Arkansas has 33 million acres in its entire State,
120,378 acres in wilderness--not very much. New Jersey has 4.8 million
acres in the entire State, 10,341 acres of wilderness.
Let us compare that with Utah. Utah has 52 million acres in the
State, 890,858 acres of wilderness, and we are proposing to add 2
million to that, that would be 2.9 million acres of wilderness in the
State, 891,000 managed by the Forest Service and 2 million under BLM
wilderness.
I think it is important that we reflect on those comparisons. The
States in question with large wilderness acreage, outside of the State
of Alaska, include Arizona at 4.5 million acres, California at 5.9
million acres, Colorado at 2.6 million acres, Florida at 1.4 million
acres, Idaho at 4 million acres, Minnesota at 805,000, Montana at 3.4
million acres, New Mexico at 1.6 million acres, Oregon at a little over
2 million acres, Washington at 4.2 million acres, and Wyoming at 3
million acres. So, by this action we would be creating in Utah
wilderness equal to that existing in Wyoming today.
What about some of the other States? Interestingly enough--and I hope
my colleagues from Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and
Rhode Island are listening, because these six States that have no
wilderness. There is no wilderness in Connecticut, no wilderness in
Delaware, no wilderness in Iowa, no wilderness in Kansas, no wilderness
in Maryland, and no wilderness in Rhode Island.
How do you suppose that came about? It came about, as I indicated in
my opening remarks, when those States that have been around a long
time--when the Northwest Ordinance philosophy prevailed, back in 1788--
acquired their land. That is where it ended. Now these States are
saying we do not want any wilderness in our State. We want the
wilderness out West.
I think everybody ought to have a little wilderness. I think, before
I get out of this body, I am going to propose some legislation that
every State have a little wilderness. They can designate where it is.
Maybe Sterling Forest should be a wilderness. Perhaps the States of New
York and New Jersey could designate this transfer of land into a
wilderness. It is going to be used as a watershed. Why not make it a
wilderness?
Another curious consideration is, who owns the States? Alabama is 3
percent owned by the Federal Government, Alaska 68 percent owned by the
Federal Government; Arizona, 47 percent; Arkansas, 8 percent;
California, 44 percent; Colorado, 36; Connecticut, 1 percent; Delaware,
2 percent; District of Columbia, 26 percent. I am surprised it is not
higher. Florida, 9 percent; Georgia, 4 percent owned by the Federal
Government; Hawaii, 16 percent. You get to Idaho, 62 percent of Idaho's
landmass is owned by the Federal Government; Illinois, 3 percent;
Indiana, 2; Iowa, 1; Kansas, 1; Kentucky, 4; Louisiana, 3 percent;
Maine, 1 percent; Maryland, 3; Massachusetts, 1; Michigan, 13;
Minnesota, 10; Mississippi, 4.
These are extraordinary comparisons with the prevalence of Federal
ownership being out West. Missouri is 5 percent owned by the Federal
Government; Montana, 28; Nebraska, 1; Nevada, 83 percent owned by the
Federal Government; New Hampshire, 13; New Jersey, 2 percent; New
Mexico, 33; New York, 1--New York 1--North Carolina, 6; North Dakota,
4; Ohio, 1 percent; Oklahoma, 2 percent; Oregon, 52 percent owned by
the Federal Government; Pennsylvania, 2 percent; Rhode Island, 1
percent; South Carolina, 5 percent; South Dakota, 6 percent, Tennessee,
4 percent; Texas, the second largest State in the Union, Mr. President,
has only 1 percent of its landmass owned by the Federal Government.
Clearly, when they came into the Union, they made certain conditions
prevail relative to ownership, and the Federal Government today owns 1
percent of the land mass of Texas, compared with Utah, which is 64
percent; Vermont, 6 percent; Virginia, 6 percent; Washington, 29
percent owned; West Virginia, 7; Wisconsin, 10; Wyoming, 49.
So there you have it, Mr. President, a comparison of the States. Now
we look at the merits of adding 2 million acres to Utah wilderness, as
recommended by the delegation from Utah and a vast majority of the Utah
Legislature, both the house and senate and the Governor.
I think it is also interesting to note that the process that occurred
in Utah did not happen by accident. It happened as a result of a number
of meetings that were held and the consensus that was developed there
over an extended period of time. As the record indicates, some $10
million was spent reaching the point we are at today, evaluating just
what would be appropriate for the State of Utah; 15 years went into
that study; 16,000 written comments were processed; 75 formal public
hearings were held. This was a process that was open to the public
throughout the United States, professionals were hired to make the
recommendation of 1.9 million, and today we have a proposal of 2
million acres in the Utah wilderness.
As I indicated to my friend from New Jersey this morning, the matter
of Sterling Forest is also somewhat contentious, as evidenced by the
consideration of some of the specifics, which I will share with my
colleagues. But nevertheless, I support the Senator from New Jersey in
his efforts, because I believe he has to answer to his constituents,
and I believe it is fair to say that both the Senators from New Jersey
support the Sterling Forest. I respect that process. But I think the
Record should note who owns the Sterling Forest.
Sterling Forest is currently owned by the Swiss Insurance Group of
Zurich. They signed a purchase agreement with the Swiss company for the
property in June 1995. What is it valued at? I am told it is valued
somewhere between $55 and $65 million. How much would it cost if we
were to buy it? The request in the legislation of the Senator from New
Jersey is for Federal participation of about $17.5 million. This will
be the Federal figure regardless of the total purchase price. The
balance of the purchase price is going to be paid by the States of New
York and New Jersey and the private sector. I understand about 2,400
acres of Sterling Forest rests in New Jersey. The balance is in New
York.
There are those who might think Sterling Forest is just that, an
ancient
[[Page S2794]]
growth forest, but Sterling Forest has been logged. What you have there
today is second growth. Hardwood logging has taken place. I thought I
would ask the question, When was it last logged? The answer was, it is
currently being logged, Mr. President, by the Sterling Forest Corp., a
subsidiary of the Swiss Insurance Group of Zurich.
If the Sterling Forest is acquired, of course, logging is not
continued, and that is really the business of the delegation from New
Jersey. The primary reason for purchasing Sterling Forest, as I
understand, appreciate and support, is to protect the watershed.
Hunting would be allowed.
So if anybody wants further information with regard to the situation
in Sterling Forest, why, I am sure the Senator from New Jersey will be
happy to provide it. If not, we have the address and phone number of
the Zurich Reinsurance Center in New York, the principals to contact.
I do not put this out as a criticism; I simply put it out as a
reality that here we have an acquisition taking place in the best
interest of clearly the State of New York and the State of New Jersey.
There are about 30 square miles, 19,200 acres are in New York and about
2,400, as I have mentioned, in New Jersey.
It is also my understanding that what we are purchasing here are
certain easements owned and managed by the U.S. Park Service that are
in the Appalachian trail area but that triggers, if you will, a process
whereby New York and New Jersey will come up with the additional
funding, and that would be somewhere in the area of $40 or $45 million
to acquire the land.
It is also interesting to note Sterling Forest has roads through it
and other access, so it is pretty hard to suggest, perhaps, that it be
made a wilderness. Nevertheless, I think it is important that as this
watershed is addressed, relative to its use as a watershed, that as
much of the wilderness characteristics as possible be retained for the
benefit of the citizens of New York, as well as the citizens of New
Jersey.
A lot of people do not really appreciate what 1 million acres equates
to in size. We are talking about adding 2 million acres of wilderness
in Utah. One million acres is equal to the size of the State of
Delaware. If we are talking about 2 million acres, we are looking at
three times the size of the State of Rhode Island. Two million acres is
about half the size of the State of New Jersey, so it is a big chunk of
real estate. Unless you have some idea of acreage or the vastness of
wilderness, you have no idea as to the significance of what that large
a piece of real estate is.
As I indicated in my remarks, for those who come from States that
have little or virtually no wilderness or States with little, if any,
Federal ownership of their land, it is difficult for those Members to
have an appreciation of what it means to designate an additional area
the size of 2 million acres. While many of us support adding 2 million
acres to wilderness, that is not enough for the advocates here who want
5 to 6 million acres of wilderness.
They do not seem to care about the ability of the State of Utah to
support its schools, support its economy. All they see is a vision out
there that tells them somehow this is not enough. As I have indicated,
Mr. President, as you look at the comparisons, what is enough? What is
reasonable? What is balanced? The people of Utah, in their own good
judgment, after $10 million and 15 years, have indicated, 1.9 million
acres. The legislation proposes 2 million acres.
Mr. President, as we look at the history of Western public lands,
little is said about the economy of the region. What happens to the
jobs? We cannot all be employed by the Federal Government. Who pays the
taxes? We have resources in the West that have fueled the economy of
this Nation for a long time.
Where we are lax, Mr. President, is in not recognizing that science
and technology has given us the opportunity to develop our resources
better, more efficiently, with more compatibility with the environment,
the ecology. As we address new and better ways to develop those
resources, we seem reluctant to go back and review those of our laws
that protect these areas. We did not update our environmental laws. We
did not seem eager to look at cost-benefit risk analysis to determine,
indeed, if it is practical to develop one resource or another.
So what we have here, Mr. President, is a fast-developing technology.
The minute you attempt to look at more efficient ways of cutting
timber, of mining, grazing, oil and gas development, it is suggested
that you are irresponsibly unwinding the advancements that have been
made in the environment.
Mr. President, the water is cleaner, the air is cleaner, we can do a
better job. But we still need to maintain a balance. That balance
dictates a healthy economy. Only with a healthy economy can we meet our
environmental obligations.
So, when I see my good friend, who I know is very dedicated and
believes diligently in his point of view, become a self-anointed savior
of the West, I have to ask, who is he saving the West from? From other
westerners? Or is it really the elitist group, the big business?
Let me refer to the charts back here just very briefly with the
realization that these well-meaning groups somehow get a little overly
ambitious, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska--let us recognize
them for what they are. They are big businesses, just like a lot of
other big businesses. As I indicated earlier, the environmental
organization incomes, the 12 major organizations in this country have
assets of $1.2 billion. They have fund balances--that means immediate
access to cash--of $1.03 billion. There you have it. The revenues, $633
million; their expenses, $556 million; their assets $1.2 billion --the
fund balances at $1 billion.
There is nothing wrong with that, but let us keep it in perspective.
They have to have a cause. They resolve one issue and they move on to
the next so they can generate membership, generate dollars. Let us be
honest. They accomplish a lot. But there has to be a balance. That is
what is lacking, because if they had their way, the extreme would
prevail.
They pay, as big business does, compensation. Several of the
individuals who represent these organizations--the National Wildlife
Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund,
the National Parks and Conservation Association--they pay their chief
executive officers more than the President of the United States makes.
That is neither here nor there, but it points out my contention that it
is simply big business. It is just a different type of business. It is
worthwhile business, just as are job-developing business is in mining,
oil and gas, timber, and grazing.
Some of these people are extremists, though, Mr. President. They have
to have a cause. The cause here is not wilderness, because 2 million
acres of wilderness has been offered. It is more wilderness. It is 5 or
6 million acres of wilderness.
Where is the balance? They are generating dollars and membership,
using scare tactics that suggest that the people of Utah are
irresponsible, that they will go out and haphazardly develop their land
or overdevelop it, overgraze it, overmine it. That will not happen, Mr.
President. It will not happen in any State of the Union. But those are
the scare tactics that they use. They say, ``We must save the West from
itself.''
There have been abuses in the West, just like there have in the East,
but I defy the membership of these organizations to take a look at the
east coast. Go up in the train. Look at the aging of America. Take the
train from Washington and look through New Jersey, look through
Delaware, look out the window, look at New York, go on to Boston. Just
look at the mess that you see in the backyards of America.
Where is the energy of these organizations to correct that? It is not
there. They want to move out to an area where most people cannot visit,
cannot see for themselves, see what the people in these Western States
are responsible for. They are doing a good job. They are sensitive. No,
they do not want to start near home. They seem to have no concern about
the economy, the jobs, the taxes. I find that perplexing, Mr.
President. They want to get on their white charger and save the world,
but they will not start right in their own backyard.
What we are looking at, Mr. President, is trying to balance this
process. As I said, there is nothing wrong with Sterling Forest. I
support it. I support
[[Page S2795]]
the process that is underway here as far as reaching a compromise.
But we have to recognize reality, Mr. President. We have a trade
deficit in this country. Over half of it is the price of imported oil.
We have the reserves in this country. We have substantial reserves in
my State. We have the technology to do it safely. But the environmental
elitists need a cause. They say, ``No, you can't do it. You don't have
the science. You don't have the technology.'' So what we are doing is
importing it. Fifty-four percent of our oil is imported now. We are
bringing it in in foreign tankers.
If you ever have an accident, good luck in trying to find a deep
pocket like occurred with the Exxon Valdez where you had responsible
parties. While the ship was operated irresponsibly, at least the deep
pocket was there.
Where are the payrolls going to come from? Are we going to ship our
dollars overseas? The interesting thing, Mr. President, is that other
countries are not quite so sensitive as ours. Their logging practices,
their mining practices do not have the same sensitivity.
So are we not hastening, if you will, by being hellbent to reduce our
own resource development the onset of the very problems that we are
trying to avoid. Recognizing that we have the science and technology
and experience to offset the imports from countries who allow
exploitation without responsible resource development technology,
without a response to renewable resources? So, are we really
accomplishing a meaningful compromise? In many cases, I think not. We
have many issues relative to development, private land issues,
endangered species, wetland, Superfund.
We talk about cost-benefit risk analysis, the need to review our
environmental laws as we look at new technological advances, to better
protect our renewable resources. How do we get to a balance, Mr.
President? I think we have that balance today in the proposal of 2
million acres of wilderness in the State of Utah.
As we wind up this debate, as least probably for today, I urge my
colleagues from the following States to recognize the reality of where
we are in this legislation. If this package does not stay together,
Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, West Virginia,
Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and
California will be affected because there are titles for public lands
and changes in those States, as well as Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, my State of Alaska, New Mexico--some
56 titles or changes, Mr. President, a pretty significant number.
Now, the Senator from New Jersey said in a dear colleague letter that
he had joined with 17 of his colleagues. There are many provisions
important to our respective States within this omnibus park
legislation. Well, we have plenty of them, Mr. President. As I said
earlier today, the majority of these bills were placed on the calendar
of the Senate April 7, 1995--almost a year ago. The Senator from New
Jersey could have let these environmental bills make their way to the
House and go on to the President months ago. Unfortunately, he chose
not to do so. Mr. President, the direct result of these actions is this
package. The Senator from New Jersey, by his own actions, is in reality
the ghost writer of this bill that we are considering today.
As I said earlier, I accommodated the Senator from New Jersey on
Sterling Forest because I think it is in the best interest of his State
and his constituents. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Jersey and
others do not seem to extend the same degree of confidence and respect
to the citizens of Utah. I guess that is where we part.
Now, if this bill stays together, Americans are going to get 2
million acres of new wilderness. There is nothing in this legislation
that will prevent another Congress, another day, from adding additional
wilderness lands in Utah or my State of Alaska. The will of Congress
prevails.
The reality is this cannot go piecemeal. One bill cannot go without
the other. I guess, to quote the three musketeers, one for all and all
for one, or none. I urge my colleagues to support this package as it
has been presented, because an awful lot of hard work and an awful lot
of benefits to an awful lot of States is at jeopardy here. To suggest
it is irresponsible and to threaten the State of Utah because this
legislation does not propose enough wilderness, in the opinion of the
Senator from Alaska is not only unrealistic and impractical, it is
simply absurd.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to recognize while we have
had an extended debate here about a lot of titles that are covered
under the bill, the success or failure of this bill is related
tremendously to the Utah wilderness. I implore my colleagues who have
titles and interest in this bill to recognize that this does represent
a compromise, a 2-million acre compromise. As we have seen, the
intensive lobbying by a relatively small segment of motivated
extremists who say 2 million acres is not enough, does not represent
the prevailing attitude in Utah by a long shot, nor the prevailing
attitude in the West by a long shot. It represents, perhaps some of the
elitist Eastern States who simply have their land and do not have a dog
in this fight.
This is far too important, Mr. President, to let slide for another
Congress--15 years, $10 million expended. We have a solid
recommendation and a solid base of support.
Mr. President, as we look forward to another day on this matter, we
have attempted to accommodate each State that had an interest in public
lands legislation. Now we are down to the point of determining whether
or not those Members who have an interest will stick together to keep
this legislation in its package form. I have been assured that it will
pass in the House if it is kept that way. If it is broken up, if Utah
wilderness is stricken from the body, the legislation and the packages
as we know it today will fail.
I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to reflect on the significance
of that reality.
Cloture Motion
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate now, I send a
cloture motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Murkowski
substitute amendment to Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1296,
providing for the administration of certain Presidio
properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer:
Bob Dole, Frank H. Murkowski, Rick Santorum, Slade
Gorton, Trent Lott, Jim Inhofe, Hank Brown, Ted
Stevens, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Conrad Burns, Don
Nickles, Larry E. Craig, Jim Jeffords, Judd Gregg, R.F.
Bennett, Orrin G. Hatch.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, under the
provisions of rule XXII, this cloture vote will occur at Wednesday at a
time to be determined by the two leaders, according to rule XXII--
whichever.
I believe the Chair understands that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair understands that the provisions
under rule XXII will prevail.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see no other Senator wishing to be recognized.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair wishes to advise all Members who use time to expedite the
debate. In the event Members are not here to debate the issue, we will
proceed to the question.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________