[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2848-S2849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address a few of the points 
that were made yesterday by the distinguished Senators from Utah on the 
underlying wilderness bill. First, there is the assertion that S. 884, 
that we are now dealing with, had been fixed, particularly that the 
release language had been fixed, been modified.
  It has been modified somewhat, I think, to reflect the debate in the 
Energy Committee but despite all the changes the amended version just 
drops the requirement that the released lands shall be managed for 
``nonwilderness multiple purposes'' and substitutes a full range of 
uses--not much difference. However, the amendment still says that the 
lands released ``shall not be managed for the purpose of protecting 
their suitability for wilderness designation.''
  The previous version of the bill as reported out was a kind of belt 
and suspenders approach to release. It had two protections against 
further wilderness designation. The revised version still leaves the 
belt even though the suspenders have been removed. It still remains an 
unprecedented provision in wilderness bills.
  Next, the protected areas. Is it fair to say that almost 20 million 
acres have been released and can now be exploited? The distinguished 
Senator from Utah questioned whether you could say that, but both 
versions of the bill as reported and as amended find that all public 
lands in the State of Utah administered by the BLM have been adequately 
studied for wilderness designation. This eliminates further 
consideration of approximately 20 million acres.
  There are other problems which I will not get into at this stage, but 
I would like to just focus on the acreage where the distinguished 
Senators from Utah have asserted that plenty of land in the Kaiparowits 
Plateau and other areas, plenty of land has already been protected--
125,000 acres in Kaiparowits and 110,000 in Dirty Devil Canyon--but the 
point is what is not protected. There are about 525,000 acres in 
Kaiparowits that were in the House bill and 152,000 acres in the Dirty 
Devil area. So the question is not what is protected but what is not 
protected, particularly on the Kaiparowits Plateau.
  The proponents of the bill have basically constantly referred to the 
House bill which is 5.7 million acres. I am not pushing 5.7 million 
acres. I have not introduced a bill that advocates 5.7 million acres, 
nor has any such bill been introduced. I am simply concerned that 2 
million acres is far too little to protect out of 22 million acres of 
BLM land. I am concerned that all the remaining land would be 
permanently released from consideration as wilderness. But once again I 
am not saying that 5.7 is the right number. Keep in mind that it is 3.2 
million acres that are currently protected as wilderness.

  Also, the Senators from Utah should recognize that if the Utah 
wilderness bill does not pass or is vetoed, the result will not be that 
5.7 million acres are protected. Instead, for the time being, the 3.2 
million will remain protected for study and a new recommendation will 
have to be developed.
  Third, there is the assertion that acreage is an issue for Utah to 
resolve. I would argue that acreage is far from the only issue here. In 
fact, there are many other issues that should be of great concern to 
other Senators and to other taxpayers.
  As to the hard release language, as I said, the belt is still there 
even though the suspenders have been removed. The land exchange 
provision should be of concern to taxpayers since the State is going to 
likely give up land of little value in exchange for very valuable 
Federal land on which they will want to mine coal, according to the 
Assistant Secretary. The exceptions to traditional wilderness rules for 
motor vehicle, also to water rights language, all are very ominous 
precedents.
  And finally there is the assertion that there was nothing wrong with 
the BLM inventory process. The distinguished Senator from Utah 
basically said that this was not the case, and he quoted Jim Parker, a 
former Utah BLM State director, to support the assertion that the BLM's 
inventory was not seriously flawed. Mr. Parker has made statements 
supporting the BLM wilderness inventory and has been cited as an 
expert. However, Mr. Parker did not work on the BLM in Utah during the 
inventory but was living in Washington, DC, at the time.
  I think it should be clear what the BLM's position is on this bill. 
Yesterday, I received a letter from Bob Armstrong, the Assistant 
Secretary of Lands, Minerals and Management, that supports the view 
that the BLM officials recognize the Utah BLM process was in fact 
flawed. Mr. Armstrong says:

       I am told by professional career staff at all levels of the 
     organization that the Utah wilderness process was the most 
     controversial, and perhaps the most political, in the entire 
     BLM wilderness process.

  The letter goes on to state:

       It is the position of the BLM that far too little land is 
     protected under this bill and too much land is released for 
     development. In short, no one should be claiming the support 
     of the Bureau of Land Management and its professional staff--

  No one should be claiming BLM support--

     for S. 884.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Armstrong be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1996.
     Hon. Bill Bradley
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bradley: I understand you will shortly be 
     considering whether to include S. 884, the ``Utah Public 
     Lands Management Act of 1995,'' in an omnibus package of 
     parks legislation. I would like to clarify the record with 
     respect to the position of the Bureau of Land Management and 
     the Department of the Interior on the subject of the acreage 
     covered in this bill.
       In 1991, President Bush forwarded his recommendation that 
     1.9 million acres of Utah lands be immediately protected as 
     wilderness. The Congress did not act on that recommendation 
     and President Clinton did not adopt it when he came into 
     office. Interestingly, President Bush did not support the 
     ``hard release'' of the rest of Utah's lands, as is proposed 
     in this bill, and neither does the Clinton Administration.

[[Page S2849]]

       Last July, Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca testified 
     before the Senate regarding the numerous problems with this 
     legislation. She testified that the Bush proposal of 1.9 
     million acres is ``inadequate to protect Utah's great 
     wilderness resources.'' In fact, S. 884 would remove 
     protections for some 300,000 acres recommended for wilderness 
     by President Bush.
       Nevertheless, some supporters of the legislation have 
     repeatedly sought to portray the position of the previous 
     Administration as that held by the Bureau of Land Management, 
     or to claim that ``field professionals'' independently and 
     objectively formulated the previous Administration's 
     position. This is not the case. I am told by professional 
     career staff at all levels of the organization that the Utah 
     wilderness process was the most controversial, and perhaps 
     the most political, in the entire BLM wilderness process.
       It is the position of the Bureau of Land Management that 
     far too little land is protected under this bill and too much 
     land is released for development. In short, no one should be 
     claiming the support of the Bureau and its professional staff 
     for S. 884.
       We have reviewed the most recent changes proposed by the 
     bill sponsors and find that the same basic problems exist: 
     too little designated, too much opened to development, 
     unprecedented ``hard release'' language, reduced protections 
     inside wilderness, and unprecedented land exchange language. 
     The Secretary has indicated--most recently in a March 15, 
     1996, letter to Senator Murkowski--that he would recommend 
     the President veto legislation carrying the text of S. 884. 
     It continues to be my hope that the core problems of this 
     bill can be fixed so the President receives legislation he 
     can sign.
           Sincerely,

                                                Bob Armstrong,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                     Land and Minerals Management.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I remind my colleagues that there are 33 titles to this 
bill. I personally would have no objection to moving almost all 33, and 
we already have a veto threat in the form of a letter from the 
Secretary, and yesterday also we have a statement of administration 
policy from the Executive Office of the President also being very clear 
on that issue.
  I hope we will be able to recognize that this Utah wilderness bill is 
far from complete and that there are many things that need to be done 
before it could be thought to be a true wilderness bill.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.

                          ____________________