[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2907-S2916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Murkowski modified amendment No. 3564, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Dole (for Burns) amendment No. 3571 (to amendment No. 
     3564), to provide for the exchange of certain land and 
     interests in land located in the Lost Creek area and other 
     areas of the Deerlodge National Forest, Montana.
       Dole (for Burns) amendment No. 3572 (to amendment No. 
     3571), in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy amendment No. 3573 (to amendment No. 3564), to 
     provide for an increase in the minimum wage rate.
       Kerry amendment No. 3574 (to amendment No. 3573), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dole motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance 
     with instructions.
       Dole amendment No. 3653 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit), to strike the instructions and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``to report back by April 21, 1996 amendments to 
     reform welfare and Medicaid effective one day after the 
     effective date of the bill.''
       Dole amendment No. 3654 (to amendment No. 3653), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going to take too long because I know many of 
my colleagues want to speak on the issues affecting welfare and 
Medicaid. But I do want to express my disappointment with the 
Democratic leadership and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who have effectively killed a major and important park and conservation 
measure. As a matter of fact, the parks bill that we debated for some 7 
hours the day before yesterday now can no longer be discussed, there is 
no additional time for debate because the measure now has, out of 
necessity, been set aside.
  Let us look realistically at what this action is costing the general 
public relative to its parks and specific areas of importance, 
including the Presidio, which was in this parks package. The package 
included the ability to provide

[[Page S2908]]

2 million acres of wilderness to the people of the United States in the 
State of Utah, and to provide an important watershed to both New York 
and New Jersey known as Sterling Forest.
  We had this measure before us. It had been put together as a 
consequence of a great deal of effort and a great deal of compromise. 
Some 23 States were affected, with some 53 individual titles or lands 
affected in those States. It was a package that had been negotiated 
with the House as well, and it was apparent to all that in order for 
the package to pass we had to keep all its aspects, including those 
that were of a controversial nature. One of those, of course, was Utah 
wilderness. The issue was all or nothing with some of the opponents. 
They felt that 2 million acres added to the wilderness designation in 
Utah was inadequate; it should be 5 or 6 million acres. The citizens of 
Utah--the legislature, the Governor, the entire Utah delegation--felt 
that 2 million acres was adequate. In any event, this body would have 
made that determination on a clear and unrestricted vote had not some 
Members saw fit yesterday to attach the minimum wage amendment to this 
package--the minimum wage is an important issue, but it simply does not 
belong on this parks package--and as a consequence the parks package 
has been set aside.
  It will come up another day, but I wish to express my disappointment, 
and I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to try to bring the 
package together.
  I am disappointed also in the media because they failed to recognize 
the importance of this package. But I wish to at least have the Record 
reflect why we had that package before us.
  The Senator from California and the Senator from New Jersey, both 
have indicated that somehow it was the fault of the majority that the 
package was before the Senate and that it was unfair, some suggested 
awful, that they were forced to vote on Utah wilderness and other 
measures if they wanted to see their measures enacted. In other words, 
they wanted Utah wilderness out of it. Yet they knew that the House 
would simply not accept the package unless Utah wilderness was in it.
  Let the Record reflect that it was the objections on the other side 
of the aisle that have held each and every one of these measures up for 
some year or thereabouts. This was the right of the individual Senator, 
but I think it is disingenuous for him and other Senators on the 
Democratic side to suggest we were holding these measures. We simply 
recognized the reality and pleaded with the various Senators on holding 
together because there was something in this for everyone; every State 
was affected in some manner or form, and we would either all gain 
something meaningful or we would simply lose the effort.
  I do not think any of us at that time anticipated that the effort 
would be lost by attaching a minimum wage amendment to the parks 
package. I repeatedly tried to get time to break the threatened 
filibuster but there was no support on the other side of the aisle. 
Utah wilderness is a recent addition to the Senate Calendar, as is the 
Presidio. All the other measures have been effectively held up by the 
Democratic leadership because obviously they did not want to take on 
the holds from one Senator.
  The situation was simple. If the Senator from New Jersey had not 
prevailed in both the House and Senate, then he was going to prevent 
any public land bills from being enacted. There were a few exceptions 
to that for which the Senator from Alaska is thankful, but it did not 
matter how important or critical to the National Park System they may 
be; in his opinion his measure was more important. That was his right. 
I respect him for his determination. But I want the Record also to 
reflect that I have tried my best to accommodate the interests of the 
Senator from New Jersey on Sterling Forest, but I am certainly not a 
magician. There are Members of the House who not only do not like the 
measure of the Senator from New Jersey, but they also have measures 
that they want. I hoped we could all get together to do something 
useful, or we could continue the stalemate. That appears to be where we 
are today.

  So, there are two sides to every issue. I think we have all tried to 
work within our respective areas to accommodate the various Senators 
and to recognize this for what it was, and that was a giant compromise. 
While working with my friend from New Jersey and the Senators from 
California on their measures, as well as colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, I appreciate the fact that the other side has decided, 
evidently, for the political opportunism associated with the 
realization that we have the AFL-CIO come out and publicly endorse the 
Clinton administration and indicated its willingness to raise some $35 
million to defeat Members on this side of the aisle who are running. 
Evidently, that was the momentum to put the minimum wage on the parks 
bill.
  I also appreciate the fact that the people of Utah are the real 
victims in this, in a sense, because it is their State that is in 
jeopardy with regard to the amount of wilderness. I commend those 
Senators here for speaking on behalf of their State in the interests of 
the majority of the residents of that State.
  We can either reestablish some sense of comity, or history is going 
to reflect this very important package of measures for the park system 
was killed, and the environment is the sufferer. Unfortunately, I do 
not think the media are going to pick up on the accuracy of this, but 
someday history will.
  I guess my unhappiness grew even greater when the two Senators from 
Massachusetts saw fit to basically drive a stake into the heart of this 
measure. I, again, went out of my way to include measures dealing with 
the Boston National Historical Park, Blackstone River Valley, which 
were items of great interest to the Senators from Massachusetts. I told 
the House there was no deal on this unless they were prepared to deal 
with those measures--not the measures just of the Senator from New 
Jersey, but the measures proposed by the Senators from Massachusetts.
  Apparently, they care more about the politicized potential of 
campaign contributions from organized labor than they do about the 
measures from their own State or other measures included in this 
package for the benefit of others. It is a political stunt, and it is 
an expensive political stunt, at the expense of the environment.
  So we are into it, and the consequences of that lead us to a vote 
that is going to take place in about 45 minutes on cloture. I, 
naturally, urge my colleagues to support cloture, but I am realistic 
enough to recognize this vote is going to be seen as a politically 
symbolic vote. It is going to have a reference to the minimum wage, 
which it certainly should not. This is a vote that should be on the 
merits associated with the parks package.
  What is the answer? Sterling Forest is going to lose, Presidio is 
going to lose, Utah wilderness is going to lose, and 47 other special 
park bills will not move. This is the problem with hostage taking: 
Either they all get freed or they all will die. I think it is time to 
get off the plastic pedestal and get down to the business of the 
Presidio and other measures. I will vote for Sterling Forest, I will 
vote for Presidio, I will vote for Utah wilderness, I will vote for the 
other measures in the package because of its overall good for the 
environment, good for the National Park System, and the good for the 
Nation. I think it is time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
wake up and join me on what is good for the U.S. Senate, and that is to 
pass this package of compromise legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee for the statement he just made and for 
the effort he has brought to the Senate floor to get this important 
legislation through. I join him in regretting it has not been possible. 
I, too, hope in the future it will be possible.


       the walnut canyon national monument boundary modification

  Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the omnibus lands 
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1296. This 
bipartisan legislative package includes the Presidio bill and more than 
50 other park and public lands bills, most of which have already been 
reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The vast 
majority of these bills are

[[Page S2909]]

not controversial and deserve to be passed as part of this package.
  I realize a few of the provisions in this legislation are 
controversial. Most notable is the title addressing Utah wilderness. 
The groups involved have worked for many years to strike a compromise. 
I support the Utah delegation in its effort to bring some finality to 
this situation. I believe Senators Hatch and Bennett have made 
significant concessions, particularly in increasing acreage, and 
modifying the controversial hard release language. The people of Utah 
have wrestled with wilderness for over 20 years at a cost of $10 
million. This issue needs to come to closure.
  I also want to speak about an issue closer to home: Walnut Canyon. On 
November 9, 1995, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a 
hearing on this legislation and on December 6, the committee voted 
unanimously in favor of reporting the legislation to the full Senate. 
Throughout the legislative process, this issue has had the full support 
of the House, the Senate, and the affected communities in Arizona.
  This legislation, introduced by Senator McCain and me, is based on a 
consensus reached last year among interested parties, including the 
city of Flagstaff, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, the Grand 
Canyon Trust, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Hopi 
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the National Park Service, the Forest 
Service, and numerous private individuals. I read this list only 
because I am proud that such diverse parties in Arizona could come 
together to support this important endeavor.

  S. 231 is similar to the original legislation drafted last session by 
Representatives Karan English and Bob Stump, who deserve a great deal 
of the credit for bringing the parties together. This session, 
Representative J.D. Hayworth introduced a House companion bill, H.R. 
562, which was approved by the House by an overwhelming vote of 371 to 
49. I hope that we are able to match that here in the Senate.
  Walnut Canyon National Monument is an Arizona treasure that we must 
protect. This legislation will expand the boundaries by exchanging Park 
Service land for Forest Service land, adding approximately 1,200 acres 
to the monument. Currently, the monument encompasses numerous Sinaguan 
cliff dwellings and associated sites. Walnut Canyon includes five areas 
where archaeological sites are concentrated around natural promontories 
extending into the canyon, areas that early archaeologists referred to 
as forts. Three of the five forts are within the current boundaries of 
the monument, but the two others are located on adjacent lands 
administered by the Forest Service. By exchanging Park Service land for 
this Forest Service land, the two outside forts will be within the 
monument and receive the protection that those resources need and 
deserve. It is a simple and commonsense way to make the monument whole.
  Mr. President, again, I urge my colleagues to put partisan 
differences aside and pass the omnibus parks bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I support the omnibus lands bill before 
the Senate today. I speak as one of the few Senators without a single 
item in this large package. Let me focus for a moment on the most 
controversial component of the package--title XX, the Utah Public Lands 
Management Act.
  As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have 
followed the divisive political debate that has raged for decades over 
the question of how much land in the State of Utah should be designated 
as wilderness. This debate has now spilled outside the boundaries of 
the Utah delegation and the State they represent. It is now a national 
debate in many ways outside their complete control. As a Senator who 
has seen this same thing happen in his own State, I can appreciate the 
difficulties of my colleagues from Utah.
  I have also followed the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] over the 
last 15 years as it has spent in excess of $10 million analyzing vast 
tracks of land in Utah to more precisely determine their suitability 
for wilderness designation. In 1991, Interior Secretary Lujan 
identified 1.9 million acres as suitable for wilderness designation. 
The bill before us, which recommends 2 million acres for designation, 
reflects the technical information gathered by BLM as well as input 
from over 75 formal public meetings and thousands of letters.
  Over the past two decades, our thinking about natural resource 
management has evolved, resulting in a more flexible and cooperative 
role for government at all levels--Federal, State, local, and tribal. 
As one who has looked for ways for the Federal Government to provide 
more flexibility in regulated activities, I am pleased that this 
evolution is taking place.
  Mr. President, during the consideration of this bill in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, I raised a number of concerns about 
various aspects of this legislation. I compliment my colleagues from 
Utah for their willingness to work with me to address my concerns. The 
legislation now allows for more balance and predictability, two 
components that are vital in public land management and decisionmaking. 
Their revisions include the following:
  The release language, previously characterized as too hard, has been 
softened. The bill now clarifies BLM's role in administering the 1.2 
million acres under study that were not designated as wilderness;
  Another 200,000 acres have been added, making the total wilderness 
designation slightly greater than BLM's 1991 final recommendation;
  The land exchanges allowed for in the legislation are now equal value 
exchanges; and,
  Provisions allowing the construction of dams, pipelines, or 
communication sites within the wilderness area have been deleted.
  There are those who are still not satisfied. They would like more 
acreage to be designated and tighter restrictions to be put on any 
existing uses of those lands proposed for inclusion. Some would even 
like to totally eliminate all existing uses.
  These goals are self-defeating. They run counter to the 1964 
Wilderness Act, which called for designating lands untrammeled by man, 
for the purposes of retaining its primeval character. The goal was not 
to find lands that have been encroached upon and require they revert to 
their primeval character.
  The seemingly endless Utah wilderness debate demonstrates what can 
happen when either side takes an all or nothing approach. We must all 
recognize that wilderness is not the only protective designation 
available to us. There are other, more appropriate ways to protect our 
public lands while recognizing and allowing for prior uses. My 
colleagues from Utah have been fair and objective in their designations 
and in their release language.
  This proposal relies upon BLM's planning process for the 
nondesignated public lands. This provides the flexibility and 
cooperative spirit necessary for sound management. It is important to 
note that their approach does not prevent a future Congress from 
reconsidering these lands' wilderness potential. Nothing is set in 
stone. Nothing would prevent a future Congress from passing legislation 
to add land to or withdraw land from this plan.
  Those who depict this wilderness designation process as though we are 
faced with an irrevocable choice between wilderness or the bulldozer do 
us all a disservice.
  Even for those lands never designated as wilderness, all is not lost 
for preservationists. There are a host of BLM land classifications 
designed to protect the natural and cultural attributes of our public 
lands without eliminating existing uses. Releasing the 1.2 million 
acres not selected for wilderness designation provides BLM's land 
managers, working together with local communities, greater management 
flexibility while insuring continued resource protection. These other 
protective designations include the following:
  Areas of critical environmental concern;
  Outstanding natural areas;
  National landmarks;
  Research natural areas;
  Primitive areas; and
  Visual resource management class I areas.
  Mr. President, I have seen a fair number of wilderness bills become 
law during my three decades on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. Since 1964, Congress has enacted 88 laws designating new 
wilderness areas or adding acreage to existing ones. We now have a 
system that includes 630 wilderness areas encompassing 104 million 
acres in 44 States.

[[Page S2910]]

  I support passage of the Utah wilderness bill. This legislation 
brings to a close a 15-year-long battle and addresses more than its 
share of difficult issues. It does so fairly and objectively. Failure 
to pass this bill would put us into a third decade of debate and would 
seriously undermine the wilderness study process.
  While I continue to view this legislation as pushing the edge of what 
is acceptable under the 1964 Wilderness Act, I take particular note of 
the longstanding and divisive debate this provision would allow us to 
move forward from. I look forward to following this debate in the 
coming days.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the omnibus 
national parks bill. There are so many problems with the Utah lands 
provisions that I hardly know where to begin in urging other Senators 
to vote against this package.
  The Utah lands provision is simply unacceptable. It does not protect 
enough land, the American public opposes it, it includes hard release 
language, it sets bad precedents for wilderness designation, it opens 
unique and beautiful lands to powerlines, dams, pipelines, mining, and 
other uses, it compromises the heritage of our children, and it 
achieves all this only by ransoming every other national park project 
in the Senate.
  The proponents of Utah lands language cannot buy public approval at 
any price. I wrote to Majority Leader Dole last week to make this point 
perfectly clear. Senators, including this Senator who wants very much 
to see some of the associated measures pass, will not stoop to pass a 
so-called wilderness bill that leverages politics against the priceless 
beauty of remote Utah canyon lands.
  I am frustrated by the high-stakes games being forced upon the 
Senate. One week we have our backs to the wall to finish a late farm 
bill so that farmers can begin planting. Another week we have our backs 
to the wall to finish a late appropriations bill so that the Federal 
Government can stay open. Last summer we were forced to adopt a salvage 
rider in order to get peace in the Middle East, relief to Oklahoma City 
bombing victims, and help for flood-damaged communities. In another 
occasion we have our backs to the wall to simply get veterans' benefits 
into the mail. Recently, the Senate has not been the deliberative body 
that Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others envisioned for the 
greatest Nation in the world. The Senate should consider legislation on 
its merits. If a bill fails Senate approval, it fails. If it fails a 
veto override, it fails. Our Constitution sets the rules, and they have 
served us well for 200 years.
  It is time to bring the political parties back together for 
reasonable debates on reasonable environmental policy. Conservation is 
as Republican as Richard Nixon and as Democrat as Jimmy Carter. 
Environmental protection is supported by Americans of all political 
stripes. I have worked with former Senator Bob Stafford in Vermont to 
restore the tradition of bipartisanship on environmental issues. Just 
recently I received a letter from the organization Republicans for 
Environmental Protection asking Senator Dole to strip the Utah 
provisions from the bill. It is wrong for any party to charge down a 
path of exploitation and environmental abuse, and I urge the Senate to 
correct its course.
  My children, and many of the children of my colleagues, will live 
most of their lives in the next century. We are in a position to decide 
what the next century will look like. Yes, we got here first. Just as 
the first explorers made resource decisions centuries ago, we now face 
similar decisions about the fate of our natural resources. Just as the 
native Americans and first European settlers decided to protect public 
lands as commons, we have an obligation to those who will follow. This 
bill gives the Senate a clear opportunity to decide whether we protect 
our heritage, or say ``me first'' to the treasures of southern Utah.
  The political pressure to support the Utah giveaway is enormous for 
some of my colleagues. Nonetheless, the responsibility to do the right 
thing is far more valuable and far more important. I urge the Senate to 
reject the Utah lands provision.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those 
requesting that S. 884, title XX of the pending substitute amendment, 
be removed from the Presidio bill and be considered as freestanding 
legislation.
  Mr. President, on Monday the Senate began consideration of H.R. 1296, 
legislation developed with the assistance of the California delegation 
creating a Presidio trust to manage property at the Presidio in San 
Francisco. The Presidio, a former Army post overlooking San Francisco 
Bay, was recognized by the Congress in 1972 as a national treasure and 
was slated for inclusion in the National Park System upon its cessation 
from military use.
  The substitute amendment before us, the omnibus parks and recreation 
bill, contains--in addition to the Presidio bill--approximately 32 
public lands titles, many of which have been reported out of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support. However, one 
title of this amendment, title XX, the Utah Public Land Management Act, 
does not enjoy the same bipartisan support, and is preventing the 
Senate from completing action on the underlying Presidio legislation in 
a timely manner.
  The Utah Public Land Management Act contains a number of provisions 
which would have a profound impact on all existing and future 
wilderness designations, seriously undermining standards of public 
lands management established by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The 
Wilderness Act of 1964 defined a wilderness as land where, ``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.''
  Under this definition of wilderness, commercial activities, motorized 
access, and the construction of roads, structures, and facilities are 
prohibited in designated wilderness areas. I have serious concerns 
about provisions of the Utah land bill which would clearly undermine 
this definition of wilderness. This legislation would allow 
unprecedented uses incompatible with wilderness including motorized 
vehicle access within protected areas, construction of communication 
towers, and continued grazing rights.
  In addition, I am concerned that the Utah lands bill designates only 
about 2 million of the Federal Government's 32 million acres in Utah as 
wilderness. Currently, the Federal Government manages 3.2 million acres 
of its holdings as wilderness study areas, allowing the Federal agency 
charged with managing the land the opportunity to conduct a thorough 
study to determine its suitability for inclusion in the Wilderness 
Preservation System. The legislation before us would direct those 
Federal agencies to make all land not selected for wilderness available 
for multiple uses, such as mining, grazing, and development. Hard 
release language included in the bill would preclude those agencies 
from managing this land in a way which would protect its wilderness 
characteristics for the future.
  Mr. President, the wild and beautiful Utah public lands which are 
under discussion today are a national treasure belonging to all 
Americans. In my view, it is critical that we, as a nation, do not 
allow the destruction of our precious natural resources. Wilderness 
areas constitute only 2 percent of all land in the United States. We 
must not fail in our obligation to protect the beauty and integrity of 
these lands for future generations.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
amendment to H.R. 1296, the Presidio bill.
  Mr. President, as we all know by now, this is not a noncontroversial 
public lands bill. There are many provisions in the bill that truly are 
noncontroversial, and that have been considered and voted on in 
committee with little if any opposition.
  And I would note that the bill includes the Sterling Forest 
Preservation Act, which Senator Bradley and I strongly support.
  Unfortunately, the real goal of the pending substitute amendment is 
to slip through the highly controversial Utah wilderness provisions, 
based on Senate bill 884. Those provisions would permanently release 
millions of acres from wilderness study, and, in turn,

[[Page S2911]]

allow uses on these lands that will destroy lands with significant 
ecological and scientific value.
  Mr. President, I oppose including S. 884 in this omnibus lands bill, 
and will support an effort to remove that title in its entirety. We 
need to act on many of the provisions in the underlying legislation, 
which are truly noncontroversial. But we ought to have a separate, 
open, and honest debate on those provisions that are controversial.
  Mr. President, I have heard from more people--both in New Jersey and 
from out West--about the Utah wilderness bill than perhaps any other 
public lands issue. By an overwhelming margin, people have urged me to 
support Utah wilderness, and to oppose S. 884 as written.
  Who are these people who visit my office, write me letters, stop me 
in the halls? They are people from New Jersey who understand what it 
means to live in the most densely populated State in the Nation. People 
who understand what it means to live in a State still reeling from the 
legacy of pollution from the industry, and who value open space, 
beautiful natural resources, and clean fresh air.
  These New Jerseyans know that once land is destroyed by extensive 
development, it may never return as it was. At best, it takes a very 
long time to recover.
  I've heard it said on the floor of this Senate that the only people 
who oppose S. 884 are the Eastern elites. Well, Mr. President, these 
so-called elites from New Jersey are really ordinary people who care 
about their environment and their Nation's natural resources. They care 
because they know what it's like to be without.
  But, Mr. President, not everybody opposed to S. 884 is from New 
Jersey. Take the mayor of Springdale, UT. He visited me a year ago to 
explain how his community benefits more from preserving the wilderness 
than from activities that would alter or destroy it. As the mayor 
explained, recreation and its associated businesses provide for a 
sustainable and growing economy. By contrast, he said, resource 
extraction does not.
  I've also heard from a fourth generation Utah native, the past 
president of the Salt Lake City Rotary Club, a Mormon, and father of 
four children who urged me to get involved in this issue.
  He told me that recreational and other commercial enterprises depend 
on the wilderness. And that these businesses are critical to the 
economic vitality of the State of Utah and to Utahn's quality of life. 
He also told me that preservation is crucial to his peace of mind.
  Mr. President, it is true that these lands are all in Utah. But they 
are also national lands that contribute to the entire country. They 
have great ecological significance, and they provide scientific and 
educational treasures, as well as a growing recreation business. That 
is why I care.
  I also care very much about title XVI of the bill, the Sterling 
Forest Preservation Act. Let me talk a little about Sterling Forest and 
why its preservation is so important.
  This bill designates the Sterling Forest Reserve and authorizes up to 
$17.5 million to acquire land in the Sterling Forest area of the New 
York/New Jersey Highlands region.
  This would preserve the largest pristine private land area in the 
most densely populated metropolitan region in the United States. It 
also would protect the source of drinking water for 2 million New 
Jerseyans.
  Mr. President, the Highlands region is a 1.1 million acre area of 
mountain ridges and valleys. The region stretches from the Hudson to 
the Delaware Rivers and consists primarily of forests and farmlands. 
The Forest Service, in a 1992 study, called the Highlands, ``a 
landscape of national significance, rich in natural resources and 
recreational opportunities.''
  Unfortunately, the Highlands region faces an increasing threat of 
unprecedented urbanization. Perhaps the most immediately threatened 
area is Sterling Forest.
  Located within a 2-hour drive for more than 20 million people, the 
17,500-acre tract of land on the New York side is owned by a private 
company that has mapped out an ambitious plan for development.
  The community that this corporation plans to develop will have a 
negative impact on drinking water for one-quarter of New Jersey 
residents. It also threatens the local ecosystem and wildlife, the 
nationally designated Appalachian Trail, and the quality of life of 
residents of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
  I will not describe this proposed project in detail.
  But suffice it to say that one cannot build more than 14,000 housing 
units and 8 million square feet of commercial and light industrial 
space, and release 5 million gallons of treated wastewater into a pure 
environment, without a significant impact.
  My concern about the project's effect on New Jerseyans' drinking 
water is not new. We have known for some time that this development 
will destroy valuable wetlands, which filter and purify the water 
supply, and watersheds, which drain into reservoirs--reservoirs which 
supply one quarter of New Jersey's residents with drinking water.
  The proposal calls for three new sewage treatment plants to 
accommodate the development. These plants will discharge 5.5 million 
gallons of treated wastewater each day into the watersheds.
  Compounding matters will be nonpoint source pollution generated by 
runoff from roads, parking lots, golf courses, and lawns. This runoff 
carries pollutants such as fertilizers, salt, and petroleum products, 
among others. Together these pollutants pose a serious threat to 
drinking water, which is why there is so much concern in New Jersey.
  I am not alone in my opposition to the proposed development. 
Residents from the nearby communities also oppose it. Based on 
testimony delivered during local public hearings, the development plan 
will impose $21 million in additional tax burdens on surrounding 
communities. On the other hand, under the management scenario proposed 
by this bill, a park would generate revenue.
  The only viable management option for this important ecosystem is 
preservation. And that is what is proposed in this legislation.
  The bill would provide critical protection for the forest. But it 
does not impose the heavy hand of the Federal Government on the local 
community or on the owner of the property. The funds authorized in this 
bill represent a fraction of the total funding needed to purchase the 
forest. The rest would come from other public entities, such as the 
States of New Jersey and New York, and private parties.
  I also would note that the legislation specifically requires a 
willing buyer-willing seller transaction--if the company determines 
that it is not in its best interest to sell, it doesn't have to.
  Furthermore, the Federal Government would be relieved of the 
significant costs associated with forest management, law enforcement, 
fire protection, and maintenance of the roads and parking areas under 
an agreement with a respected bi-State authority.
  These provisions have the support of the local communities, the two 
States, and regional interests. They are cost effective and reasonable. 
And they are environmentally responsible.
  Senator Bradley and I have worked on this bill for years now, and we 
are pleased to note that last June, the bill passed as part of H.R. 
400, now pending in the House. We have heard many expressions of 
support from the Speaker of the House for preserving Sterling Forest, 
and we anxiously await passage of H.R. 400.
  Unfortunately, including Sterling Forest in this bill only serves to, 
in the words of the Sterling Forest Coalition, ``hold Sterling Forest 
hostage to S. 884.'' The people of New Jersey do not support this 
omnibus lands bill as written, and I share their view.
  Let me quote from a letter I received yesterday from the Highlands 
Coalition, a leading organization with membership in Connecticut, New 
York, and New Jersey:

       The Title XX of this bill, the Utah Public Lands Management 
     Act . . . is anathema to environmental principles and must 
     not be connected to Sterling Forest funding . . . The amount 
     of acreage it would set aside as Wilderness in southern Utah 
     is meager compared to what the majority of citizens in Utah 
     and surrounding States would like to see. The preservation of 
     Sterling Forest must not be at the cost of environmental 
     degradation elsewhere in the United States. The Omnibus Parks 
     bill must be amended to delete in its entirety the S.

[[Page S2912]]

     884 Utah Public Lands Management provisions. If this bill is 
     not so amended, we ask you to vote against the entire Omnibus 
     Parks package.

  Mr. President, letters like this help show how our Nation's 
wilderness areas meet national interests. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the letter from the Highlands Coalition be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The Highlands Coalition,

                                   Morristown, NJ, March 21, 1996.
     Re National Parks omnibus package.

     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Highlands Coalition, with 
     membership organizations representing more than 300,000 
     people in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, has been 
     working for over 5 years for the preservation of the Sterling 
     Forest in New York as public lands. New York, New Jersey and 
     a private foundation have committed between $20 and $30 
     million for this purpose, but we need the federal funding 
     component. Over the past three years various bills have been 
     introduced in both the House and the Senate that would 
     provide federal funding, but none of these has yet been 
     signed into law. Now, another bill containing provisions for 
     Sterling Forest funding, the Omnibus National Parks bill, has 
     been introduced in the Senate.
       The Title XX of this bill, the Utah Public Lands Management 
     Act introduced by the Utah Senators as S. 884, is anathema to 
     environmental principles and must not be connected to 
     Sterling Forest funding. The amount of acreage it would set 
     aside as Wilderness in southern Utah is meager compared to 
     what the majority of citizens in Utah and surrounding states 
     would like to see. Further, key provisions would allow 
     development in designated federal Wilderness areas in Utah, 
     thus threatening the integrity of the entire National 
     Wilderness Preservation system.
       The preservation of Sterling Forest must not be at the cost 
     of environmental degradation elsewhere in the United States. 
     The Omnibus Parks bill must be amended to delete in its 
     entirety the S. 884 Utah Public Lands Management provisions. 
     If this bill is not so amended, we ask you to vote against 
     the entire Omnibus Parks package.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Wilma E. Frey,
                                                      Coordinator.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an editorial from a newspaper in New Jersey, the Bergen Record, 
who editorialized, ``Sterling Forest is too important to this region's 
well-being to become a hostage of partisan politicking.''
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Promises, Promises--Utah Land Grab Would Hurt Sterling Forest

       Is this crazy or what? At a time when many congressional 
     Republicans are trying to project a more moderate approach on 
     environmental issues, some of their brethren are pressing for 
     an omnibus public-lands bill that is an anathema to 
     conservationists--and a stumbling block to saving Sterling 
     Forest.
       It's time for the GOP leadership, House Speaker Newt 
     Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to get on the 
     same page and push for legislation that saves important 
     resources without sacrificing others.
       The omnibus environmental bill, which is expected to come 
     to a Senate vote as early as later this week, includes $17.5 
     million toward the purchase of Sterling Forest. But it also 
     includes a provision that would open 20 million acres of 
     wilderness in southern Utah to forestry, mining, and other 
     commercial interests. That's unacceptable.
       Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has said, rightly, that he 
     would recommend that President Clinton veto any bill that 
     includes the Utah land giveaway. That would sink years upon 
     years of effort to obtain federal funding to save Sterling 
     Forest--a 17,500-acre watershed that provides the drinking 
     water for 2 million New Jerseyans.
       At a time when the owners of the land are moving ahead with 
     their plans to build 13,000 housing units and 8 million acres 
     of commercial development on the mountainous tract, such a 
     setback at the federal level would be disastrous.
       Just last month, Mr. Gingrich stood in a clearing near 
     Sterling Forest and pledged that Congress would soon pass a 
     bill to save the land without sacrificing any environmentally 
     sensitive land in the process. The only sure way to do that 
     is for Mr. Gingrich to push forward with an existing Sterling 
     Forest bill, HR-400.
       This bill has already passed the Senate. And Mr. Clinton 
     has indicated he would sign it. Now it's a question of Mr. 
     Gingrich keeping his word. Sterling Forest is too important 
     to this region's well-being to become a hostage of partisan 
     politicking.
       As for the other public-lands legislation, the Republicans 
     would be wise to jettison the Utah land grab and to press 
     forward with an omnibus bill that has the nation's best 
     interests at heart.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also care about title XXVI, which 
recognizes the historic significance and natural beauty of the Great 
Falls area of Paterson, NJ. Paterson is my home town. The history of 
the region was part of my childhood.
  In 1778, Alexander Hamilton came to the area and decided that the 
Great Falls could serve as a power source for the Nation's first 
industrialized community. Working with Pierre L'Enfant and then 
Governor William Paterson, Hamilton began to develop the resources as a 
means to free the Nation from England through business and 
manufacturing.
  Over the years, Paterson became known as the Silk City, and as the 
center of the textile industry.
  During the past decades, however, the Great Falls historic preserve 
has borne the brunt of industrial flight and the treasures at the Great 
Falls are threatened. This bill would allow for the partnership of the 
National Park Service to assist in restoring the treasures and history 
of the area. The Senate passed this bill last Congress. The bill 
deserves to be passed on its own, rather than as part of an omnibus 
park land bill that will be vetoed.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will understand 
what is happening here. Most of the bills included in this package are 
noncontroversial. But some are not.
  We should move forward and strike those bills that will attract a 
veto from the President and allow the rest of the bills to be 
considered and passed on their own merit.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns with the 
current language of the Utah wilderness bill. First of all, I am 
opposed to this controversial bill being attached to a large group of 
largely noncontroversial bills that are very important.
  I do support passage of a Utah wilderness bill. However, I cannot 
support this bill. This bill largely precludes future designations of 
BLM wilderness in Utah; substantially alters the definition of 
wilderness; and may result in an unfair land exchange value between the 
United States and the State of Utah.
  I am opposed to the hard release language the bill contains. If this 
bill were to become law, it would be the first of over 100 wilderness 
laws to contain hard release language. I agree that lands not included 
in this bill should generally be released to standard multiple use 
provisions, but I do not agree that BLM should be precluded from ever 
considering future wilderness designations on any of the other 20 
million acres of public land in Utah. I believe the soft release 
language that the Bush administration supported is the appropriate 
route.
  Even if these issues were resolved, I still have grave concerns 
stemming from the unique management and land exchange provisions. If 
this Utah wilderness bill were to become law, the Nation would 
effectively have two wilderness systems, Utah and the rest of the 
Nation. It would in effect result in a brand of wilderness that would 
be so different, that current BLM regulations, which are appropriate 
for all other BLM wilderness areas, would have to be substantially 
altered just to accommodate the unique provisions of this bill.
  Most startling is the fact that it appears that the Secretary of the 
Interior would in Utah have less authority to control access in and 
around wilderness areas than nonwilderness areas. I repeat, it appears 
the Secretary would have less authority to control access in and around 
wilderness areas than nonwilderness areas. How can this be wilderness 
if it is less protected than other multiple-use lands?
  One small example of nonconformity is the bill's special provisions 
for facilities within wilderness areas. Section 2003(d) provides:

       Nothing in this title shall affect the capacity, operation, 
     maintenance, repair, modification or replacement of 
     municipal, agricultural, livestock, or water facilities in 
     existence of the date of the enactment of this Act

  There is no qualification to this paragraph. Conceivably, projects 
could be expanded without any regard to impacts to wilderness values. 
This is only one small example of the special provisions included in 
the language of this bill.
  In the past, wilderness laws have generally deferred to the access 
provisions

[[Page S2913]]

of the Wilderness Act of 1964. This practice provides a measure of 
consistency throughout the wilderness system. The proponents of this 
Utah wilderness bill have strayed so far from the vision of the 
original framers of the Wilderness Act that an althernative type of 
wilderness would, in effect, be established. I do not support this 
establishment of an alternative version of wilderness.
  Even if this bill did not contain these nonconforming provisions, I 
would still have concerns with the land exchange provisions that would 
provide a unique means to establish the value of Federal lands to be 
exchanged to the State of Utah. These provisions would give a 
significant advantage to the State of Utah that no other State has 
enjoyed in its wilderness bills.
  I support passage of a Utah wilderness bill. However, I believe the 
bill must not preclude future designations of wilderness; substantially 
alter the definition of wilderness; nor result in unfair exchange 
values between the United States and the State of Utah.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns 
about the inclusion of S. 884, the Utah Public Lands Management Act, 
into the omnibus parks package now before the Senate.
  I believe that it is critically important to make my colleagues aware 
that this omnibus package is not simply a means to clear small measures 
on the docket of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Among its 
provisions is a measure which decides the fate of 22 million Federally 
owned acres of land in southern Utah. It designates a portion of the 
acres as wilderness and leaves vast areas free for development. This is 
one of the few times this session that the Senate will have the 
opportunity to engage in a dialog over what should happen to these and 
other Federal lands.
  The Utah provisions contained in the measure currently before the 
Senate are controversial provisions. Both Utah and national newspapers 
have been a hotbed of debate over the question of how much wilderness 
to protect and the process used to develop the bill. I also know that 
many citizens in my State are deeply concerned about aspects of this 
bill which would fundamentally changes the way the Federal Government 
will manage lands which all Americans own. Wisconsinites who care 
deeply about the Federal lands in Utah as well as Federal land policy 
in general have written to me and urge significant changes in this 
measure.
  Mr. President, a major concern about the measure currently before the 
Senate relates to the hard release language in the Utah provision which 
affects the future ability of the BLM to designate additional acres in 
Utah which may need protection in as wilderness. BLM is currently 
managing 3.2 million of the 22 million acres it holds in Utah as 
wilderness. The provisions of the substitute amendment relating to Utah 
would designate approximately 2 million acres as wilderness. They 
further require that any lands not explicitly designated by the bill as 
wilderness will be managed for multiple-use. Therefore, even if BLM 
finds in the future that these lands are sensitive and in need of 
protection, no additional lands could be designated as wilderness. The 
Senate has never passed a bill containing such language before, and 
such language is a significant departure from the tenets of the 1964 
Wilderness Act.
  The key protection wilderness designation offers the lands in 
southern Utah is protection from certain kinds of development--but not 
from the use of the lands. Activities allowed in wilderness areas are: 
foot and horse travel; hunting and fishing; backcountry camping; float 
boating and canoeing; guiding and outfitting; scientific study; 
educational programs; livestock grazing if it has already been 
established; control of wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks; and 
mining on preexisting mining claims.
  Prohibited activities, according to the 1964 Wilderness Act include: 
use of mechanized transport except in emergencies, or such vehicles as 
wheelchairs; roadbuilding, logging, and similar commercial uses; 
staking new mining claims or mineral leases; and new reservoirs or 
powerlines, except where authorized by the President as being in the 
national interest.
  The magnificence of the wildlands that are at stake in this debate 
cannot really be done justice in words, Mr. President. As my colleague 
from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, has already shown the Senate, they 
include starkly beautiful mountain ranges rising from the desert floor 
in western Utah with ancient bristlecone pine and flowered meadows. 
Some areas are arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery 
slopes speckled with pinyon pine and juniper trees. Other areas support 
habitat for deer, elk, cougars, bobcats, bighorn sheep, coyotes, birds, 
reptiles, and other wildlife. These regions hold great appeal to 
hikers, hunters, sightseers, and those who find solace in the desert's 
colossal silence.
  These BLM lands are truly remarkable American resources of soaring 
cliff walls, forested plateaus, and deep narrow gorges. This region 
encompasses the sculpted canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the 
Mojave Desert, and portions of the Great Basin.
  Some in this body may think it strange that a Senator from Wisconsin 
would speak on behalf of wilderness in Utah. The issue of and debate 
over Utah wilderness protection, Mr. President, has been one of which I 
have been aware since the time I joined the U.S. Senate. Many of my 
constituents believe that the lands of southern Utah are the last major 
unprotected vestige of spectacular landforms in the lower 48 States--of 
the caliber of lands so many nationwide already hold dear, such as 
Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
I have received more constituent mail--over 600 pieces in all--from 
Wisconsin citizens concerned about wilderness lands in Utah, than I 
have on any other environmental issue in this Congress--including many 
critically important issues to my state such as clean water, safe 
drinking water, the protection of endangered species, and Superfund 
reform. A man from Menominee Falls, WI, writes about the lands of Utah:

       These resources are national treasures that make our 
     country great, and once they are gone they are lost forever.

  A woman from Beloit added in her letter:

       I live in Wisconsin but my real home is the natural world . 
     . . most voters do not concur with the irrevocable 
     destruction that would result from (this measure) becoming 
     law. Please: do all you can to be a voice for wilderness--not 
     only in Wisconsin but in the fragile and gorgeous West.

  One of the most poignant testimonials came from an Eau Claire 
resident:

       I have not had a lot of experience writing letters to my 
     elected representatives. However, it appears that the current 
     priorities in Washington are shifting away from conservation 
     towards a destructive, greed oriented approach, under the 
     guise of economic growth and development of public lands. 
     Given this climate, I feel I must write to express my 
     opinion. I have had the opportunity to visit much of the West 
     over the past 30 odd years on annual family vacations. This 
     is truly a unique land without rival anywhere else in the 
     world. My family and I have learned to love and respect this 
     region and we feel that it must be protected in its natural 
     form. I strongly urge you to oppose any compromise Utah lands 
     bill that does not include a strong vision of conservation 
     for future generations.

  Mr. President, I read from some letters from Wisconsin residents 
because I think it is critical to understand that the importance of 
protecting these lands in Utah extends beyond the borders of that 
State. Many Americans enjoy and treasure this area, just as they do 
other great American wilderness areas and it is the responsibility of 
all members of the Senate to be concerned about the fate of this 
national treasure.
  I have been personally touched by these appeals from residents of my 
State. In recognition of the importance of this issue to my 
constituents, on October 11, 1995 I circulated a small paperback book 
containing essays and poems by 20 western naturalist writers reflecting 
their thoughts on the protection of wilderness in Utah to all members 
of the Senate. The book, entitled ``Testimony,'' was released on 
September 27, 1995. It is modeled after the late author Wallace 
Stegner's 1960 Wilderness Letter to the Kennedy administration, which 
was a critical benchmark document in the development and eventual 
passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act. In his 1960 Wilderness Letter, 
Wallace Stegner said ``something will have

[[Page S2914]]

gone out of us as a people if we let the remaining wilderness be 
destroyed.'' Mr. President, those words are echoed and reverberated by 
these western writers as they describe the legislation now before the 
Senate and its affect on Utah.
  The paperback was compiled during August 1995. The selections 
represent the opinions of the authors, written in direct response to 
the measure currently before Senate which would affect public lands 
management in Utah. The book includes writings by individuals such as: 
Terry Tempest Williams, Utah native and author of five books; T.H. 
Watkins, editor of Wilderness magazine; N. Scott Momaday, winner of the 
1969 Pulitzer Prize for ``House Made of Dawn''; and Mark Strand, former 
Poet Laureate of the United States. 1,000 copies of the book were 
printed for distribution on the Hill, and I now understand that the 
writers intend to release this work through Milkweed Press in Minnesota 
for the general public. The writers donated their work to produce this 
small booklet and the printing costs were covered by a donation from a 
nonprofit foundation.
  I distributed this book because I felt that it was important for all 
members of the Senate to have a copy of this book to review in making a 
decision that so profoundly affects future of such a spectacular area.
  One of the pieces in the Testimony book that most caught my 
attention, Mr. President, was a selection by Stephen Trimbell. Steve 
Trimbell is a writer and photographer who lives in Salt Lake City, and 
who was instrumental in working with Terry Tempest Williams to 
facilitate putting the Testimony book together. Those Senators who have 
been following the debate over the Utah Wilderness Act are already very 
familiar with Mr. Trimbell's handiwork. For several months, every 
Friday, photographs of the areas excluded from wilderness designation 
under the measure before us were dropped off in every Senator's office. 
Many of those ``Friday pictures,'' as they have come to be known around 
my office, were taken by Trimbell. I wanted to share Steve Trimbell's 
words on this matter with the Senate. He writes:

       My place of refuge is a wilderness canyon in southern Utah.
       Its scale is exactly right. Smooth curves of sandstone 
     embrace and cradle me. From the road, I cross a mile of 
     slickrock to reach the stream. This creek runs year-round, 
     banked by orchids and ferns. Entering the tangle of greenery, 
     I rediscover paradise. The canyon is a secret, a power spot, 
     a place of pilgrimage.
       I found this canyon in my youth, twenty years ago. I came 
     here again and again. I brought special friends and lovers. 
     When my wife and I met, and I discovered that she knew this 
     place, I felt certain that she knew a place deep within me, 
     as well. My children are within a year of walking into the 
     canyon on their own. I thrill to think of that first visit 
     with them.
       On those early trips, I rarely saw other people. Once, in 
     the velvet light before dawn, I awoke, sat boldly upright. 
     and looked past my sleeping bag into a lone ponderosa pine--a 
     tree that brought the spicy scent of mountain forest to this 
     desert canyon. A few seconds later, a great horned owl 
     noiselessly landed on a branch and looked back at me with 
     fierce eyes. The owl flew down canyon, searching for 
     unwary mice. I lay back, fell asleep, and awoke again when 
     the sun warmed me.
       I bathed in plunge pools and waded along the stream, 
     learning to pay attention, looking for reflections and leaf 
     patterns and rock forms to photograph--details that I would 
     not see if the canyon had not taught me how to look. Never 
     before had I spent so much time alone on the land, Here, I 
     matured, as a naturalist and photographer and human being.
       This wilderness canyon made me whole. It can still restore 
     me to wholeness when the stress of life pulls me thin. It 
     bestows peace of mind that lasts for months.
       People smile when they remember such particular places on 
     Earth where the seasons and textures and colors belong to 
     them. Where they know, with assurance and precision, the 
     place and their relationship to it.
       ``This is my garden.''
       ``This is our family beach.''
       ``I know this grove like the back of my hand.''
       ``I can tell you where every fish in this stream hides.''
       ``I remember this view; it takes me back to my childhood.''
       These landscapes nourish and teach and heal. They help keep 
     us sane, they give us strength, they connect us to our roots 
     in the earth, they remind us that we share in the flow of 
     life and death. We encounter animals in their native place 
     and they look into our eyes with the amalgam of indifference 
     and companionship that separates and unites us with other 
     creatures. A garden can connect us with wildness. Wilderness 
     connects us with our ancestral freedoms even more powerfully.
       Recently, we visited a canyon new to us in the southern 
     Utah wilderness, this time with urban cousins--two girls, 
     seven and eleven. The younger girl spotted a whipsnake, a 
     nesting Cooper's hawk, beetles, Indian paintbrush. We painted 
     ourselves with golden cattail pollen and launched boats we 
     wove from rushes and milkweed leaves. Taught never to walk 
     alone in their city, here the girls forged ahead out-of-
     sight, exploring, appropriating power, gathering the 
     dependable certainties of the wilderness, building emotional 
     bedrock, new layers of confidence and self-esteem. Perhaps 
     this canyon will become their canyon.
       We need to preserve every chance to have such experiences, 
     for ourselves, our children, and the grandchildren of our 
     grandchildren.
       For we have reached the end of the gold rush. This wild 
     country is our home, not simply one more stop on the way to 
     the next boomtown. Respect for our home, thinking as natives, 
     begins in our backyards, with our children. We move outward 
     from there to local parks, to preservation of greenbelts, and 
     from there to big wilderness.
       The wilderness canyons of Utah belong not to an elite cadre 
     of backpackers, not to the cattle raising families of 
     Escalante and Kanab, not to the Utah state legislature, not 
     to the Bureau of Land Management. They belong to all citizens 
     of the United States. In truth, they belong to no one. They 
     are a magnificent expression of the powers of Earth, and we 
     Americans hold Utah wilderness in trust for all humans and 
     all life on our planet.
       The truly conservative action becomes clear: to preserve as 
     many wildlands as possible for future generations rather than 
     to fritter them away in casual development without even 
     noticing. A Utah wilderness bill with too little land 
     preserved and too many exceptions for development is 
     unacceptable, destroying irreplaceable wild places for the 
     short-term wealth of the few.
       Every year our wildlands shrink. We must act now, 
     decisively, boldly. To save my canyon. Their canyon. Your 
     canyon.
       We must preserve the wholeness of wild places that belong 
     to everyone and to no one. In doing so, we demonstrate our 
     trustworthiness--our capacity to take a stand on behalf of 
     the land. On behalf of the canyons.
       Our canyons.

  That short piece of writing is so powerful, Mr. President, because it 
is a timeless statement about how people feel about natural places. For 
myself, I personally know the value of wild areas. For the last 9 
years, I have spent my summer vacations on Madeline Island, immediately 
adjacent to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in northern 
Wisconsin. I have always found the quiet beauty of the Apostle Islands 
refreshing and invigorating. The Apostle Islands are not a place the 
people in Wisconsin go for high-tech hubbub; it is a place where people 
go to experience nature's beauty.
  I want to recount a story, one perhaps several of members of the 
Senate may remember, from 1967, when the Senate Subcommittee on Parks 
and Recreation held hearings on Senator Gaylord Nelson's plan to create 
the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
  A man named John Chapple, a newspaperman from Ashland, WI, testified 
at those hearings. Mr. Chapple, who spent much of his life around the 
Apostle Islands, related the story of a time when he and his 10-year-
old son were out in a 14-foot motorboat on the waters around the 
Apostle Islands:

       On one occasion, the water was very rough, and I pulled our 
     little boat onto a sand beach so I could put some more gas in 
     the motor.
       Three men came walking out. 'Don't you know this is a 
     private beach?' they said. 'You are not supposed to land 
     here.'
       That stung, and it still stings.
       Twenty-five men with fortunes could tie the Apostle Islands 
     up in a knot and post `keep out' signs all over the place.
       The beauty that God created for mankind would not be 
     available to mankind anymore.
       These islands, with their primeval power to truly recreate, 
     to reinvigorate, to inspire mankind with a love of peace and 
     beauty . . . must be preserved for all the people for all the 
     time and not allowed to fall into the hands of a few.

  When the Senate acted to protect this area of northern Wisconsin, 
they heard the voices of Wisconsinites like Mr. Chapple who knew the 
value of peace and beauty and of preserving our natural heritage. 
Though those words were spoken by man nearly 20 years ago, about an 
entirely different landscape, they almost sound like an addendum to 
Steve Tribell's story about southern Utah canyons, which is included in 
a new testimony.
  In places like the Apostle Islands and southern Utah, Wisconsinites 
have found opportunities to develop a consciously sympathetic 
relationship to the rest of the world, so that we may

[[Page S2915]]

better live in it. These natural places are a confluence for the things 
we value in Wisconsin.
  The parallels between the Apostle Islands in my State and southern 
Utah, interestingly go even further than the emotions that these 
landscapes evoke among the people of my State. Along the Apostle Island 
National Lakeshore's shoreline there are the wonderful rust colored 
sandstone cliffs. These sandscapes serve as staging areas for birds 
following their ancient paths of migration in the spring and fall. Of 
similar appearance and construct to the landscapes of southern Utah, 
these cliffs are particularly impressive this time of year now that 
they are covered with ice. The February 28, 1996, edition of the 
Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran a wonderful article about these red cliffs 
covered in ice that states:

       Frozen waterfalls hide a labyrinth of nooks and crannies 
     that kids climb through and slide down like some frozen 
     playland. ``Awesome'' is the word muttered by many visitors 
     to the sea caves sculpted by centuries of wind and water at 
     Apostle Island National Lakeshore near Bayfield.

  In the case of the Apostle Islands, how did the Senate respond, Mr. 
President? And what does it tell us about the stewardship and attention 
we should pay here in the Senate to southern Utah. In 1967, Senator 
Nelson was leading the effort that led to President Nixon's signing, on 
September 26, 1970, of the legislation that established the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore--only a few months after the first Earth 
Day.
  Many of my constituents are concerned that perhaps there isn't that 
kind of momentum in this body any more. As their letters reflect, they 
believe that there is a concerted campaign to undermine landmark 
environmental legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, and to curtail 
or end the Federal role in protection of endangered species and their 
habitats. They express frustration that the Senate is responding to 
efforts to persuade Americans they cannot afford further environmental 
protection, that the idea of protecting our natural heritage is somehow 
an affront to the American ideal of rugged individualism.
  As we consider this measure we must be mindful of Wallace Stegner's 
words I quoted earlier, of the need to act carefully on these issues in 
community and with sympathy and responsibility for our place in the 
great scheme of things.
  I feel that it is exceedingly important to be actively engaged in 
discussing alternatives for the management of significant resources 
such as these. I urge my colleagues to be committed to do so in Utah, 
and I urge them to oppose the inclusion of the Utah measure in this 
Omnibus package.
  The Utah wilderness provisions in the legislation now before the 
Senate has several major weaknesses.
  The first major concern is the ``under protection'' of areas that are 
suitable for wilderness designation. The bill would protect only 2 
million acres in contrast to the 5.7 million protected in a competing 
bill, H.R. 1500, introduced in the House of Representatives and the 3.2 
million acres currently being managed by BLM as wilderness pending 
congressional designation.
  Mr. President, as other Senators have discussed, the review of public 
lands in Utah to determine their wilderness potential has had a long 
and contentious history. The BLM's initial inventory of this area to 
implement the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, known as 
FLPMA, identified 5.5 million acres of land as having potential 
wilderness values. Subsequent stages of that process resulted in 2.6 
million acres of land being designated as wilderness study areas 
[WSA's] a designation which is a precursor to wilderness designation. 
Utah environmental interests challenged the 2.6 million designation, 
urging that about 700,000 acres be reinventoried. That additional study 
by BLM ultimately provided WSA status to 3.2 million acres--the 
management situation under which BLM is currently operating.

  Controversies over the inventory have resulted in disagreement over 
how much wilderness to designate in Utah. Concerns over BLM's survey 
lead citizen groups to continue to conduct field based research to 
determine the wilderness values of other sensitive areas. These citizen 
group surveys lead to the development of alternative legislation to the 
proposal included in the omnibus package, which has been introduced in 
the other body by a Representative from New York, [Mr. Hinchey]. That 
legislation, H.R. 1500, America's Red Rock Wilderness Protection Act, 
would set aside 5.7 million acres of land as wilderness--even more than 
the BLM is currently protecting as WSA's.
  In addition to current congressional proposals, there have been 
previous administrative attempts to resolve the wilderness question in 
Utah. In 1991, the Bush administration recommended to Congress that 1.9 
million acres be protected as wilderness. The proposal before us today 
has a similar acreage figure, only it recommends designation for 
different areas. However, the Interior Department now believes that 
more areas deserve wilderness designation.
  In her testimony on behalf of the Department before the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee this past December, Silvia Baca, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management for the Department of 
the Interior stated:

       We are sure other areas, both inside and outside existing 
     WSAs, deserve such (wilderness) status.

  I would remind Members of the Senate of the position taken by the 
Bush administration does not bind us as we consider the fate of this 
area, particularly given, as Ms. Baca also stated in her testimony, 
that:

       1.9 million acres is inadequate to protect Utah's great 
     wilderness.

  The second area of concern is the fact that the lands in Utah 
designated as wilderness in this amendment would be required to be 
managed in a manner inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. In short, the 
meaning of ``wilderness'' designation would be significantly altered in 
this bill for these lands. The legislation is full of these exceptions 
to standard wilderness management protocol.
  For example, under section 2002 of the amendment, roads would have to 
be maintained to a much greater extent than is provided for in the 
Wilderness Act. Access by cars, motorcycles, trucks, sport utility 
vehicles, and heavy equipment is guaranteed at any time of the year for 
water diversion, irrigation facilities, communication sites, 
agricultural facilities, or any other structures located within the 
designated wilderness areas. This type of unrestricted vehicular use is 
currently not allowed on lands now managed by BLM, or on many other 
parcels of Federal land, regardless of whether or not they are 
designated as wilderness. Creating an exemption to allow such 
activities within wilderness areas raises the question, Mr. President, 
what is the purpose of extending a special designation such as 
``wilderness'' if we do so with so many holes that the designation is 
essentially meaningless or that the lack of such a designation would 
actually be more protective. As I said before, this bill would allow 
activities in a federally designated wilderness that would not be 
permitted on other nonwilderness Federal lands.
  Another example of the way this legislation would undermine the 
management of wilderness areas is included in section 2006 on military 
overflights. This section includes special language preempting the 
Wilderness Act and permitting low level military flights and the 
establishment of new special use airspace over wilderness areas. This 
language sets a precedent for allowing such activities, precedent which 
is of great concern to the citizens of my State. I have been involved, 
along with concerned Wisconsin citizens, in monitoring the recently 
proposed expansion of low level flights by the Air National Guard in 
Wisconsin. The path of these low level flights would cross extremely 
ecologically sensitive areas in my State, and the existence of those 
areas has been instrumental in forcing the National Guard to take a 
more careful look at the planning of any such flights.
  The third area of concern, which I highlighted earlier in my remarks, 
is the hard release language. This language, if enacted, would set an 
unacceptable precedent for the National Wilderness system. None of the 
more than 100 wilderness bills already enacted into law contains such 
language. In the past, moreover, hard release has been proposed only 
for lands formally studied by a Federal agency for designation as 
wilderness but released

[[Page S2916]]

from the WSA study status by Congress. The language in this amendment 
goes even further, Mr. President, it applies to all the 22 million 
acres of BLM lands in Utah not just the 3.2 million WSA acres.
  The final area of concern is the land exchange embodied in the Utah 
wilderness portion of this bill. This legislation mandates that State 
lands within or immediately adjacent to designated wilderness areas be 
exchanged for certain areas now owned by BLM. Some lands to be 
exchanged are explicitly designated in this legislation, such as the 
3,520 acres that would be given to the Water Conservancy District of 
Washington County, Utah for the construction of a reservoir. Other 
areas are not explicitly designated. The State is allowed under this 
measure to choose from a pool of Federal lands in different areas. As 
others have discussed, the Dutch-owned mining company, Andalex 
Resources is currently moving through the Federal permitting process to 
develop a coal mine on lands which the State is interested in 
acquiring. This exchange has significant fiscal consequences.

  First, the Interior Department believes the lands not to be of 
approximately equal value. More importantly, should the lands have been 
permitted for mining under Federal ownership, the taxpayers would 
receive the return for all such mining activities. CBO determined that 
the net income to the Federal Government of the lands being transferred 
to the State of Utah would amount to an average of almost $500,000 
annually over the next 5 years, or approximately $2.5 million in 
Federal receipts. In contrast, the Federal receipts anticipated from 
the lands being traded to the Federal Government in exchange would 
amount to about $33,000 per year or a mere $165,000 over the same 
period. In comparative terms, Mr. President, for every $1 that the 
Federal Government gives in the lands it exchanges with Utah it only 
gets back 7 cents.
  All of these concerns, Mr. President, have led the Secretary of the 
Interior, Mr. Babbitt to announce on March 15, 1996 that he would 
recommend that the President veto this omnibus package unless the Utah 
provisions were removed. That is a step that the Senate should take. If 
the Utah provisions remain in this bill as currently drafted, the bill 
deserves not only a Presidential veto, but a condemnation from every 
American who cares about protecting our natural resources.

                          ____________________