[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.
____________________