[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2918-S2925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, get a few 
housekeeping measures out of the way. First, so that the Record can 
clearly reflect who is doing what to the bills that are before us at 
this moment, this is a bill that contains 33 titles. Every Senator 
should know that the Senator from New Jersey would not oppose moving 30 
of those titles now, pass them by voice vote. I do not oppose them. I 
do not have holds on them. They can be moved now. If they are not moved 
now, someone does have a hold on them. It is not me.
  I also make the other point that the distinguished chairman alluded 
to saying that these bills in this package have been on the calendar 
for over a year. Well, maybe some of them have been, not all of them. 
Indeed, there are some bills in this package that have not even been 
reported from the Energy Committee. There was no vote in

[[Page S2919]]

the Energy Committee on at least 6 or 7 or 8 of these bills. They were 
added on the floor into this big package without them ever being 
reported out of the Energy Committee or having a hearing in this 
Congress. Some had a hearing in the last Congress, so that is not a big 
deal. They should be reported out of the committee, but they were not.
  The other point is, the Senator from New Jersey has indeed not held 
all bills. The distinguished Senator from Alaska alluded to the fact 
that a bill that he was very interested in moved without any problem. 
So let us get that housekeeping matter out of the way first. We could 
move almost 30 titles by voice vote.
  Let us get to the real issue here, which is the Utah wilderness bill, 
which is one of the titles, which is the title that I strongly oppose. 
Why do I oppose this? This is the most important public lands bill 
since the Alaska land bill of 1980. This is the most important public 
land bill since the Alaska bill over 15 years ago.

  What are we talking about here? We are talking about declaring a part 
of Utah wilderness. There are two areas in question. One is the basin 
and range area. That is that vast area west of Salt Lake City, an area 
of salt flats and small mountain ranges. The writer John McPhee says 
that ``Each range here'' in the basin range ``is like a warship 
standing on its own, and the Great Basin is an ocean of loose sediment 
with these mountain ranges standing in it as if they were members of a 
fleet without precedent.'' So one of the areas we are talking about is 
this unique area, basin and range.
  The other area we are talking about is the great Colorado Plateau in 
southern Utah. The part of Utah that Harold Ickes, the first Secretary 
of the Interior during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, said 
almost the whole part of Utah should be a national park, that almost 
the whole part of that southern part of Utah should be a national park.
  It is a vast plateau and canyonlands of incredible beauty, vast 
plateaus like the Kaiparowits Plateau or the Dirty Devil Wilderness, 
some of the most remote and rugged landscapes in the West. Yet some of 
the most interesting records of those who inhabited this land before 
America--before Europeans ever came to the United States--are also 
located in this section of Utah, and the remains of the great Anasazi, 
who were here long before the first European set foot on this 
continent. All of this vast beauty is in southern Utah.
  It is a genuine wilderness: Remote, rugged, deep-cut canyons that are 
sandstone cut, with deep rivers. It is the place of Zion and Bryce and 
Canyonlands. It is unique. It deserves wilderness designation.
  We now have before the Senate the Utah wilderness bill. What is the 
problem with the Utah wilderness bill? Well, too little land is 
protected as wilderness; and too few protections are given to that 
land. In addition, the inventory process, the process by which the 
Bureau of Land Management determined which areas should qualify as 
wilderness, was flawed from the beginning.
  In the State of Utah, there are 22 million acres under the control of 
the Bureau of Land Management. Under the bill before the Senate, 2 
million of these acres--2 million of those acres--will be set aside as 
wilderness. That is all, 2 million acres.
  Now, there are too few protections, as well. Just take the vast 
Kaiparowits Plateau, a plateau of juniper forests, trees that have been 
there long before the first European set his foot forth on the United 
States. It is a vast wilderness, one of the most vast wildernesses in 
the lower 48 States. Under this bill, about 50,000 acres of that 
plateau will be transferred to the State of Utah, an area for which a 
Dutch company is already negotiating to put a gigantic coal mine--a 
gigantic coal mine--in the heart of that wilderness.
  What about Dirty Devil? There, of course, the area that is excluded 
will be set aside for tar sands development. The legislation also would 
allow new dams, called reservoirs, new dams. One thought that in the 
Colorado Plateau this issue was settled in the 1960's when the dams 
that were proposed at Dinosaur Monument were defeated because the 
people of this country realized that this incredible beauty, silence 
and time standing still needed to be protected, should not be blocked 
by a dam with another lake going up the Canyonlands and destroying both 
the record of human habitation and the possibility of walking in the 
Canyonlands.
  What else? Well, roads and motor vehicles are allowed to an 
unprecedented extent in areas which are wilderness. Also, you give the 
State the right to designate which areas it wants without regard to 
environmental sensitivity, and with great concern that the lands that 
the Federal Government would exchange with the State will not be of 
equal value. In fact, in the Interior Department's comment on this 
bill, as embodied in the report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Land and Minerals Management, Sylvia Baca, says the following:

       ``The tracts proposed to be obligated by the State have 
     high economic value for mineral, residential, and 
     industrial development. The fair market value of these 
     lands may be 5 to 10 times more than the value of the 
     lands that would be transferred to the Federal Government. 
     Despite the imbalance in favor of State, the bill provides 
     for increased compensation to the State if encumbrances on 
     Federal lands being transferred result in an imbalance, 
     but not the other way around. This would only add to the 
     inequality of values in this proposed exchange.

  Mr. President, if the coal mining development is not enough, if the 
tar sands development is not enough, if the oil exploration is not 
enough, the new dams are not enough, if the roads and motor vehicles 
are not enough, if the kind of unequal value trade between State and 
Federal Government is not enough, what about this provision in the bill 
that sets aside the 2 million acres for wilderness, but attaches no 
water right to this wilderness land? These are areas that get 10 to 12 
inches of rain a year--not much. What happens if that water is 
diverted, is used in another way, and does not get to the wilderness? 
Whatever fragile life is there dies, and it is over.
  In Nevada, a State not totally dissimilar, not nearly as dramatic in 
some of its beauty as southern Utah, but still a remarkably beautiful 
State with a very similar topography, when the Nevada wilderness bill 
passed, the authors of that bill made sure that there was water 
attached to that wilderness so that you would not have a wilderness, 
essentially, destroyed.
  Finally, in terms of objections to the bill, there is a so-called 
hard release language. Now, the release language, which basically means 
when you do a wilderness bill you release lands, lands that are not 
wilderness, but you do not release them forever and ever, because at 
some other point you might want to consider whether they are 
wilderness. The bill as originally drafted said that the land should be 
managed for nonwilderness multiple uses only--that was dropped--and a 
substitute was offered that said ``the full range of uses.''
  However, the existing amendment, the existing section of the bill, 
also says that ``lands released shall not be managed for the purpose of 
protecting their suitability for wilderness designation.'' This is a 
kind of belt and suspenders approach. The previous version of the bill 
as reported out had both belt and suspenders, two protections against 
further wilderness designation. The current version got rid of the 
suspenders but leaves the belt. It is still unprecedented in wilderness 
bills.
  Mr. President, these are all serious flaws with this bill that need 
to be addressed that might be able to be addressed. The flawed process 
is what makes me doubtful.
  Just a brief recapitulation: in 1964 the wilderness bill passed. What 
was the definition of wilderness in a 1964 bill? ``A wilderness, in 
contrast with areas where man in his own works dominate the landscape, 
is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and the community of 
life are untrammeled by man and where man himself is a visitor who does 
not remain.'' That was the definition of wilderness.
  In 1976, that was applied to Bureau of Land Management lands about 
280 million acres nationwide. And in 1976, 1977, the Bureau of Land 
Management was given 15 years to identify which areas under its control 
would qualify for wilderness, possibly, to inventory possible 
wilderness areas. But do you know what happened in Utah? In Utah, they 
completed it in 1 year. They inventoried all 22 million acres 
controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. At the end of that year, 
they

[[Page S2920]]

eliminated 20 million acres for consideration as wilderness.

  What was the basis upon which they eliminated these 20 million acres? 
It was that they lacked outstanding opportunities for solitude or 
primitive recreation. That is why they were eliminated. In the fall of 
1980, a representative of the Sierra Club toured a section of the 
Kaiparowits Plateau with the Utah BLM Director, Gary Wicks. Their 
helicopter touched down on the southern tip of Four-Mile Bench, which 
is part of the plateau. She says:

       We stood on the edge of as far as the eye can see. 
     Incredibly beautiful, utterly wild land. And I would say, 
     ``Gary, why are you eliminating this from wilderness?'' And 
     he would say, ``Because there are no outstanding 
     opportunities for primitive recreation.'' And I would say, 
     ``And there are no outstanding opportunities for solitude 
     either?'' And Gary would say, ``You are right. You can have 
     solitude here, but it is not outstanding solitude.' And the 
     man kept a straight face while he said that.

  She concludes by saying, ``If the helicopter left us there, we would 
have known what outstanding solitude was all about,'' because she would 
have been left in this vast wilderness, one of the most rugged areas of 
America. But it was on the basis that these lands did not provide 
sufficient solitude that they were eliminated from wilderness 
designation. That flies in the face of virtually everything.
  Well, when only 2.6 million acres were set aside out of the 22.5 
million acres, under the control of BLM, and only 2.6 were set aside, a 
lot of Utah people got very upset. They filed petitions and they filed 
briefs; they had 30 days in which to do that. And because of their 
efforts, it included 3.2 acres for wilderness. And since then, that is 
the amount of land in Utah today that had been managed as wilderness; 
3.2 million acres are now being protected as if they were wilderness.
  In 1991, BLM came up with its final suggestion--1.9 million acres. 
The Utah congressional delegation introduced its bill, which was 1.8 
million. Two days ago on the floor, they modified it to 2 million 
acres. Well, there was another group of Utah residents that said this 
was kind of a hurried process, with helicopter flyovers, and only 
cutting out 2.6 million. So they said, ``Let us do this 
scientifically,'' and they did that and came up with 5.7 million acres 
of Utah that should be wilderness. I do not know if it is 5.7. I am 
sure that there is some number lower than that which could preserve the 
wilderness areas. But I certainly know that 2 million is not enough 
and, particularly, with the language that is in this bill.

  The real irony is that this is an attempt, while the protections for 
mining, coal, tar sands, oil exploration, dams, et cetera, in a State 
where only eight-tenths of 1 percent of the jobs are in mining, in a 
State where only 2 percent of the State economic product is in mining. 
The future is not there. The future is in this beauty that is self-
evident to anybody that comes to southern Utah or to the basin and 
range. The real irony is the Senator from New Jersey, who comes from a 
State that is 89 percent urban, is making this argument in a State that 
is 87 percent urban--one of the best kept secrets of the West, the most 
urbanized area of America. People from this country are coming into the 
cities.
  So I believe that this would even be in the long-term interest of the 
State. But that is not what this is about. The Utah economy is really 
not my province. It is my observation, as somebody who has looked at 
these issues. But what I want to preserve is the possibility for 
silence and the possibility for time that exists only in a wilderness.
  I would like to read, in closing, just two things from a book 
prepared by several writers about the Utah wilderness. One is by John 
McPhee, who wrote in ``Basin and Range'' the following, talking about 
that basin and range area west of Salt Lake City, that geologic 
formation that has been stretching for several million years. Reno and 
Salt Lake City, 7 million years ago, were 60 miles closer together. 
They are 60 miles further apart today because the geological structure 
is moving. When it moves, the crust cracks, and up pops mountain 
ranges. These are the mountain ranges that we are trying to protect in 
the broader wilderness bill.
  McPhee writes:

       Supreme over all is silence. Discounting the cry of the 
     occasional bird, the wailing of a pack of coyotes, silence--a 
     great spatial silence--is pure in the Basin and Range . . . 
     ``No rustling of leaves in the wind, no rumbling of distant 
     traffic, no chatter of birds or insects or children. You are 
     alone with God in that silence. There in the white flat 
     silence, I began for the first time to feel a slight sense of 
     shame for what we were proposing to do. Did we really intend 
     to invade this silence with our trucks and bulldozers and 
     after a few years leave it a radioactive junkyard?

  Another writer--this will be the final one, and I quoted him the 
other day--is Charles Wilkinson. He was talking about taking his son 
into the Colorado Plateau. He says:

       One long hike took us down into a narrow canyon branching 
     off the Escalante River. The sandstone walls, smoldering red, 
     thrust straight up. Scattered pinyon and juniper, and ferns 
     and grasses around the springs, accented the color embedded 
     in the canyon sides.
       The Wingate Sandstone had been the rock of surrounding 
     mountain ranges. During the Triassic, some 200 million years 
     ago, water worked the mountains, wearing them into sand. 
     Winds lifted the grains and piled them up as dunes on the 
     desert floor. The sands hardened back into rock. Then the 
     whole Colorado Plateau rose. . . The creek in this now canyon 
     would have none of it, resolutely holding its ground against 
     the upthrusting Wingate and younger formations on top of it, 
     cutting down 1,000 feet into rock and time. Much of the day 
     we walked up to our calves in the creek.
       Not long ago we scorned this land as remote, desolate. That 
     thinking led to the postwar Big Build-up and the coal plants, 
     dams, and uranium mines.
       But today we know southern Utah, in the heart of the 
     Colorado Plateau, for what it really is. The geologic events 
     were so cataclysmic and so recent, and the frail soils so 
     erodible, that the Colorado Plateau holds more graphic 
     displays of exposed formation than anywhere on earth. The dry 
     air has preserved the ancient people's durable and magical 
     rock art, villages, kivas, pots, and baskets to a degree 
     found nowhere else.
       Yet our society seems to lack the will to care for the 
     Canyon Country. The Utah congressional delegation . . . wants 
     to declare some fragments of the backcountry wilderness and 
     then throw the rest open to development.
       That would be so short-sighted, so contemptuous of time. 
     The old images on the walls were made so long ago, the walls 
     themselves even longer. Time runs out to the future, too: 
     give our grandchildren, and those far down the line from 
     them, the blessing of taking a daughter or son into the 
     weaving, rosy side canyons, of finding their own Dream 
     Panels, and of being instructed by the young person on how to 
     scramble out.
       Time, oh, time . . . May we not forsake you now.

  Mr. President, this is about time and silence, and the chance for 
future generations to explore and understand this vast and beautiful 
wilderness.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the debate, the Senator from New 
Jersey provided us with his viewpoint on many subjects related to the 
proper management of our Nation's public lands. I respect him for his 
positions, for his contribution to ensuring that one of this country's 
many natural resources--our public lands--are properly and efficiently 
managed in an environmentally sensitive manner.
  However, to be perfectly frank about it, he is just plain wrong when 
it comes to our bill to designate wilderness in Utah. I do not believe 
he has a full appreciation for the difficulty these small communities 
in my State have with maintaining all of this land as wilderness.
  The longer Congress postpones action on the Utah Public Lands 
Management Act, the more economically strapped our small towns become. 
It stands to reason that you cannot take a primary resource out of 
circulation within an economy and expect that economy to flourish. The 
land resources in rural Utah are of the utmost importance to an economy 
whose major industries include mining, farming, and ranching.
  My friend from New Jersey says our rural Utah counties can live off 
tourism dollars. Certainly, the tourism industry is vital to our State 
and important to the general welfare of our economy. But, it is not a 
panacea for the ills that plagued small town U.S.A. as the Senator 
pointed out yesterday. To give two examples, since nearly one-half 
million acres of land have been designated wilderness study areas 
[WSA's] by the BLM in San Juan County, UT--in Utah's southwestern 
corner--tourism has only increased from 2

[[Page S2921]]

percent in 1985 to 5 percent in 1995. In Millard County, on the western 
half of Utah, BLM designated acres as WSA's. Guess what the impact to 
their tourism industry was? Good guess--zero.
  In my opinion, these kinds of numbers are not going to save the local 
economy of any community no matter how much acreage is designated 
wilderness.
  I do appreciate his sensitivity to the manner in which Utah's public 
lands are managed--I really do. But, I would like to set his mind at 
ease. We must be doing a fairly decent job; for, after all, we have 
placed every single acre in BLM's inventory in a position, at least as 
far as the Senator from New Jersey is concerned, that each of them meet 
the wilderness criteria. That is a pretty decent record.
  However, Senator Bradley should worry about one matter, which was not 
discussed in any great detail yesterday, and that is the presence of 
State school trust lands now captured within these wilderness study 
areas. They are owned by the State of Utah on behalf of and for the 
benefit of Utah's school children--not New Jersey's school children, 
Utah's children.
  These lands were endowed by the Federal Government to Utah's schools 
at the time Utah became a State--100 years ago. The Utah School Lands 
Trust is not a recent development.
  But, given the selection of the WSA's, these trust lands have been 
unavailable for any major revenue producing activity since the WSA's 
were established due to the restrictions informally imposed on them by 
their neighboring lands.
  The Utah State Legislature has made a commitment to improving the 
management of the trust lands. These trust lands must produce more 
revenue if the State of Utah is going to meet its challenges in 
education. Utah currently ranks 49th in the Nation in terms of per 
pupil education spending. While I happen to believe that Utah stretches 
its education dollar further than just about any State and does an 
exemplary job of educating our kids, there is just no question that 
education financing continues to be our major concern.
  Two years ago, the legislature organized a new State body whose 
specific reason for being is to gain the greatest benefit from the 
school trust lands. This body, composed of private citizens, is serious 
about meeting the purpose for which they have been created, namely, to 
see that the trust lands produce. I remind my colleagues that wise 
investments are also part of good stewardship.
  I'm sure my friend from New Jersey knows that the State has every 
legal right to access these lands and to utilize them for whatever 
purpose they can, consistent with Federal and State laws. But, as I 
stand here today, I am convinced that, at some point down the road, the 
State is going to become so frustrated with Congress and this process 
that it will either sell a trust land section to a commercial entity or 
take steps to develop the land.

  The fact that no one wants a disturbance of that kind in or around a 
wilderness area is precisely why the trust lands have not been fully 
developed to date.
  Yet, the State cannot wait forever to develop the trust lands. The 
revenue from these lands is becoming increasingly important to our 
educational system. And, I am certain that these lands will be 
developed to benefit our schools if we don't pass this bill.
  This is why our bill provides for an exchange of these lands. We want 
to get the trust lands out of the wilderness areas. We want to 
establish a unity of title so there is no commingling of management 
styles. We want to erase this threat forever. That can only happen with 
passage of our proposal.
  By the way, the proposal my friend from New Jersey was championing 
yesterday that has been introduced in the House does not contain any 
reference at all to the school trust lands contained within the areas 
designated by that bill. It does not indicate how trust lands in H.R. 
1500 will be dealt with under this measure. Are they just going to 
remain as enclaves within designated areas? Given his concern for 
pristine wilderness, he should worry about what could happen in the 
absence of a land exchange.
  But, let me discuss several points the Senator from New Jersey raised 
in his opening comments yesterday that need to be addressed. They are 
out in the public forum and deserve a brief response.
  First of all, he said that our release language, while an improvement 
over the original language, was ``a backdoor attempt to do what the 
original bill had intended to do but do it in a slicker way.''
  Mr. President, I went into detail yesterday as to what the intent of 
our release is and is not. There is no funny business here, no tricks, 
no backdoor attempt. We are stating the full intent behind our language 
in the light of day.
  It is simple and straightforward. Nondesignated lands will slip back 
into the pool of normal BLM lands for continued management under BLM's 
existing authorizes, special designations, and the host of Federal 
legislative authorities which apply to public land management. 
Subsequently, they will be managed by the local BLM consistent with 
multiple uses defined in section 103(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act and consistent with land use plans developed through 
section 202 of the same act. This language will allow the local BLM 
land managers, the ``on-the-ground professionals,'' to manage 
nondesignated lands for their wilderness values and characters 
utilizing existing BLM authorities. I trust they will do so.
  Our language asks the Federal manager to do his job, which is to 
manage the Federal lands in the best way possible. It is not up to that 
manager to decide if an acre of land should be deposited in the 
National Wilderness Preservation System--it is up to us. The land 
manager can use an existing authority to protect and preserve the 
wilderness--small ``w''--character of the land. That is expected when 
it's appropriate. But, he is not authorized, nor should he be, to use 
an existing authority to protect and preserve that pristine character 
to become future wilderness--big ``W'', or part of the wilderness 
system, at a future date.
  And, if that concept bothers the Senator from New Jersey then he 
should go back and change FLPMA or introduce a bill that requires 
another round of studies and review by the BLM--that is, if he wants to 
spend another 17 years and another $10 million of taxpayer funds.
  The release language was suggested by the ranking minority member of 
the Energy Committee. He said himself that he found the practice of 
managing land for a future designation as offensive as the prohibition 
on the practice of not managing it for its characteristics.
  If we go along with the Senator from New Jersey, then we should 
simply designate all 22 million acres in Utah as wilderness study areas 
and never derive any benefit from Utah's public lands. I do not 
understand why our language bothers the Senator from New Jersey so 
much. It is completely consistent with the scope and intent behind 
FLPMA.
  Besides which, the BLM wilderness inventory had a beginning. It 
should also have an end, like this issue, and hopefully before Utah 
celebrates its 200-year birthday in 2096.

  Second, the Senator indicated that ``four million acres of Utah's red 
rock wilderness will be left open for development.'' He then went on to 
list several areas that fall into this category.
  Several times yesterday it was asserted that the passage of our bill 
will lead to a massive immediate destruction of nondesignated lands. I 
do not know how many times I need to say this, but that statement is 
simply not true. In fact, it is offensive to me not only as one of the 
principal authors of this bill but as a Senator from Utah.
  Our critics continues to conjure up images of bulldozers lined up to 
advance on these BLM lands. Those who rely upon such images to advance 
their cause purposely ignore our sincere desire--not to mention our 
entire State government--to protect these lands from inappropriate and 
destructive activities.
  In addition, I mentioned the plethora of environmental laws and 
conservation regulations passed since 1964 that provide layer upon 
layer upon layer of protection for these lands. I will not go through 
the list again, but they are listed on the displayed chart.
  This argument should not even be a part of this debate. Yet, it 
continues to be used in the propaganda and rhetoric of the elite 
special interest groups.

[[Page S2922]]

  Unlike some, we have confidence in BLM's professional land managers 
to continue making objective decisions on the future uses of these 
lands in accordance with the law.
  By the way, I would would like to remind the Senator from New Jersey 
that we include in our proposal more than 16,000 acres in Fish and Owl 
Creek Canyon, more than 220,000 acres of the Kaiparowits Plateau, and 
more than 75,000 acres of the Dirty Devil area.
  Also, it might surprise the Senator to know that more than 80 percent 
of the acreage in our proposal is located near or below Interstate 70, 
the highway that divides Utah in half. John Sieberling, the former 
representative, once said that if he had it his way, he would make a 
national park of all the land south of Interstate 70, and if the 
Senator from New Jersey had his way he make the entire area wilderness. 
Let us be clear about this: our proposal protects Utah's red rock 
wilderness.
  Third, Senator Bradley referenced the possible development of coal 
leases within the Kaiparowits Plateau by the State of Utah.
  Yes, it is true that the State of Utah has identified these BLM 
lands--which are not contained in a wilderness study area--let us be 
clear about that: they are not being managed as wilderness--as one of 
25 tracts of land it desires to exchange with the Federal Government.
  But, what the Senator did not say is that these leases are currently 
under suspension by the Department of Interior pending completion of an 
environmental impact statement that will determine if mining is ever 
going to be allowed in that area,
  Once again, as he did yesterday, the Senator is second guessing the 
activities of BLM's own personnel, only this time it deals with this 
EIS. He also accuses the State of Utah for mismanaging this acreage 
when there has been no determination that mining will ever occur there. 
While the coal is there, the ability to access it is still 
questionable.
  If mining ever occurs in the manner described yesterday by Senator 
Bennett, the leases will be subject to every pertinent Federal 
environmental law, whether the leases become State or not. No matter 
what happens to the ownership of the land, the Federal permitting 
process will continue.
  And, since the lease holder will need to construct an access road to 
the site, build a power line to the site, and construct certain 
facilities all on BLM land, Federal permits for each of these items 
will be required. So, the big environmental special interest groups 
will have plenty of opportunities to appeal this project every step of 
the way.
  Also, it is important to note that the site where the mine is 
projected to be located was rejected by the BLM during its initial 
statewide review process. The area was rejected because it did not meet 
wilderness criteria. Let me tell the Senator from New Jersey why.

  Because located within a 2-mile radius of the proposed site are 80 
drill sites, 36 miles of roads, an airstrip, and several other surface 
disturbances symbolic of mining activity. Do not forget--this same site 
was initially mined in the late 1970's. Of the 40 acres required for 
the mine site within the lease holders total leased area, half of it--
more than 20 acres--has already been disturbed by mining activity. This 
site does not meet wilderness quality, but after seeing what is in some 
of the areas recommended by the special interest groups, I can see why 
they were confused with this site.
  This is not an issue about protecting wilderness value; this is an 
issue about preventing the responsible development of Utah's largest 
coal reserves. But, nevertheless, this bill has nothing to do with 
whether or not this area will ever be mined.
  Fourth, the Senator indicated our bill ``denies a Federal water right 
to wilderness areas designated by this bill.''
  The Senator from New Jersey has evidently not read the language 
carefully. It is true that our bill does not create a Federal reserved 
water right for areas designated by this act. That is because we do not 
want to preempt State water law or to go around the State water 
appropriation system. But, it does not mean that the Federal Government 
cannot acquire a water right for designated wilderness areas.
  Utah water law follows the concept of the prior appropriation 
doctrine. It has been the basis for more than 90 years of State 
administration of surface waters. All major rivers and stream systems 
in Utah have water rights established under this principle. The result 
is a fine tuned system relying on diversions, return flow, 
rediversions, mingled with some storage reservoirs. Any new filing or 
alteration of the existing pattern of water use literally sends ripples 
throughout the total system.
  Unlike my colleague, we do not want to follow the typical Washington 
attitude that says we should preempt State law every time the Federal 
Government wants something from our States. Why can't we have the 
Federal Government abide by State laws once in a while when performing 
a Federal task? The Federal Government can obtain a water right in the 
State of Utah, and here is how it is done.
  Under Utah State water law, one must put a water right to 
``beneficial'' use. That is, it must be applied to the land, to home 
use, or to other consumptive uses in order to maintain the right.
  However, there is an exception to the ``beneficial'' use requirement.
  Two divisions within the Utah Department of Natural Resources--the 
Division of State Parks and the Division of Wildlife Resources--can 
legally acquire a water right and leave a determined quantity of water 
in a stream--an ``instream'' flow, as it were--that then becomes that 
particular water right's ``beneficial'' use.
  Under our bill, the BLM is provided the ability to work cooperatively 
with these two State divisions to create an ``instream'' flow to avoid 
the potential dewatering of a wilderness area, in the unlikely event 
this occurs.
  The process would be:
  First, BLM acquires a water right from an upstream owner anywhere in 
the State--a rancher, an old mine site, a municipality, a private 
company, etc.
  Second, the right is assigned or deeded--transferred--to one of the 
two State divisions previously mentioned.
  Third, an instream flow is created.
  In the fall of 1994, this occurred. The Division of Wildlife 
Resources acquired a water right from a private corporation and created 
an instream flow for wildlife purposes on 82 miles of the San Rafael 
River in central Utah.
  The alternative to this language--an unqualified Federal reserve 
water right--would leave an ominous cloud over every existing water 
right in the State of Utah.
  There is no expressed or implied Federal reserve water right in 
our language, but that does not in any way prevent the Federal 
Government from acquiring a water right following the proper State 
procedures.

  Fifth, our language ``permits the State of Utah to exchange State 
lands for Federal lands of approximate equal value.'' The Senator from 
New Jersey then indicated that the value of the Federal lands involved 
may be greater in value than the State lands.
  Last December, the committee adopted our proposal to establish an 
exchange process whereby the value of the lands involved in the 
exchange would be determined based on national appraisal standards. 
While the BLM thinks the Federal lands are 5 to 10 times greater in 
value than the State lands, the State of Utah thinks the State lands, 
again captured within wilderness areas, are greater in value than the 
Federal lands. That is why the notion of a value, determined by 
recognized appraisers, and negotiated between the two parties, appears 
the soundest methodology to reconcile these differences. It does not 
matter, really, what either side is saying right now on the value 
question--it will be determined at a later time.
  The universe of lands to be exchanged has been determined. Since the 
State of Utah has no choice at all to determine which lands it would 
trade to the Federal Government, it only makes sense to allow the State 
to determine which Federal lands it desires. It has identified 25 
different parcels, ranging form speculative coal deposits to 
speculative natural gas to potential real estate development, and all 
in the name of benefiting Utah's school children.
  The Senator is not correct. The Federal Government does not have to 
approve the transaction. Once the State makes an offer of lands to be 
exchanged, the two parties will sit down

[[Page S2923]]

and conduct ``good faith'' negotiations on the various aspects of the 
trade. If a mutual decision is not reached, then the matter can be 
pursued in the courts.
  Concern was expressed regarding our earlier language about the lack 
of involvement by the Secretary in crafting each exchange. I believe 
the language we have included in the substitute amendment remedies that 
situation and makes the Secretary a full player in this exchange should 
he desire to be involved.
  And finally, the Senator indicated that our proposal contains ``broad 
exceptions to the Wilderness Act of 1964,'' meaning he believes we are 
rewriting the definition of wilderness by allowing certain activities 
and facilities to be undertaken within designated wilderness areas.
  This criticism goes to the so-called special management directives 
contained in our proposal.
  These special provisions really are not that special after all. There 
are plenty of examples of previous public lands legislation containing 
such provisions.
  A Congressional Research Service report, completed last July, 
concluded that the directives in S. 884 are comparable or related to 
similar language in 20 existing public laws and over 40 separate 
statutes adopted by Congress since 1978.
  What do these special management directives do? They allow those 
activities, based on valid existing rights and consistent with the 
Wilderness Act of 1964, to continue in areas designated as wilderness. 
They are included to address the potential ``on-the-ground'' conflicts 
that are unique to Utah's BLM lands, such as livestock grazing, the 
gathering of wood by Native Americans, and the presence of water 
facilities used for agricultural, municipal, and wildlife purposes, to 
name a few.
  The critical point here is that these rights predate the designation 
of land as wilderness.
  We are not rewriting the definition of wilderness. On the contrary, 
we are merely adhering to the principles of the 1964 Wilderness Act and 
the history of wilderness legislation in the past two decades. The 
Wilderness Act of 1964 does not abandon or ignore rights that predate 
wilderness designation, and practically every wilderness bill passed 
since the late 1970's contains special language to protect these rights 
and to address any site specific conflicts that might arise in the 
exercise of these rights.
  This language enables us to designate certain lands as wilderness 
that might be otherwise excluded under the 1964 act due to the conflict 
with valid existing rights.
  But I would ask the Senator the following questions regarding his 
concerns for our special management directives.
  Where was he when we passed the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Wilderness Act, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, and the 
Florida Wilderness Act of 1984 that provided for the continued use of 
motorized boats or other watercraft in designated areas?
  Where was he when we passed the already mentioned Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness Act that provided for the continuation of 
snowmobile use in designated areas?
  Where was he when we passed the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 
that allowed the continued landing of aircraft and the future 
construction and maintenance of small hydroelectric generators, 
domestic water facilities, and related facilities in designated areas?
  Where was he when we passed the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 
1978 and our own Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 providing for sanitary 
facilities in designated areas?
  Where was he when we passed the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 
allowing motorized access for periodic maintenance and repair of a 
transmission line ditch in a designated area?
  And, where was he when we passed the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 
providing for the use, operation, maintenance, repair, modification, or 
replacement of existing water resources facilities located in 
designated areas?
  The point is not to single out any of these laws for they did or did 
not do, but to merely demonstrate that special management directives 
are designed to address the on-the-ground conflicts unique to the areas 
designated by these laws. That is what we are providing for in our 
bill--those situations that are unique to Utah's lands. It is, as my 
colleagues will note, typical of the way we have developed public land 
policy in this body.
  I would also state for the record two other items.
  One, the Senator continues to mention the provision in our bill that 
provides for the continued use of motorboat activities in designated 
areas. First, these activities are only allowed if they predate the 
designation. And, second, and most importantly, our language was 
modified in the committee to ensure that it was consistent with the 
1964 act.
  Also, he spoke of the language in our bill permitting low-level 
military overflights. Let me remind the Senator that this language was 
provided to us by the Pentagon, and is nearly identical to similar 
language included in the California Desert Act. We have added language 
requested by the Air Force that recognizes Hill Air Force Base as the 
gateway to the Utah Test and Training Range, located in Utah's west 
desert area, that is the only training facility in the United States on 
which every aircraft in the Air Force inventory trains.
  In closing, let me also say that our bill has been characterized as 
lacking large blocks of designated wilderness through which a traveler 
could wander from one time zone to another. Well, in our bill we may 
not extend any wilderness area beyond the mountain time zone, but it 
does have several large contiguous areas of spectacular wilderness all 
linked together in huge blocks of land. A visitor could never see 
another human being for days in these areas.
  These areas include:
  Desolation Canyon in central eastern Utah, through which the Green 
River flows--a total of 291,130 acres. This area may not cross any time 
zones, but it is located in three different counties.
  Fiftymile Mountain in south central Utah--as mentioned, this is on 
the Kaiparowits Plateau and consists of 125,823 acres.
  North Escalante Canyons--this area, once pursued to become a national 
park, totals 101,896 total acres.
  Book Cliffs--this area so appropriately named is a showcase of 
topography and wildlife, and consists of 132,714 acres, all of which is 
located in Grand County, UT.
  And, last but certainly not least is the San Rafael Complex--located 
in the heart of central eastern Utah and a topographer's dreamland, 
this area consists of 193,384 acres.
  If one looks at where some of the other areas designated by or bill 
are located, you will note that many of them are located near some of 
Utah's national parks to form blankets of pristine wilderness, such as 
the area near Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, 
and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
  Our legislation truly captures Utah's crown jewels of BLM lands, 
including high mountain ranges, deep river canyons, and red rock 
deserts. These are all reflective of Utah's premier scenic landscapes, 
and why we in Utah are not shy in stating that it took God 6 days to 
create Utah before he made the rest of the world with leftover parts.
  Again, I urge the Senator from New Jersey to take another careful 
look at the facts and at the specific language in the substitute 
amendment. I think he will find reassurances there that this is a good 
bill for Utah and a good bill for the environment.
  Mr. President, I have listened to this now for the past 3 days. I 
admire my friend from New Jersey. He is a fine person. He represents 
his State well.
  But, he does not know anything about Utah. However, I happen to think 
that the Governor of Utah, both Senators, all three Congress people, 
virtually everybody in the State legislature, everybody in the PTA, 
school districts across the State, and 300 Democrat and Republican 
leaders, political leaders, know just a little bit better, just a 
little bit more, about Utah than the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey.
  I have heard about all I can bear to hear about silence and time, and 
having respect for them. We understand that. In Utah, we know what 
silence and time is because we have experienced them throughout our 
entire

[[Page S2924]]

State. However, you do not get much silence and time in all of that 
low-lying sagebrush land along the highways which the other side has 
tried to put into this bill. They do not even know what wilderness is. 
We do. We have plenty of it in Utah. We put through the 800,000-acre 
Forest Service bill in 1984. I was a major mover on that bill. It has 
been a very good bill. We did it because Utahns agreed on what should 
be done. We love our State.
  To hear this, you would think that 20 million acres is going to be 
ripped up for shopping centers. The fact is that every one of those 20 
million acres will be subject to all environmental laws, and rightly 
so, as far as we are concerned. But on this 20 million acres, you might 
be able to ride a bicycle, if you want to, which you cannot do in 
wilderness.
  Let me just say this. I have gone all over Little Grand Canyon. I 
have been all over the Black Box; Dirty Devil, and Sam's Mesa; North 
Escalante Canyons; San Rafael Swell; Book Cliff; Sid's Canyon; 
Desolation Canyon--beautiful areas that we put into this wilderness 
bill. Without this wilderness bill, they will not be wilderness. We 
think they ought to be.
  This business that we allow dams in this bill is misleading--they are 
not there.
  The polling data show that the majority of Utahns are for this bill, 
and once you explain to people in the polls that wilderness means no 
mechanization whatsoever, the support for those on the other side who 
are for 5.7 million acres drops off dramatically. But the majority are 
for our bill.
  With regard to the value of lands to be exchanged, that is going to 
be negotiated under this bill. Nobody is going to rip off the Federal 
Government. But our school kids are dependent upon this bill, which is 
why we will negotiate the value of these school trust lands.
  With regard to water, the Secretary can acquire water rights in the 
State through the State appropriation process. Can he not do that?
  With regard to the release language, there is no binding of a future 
Congress whatsoever in this bill. If they want to do wilderness, they 
can do wilderness in Utah again. But they are going to have an uphill 
battle because people in Utah are tired of being pushed around.
  With regard to the special management directives, I would say to my 
colleague that every major wilderness bill since 1978 has contained 
similar directives to take care of conflicts. We provide for that as 
well. On-the-ground conflicts have to be resolved, and over 20 separate 
bills passed by this body in the past two decades have done that. This 
is not something new.
  We have used the public process here. This matter has gone through 
two decades, hundreds of meetings, $10 million, and brought people 
together all over the State. The affected counties did not want any 
wilderness--zero. Then they agreed to 1 million acres. We brought them 
up to 2 million acres. The other side wants 5.7 million. One group 
wants 16 million acres in wilderness. The fact is we have 100 percent 
more acreage in this bill than the affected counties want, and about 60 
percent less than what these people on the other extreme want. That is 
what compromise is all about.

  The fact of the matter is that this process has not been politicized. 
The Clinton administration came in and suddenly their BLM people 
started to decry all of the work that had been done through the years 
by other BLM people, and which was done in a reasonable and good way. 
They have politicized this process. There are volumes and volumes of 
data. The environmentalists have a 400-page book. We put the volumes 
and volumes of data here--two huge stacks this high--to show what we 
have gone through.
  Have most of these people who are criticizing this bill even been to 
these places? The fact is most of them have not been there.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have put the crown jewels of Utah 
wilderness in this bill. I happen to believe that when you have the 
whole congressional delegation, the Governor, the legislature, the 
schools, the farmers, and virtually every organization except these 
environmental extreme organizations, all for this bill in a State that 
has protected its beauty itself, we do not need to be told by some 
Senator from New Jersey how to protect our State--or from any other 
State. We know how to do it. We know it is beautiful, and we are going 
to keep it that way, even while it is subject to these environmental 
laws.
  It is almost offensive what has been going on here. If you look at 
what they are recommending--these low-lying sagebrush lands along 
highways--where is the silence and solitude there? It is crazy.
  When we start ignoring our colleagues who have gone through a process 
in this manner in a reasonable, decent, honorable way, having had to 
bring the one side along and having had to bring the other side along--
and, now we are going to ignore all this because we want to do some 
national environmental agenda? That is when this particular body is 
going to have a lot of troubles in the future. That is all I can say. I 
yield the floor.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the hour of 10:36 
a.m. having arrived, the motion having been presented under rule XXII, 
the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion to invoke cloture on the 
Murkowski substitute amendment to H.R. 1296.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Murkowski 
     substitute amendment to Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1296, 
     providing for the administration of certain Presidio 
     properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer:
         Bob Dole, Frank H. Murkowski, Rick Santorum, Slade 
           Gorton, Trent Lott, Jim Inhofe, Hank Brown, Ted 
           Stevens, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Conrad Burns, Don 
           Nickles, Larry E. Craig, Jim Jeffords, Judd Gregg, R.F. 
           Bennett, Orrin G. Hatch.


                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Murkowski substitute amendment to H.R. 1296 shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are ordered under rule XXII. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). On this vote, the yeas are 51, 
the nays are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page S2925]]



                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 4

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 
4, the line-item veto bill, and that the reading be waived.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. There does not appear to 
be any disagreement with regard to the Presidio bill itself. That bill 
has broad-based, virtually unanimous support, so it is my hope that we 
can pass at least that bill by unanimous consent.
  So I ask unanimous consent to strip all amendments and motions and to 
pass the Presidio bill in its own right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I hope we can resolve that matter. In light of the fact 
we need to continue to find ways in which to move the legislative 
agenda, I do not object to the majority leader's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________