[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11495-S11496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I was shocked and saddened today to learn 
of the President's threat to eliminate or veto the parks bill that 
included a number of projects.
  I was particularly disheartened over the decision to kill four 
Colorado environmental projects--surprised because, on a number of 
these, the administration has specifically reviewed them and signed off 
on them; that is, we had taken the trouble and the time to walk them 
through, to seek their advice, to incorporate their suggestions, and to 
work with them for something that could meet the President's 
guidelines.
  Thus, after doing that--and having secured, at least in many of those 
projects, the administration's input and approval--we are now faced 
with a political hit list with regard to Colorado projects. I think it 
is particularly surprising when you look at where that hit list 
focuses. It focuses primarily in States where the President has had a 
difficult time in winning good reelect numbers--Alaska, Colorado, and 
Virginia are the heaviest hit on that hit list.
  Mr. President, the projects in Colorado are bipartisan projects. They 
are ones that are of enormous benefit to the environment and the State. 
I hope that the President will reconsider.
  This is raw politics to punish those who will not go along with the 
President's bid for reelection. And it is vindictive politics. It is 
beneath the Office of the President to engage in this kind of 
vindictive hit list based not on a rational review of the issues or 
reasonable discussions of the problems, but simply sending a cold power 
play to punish those States where the President's ratings are not high 
enough.
  I called the White House this morning because I was concerned about 
these projects and about one project in particular which, I think, 
particularly saddens me, and asked why these projects were being 
eliminated. They were not able to give me an answer. The woman who was 
kind enough to chat with me did speculate with regard to one of them, 
and speculated that maybe they were concerned about it being a heritage 
area. And, of course, the major one involved the Cache La Poudre River 
bill which is not a heritage area. We specifically changed that aspect 
because Members of the House and others had concerns about heritage 
areas.
  Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about a project that we 
worked for more than 20 years on which is included in that Cache La 
Poudre area bill. The Cache La Poudre River is a river that was named 
by the French, obviously, in the pioneer days. It is a river that has 
provided the flow of communications, water, transportation, and a 
lifeline throughout eastern Colorado. It starts in the high mountains 
in northern Colorado, in those high mountain regions, and it flows down 
toward the plains. It is now Colorado's only wild and scenic river. I 
offered that as a Member the House of Representatives.
  Peter Dominick did a study perhaps three decades ago on wild and 
scenic rivers in the State. And it was a great pleasure for me to see 
the passage of that wild and scenic designation. While Peter Dominick 
has long passed away, his sons came to that signing ceremony. It was, I 
think, a token of something very important because it is an effort to 
preserve part of our national heritage.
  The La Poudre bill the President now wants to veto is one that takes 
that area of the river as it passes through Fort Collins and extends 
out on the plains. The suggestion is very simple. Let us see if there 
is some way to set aside the floodplain of the river as it passes 
through the city of Fort Collins and Greeley and by the city of Windsor 
on its way. It is an area of rapid growth. It is in the middle of a 
great urban area stretching from Denver, or perhaps even Colorado 
Springs, all the way up to Cheyenne, WY.

  What a wonderful thing to have set aside open space of a floodplain 
area for riding and bike paths and hiking paths and recreation 
facilities in the heart and the middle of a great metropolitan area.
  Mr. President, as you well know, many in our part of the world are 
not so sure they want the heritage broke, and it is controversial. But 
the saddest thing of all would be to see it grow and for us not to 
prepare for it, plan for it, and set aside the open space that will 
keep some of the quality of life that has attracted so many to that 
part of the world.
  That is really what this bill is all about. It does it without a cost 
to the U.S. Treasury.
  It does it by saying if there is surplus land in the State that is 
federally owned, this bill allows the exchange of surplus land in other 
parts of Colorado for part of the flood plain of the Cache La Poudre. 
It will not have a net impact on the Treasury, but what it will do is 
gradually see land that is held by the Federal Government in areas 
where it is not needed exchanged for land in the flood plain of the 
Cache La Poudre River. It promises, I believe, over a lengthy period of 
time to give us a substantial amount of open space that will be 
preserved throughout the Republic to the lasting benefit of the 
community.
  Frankly, I think it is a question that needs to be addressed in the 
Western United States itself. The West is blessed with a large amount 
of public

[[Page S11496]]

land held by the Federal Government, but I do not think anyone, liberal 
or conservative, Democrat or Republican, would question the fact that 
sometimes that land is not held in the location where most would prefer 
it. Most of our land ends up being where settlers did not homestead it 
or where miners did not stake a claim. However, it is not the only 
basis that you ought to use for land allocation and ownership.
  What this bill does is give us a chance to shift the ownership of the 
public land away from areas where it is not needed to areas where it 
clearly will be needed.
  I cannot help but think that this measure has enormous environmental 
pluses in it, and I find myself dumbfounded that the President would 
choose to veto it. My hope is that the administration will be willing 
to sit down with us, let us know their concerns, and work things out if 
that is the case. But, also, I must say I am not willing to roll over 
on this. I am not willing to ignore good legislation. My suggestion is 
that if the President wants to work with Congress, he has to be willing 
to step forward and enunciate his concerns. Right now we are in a 
circumstance where the President has put these projects on a hit list 
without even being willing to name or articulate what his concerns are.
  My belief is and always has been that good legislation is a product 
of thoughtful review and good communication between those involved not 
only at the legislative level but those outside of this body. I hope 
the President will reconsider his actions. Once before a President of 
the United States came up with a hit list for the Western United 
States. President Carter took vengeance out on the Western United 
States with his hit list. My hope is that President Clinton will not 
repeat that mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

                          ____________________