[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12344-S12349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BOUNDARY WATERS AND VOYAGEURS DISPUTES SHOULD BE RESOLVED THROUGH
MEDIATION IN MINNESOTA
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as we bring this Congress to a close,
it is clear now that there will be no legislative action this year on
changes to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Voyageurs
National Park, even on a limited legislative rider which would allow
trucks back onto certain portages within the BWCAW. A Federal appeals
court, overturning a series of decisions by the Forest Service and by a
lower Federal court, ejected trucks from the portages several years
ago. This rider was designed to again allow anglers and others to
portage boats by truck from one lake to another in the BWCA. Now, they
are required to use alternative means to transport their boats across
these portages.
As I have said, I would be willing to consider changes to the current
status of the portages, as long as it is part of an overall, agreed-
upon resolution of the many BWCAW issues on the table in the Federal
mediation process underway in Minnesota. I am hopeful that such an
agreement can be reached soon.
Mr. President, let me be clear. On many of the issues which have
arisen in the BWCA and Voyageurs disputes, I believe the people of
northeastern Minnesota have legitimate grievances, and that they should
be addressed as promptly and effectively as possible. I have worked
over the years to make sure that when other land and lake use issues in
the region--including snowmobile use, lake levels, trails, and other
matters--have arisen, they are addressed as swiftly as possible.
For years, many of the people of northern Minnesota have believed
that the Park Service and Forest Service have not been listening to
them. Too many feel that they have offered constructive solutions to
disputes and problems which have arisen, and yet often those solutions
have been ignored, or rejected, by those who manage the wilderness and
the park. That's why I think it's important that some means of
expanding meaningful citizen input, which must be taken into account
and then responded to by the Park Service and the Forest Service, is
important. Months ago, I indicated that I would support a new mechanism
to ensure that kind of regular, concrete citizen input, and I hope that
the negotiators will consider including a proposal on this issue in
their package of recommendations to Congress.
There has been no action on any of the bills introduced this year on
BWCAW and Voyaguers because they did not reflect a policy consensus in
our own State, much less in the Nation as a whole. I am hopeful that in
the coming months, and certainly by early next year, there will be such
a consensus reached in our State, through the mediation process which I
initiated, convened by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
which has been making real progress in recent months.
That mediation process is broad-based, open and public, and includes
people representing all those competing interests which have made these
disputes so difficult to resolve over the years. One of the reasons, I
think, that they have been so tough to resolve is that too often those
involved have chosen to try to fight it out, rather than to talk it out
over a table in Minnesota, in a search for common ground. Some chose to
try to fight it out here in Washington. Some chose to fight it out in
the courts. I chose to initiate a process which would allow Minnesotans
to talk it out, and then bring their recommendations to the Minnesota
congressional delegation for ratification.
I'm proud of that choice. I think it was the responsible thing to do,
the right thing to do. I think most Minnesotans agree with that, and
that the recent successes in mediation are bearing that out. I know
that some people in northern Minnesota disagree--some fiercely--and are
concerned that their interests won't be protected in the mediation
process. I want to make them a guarantee today: your interests and
views are represented in mediation, and they will be carefully
considered by me here in the U.S. Senate. I will press hard to make
sure that every voice in my State, including those whom I respect and
have worked with for so many years in northern Minnesota, are heard in
this process. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service prepared
carefully for the process for months before it actually started,
interviewing hundreds of Minnesotans to make sure that all interests
were represented at the table, and to guarantee an open, broadly
participatory process.
I am very grateful to the Mediation Service, and to all those
Minnesotans who have volunteered their time and talents to this
mediation effort. I know it is not always easy to put yourself on the
hotseat with friends, neighbors, and townspeople who might disagree
with you, and to try to work out mutually agreeable solutions to major
disputes such as those which have brewed over the BWCAW and VNP for
many years. This kind of willingness to work at a local level to
resolve disputes is an admirable act of responsible citizenship, an act
of faith in the ability of neighbors to work together, and an act of
hope that future generations will appreciate the legacy of a lasting
solution that protects these important resources. I will be talking at
greater length about these people shortly.
The BWCA mediation group met last Thursday and Friday, and will be
meeting again soon to address, among other matters, the portages. They
have already agreed on several recommendations to be made to the
congressional delegation, as part of a larger package of proposed
changes to be ratified by them later. I am hopeful they will make
further progress on the portages, and other issues, in the coming
weeks.
I have a few articles from last week's newspapers in Minnesota that I
will ask to have printed in the Record following my statement, along
with letters and other information on the dispute and on the mediation
process which demonstrate the broad support mediation has garnered
within our State as the most reasonable, sensible way to resolve these
disputes. These documents should be able to give people looking back on
this dispute a better understanding of the history of this
[[Page S12345]]
dispute, and of how the mediation process is designed to work.
As I've said, this sensible mediation process, which enjoys the
support of a large majority of Minnesotans, and of the Clinton
administration, is already producing results--including agreements on
issues in Voyageurs and in the BWCA mediation groups--that many believe
bode well for further agreements on both disputes.
In addition to the few agreements reached so far on the BWCA, just in
the last few days the mediation team on Voyageurs announced a couple of
agreements on strategies to handle problems in the park having to do
with public safety, improved Park Service consultation with local
people, and other issues. It is becoming clearer each day that the
mediation process is making real progress and has gained wide
acceptance throughout the State.
I have opposed all of the earlier legislation introduced on the
BWCA--including strongly opposing the bill offered by Congressman
Vento--because I thought a mediated solution was more likely to be
durable, and to gain broad acceptance by Minnesotans, than approaches
developed in Washington without broad, bipartisan support in Minnesota.
As I have said consistently, I agree with the large majority of
Minnesotans who believe, as polls continue to show, that the mediation
process underway in Minnesota is by far the more sensible and
appropriate way to resolve these disputes, and to develop durable
solutions that will last not for weeks, or months, or even a few years,
but for a generation or more.
Let me publicly take a moment to specifically thank all of those who
have been involved in this mediation process, and who have already
dedicated so much time and effort to resolving these disputes. They
are, in a sense, the people who are helping to create a new future for
the BWCA and the VNP, helping to resolve longstanding disputes through
a process which ensures that all interests in Minnesota are
represented.
First, let me thank those from Minnesota who are actually
participating in mediation. I hope I have a complete list; if not, I
apologize in advance to anyone I may have missed. I will not go into
detail about the background and expertise of each person, but I know
they each have a story to tell about how and why they are involved in
this process, and each have made important contributions to the
process.
Let me first list and thank publicly, on behalf of all Minnesotans,
the participants in the BWCA mediation: Barb Bergland, from Ely; Mitch
Brunfelt, from Mountain Iron; Chuck Dayton, Minneapolis; Arthur Eggen,
Crane Lake; Tony Faras, Grand Marais; Paul Forsman, Ely; Mike Furtman,
Duluth; Bill Hansen, Tofte; Leon Jourdaine, Lac La Croix First Nation,
Fort Francis, Ontario; Alden Lind, Duluth; Ted Merschon, Grand Marais;
Gretchen Nichols, Minneapolis; Brian O'Neill, Minneapolis; John Ongara,
Duluth; Stuart Osthoff, Ely; Bob Schultz, Ely; Paul Shurke and Laurie
Larson, Ely; Barbara Soderburg, U.S. Forest Service, Duluth; George
Sundstrom, Duluth; Rolf Thompson, Ely; Rod Sando, Minnesota DNR.
And those involved in the Voyageurs National Park mediation: Beverly
Alexander, Minneapolis; Phillip Byers, Long Lake; Chuck Dayton,
Minneapolis; David Dill, Orr; Ron Esau, International Falls; Oliver
Etgen, Virginia; Jeff Mausolf, Duluth; Brian O'Neill, Minneapolis; Paul
Stegmeir, Ely; Tim Watson, Ray; Barbara West, Voyageurs National Park
Superintendent; David Zentner, Duluth; Rod Sando, DNR.
From the mediation service, I am grateful to Director John Wells and
his very able and professional staff, both here in Washington and in
the midwest regional office in Minneapolis. They have dug into this
project with great skill and energy and commitment, and I believe the
people of our State owe them a great debt.
The U.S. Forest Service and Park Service have been most helpful in
this process as well, helping to fund the mediation effort, providing
technical advice and assistance, and agreeing to have their principal
representatives in the state actually participate in the talks. I think
their participation and cooperation have been essential, and that it
will make for a much more durable resolution of these disputes.
There are, of course, many others who have worked for countless hours
to craft a balanced, fair, open mediation process and to make sure
mediation provides a credible, effective forum for working out
disputes. I am grateful to all of them for helping with this effort. I
will be monitoring the mediation process closely in the coming weeks,
and I hope they will be able to develop a sound set of recommendations
to forward to Congress as soon as possible. I would like to be able to
have a package of agreed-upon legislative recommendations ready for
introduction early in the 105th Congress.
I thank you, Mr. President, for this time. I hope this brief
statement, along with the accompanying information, will give my
colleagues some sense of what has been happening in my State recently
on BWCAW and Voyageurs National Park, and the significant progress that
has been made so far in the mediation effort to resolve disputes there.
I hope they will work with me and my House and Senate colleagues from
Minnesota to craft a comprehensive, durable solution to these disputes
early next year.
I ask that the material I referred to earlier in my remarks be
printed in the Record.
The material follows:
Exhibit 1
Sen. Wellstone Announces Details of Federal Mediation Process to Help
Resolve BWCAW/Voyageurs Disputes
Washington, DC.--U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone today
announced that he has reached an agreement with the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to facilitate a
formal mediated dispute resolution process to help resolve
land use disputes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness (BWCAW) and Voyageurs National Park (VNP).
Preparations for the process, which is to begin immediately,
are already underway.
``I have said for months that I want to avoid another
statewide battle over land management issues in the BWCAW and
Voyageurs National Park. I believe there is a need for a
coordinated, statewide mediated dispute resolution effort to
bring Minnesotans together to identify mutually acceptable
approaches to these issues. We in Minnesota can do better
than we have in the past on these issues, and I intend to do
what I can to make sure that happens,'' Sen. Wellstone said.
FMCS will provide a team of experienced, neutral mediators
to craft a process that is fair, impartial, goal-oriented,
and that allows all interested parties in Minnesota a chance
to be heard--and to listen to one another--about the issues
in dispute, their goals, and their recommendations to resolve
longstanding controversies. Questions regarding who would
actually be represented in the process; the scope, timing and
format of the discussions; the ultimate result of the
process, including the nature and form of recommendations to
federal agencies and lawmakers; and other similar issues
would be answered through consultation with the parties.
``I have discussed this idea with Congressmen Oberstar and
Vento, who as you know have been leaders on these issues for
decades,'' Sen. Wellstone said. ``No one should be surprised
that we now have competing legislative proposals from
Congressmen Oberstar and Vento representing their sharply
divergent views on these public lands issues. While they
differ on the best way to manage these public lands, they
have indicated their support for my initiative. The specific
legislation proposed by Congressmen Oberstar and Vento and
discussed by Senator Grams will not be the focus of the
mediation process. Rather, the process will focus on the
issues identified by the parties themselves. Like Congressman
Oberstar's bill, Congressman Vento's legislation could
undermine this mediation process, and therefore I do not
intend to support either bill.''
The mediation process, explains Wellstone in his letter, is
designed to prevent these historically contentious land use
issues from further diving the state. ``Throughout my time in
the Senate, I have held firm to the belief that locally-
developed recommendations are likely to be more effective,
and more durable, than those imposed from outside. Bringing
Minnesotans to the table as part of a participatory process
that takes in account the needs and interests of all in a
search for common ground is my goal.''
Wellstone observed that unlike 20 years ago, today there
are new tools available to help develop durable land use
solutions, including new forms of public, mediated dispute
resolution that have proven effective in some of our nation's
most controversial land use disputes, even those where people
believed at the outset that there was little chance for a
productive discussion between the parties, much less for
developing mutually agreed-upon solutions.
For example, in one particularly heated case, a strong
disagreement over the use of off road vehicles in the Cape
Code National Seashore in Massachusetts was successfully
addressed through dispute resolution. In another case,
ranchers and wilderness advocates in New Mexico and Arizona
used dispute resolution to help resolve fierce disagreements
on rangeland management.
[[Page S12346]]
Sen. Wellstone, who fully supports expanded citizen
participation in the management of these lands, observed that
a ``Minnesota solution'' is likely to be more effective than
one imposed from Washington. ``Given the current deep
divisions on these issues within our state, I believe that
proposals to resolve BWCAW and VNP disputes that are
developed in Minnesota, by Minnesotans, are more likely to be
accepted by all parties, and as a result be more durable,
than those developed in Washington without adequate efforts
to bring Minnesotans together first to try to develop a
consensus,'' Sen. Wellstone concluded.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
John Calhoun Wells, Director,
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear John: As we discussed recently by phone, I am writing
to formally request that the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (FMCS) facilitate an alternative dispute
resolution process in my state regarding land use issues in
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and in
Voyageurs National Park (VNP). I understand that your staff
have indicated a willingness to facilitate such a process; I
am writing to confirm that agreement and to outline briefly
my hopes for the process.
For many years, land use disputes in our state, especially
those focused on the BWCAW and VNP, have generated
controversy and pitted one group against another. Last year,
two congressional oversight hearings were held in Minnesota
on the use of these resources. From those hearings, and
numerous subsequent discussions with my constituents, it has
become clear that these land use issues continue to have a
tremendous potential to divide our state.
Minnesotans hold differing visions of how to be responsible
stewards of these resources, and how to manage them
sustainably with due attention to their varied uses. But
whatever their views on land use, Minnesotans can agree that
the BWCAW and VNP are unique, world-class natural resources
that must be preserved for future generations. That is the
common ground from which all discussions on these issues
should begin.
I believe there is a need for an effort to bring
Minnesotans together now to achieve mutually acceptable
proposed solutions to the land use problems that have been
identified. Such proposed solutions would then be forwarded
in the form of recommendations to appropriate federal
agencies, and to federal lawmakers in the state Congressional
delegation. In my judgment, proposed solutions developed in
Minnesota, my Minnesotans, are more likely to be accepted by
all parties, and thus be more durable, than those which might
be developed in Washington without adequate efforts to bring
Minnesotans together first to try to develop a consensus.
Without such a dispute resolution process, I fear that the
issue in dispute could quickly become a
``political football,'' to be manipulated by those in the
state more interested in polarizing the debate than in
finding real and durable solutions.
I envision a straightforward mediated dispute resolution
process, to be initiated immediately. I would rely on the
expertise and experience of your staff to structure such a
process, ensuring that it is fair, impartial, goal-oriented,
and allows all interested parties in Minnesota a chance to be
heard--and to listen to one another--about the issues in
dispute, their goals, and their recommendations to resolve
longstanding controversies.
I would assume that questions regarding who would actually
represent interested parties in the process; the scope,
timing and format of the discussions; the ultimate result of
the process, including the nature and form of recommendations
to federal agencies and federal lawmakers; and other similar
issues would be answered through a consultative process that
would involve decisions arrived at by the parties. I have
instructed my staff to provide further background to FMCS
staff that would be helpful in getting the process underway,
and to help identify key stakeholders in the state who should
be consulted. My staff has contacted Administration officials
to discuss funding support for this process, and I will
continue to work to ensure that FMCS is compensated
appropriately for the process.
I believe this approach provides an opportunity to bring
Minnesotans together to develop mutually agreed-upon
solutions to some of our most complex and longstanding
controversies. I have dedicated much of my adult life to
ensuring broad local input in public policymaking, and I
believe this process is most likely to guarantee that result.
Bringing Minnesotans to the table as part of a broad-based,
participatory process that takes into account the interests
of all stakeholders in a search for common ground is my goal.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
Paul David Wellstone,
United States Senator.
____
Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
Hon. Paul D. Wellstone,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: In response to your recent letter
and confirming ongoing discussions between members of our
staffs, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service would
be pleased to serve as facilitators in the land use
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process on the issues in
dispute regarding the use of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness (BWCAW) and Voyageurs National Park (VNP).
Considering the contentious history of some of these land
use issues, we agree that this multi-party dispute, with its
numerous interests, could lend itself quite well to the kind
of interactive, mediated ADR process which you described in
your letter. Alternative dispute resolution has been
successfully employed to resolve many longstanding natural
resource controversies across the country, including some
where many believed at the outset that there was little
chance for productive discussions between the parties, much
less for developing mutually agreed-upon solutions.
FMCS has helped to facilitate a number of such complex
multi-party land use dispute resolution processes in the
past, and we are hopeful that this process will lead to
similarly positive results. I understand that one of your
primary goals involves a set of formal recommendations for
action that would be forwarded from the group to appropriate
federal agencies and lawmakers once the process is completed.
My ADR Services staff have informed me that experienced
mediators from our Upper Midwest Region will make themselves
available to lead this project. I understand our staffs have
begun to lay the groundwork for this process; we appreciate
your willingness to assist us by offering key background
information and helping us to identify key interested parties
in these disputes. As we move forward, careful consideration
should be given to convening the process, subsequent
meetings, expected outcomes, recommendations, and appropriate
agency funding. I am sure you know that broad based support
and a willingness by all affected parties to participate in
open, honest, problem-solving dialogue focused on defined
objectives are some of the factors critical to the success of
these processes. Some of these matters can be coordinated
with your staff, our Washington ADR office and Minneapolis
regional headquarters; others will be worked out by the
parties themselves within the context of the ADR process.
I appreciate the confidence you have expressed in the
expertise and experience of our staff. We look forward to
working with the interested parties in Minnesota, helping
them to identify real, durable solutions to these ongoing
disputes.
Respectfully,
John Calhoun Wells,
Director.
____
Fifty Years of Conflict Resolution
The Federal Medication and Conciliation Service, (FMCS) is
an independent agency of the United States Government created
by Congress in 1947 to provide mediation and conflict
resolution related service to its clients. These services are
delivered by the agency's nearly 200 full-time mediators who
operate in 78 field offices located throughout the country.
The primary focus of FMCS's work is on labor-management
relations, mediating contract negotiation disputes between
companies and the unions representing their employees, and
providing training in cooperative processes to help build
better labor-management relations. Additionally, FMCS was
authorized under the Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 to share
its expertise in all aspects of mediation, facilitation and
conflict resolution with federal, state and local
governmental bodies and agencies.
With the increasing awareness of the concept and benefits
of conflict resolution in the general public, the terms
mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) have
become nearly synonymous. At FMCS, ADR is used to describe a
variety of joint problem-solving approaches which can be used
in lieu of more formal and often expensive courtroom
litigation, or as an alternative to agency adjudication and
traditional rulemaking. These processes usually involve the
use of a neutral third party to help disputants find
mutually-acceptable solutions. Services are based on the
specific needs of the parties, and can include dispute
resolution assistance, systems design and training for agency
personnel.
An area of our ADR practice receiving wider attention and
use is regulatory negotiation. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act
of 1990 authorizes the agency to use its mediation services
to improve government operations. FMCS assists American
citizens and government in the regulatory process by bringing
the regulators and those who will be affected by regulations
to work together in the formulation of proposed rules through
negotiation. As a neutral third-party, FMCS convenes and
facilitates complex, multi-party rulemaking procedures to
help produce draft rules by consensus.
FMCS's has been providing ADR service for over twenty
years, dating back to the early 1970's when the agency was
asked to mediate a land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi
Indian tribes. In the early 1980's, FMCS facilitated the
first regulatory negotiations held by the Federal Aviation
Administration. Regulatory negotiation activity increased
throughout the decade, with FMCS involved in negotiations
held by the Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Labor
and others. FMCS also began providing mediation services for
Home Owner Warranty disputes and in training volunteer
mediators
[[Page S12347]]
for the Farm Credit Administration. Since then, FMCS has
become a leading authority on the design, delivery and
implementation of dispute resolution techniques and systems.
FMCS has assisted Federal agencies in settling disputes in a
variety of fields, including complex regulatory and
environmental matters, equal employment, and educational
grant disputes and enforcement matters.
____
fmcs and multi-party negotiations
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is an
independent agency of the United States Government created by
Congress in 1947 to provide mediation and conflict resolution
related services to its clients. These services are delivered
by the agency's nearly 200 full-time mediators who operate in
78 field offices located throughout the country. The primary
focus of FMCS's work is on labor-management relations,
mediating contract negotiation disputes between companies and
the unions representing their employees, and providing
training in cooperative processes to help build labor-
management relations. Additionally, FMCS is authorized under
the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 to share
its expertise in all aspects of mediation, facilitation and
conflict resolution with federal, state and local
governmental bodies and agencies.
Mediation is participation by a neutral third party in a
dispute or negotiation with the purpose of assisting the
parties to the dispute in voluntarily reaching their own
settlement of the issues. A mediator may make suggestions,
and even procedural or substantive recommendations.
FMCS has provided mediation services in numerous public
policy disputes and regulatory negotiations. The results have
been extremely positive. By formulating rules and policies in
a public negotiating process, potential or actual antagonists
can be motivated to participate, and become partners in
solving a policy problem or controversy over public issues.
Thus, the likelihood of subsequent challenges to the
agreement is greatly reduced.
The task of bringing together groups of people, often with
competing interests, to reach consensus on complex issues and
policies has proved to be a highly-productive use of FMCS'
mediators expertise in facilitation and joint problem-
solving. Not only are the results positive and the concept
gaining in use, but making policy and regulatory and
decisions in a public, participatory process is simply a
better way to resolve conflicts. FMCS mediators have been
involved in the resolution of many issues using this process,
including:
Disability Access to Airplanes (1988); Department of
Transportation, Vocational Education Issues (1990);
Department of Education, Appalachian Trail/Killington-Pico
Ski Resorts Mergers (1990-91), Developing Formula for Member
Contributions (1992); Farm Credit Administration, Usage of
Pesticides (1993); State of New York, Use of Public Waterways
(1993); State of Tennessee, Subsidized Housing Vacancy Rates
(1995); Department of Housing and Urban Development, Water
Resources Development in the Tuolumne River/San Francisco Bay
Area (1995); Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Rail
Repair Worker Safety Procedures (1995); Railway Safety
Administration (DOT), Indian Self Determination Act (1995);
Departments of Interior/HHS, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (1995/96), and Disability Access to Play Areas
(1996); Architectural and Barriers Compliance Board.
____
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 16, 1996.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are about to conclude action on H.R.
1296, a bill to provide for the administration of certain
Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer.
As you may know, a number of popular and also controversial
measures have become part of the conference discussion;
therefore, this bill is now known as the Omnibus Parks
legislation containing well over 100 specific legislative
provisions.
Among the controversial issues discussed for inclusion in
this conference report are the Senate-passed grazing reform
legislation, S. 1459; reforms to the management of the
Boundary Waters Wilderness, S. 1738; Sterling Forest
Protection Act, S. 223; S. 884, the Utah Public Lands
Management Act; S. 1877, the Ketchikan Pulp Company contract
extension; and S. 1371, the Snow Basin Land Exchange, which
is necessary for the winter olympics.
We are about to file a conference report on this omnibus
legislation, and it is important that we have your views.
Because of your Administration's long-standing opposition, we
are prepared to propose excluding the grazing reform
legislation, any Utah Wilderness proposals, and several other
controversial measures to which the Administration has
expressed opposition. Attached is a list of measures we
propose for inclusion in the conference report. Among these
measures, we feel the need to include two items which your
Administration has expressed opposition to in the past. One
is the extension of the Ketchikan Pulp Co. contract, S. 1877;
and the other is a proposed compromise on the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area which would allow motorization on three portages,
but nothing more.
It is important that we have your views on this conference
report prior to close of business on Wednesday, September 18.
We are ready and prepared to discuss any of the measures
proposed for inclusion in this conference report at any time,
and our staffs are prepared to provide any additional
information you may need in your consideration of this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman, House Committee on Resources.
Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman.
Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, September 11, 1996.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In light of potential activity by the
Committee on S. 1738, I would like to apprise you of the
Administration's deep concerns about S. 1738, a bill ``To
provide for improved access to and use of the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness, and for other purposes.''
The Department of Agriculture strongly opposes enactment of
S. 1738. For the reasons outlined below, this bill is
unacceptable, and should it come to the President in its
present form, I would advise him to veto it.
While we are acutely aware of the controversy associated
with management of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW) for at least the past 50 years, and we understand the
concerns of the various interests, we do not believe that S.
1738 offers a solution to that controversy. The provisions of
S. 1738 would not protect the wilderness resource itself or
protect the best interests of the national and international
communities which seek a voice in its management. In fact, we
believe that it will only serve to increase the polarization
of the various interests.
The BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of the
Mississippi, consisting of over one million acres of lakes,
streams, and forests. It extends nearly 150 miles along the
international boundary adjacent to Canada's Quetico
Provincial Park, creating a natural, water-based
international treasure, unparalleled in the world. It is also
the most heavily used wilderness in the United States.
S. 1738 would make several significant changes in the
current management of the BWCAW. The bill would expand the
area open to use of motorboats, exempt a certain class of
visitors from limits established on numbers of visitors,
provide for reopening three portages to motorized use, and
establish a planning and management council.
Section 3(a) would amend the 1978 law which established the
wilderness (P.L. 95-495) by removing limits on motorboat use
on five lakes. These are very large lakes and this change
would increase the average of water surface open to motor use
from approximately 21 percent to 31 percent of the total in
the wilderness. Allowing nearly one-third of the area to be
open to motorized use is a very large proportion for an
activity not normally allowed in units of the National
Wilderness Preservation System, and would be a significant
change in the wilderness setting.
Section 3(b) would change the definition of a ``guest''
from someone who stays overnight, to someone who is a guest
of a homeowner or has purchased or rented goods or services
from a resort owner. This change is significant because the
1978 Act exempts those who are ``guests'' of homeowners or
resort owners from limits on use. This change in definition
would, in effect, eliminate the current limits on motorboat
users.
Section 3(c) would provide for reopening three portages to
motorized use that were closed by court order several years
ago. Based on use data and informal discussions with
visitors, our experience since these portages were closed has
led us to conclude that access is not unduly restricted,
public needs are being met, and that the quality of the
wilderness setting is improved by the current status.
Section 4 would establish a ``Planning and Management
Council'' with broad authorities to ``develop a monitor a
comprehensive management plan for the wilderness.'' This is
the most disconcerting provision of the bill. This management
council would have overlapping and conflicting roles with the
agency, creating confusion about management of the
wilderness. Under this bill, the role of the resource
professional in managing a national resource under the laws
passed by Congress would be shifted to a council consisting
primarily of locally elected and appointed officials. A
management council would only serve to reopen issues, keep
the controversy alive, and further polarize the various
interests.
The Forest Service already has a public involvement process
in place, which was used extensively during development of
the new BWCAW plan, which is the culmination of several years
of seeking the best mix of management options for both the
nation and the wilderness resource. We need to keep on track
with implementing the plan which emerged from this process
and work through the remaining issues. Furthermore, the
Forest Service is participating in the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service process for the BWCAW, and I anticipate
this effort may help to resolve some of the long-standing
issues in the wilderness area.
Notwithstanding my objections to the bill in its current
form, I will work with the Committee to produce an acceptable
solution to this problem.
[[Page S12348]]
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
____
[From The Pioneer Press Editorial, May 9, 1996]
Mediation Welcome in BWCAW Dispute
Like chicken soup for a bad cold, Sen. Paul Wellstone's
effort to initiate mediation over Minnesota's All-America
land dispute can't hurt. Seeking new approaches to settling
the emblematic environmental arguments over Voyageurs
National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
has attractive possibilities.
Up front, it is fair to acknowledge that the political
dynamic of the situation for an incumbent Democratic senator
in an election year is both deft and apparent. By bringing
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in to approach
the old grievances about the BWCAW and Voyageurs as
professional mediation has done with other polarized
environmental policy cases, Wellstone doesn't have to
alienate, for now, the Up North Democrats or the Big City
environmentalists. Truth told, we'd be just as glad as most
other folks to let the mediation process carry these land-use
issues into 1997, softening the tendency to frenzy sure to
follow Congress' competing legislative approaches--neither of
which Wellstone supports.
We said earlier this week the delicate compromises that
created the BWCAW in 1978 still largely make sense and do not
need to be dramatically altered.
Local councils that control policy on federal lands are not
appropriate whether the federal lands are designated as the
nation's largest water wilderness or are Yellowstone National
Park.
If mediation can get to some of the festering unhappiness
Up North over communications failures between communities and
the feds, great, Running parallel to the inevitable political
wrangling of trying to legislate either expanding the
wilderness or ceding management to county and state forces,
the mediation process is, at minimum, comfort food.
It can't hurt to try something besides choosing sides and
fighting it out over access to the north's unique natural
treasures.
[Wellstone Virginia, July 20, 1996]
Time To Give Mediation Its Due
(By Marshall Helmberger)
With the obituaries all but written for the Grams and
Oberstar bills, it should be clear to most people that
Senator Paul Wellstone's mediation proposal continues to be
the best hope for changes in Boundary Waters and Voyageurs
National Park management. That has been the case for the day
the senator announced the proposal last spring, and that fact
should be that much more obvious after the recent
congressional hearings.
The bottom line is this: Until Minnesotans can reach a
consensus on changes in management of these federal lands,
legislative quick fixes stand little chance of passage, and
even less chance of resolving the long-term conflicts over
these areas. The Grams and Oberstar bills would have pleased
some, but guaranteed many more years of heated controversy
and, very possibly, even worse legislation in the future.
Perhaps that's why prominent Minnesotans of both parties have
opposed the most recent legislation.
Yes, I, like many others, want to see a return of the truck
portages. But mediation is likely the only way to achieve
some of these changes.
While some local groups, such as Conservationists With
Common Sense, want to point fingers at Senator Wellstone and
conclude that he has somehow masterminded the downfall of the
Grams/Oberstar bills, such claims are wildly over stated.
The fact is, opposition to the Grams/Oberstar legislation
is overwhelming in Minnesota, and bipartisan in nature. A
StarTribune Minnesota Poll released Thursday showed that
three-quarters of Minnesotans said they opposed the Grams/
Oberstar bills, with just 18 percent voicing support. Compare
that to the 69 percent support the poll found for the Vento
bill, which further restricts motor use in the BWCAW and puts
much of Voyageurs National Park into wilderness status.
If supporters of the Grams/Oberstar bills had any
illusions. about passage, or about Wellstone's supposed role
in scuttling the bills, such poll results should prompt a
re-examination. Regardless of Wellstone's position,
legislation garnering the support of just 18 percent of
Minnesotans was dead on arrival.
Grams/Oberstar supporters might also consider the fact that
a majority of Minnesotans agree that mediation is the best
approach for dealing with the dispute and don't see
Wellstone's position as an attempt to duck the issue.
Wellstone didn't need to scuttle the bills. Despite the
claims of CWCS spokespeople, Paul Wellstone hasn't
masterminded public opinion, or the widespread and bi-
partisan opposition to the two bills. Paul Wellstone didn't
prompt Third District Republican Representative Jim
Ramstead's loud opposition to the bills during this week's
testimony. And he didn't coax Governor Arne Carlson to oppose
them either.
Nor did he mastermind the Interior Department's
recommendation of a presidential veto of the legislation.
Nor did he have to convince U.S. Senators, like Bill
Bradley and others, who have supported pro-wilderness
legislation for 20 years or more that they should object to
the current bills. There are plenty of people in Washington
happy to speak their mind. And you don't want to get between
them and a microphone.
Unfortunately, when groups like CWCS focus the blame on
Wellstone, they make their involvement in this issue look far
too political. There's been enough politics in this issue
already.
Indeed, a strong argument could be made that it was the
national Republican Party that scuttled any legislative deal
this year, by politicizing the issues through its anti-
Wellstone attack ads. Democratic senators made clear last
week that they weren't about to sign on to any deal that
smelled so strongly like a political smear campaign.
Of course the Republicans are smart enough to know that.
Those anti-Wellstone attack ads were the clearest possible
sign that the Republican Congress had no intention of passing
any Boundary Waters or VNP legislation. For the Republicans,
this was little more than a chance to attack a senator they
consider to be a major thorn in their side.
While the motivations of Representative Oberstar are
probably more honorable, he nontheless should have known
better than to raise political hopes in his supporters about
the chances of passage. And despite his official claims to
the contrary, he has made statements critical of mediation.
He should know better. Such statements provide political
cover for those who would like to sabotage any mediation
effort, apparently to achieve their political goal of hurting
Wellstone's re-election.
Sadly, the prospects for successful mediation are probably
less promising than before the congressional hearings. With
the apparent quick and easy death of the Grams/Oberstar
bills, environmental groups have the confidence of knowing
they can probably block any legislative efforts that don't
come from a mediated settlement. In other words, they now
have less incentive to bargain seriously than they did
before. It would have been far more effective to use
mediation first. That way, local interests could have still
held out the threat of the Grams/Oberstar bills, if
environmental groups showed little willingness to compromise.
As it stands today, the groups that pushed for the quick
legislative fix managed to get their names in the paper, but
little else. And unless they change their minds and give
mediation a chance, they have little role to play--other than
spoilers. And worst of all, that leaves most of their
members--who I believe never wanted anything more than the
right to use a truck portage or have relatively easy access
to a permt--out of luck once again.
____
[The Bemidji Pioneer, July 31, 1996]
Mediation on the Mark
Minnesotans are the best position to decide a destiny for
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs
National Park. And that process, fostered by federal
mediators, appears to be headed in the right direction.
U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, DFL-Minn., has taken a lot of
flack for his proposal for federal mediation, including
National Republican Senatorial Committee pressure that
Wellstone's call allows him to completely duck this volatile
election-year issue.
Plans outlined this week should prove Wellstone right. The
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service recommendations
set up a framework for citizen panels for both BWCA and
Voyageurs issues from more than 200 interviews with
interested parties. The final panels will learn problem-
solving techniques and then it will be up to them--fellow
Minnesotans sitting around a table deciding what's best for
important Minnesota resources.
Current bills in Congress would put those forces at odds--
more likely creating a war than a mediated settlement all can
live with. Bills by GOP Sen. Rod Grams and DFL Rep. Jim
Oberstar obviously side with those who want little or no
restrictions for an important natural resource, while a bill
by Rep. Bruce Vento obviously sides with environmentally
conscious Twin Citians who would preserve both areas as their
private playground.
A recent Star Tribune/WCCO-TV Minnesota Poll shows that
most Minnesotans want federal mediators to resolve the
dispute. They will help, but it will be Minnesotans making
the decisions and not Congress. That's the Minnesota way.
____
[The Duluth News Tribune, July 17, 1996]
BWCAW Bills Deserve to Die
Americans can relax more when their state legislatures and
Congress are not in session. So we shouldn't worry that
intra- and inter-party disputes threaten action on bills to
alter Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness policy.
A good case can be made for restoring motorized portages,
but the best long-term solution to the BWCAW and Voyageurs
National Park disputes lies with the mediation process just
begun.
Battles over how to use these lands near the Canadian
border have gone on for decades: They won't be settled by the
feuding measures introduced by lawmakers from Minnesota.
[[Page S12349]]
Though the second half of 1996 has just begun, lawmakers
consider this the late stages of their session. So opposition
by three Democratic representatives to bills by fellow
Democrats Reps. James Oberstar and Bruce Vento seems to doom
hopes for passage of any bill in this Congress.
Reps. Martin Sabo, Bill Luther and David Minge urged no
action on the legislation that has hurt Sen. Paul Wellstone's
re-election hopes. The three lawmakers likely had partisan
gain in mind--but also have common sense on their side.
Wellstone's push for federal mediation of the land-use
disputes makes sense. Contrary to what some partisans
continue to say, mediation would not let federal bureaucrats
dictate a solution. Mediation will create a settlement only
if the parties involved agree to it.
Even though the battles over best use of the area have gone
on a long time, many thoughtful parties to the dispute
indicate a willingness to compromise so the can enjoy the
natural wonders without worrying what the other side is
doing.
The best hope for a solution lies with mediation once the
1996 election is behind us.
____________________