[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.

                          ____________________