[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 38 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H1283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           UTAH AND H.R. 1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I represent Utah's Third Congressional 
District. Most Americans know a little bit about my district. Last 
fall, on September 18, President Clinton stood across the State line in 
Arizona, on the other side of the Grand Canyon, and with a few quick 
words and the stroke of a pen created the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument.
  The fully understand the scale of this new monument, you must 
understand how big the average U.S. monument is currently. The average 
is 30,500 acres. The new southern Utah monument at 1.7 million acres is 
more than 55 times larger. It is bigger than both Delaware and Rhode 
Island combined.
  The monument is extremely rugged, and parts are truly beautiful. The 
issue is really not that the land should be protected. The issue is 
process. That is why Utahans are angry. If this had been done through 
an open and thoughtful process, I think Utahans could have embraced 
something in the area.
  But that is not what happened. Instead this monument was done without 
discussion, without consultation and without consideration.
  The first time anyone in Utah, including my Democratic predecessor, 
ever heard about the possibility of a monument was in the pages of the 
Washington Post, a mere 7 days before the actual creation of the 
monument.
  During the week before September 18, Utah's congressional delegation 
and Governor were told repeatedly that nothing was imminent. Of course, 
something was.
  On the day of the President's proclamation, I was in southern Utah in 
the town of Kanab, which is on the west edge of the monument. Kanab is 
a small pioneer town. The residents are solid people, ranchers, farmers 
and the people who make their living by supporting those who work on 
the land.
  On that day they held a rally at Kanab High School. The entire town 
closed down and everyone gathered to express their frustration at a 
President who in another State on the other side of the Grand Canyon 
was making a decision that would greatly affect their lives. The people 
were hurt and, yes, justifiably angry. They asked over and over again 
why their government would do such a thing to them in such a manner.
  I can remember standing outside the high school and watching as 
dozens of black balloons were released as a symbol of what had happened 
to southern Utah.

                              {time}  1330

  Given this history, is it any wonder that the citizens of Utah today 
feel bruised and battered on the public land issues? I think my 
colleagues can understand why I say that Utahns are suspicious of 
anyone from outside the State who would try to impose additional 
restrictions on Utah's public lands.
  And that brings me to H.R. 1500, a bill that will be shortly 
introduced into Congress. This is a bill sponsored by one of my 
colleagues from New York. It would designate a staggering 5.7 million 
acres of BLM land in Utah as wilderness. This is an area three times 
the size of this enormous monument.
  Utahns are still reeling from the blow by President Clinton's 
monument proclamation, and H.R. 1500 amounts to rubbing salt in still-
open wounds. To have outsiders introduce this bill at this time is not 
only highly inappropriate but offensive to the dignity of the people of 
Utah.
  Now, Utah has a lot of beautiful land. Some of it should be 
designated wilderness. But additional wilderness is terribly, terribly 
divisive as an issue in Utah. Utahns are split and deeply divided over 
how much of any acres of BLM land in Utah should be designated as 
wilderness. There is absolutely no consensus on this issue.
  That is why I went and met with the sponsor of H.R. 1500, the 
gentleman from New York, a few days ago and asked him for a cooling-off 
period on this issue of wilderness in Utah. I told him if he introduced 
his bill it would be hurtful rather than helpful because of the anger 
over the monument. Any bill right now would have the effect of pitting 
Utah's political leaders, environmentalists, rural residents, and 
public land users against each other. It would dramatically and 
directly hurt the cause of bringing Utahns together over the issue of 
wilderness.
  I proposed a 2-year period during which no one in the Congress would 
propose Utah wilderness legislation. Utahns could then use the time to 
deal with the monument and seek consensus on the issue of wilderness.
  Despite my appeal, my colleague from New York told me he is compelled 
to move forward. Frankly, I found this pretty offensive. My colleague 
from New York has a district some 2,200 miles away from mine. His 
district has no Federal lands, none at all. Surely he has more pressing 
environmental concerns in his own district.
  Remember that H.R. 1500 is not about protecting public lands in Utah, 
it is about showing disregard for the people of Utah and the Utah 
congressional delegation. I ask my colleagues, as a matter of courtesy, 
please do not cosponsor H.R. 1500.

                          ____________________