[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4413-S4417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   R.S. 2447 RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALASKA

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate, I brought with 
me a little sign I used to keep on my desk as a lawyer. It was the 
four-way test of the Rotary Clubs of America. It says, ``Of the things 
we think, say, or do, is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? 
Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it be beneficial 
to all concerned?''
  A little over 10 years ago, I stood on this floor and I had in my 
hand a flier that had been issued by the Wilderness Society. It had a 
picture of Mount McKinley National Park and Wonder Lake--that is in the 
park--on the front of it, with the word ``sold'' stamped on it. That 
indicates somehow or other that logging was going on in Mount McKinley 
National Park near Wonder Lake.
  There is another picture that talked about logging 800-year-old 
hemlock trees in a rain forest. As a matter of fact, those photographs 
were of redwood logs on trucks in California, on a California highway, 
and we identified the highway. To his great credit, the former Senator 
from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson, withdrew that pamphlet and 
called me and told me he was doing that.
  Last week, after the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, 
I came to the office in the morning and I found on my desk an AP story 
written by Jim Abrams, Associated Press writer. It started with this 
line: ``Legislation making it easier to build roads through Federal 
parks and wilderness area survived a Senate challenge Wednesday and 
headed toward a possible showdown with the White House. The measure, 
pushed by Alaska and Utah Senators, inserted in a crucial bill to 
provide billions to victims of natural disasters, would give the 
Federal Government less say in what constitutes a valid right-of-way 
under a 130-year-old law.''
  Another AP story came to my attention later that day by Mr. H. Josef 
Hebert of the Associated Press. It goes further in asserting that we 
have presented to the Senate a bill that would intrude upon national 
parks and wildlife refugees. Interestingly enough, issued out of the AP 
office in Salt Lake City, was this article: ``White House move 
opponents claimed could block access to rural byways in Utah and Alaska 
has been narrowly defeated by the Senate.''
  It goes on to state the issue from the point of view of someone who 
knows what he is talking about.

[[Page S4414]]

  I ask unanimous consent these three articles be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)


                               Exhibit 1

  Mr. STEVENS. We found later that the information in those articles 
was based on a statement issued by the National Parks and Conservation 
Association, which in my day when I was with the Interior Department of 
the Eisenhower administration was a truthful organization, not just a 
bunch of flacks for the extreme environmental movement.
  It is very interesting to read this because this is the source of the 
claims made here on the floor that assert that there would be hundreds 
of thousands of miles across wildlife refuges, national parks, and 
other areas in Alaska--as a matter of fact, the figure of over 900,000 
miles was used several times.
  Now, Mr. President, nothing is farther from the truth. I am here to 
ask the people in the Senate and the people who are addressing this 
issue to come back and face the four-way test. It is not true. The 
newspapers began repeating over and over again that the provision I 
authored in this bill that passed the Senate would create new roads and 
make Swiss cheese of our national parks and other protected areas. 
Those are false reports that are based on I do not know what kind of 
research. I am here today to set the record straight.

  Mr. President, it is a very simple proposition. Here is a map of 
Alaska with hypothetical section lines on it. Our State is one-fifth 
the size of the United States, 586,000 square miles. We became a State, 
Mr. President, in 1959. In 1969, the whole State was withdrawn from the 
creation of any rights--no State rights, no native rights, no private 
rights could be created on Federal lands. At that time, the Federal 
Government owned almost 90 percent of Alaska land. These hypothetical 
lines represent section lines, as I said. If the lands were ever 
surveyed under Revised Statute 2477 as interpreted by my State, it 
would be possible--possible--for the State to claim the right to build 
a highway.
  The falsity of the statements that were made concerning my amendment 
are depicted on this map. We, in 1976, as a Congress, with the 
President's approval, repealed the old Revised Statute 2477. What that 
did is give the areas in the West where rights-of-way had been created 
by use or by surveys, the right to use those rights-of-way across 
Federal lands and they, in fact, ripened into the highway system of the 
United States. However, those rights had to be created in most of the 
United States by 1976. We protected only valid existing rights that 
were created prior to the repeal of the old Revised Statute 2477. At 
the time Revised Statute 2477 was enacted, there were a little over 
10,000 miles of section line in our State, according to the Bureau of 
Land Management. They were primarily, Mr. President, represented by the 
surveys that had been made in the metropolitan areas of our State and 
the cities, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, what not. They were not out 
in the rural areas, unless the Government on some unknown occasion 
surveyed the area nearby a mining claim.
  The reason we protected valid existing rights was that so these rural 
areas of Alaska would have the right to develop access to airports, to 
rivers, and to one another. That is the reason we are still battling to 
protect the rights that were created under Revised Statute 2477. But, 
Mr. President, there are no surveys of the national parks or the 
wildlife refuges in Alaska. There were none in 1976, except possibly 
for the area right near a mining claim. To assert that there are 
900,000 miles of section line highway potentials in Alaska across 
national parks is absolutely a lie. It is time that the people who 
continue to assert that admit it. I hope that the National Parks 
Association will have the courtesy and the courage that the Wilderness 
Society did when it withdrew its false statement about our land.
  Section lines are created only by surveys. Surveys of section lines 
could lead to highways if the State claimed the right when they go 
across Federal lands. But the basic concept is there are no surveys. 
There will be no surveys of the lands that remain in Federal ownership. 
The surveys that are taking place in Alaska are the surveys to take out 
of Federal ownership the lands that were granted to the State, or to 
the Native people of Alaska by acts of Congress.
  That is what this chart shows. It shows the land ownership of Alaska 
in 1992. The blue land is patented to the State. The orange land is 
land that is awaiting patents that have been selected by the State. The 
green land is all Federal conservation areas set aside by an act of 
Congress. They will not be surveyed. They are, in fact, the national 
parks and wildlife refuges. The pink land that is shown is the land 
that Congress has returned to our Native people based upon the land 
claims settlement of 1971. But for anyone to assert that it is possible 
to create 900,000 miles of roads across parks and withdrawn areas on 
section lines is just absolutely false.
  Mr. President, we have, as I said, about 10,000 miles of surveyed 
section lines in Alaska--in an area one-fifth the size of the United 
States--in 1976. But, again, for Alaska, the rights that are preserved 
under Federal law are mostly those that occurred when they were created 
prior to 1969 when the Secretary of the Interior withdrew the whole 
State. That was done by the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Udall. And it 
was, in effect, in order to protect the rights of the Alaska Native 
people until we passed the Land Claims Settlement Act.
  But there is no question about it. None of the lands that these 
people are talking about--the parks, the wildlife refuges, and the 
wilderness areas--are surveyed and, therefore, there will be no 900,000 
miles of section line rights-of-way.
  It is an interesting thing to see. There are assertions coming even 
now from the Department of the Interior, based upon these claims, I 
take it, of the National Parks Association, that there are 160,000 
miles of section lines and national parks. There are none, Mr. 
President if they were never surveyed. You can't have a section line 
until it is surveyed. You can draw hypothetical lines on a map like 
they did here. This map was issued by the Department of Natural 
Resources of our State. It is what we call a protraction. But a 
protraction doesn't create section lines, and section lines are 
absolutely required to have a section line right-of-way claimed by the 
State.
  Mr. President, we did a little research. This might interest the 
Senate to know that of all the Federal aid highways in the whole United 
States there are about 900,000 miles today.
  These people in their press releases and in their reports to the 
American people through the Associated Press claim that this Senator 
was trying to create in one State in national parks and wildlife 
refuges and other withdrawn areas the same amount of roads that exist 
for the whole United States that had Federal aid. By definition, Mr. 
President, all roads in Alaska are built with Federal aid. They cost a 
lot of money to build. The roads in Alaska are very expensive. It costs 
$6 million a mile to build roads in Alaska, and we only build them when 
we come within the scope of the Federal aid highway system.

  We have less than 700,000 people in Alaska. No one I have ever known 
has ever come to me and said we want almost a million miles in this 
State; that we want to get more miles of Federal aid roads built in 
this State on section lines than exist in all the rest of the United 
States. That is absolutely such a wild claim that I can't find, really, 
the words to answer it, except that it does disturb me a great deal, as 
may be obvious and was obvious the other day, I am sure.
  We will not have section lines across Federal lands. By definition, 
Federal lands had to be unreserved at the time of the establishment of 
the R.S. 2477 claim. As I indicated, in 1969 all of these lands in our 
State that were Federal lands were withdrawn. No claim could be made 
against them. The basic law under which claims could be made was 
repealed in 1976. But because of the withdrawal of our land, none of 
the claims we can assert--and there can be private rights-of-way, not 
section lines right-of-way, but rights of way established by public use 
asserted by interested private citizens--across Federal lands where 
they were perfected before there was a withdrawal.

[[Page S4415]]

  Mr. President, the great problem that we have in Alaska is this 
checkerboard land ownership. I urge the Senate to consider this. In our 
State, we have State lands, Federal lands, Native lands, and private 
lands in such a checkerboard pattern that literally in order for some 
of the State lands to be accessed, it is absolutely necessary to go 
across Federal lands. But we are not trying to access that land by 
sections lines to go through withdrawn areas that were withdrawn for 
national parks. There may be some private citizens asserting R.S. 2466 
rights there by use. I think that the Department of the Interior is 
cataloging those now. I know our State is. And we are going to have 
some disputes over what extent we can have that access.
  But I would ask anyone, look at that map. That is the total road 
system of Alaska today. There is no access by road to any of those 270 
villages. They can only be accessed by air. It is true that in some of 
these areas we are trying to establish roads between the villages so we 
can have one airport serving four villages instead of one airport per 
village. But we are not talking about going through the national parks 
with section lines. We are not talking about going through areas that 
were already reserved on section lines, because according to Bureau of 
Land Management, there are no section lines.
  Mr. President, I don't know how to deal with issues like this and 
represent my State without coming here and once again urging that the 
people involved do some basic research. We have now a Federal judge, 
Judge Sedwick, who years ago wrote an article about the issue of 
rights-of-way. I want to put it in the Record today, and will read his 
conclusions.
  Mr. President, this is an issue that is going to perplex our State. 
Again, Mr. President, we have only been a State since 1959. We were a 
State only 10 years before the whole thing was withdrawn, and no rights 
could be created until Congress acted. Congress acted in 1971 in the 
Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, and then in 1980 on the Alaska 
National Interest Conservation Lands Act. After that, the rights of the 
State and Natives could be perfected. We had to wait until 1980 to 
proceed to get the lands that were awarded to us by Congress in 1958 
and awarded the Native people of our State in 1971. The reason we did 
was because the withdrawal, as I said, was made by Secretary Udall. All 
Federal lands were withdrawn. As a consequence, the whole subject of 
where we can build roads to improve the quality of life of our rural 
people is a very, very intriguing one, but a difficult one for us.
  We want to have the roads that will help us get better health care, 
that will get better education for people who live in rural areas, that 
will get better communications, particularly to try to see if we can't 
find a way to deal with the delivery of mail and other packages by some 
sort of road connection.
  This is an unpublished manuscript, but I want to put it in the 
Record.
  This is Mr. Sedwick. He was then an attorney. John Sedwick was an 
attorney practicing law, and he was chairman of the Alaska Bar 
Association's environmental law section. He is a recognized 
environmental lawyer, a very good lawyer, and a very good judge. This 
is his summary. I want to read it into the Record:

       The following summary represents the current state of 
     section line easement law in Alaska in 1983, after the 1976 
     repeal of RS 2477. As the preceding sections of this paper 
     has shown, there are some areas of uncertainty and some 
     differences of opinion which have not yet been resolved. With 
     that warning in mind, the summary is as follows:
       A section line easement is an easement for the construction 
     of a public highway, or other facility such as a power line, 
     water line, or sewer line. The maximum width of a section 
     line easement will be 100 feet on State-owned land, or land 
     acquired from the State, and 66 feet on Federal land, or land 
     acquired from the Federal Government. One making use of the 
     section line easement is not, however, automatically entitled 
     to use its maximum width. The user may only take advantage of 
     so much of the section line easement as is reasonably 
     necessary for the construction and maintenance of the 
     facility. Section line easements cannot exist prior to 
     approval of the official survey which creates the section 
     line.

  Let me repeat that:

       Section line easements cannot exist prior to the approval 
     of the official survey which creates the section line.
       The section line easement exists on all land in Alaska for 
     which an official survey was approved prior to October 21, 
     1976, except for the following: Land which went into private 
     ownership prior to April 6, 1923; land which went into 
     private ownership prior to approval of the official survey; 
     lands whose official survey was approved on or after January 
     18, 1949, which, if territorial lands, went into private 
     ownership before March 26, 1951, and which, if Federal lands, 
     went into private ownership before March 21, 1953; Federal 
     land which was reserved for public use prior to April 6, 
     1923, which remain reserved at least until October 21, 1976; 
     Federal lands reserved for public use prior to approval of 
     the official survey which remain reserved at least until 
     October 21, 1976; Federal lands whose official survey was 
     approved on or after January 18, 1949, which were reserved 
     for public use prior to March 21, 1953, and which remain 
     reserved until at least October 21, 1976.

  And the last category is all university lands.
  Mr. President, those few exceptions give us some hope for small 
connections of roads in rural Alaska.
  By what is being done now there are some people who want apparently 
to destroy those rights which exist. They are very few in number, as 
Judge Sedwick pointed out, very few. They had to be created before 1969 
and in many instances before 1923. But the main purpose of it is to 
determine how we can do the things which must be done to improve the 
quality of life in rural Alaska.
  I call the Chair's attention to this one green line here that goes 
from Nome to Teller. That is the only improved road that I know of that 
type. It goes from the city of Nome, which was the gold rush 
headquarters at the turn of the century, to Teller, which is a small 
city up on the coastline. That is one connection that was made years 
ago, and it was made using an old trail that existed. We have not been 
able to get approval to move forward with the others, and we want to do 
so.
  My State, as I stated on the floor last week, has gone through a 
whole series of studies trying to find a way to demonstrate to the 
Department of Interior that the claims that are asserted based on use 
now--we are not talking about section lines; section lines 
automatically can be claimed by the State under State law once they are 
surveyed. But again the key is those people who assert we are going to 
have 900,000 miles of section line roads know better. They know they 
are telling a lie because the conservation system units themselves have 
not been surveyed.
  Now, I hope, Mr. President, that when we get back to this issue again 
people will not come out on the floor and assert that this Senator is 
trying to build roads across wilderness areas either. We are not trying 
to determine any kind of rights-of-way across wilderness areas. There 
are some areas that are candidates for becoming wilderness areas in 
which there are private rights and public rights that exist now on 
these Federal lands. That is the issue we are trying to resolve.
  I am indebted to my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, who 
suggested that we have some approach to this to get the issue resolved. 
It is a very vital issue for rural Alaska. It is not an issue that 
involves putting 900,000 miles of roads across national parks, 
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, whatever.
  It might interest the Senate to know we have over 80 percent of those 
categories. Most of the park land of the whole United States is in our 
State. But the lands are exterior, have lines that give us their 
exterior. The parks and other protected areas were never surveyed as 
such. They are just lines on a map. The surveys will not be made. It 
costs too much money to survey those lands. They are reserved 
permanently for national parks. There will be no development that is 
not authorized by the park service. They do not need any right to build 
roads within parks. They have that right. There are not going to be any 
surveys.
  I do say for the Chair, only Congress can create a wilderness area. 
Every time a wilderness area has come before the Senate we have looked 
at it to see whether or not there are private rights that need 
protection, and we have had provisions that said valid existing rights 
are preserved.
  Now, that is all we are trying to say, is in 1976 when Congress 
repealed R.S. 2477, this was done subject to valid existing rights. I 
had that chart out here. Three times in that act I insisted that 
Congess say that validated existing rights were preserved, that 
everything

[[Page S4416]]

the Secretary of Interior did in that law was subject to existing 
rights, and now we have the situation where the Department continues to 
believe that it has the right to ignore that law.
  Mr. President, last year in the Interior Department appropriations 
bill we asked for a section to be put in there which said that nothing 
can be done to change the rights-of-way which exist that are valid 
existing rights on Federal lands by rule or regulation, and they cannot 
be changed except by authorization from Congress. The Department of 
Interior now seeks to change the status of some of these existing 
rights by a new fiat. They call it a policy statement which changes the 
basis, historical basis that has been developed through a series of 
court cases for over 100 years. These precedents have been established 
by law and interpreted by solicitors, and as I said I was one of those 
solicitors at one time and I know that we have a series of cases that 
have been decided both by the Interior Department's land section and by 
the courts which tell States under what conditions they can assert the 
right to use the R.S. 2477 rights-of-way for improvements for public 
access which we now call public highways.

  If the Congress looks at this map or this other map, it can only come 
to the conclusion that the problem we have is the problem of 
determining whether the Federal Government speaks with a forked tongue. 
The Federal Government when we became a State gave Alaska the right to 
103.5 million acres of Federal land. It was our dowry in order to have 
land that could be developed to sustain our economy. It then in 1971 
passed the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act which transferred 
to Alaska, or gave the right of transfer to approximately 45 million 
acres of Alaska land to the Native people. Both of those rights were 
held up until Congress decided the location of the lands it wanted to 
withdraw, the National Lands Conservation Act of 1980 perfected those 
withdrawals and enlarged the whole concept. And if anyone will look at 
the map you will see it is almost impossible to get to the coastline 
from the Native lands except up in Nome. Access is denied entirely to 
our lands that were given to us by an act of Congress unless we can 
perfect the access routes which were in place prior to their conveyance 
to Alaska and the Native people, prior to the repeal of Revised Statute 
2477 unless we can prove in effect they are valid existing rights.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that the people who really run the 
National Parks Conservation Association will do some basic research and 
deal with facts. Particularly what brought me here was the assertion of 
the 900,000 miles of section line roads that we were going to build 
across Federal parks and wilderness area. We do not propose to build 
them. They would not be valid under any interpretation of Federal laws. 
The lands are withdrawn for national parks. They cannot be subject to 
rights-of-way under the section line concept until those lands would be 
surveyed, and even then the survey would take place after the 
reservation, and, with the possible exception of some unknown, ancient 
government survey of the area near a mining claim, there are no rights 
from section lines in areas that have already been reserved.
  So I do believe it is time for us to return to the concept that I 
mentioned in the beginning, and that is the four-way test. As I have 
said, since I have been a Senator, I have tried to be guided by this 
test and I would like to see the Senate as a whole guided by it.
  There were assertions made right here on this floor about this 
Senator wanting to build roads across national parks on section lines. 
I know that those Senators who made those statements were misinformed 
by such people as the National Parks Conservation Association that 
issued their statement. But above all, I think it is incumbent upon 
Members of the Senate to look at the facts before they really accuse a 
fellow Senator of something of that magnitude. Building 900,000 miles 
of section line roads through national parks was mentioned right here 
on this floor, and it was not true. I plead with the Senate to be 
guided by the truth and be guided by the concept of fairness and 
whether or not what they say will build good will and friendship among 
Members of the Senate. This Senator finds it very hard to maintain 
friendship for people who accuse him of some of the things we were 
accused of last week, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

     Western Senators Win First Round in Road Right-of-Way Disputes

                            (By Jim Abrams)

       Washington (AP).--Legislation making it easier to build 
     roads through federal parks and wilderness areas survived a 
     Senate challenge Wednesday and headed toward a possible 
     showdown with the White House.
       The measure, pushed by Alaska and Utah senators and 
     inserted into a crucial bill to provide billions of dollars 
     for victims of natural disasters, would give the federal 
     government less say in what constitutes a valid right of way 
     under a 130-year-old law.
       Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., proposed that the road issue be 
     taken out of the disaster relief bill, but lost, 51-49.
       Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., voted to take the issue out of 
     the bill while Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., was among the 51 
     that voted for it to remain in the bill.
       ``It is wrong as a matter of principle to tie controversial 
     issues to flood disaster relief,'' Baucus said. ``We simply 
     should not play politics when people's lives are in the 
     balance.''
       The Senate also voted, 89-11, to provide $240 million in 
     the emergency relief bill to extend welfare payments to legal 
     immigrants until the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1. 
     Under the new welfare law, legal immigrants were to lose 
     their benefits in August.
       The amendment, offered by Sens. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., 
     and John Chafee, R-R.I, replaced a provision in the bill that 
     set aside $125 million for block grants to the states for 
     immigrants, an idea opposed by the administration.
       Lawmakers resolved another sticking point in the bill when 
     they agreed to allow the Census Bureau, with congressional 
     oversight, to go ahead with plans for the use of sampling 
     methods in the 2000 census. Republicans from rural states in 
     particular had sought to ban sampling, which could record 
     greater urban and minority populations and lead to district 
     reapportioning.
       Resolution of that issue left two outstanding disputes 
     efforts by Republicans to prevent future government shutdowns 
     and to weaken the Endangered Species Act. The administration 
     has indicated that President Clinton would veto any bill with 
     those provisions.
       Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, used his position as chairman 
     of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for the 
     disaster relief bill, to promote the right-of-way measure. He 
     accused opponents of using scare tactics in claiming that it 
     would ``result in roads across our national parks and 
     wilderness. That is simply not true,'' he said.
       ``What is at stake here for those of us in the West is the 
     preservation of what really amounts to the primary 
     transportation system and infrastructure of many rural cities 
     and towns,'' said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
       Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit said the measure would 
     render the federal government powerless to stop the 
     conversion of footpaths, four-wheel-drive tracks and other 
     primitive roads on federal lands into paved highways. He has 
     urged the president to veto the disaster relief bill if the 
     road issue is included.
       Baucus said the provision ``could allow roads to be built 
     through spectacular wilderness in Montana.
       ``Equally disturbing, this section could prevent Montana 
     roadless areas from being designated as wilderness in the 
     future,'' Baucus said.
       But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota 
     said he doubted the Senate would sustain a presidential veto 
     and slow action on the disaster relief bill over the road 
     issue.
       ``I don't know if we've got enough of a strength of 
     conviction to hold up the bill,'' he said.
       The bill provides $8.4 billion in new spending, including 
     $5.5 billion for disaster victims and $1.8 billion for U.S. 
     troops in Bosnia and the Mideast.
       The Senate, in a voice vote, agreed that no money from this 
     bill should support U.S. troop presence in Bosnia after June 
     1998, the date the administration has set for the end of the 
     mission there.
       Stevens left open the possibility for compromise, saying 
     that when the House and Senate get together to work out 
     differences in their bills he might ask Babbitt for a 
     proposal ``that might set the policy for future realization 
     of these rights of way throughout the West.''
       The controversy involves and 1866 law that was repealed in 
     1976 but then resurrected in part during President Reagan's 
     administration as it began aggressively processing thousands 
     of right-of-way claims it considered still valid.
       The Clinton administration has recognized the validity of 
     claims, but has fought with state officials, particularly 
     from Alaska and Utah, about who has final say on their 
     validity.
       Babbitt announced a new policy in January that requires 
     states to examine more closely whether a right of way 
     actually once was a significant corridor, which make it a 
     valid site for road building.
       Stevens' measure would override Babbitt's new directive and 
     again swing the pendulum to the states.

[[Page S4417]]

     
                                                                    ____
 Rider to Flood-Relief Bill Enrages Environmentalists--Alaska Senator 
                 Seeks To Pave Way for U.S. Park Roads

                          (By H. Josef Hebert)

       As his Senate Appropriations Committee grappled with how to 
     help victims of floods, chairman Ted Stevens saw an 
     opportunity he couldn't pass up.
       Alaska's senior senator tacked onto the must-pass emergency 
     bill a pet piece of legislation to make it easier to build 
     roads through federal parks, refuges and wilderness areas.
       Environmental activists were outraged, and Interior 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt is urging a presidential veto if the 
     provision added last week stays in the bill. It goes before 
     the full Senate today.
       The measure, also pushed by fellow Republican Sen. Bob 
     Bennett of Utah, would give the government less say in what 
     constitutes a valid right-of-way for roads built under a 130-
     year-old law.
       ``Such a requirement could effectively render the federal 
     government powerless to prevent the conversion of foot paths, 
     dog-sled trails, jeep tracks, ice roads and other primitive 
     transportation routes into paved highways,'' Babbitt 
     complained in a letter to Stevens.
       Bennett and Stevens have accused Babbitt of overstepping 
     his authority by putting too many restrictions on such right-
     of-way claims and usurping the states' authority. They 
     contend state law should determine validity of claims.
       Road construction in federally protected parks, refuges and 
     wilderness areas has been a growing worry among 
     conservationists, especially in the West. Nowhere has it been 
     an issue more than in Alaska and Utah, where hundreds of 
     claims are pending for rights-of-way over federally protected 
     land.
       The controversy involves a law enacted in 1866, repealed by 
     Congress 110 years later, then resurrected in part during 
     President Reagan's administration as it began aggressively 
     processing thousands of right-of-way claims it considered 
     still valid under the defunct Civil War-era statute.
       No one disputes valid claims exist, but the Clinton 
     administration has waged a running battle with some state 
     officials-particularly those of Alaska and Utah-over who 
     should have the final say on their validity.
       Babbitt announced a new policy in January that requires 
     states to examine more closely whether a right-of-way 
     actually once was a significant corridor, which would make it 
     a valid site for road building.
       The measure Stevens inserted into the $5.5 billion 
     emergency relief legislation for victims of floods and other 
     disasters would override Babbitt's new directive and again 
     swing the pendulum to the states.
       Stevens defended the measure. In 1976, he argued, Congress 
     ``absolutely stated, without any question,'' that prior 
     claims must be accepted.
       ``The provision is aimed at preserving historic rights-of-
     way established at least 20 years ago and creates no new 
     rights-of-way across federal land,'' Stevens insisted.
       Many environmentalists see it differently.
       ``It grants rights-of-way across millions of acres of 
     federal land to virtually any person who asserts a claim,'' 
     asserted William Watson of the National Parks and 
     Conservation Association, a private watchdog group. ``It 
     threatens to carve up our national parks.''
       Most claims under the 1866 law are in Alaska and Utah 
     because those states have been the most lenient in 
     considering what constituted a historic pathway. 
     Conservationists say the Stevens legislation may bring old 
     claims boiling to the surface in other states. Rumblings 
     already have been heard in Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico and 
     the Dakotas, said Phil Vorhees of the park association.
       Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League said hundreds 
     of rights-of-way claims are pending in Alaska, including some 
     through the Denali National Park and seven in the coastal 
     plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       ``Sen. Stevens wants to make Swiss cheese of the Arctic 
     refuge and other wilderness areas by building roads through 
     them,'' Kolton complained.
       In Utah, where much of the land also is federal, an 
     estimated 5,000 rights-of-way claims are pending. Many are in 
     federal parks and refuges, as well as in the recently 
     declared 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument.
                                                                    ____


              Westerners Eke Out Senate Win on Rural Roads

       Salt Lake City.--A White House move opponents claimed could 
     block access to rural byways in Utah and Alaska has been 
     narrowly defeated by the U.S. Senate.
       Western senators led the revolt, even though Interior 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt said he would recommend that 
     President Clinton veto the entire emergency flood and 
     disaster relief bill to which the byways measure is attached.
       ``This is not an issue where the senators from the Western 
     states are trying to do something improper,'' said Sen. Bob 
     Bennett, R-Utah. ``The real issue is that there are a number 
     of roads in rural Utah that the federal government wants 
     closed.''
       The vote Wednesday was 51-49.
       At issue are rights-of-way created under an 1866 law that 
     allowed counties to put roads on unreserved federal lands. It 
     was repealed in 1976, but existing byways were allowed to 
     continue. But no inventory of them was made.
       Congress and the administration have fought for years over 
     proposals by Babbitt to force counties now to prove the 
     byways existed before 1976 and were used for vehicular 
     traffic, not just livestock or horses.
       Congress had blocked that move, but in January Babbitt 
     issued administrative rules outlining how until a final 
     compromise is reached counties could gain emergency, 
     permanent recognition on some claims. The status would be 
     granted only for those byways where vehicular traffic and 
     upgrades for them occurred.
       Senators from Utah and Alaska, where most of the byways 
     claims are pending, charged the White House was trying to 
     take the first step toward federalizing local roads.
       ``What is at stake here for those of us in the West is the 
     preservation of what amounts to the primary transportation 
     system and infrastructure of many cities and towns,'' said 
     Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
       ``In many cases, these roads are the only routes to farms 
     and ranches; they provide necessary access for school buses, 
     emergency vehicles and mail delivery.''
       Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., countered that Westerners were 
     really pushing the issue to block wilderness designations by 
     claiming roads in the areas.
       He also charged Westerners want to put roads in sensitive 
     areas to foster development.
       ``Can you imagine anything so insane as allowing states to 
     build roads across public lands, no matter where they may 
     be?'' he said. ``You cut the weeds, it becomes a `highway.' 
     You move a few rocks, it becomes a `highway' ''
       Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-
     Alaska, reacted angrily to those claims. He pounded his desk 
     so hard he tipped over this water glass into his documents. 
     He also trembled as he declared the byways ``are our 
     lifeblood.''
       Bennett recalled that when Garfield County bulldozed in 
     Capitol Reef National Park to widen the Burr Trail by four 
     feet on a blind curve but still within its right of way the 
     federal government sued.
       ``It has little or nothing to do with the county 
     maintaining this kind of right of way. What it had to do with 
     is who's going to make the decision and the federal 
     government is determined it will make the decision.'' Bennett 
     said.

  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________