[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.
____________________