[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10207-S10208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2457. A bill to make technical correction to the Columbia River 
Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


              columbia river gorge boundary adjustment act

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to 
introduce legislation which will correct a longstanding technical error 
to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986.
  As those who were around this body over a decade ago remember, the 
Columbia Gorge Act was a highly complicated and contentious piece of 
legislation. A great number of impacted citizens made substantial 
sacrifices to see that this Act which was intended to protect one of 
the most pristine and magnificent natural resources anywhere in America 
could become law. Because of the detailed nature and the sometimes 
convoluted process established under this Act, it is not surprising 
that a mistake along the lines of what my bill today intends to correct 
could happen. My legislation simply makes a technical correction to the 
Gorge Act by excluding approximately 29 acres of land owned by the Port 
of Camas-Washougal. This area was inadvertently included within the 
southwestern boundary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 
12 years ago.
  Mr. President, ever since the establishment of the National Scenic 
Area, the Port of Camas-Washougal has been diligent in its efforts to 
prove that a small portion of its property was unintentionally included 
in the Scenic Area. In fact, even before the Gorge Act became law, the 
Port was successful in getting legislation passed that established the 
Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge and reserved 80 acres of this 
area for its own purposes.
  Unfortunately, two years later, Congress in its infinite wisdom 
located the

[[Page S10208]]

southwest boundary of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area so that 
approximately 19 of the 80 reserved acres and 10 acres of Port-owned 
land were included in the National Scenic Area. The legislation I am 
offering today would exclude these 29 acres under question as Congress 
had originally intended.

  I touched earlier on the Port's diligence in seeing this process 
through to its completion. Whether it be working with the Washington 
State Congressional delegation, getting approval from the Columbia 
Gorge Commission, or convincing originally skeptical segments of the 
local community, the Port's efforts are proof positive that persistence 
pays off when it comes to resolving complicated and contentious 
problems. It also helps to have the facts on your side. And clearly 
that is what the Port has been demonstrating over the past 12 years.
  One concern that was raised in discussions with representatives of a 
number of interested parties throughout the local southwestern 
Washington community was the possibility that legislation making a 
technical boundary change might set a dangerous precedent in which 
other less deserving boundary change proposals are cavalierly enacted 
into law. Because of these concerns, I have included a provision in my 
bill stating in no uncertain terms that is not the intent of this 
legislation to set a precedent regarding adjustment or amendment of any 
boundaries of the National Scenic Area or any other provisions of the 
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.
  While the Gorge Act remains controversial within some sectors of my 
state and is by no means perfect, this legislation represents a special 
case where it has been clearly proven that the intent of Congress was 
not being carried out and the enabling statute needed correction. Any 
further proposals to change boundaries or revisions to the '86 Act will 
have to stand on their own merits and pass a similar test.
  In addition to the Port of Camas-Washougal, I also want to commend 
representatives of the Columbia Gorge Commission and the Friends of the 
Gorge for working together with the Port to develop a reasonable 
solution to this mistake. I also want to thank my two colleagues, 
Senator Murray and Congresswomen Smith, both of whom also have the 
pleasure of representing this beautiful area, for their support in this 
effort. While my legislation is not intended to set any legislative 
precedents, I do hope the positive process by which it was developed 
will foster further consensus building efforts throughout the local 
community.
                                 ______