[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10845-H10847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REQUIRING STUDY REGARDING IMPROVED OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL ACCESS FOR 
                       PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4501) to require the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to improve the access for 
persons with disabilities to outdoor recreational opportunities made 
available to the public.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4501

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. STUDY REGARDING IMPROVED OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL 
                   ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall jointly conduct a study 
     regarding ways to improve the access for persons with 
     disabilities to outdoor recreational opportunities (such as 
     fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, hiking, 
     boating, and camping) made available to the public on the 
     Federal lands described in subsection (b).
       (b) Covered Federal Lands.--The Federal lands referred to 
     in subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) National Forest System lands.
       (2) Units of the National Park System.
       (3) Areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       (4) Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
       (c) Report on Study.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing the results of the 
     study.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4501 is a bill introduced by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer). The gentleman deserves 
credit for working hard to craft a bill which will lead to the benefit 
of disabled people across the United States.
  H.R. 4501 directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
the Interior to study ways to improve access for the disabled to 
outdoor recreation on Federal land. Emerging disabled outdoor sports 
markets point to a growing demand for recreational opportunities for 
the over 40 million disabled in America.
  Over the last several decades, the disabled have proven that personal 
determination and technological advances can overcome seemingly 
insurmountable obstacles. This legislation brings a heightened 
awareness of these issues by studying ways to improve access for 
disabled Americans pursuing outdoor recreational activities. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation H.R. 4501, 
has had no hearings or markups in the Committee on Resources. We just 
did a disabled access study 7 years ago cosponsored by the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) of 
our committee. The result of this study was a memorandum of 
understanding entered into between Federal land management agencies and 
the wilderness disability access groups.
  So, I do not think there is really a need for this study when, in 
fact, we have already procured that information and have entered into 
an agreement and continue to work on those efforts.
  There is concern by a number of people that this legislation, in 
fact, is a stalking horse for those who would unfortunately want to use 
this agenda to justify additional roads, whether in wilderness areas or 
in other Federal resource areas, and use the subject of individuals 
with disabilities as a means of sponsoring those roads to cut in and to 
open a number of the wilderness areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I think given the history of our committee's work on 
this legislation, the fact that we have reached agreement with a number 
of these groups on this topic, and that we just did an expansive and 
exhaustive study on this effort, I would oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the people in America realize that a few years 
ago under the direction of President Bush, we passed a bill called the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, a very important piece of legislation. 
Up to that point, there were all kinds of obstacles standing in the way 
of people who were disabled.
  The thing I found very interesting at that time was a part of the 
Wilderness Act. In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act which said 
we could use no mechanized things in the wilderness. Up to that point, 
what does a person do who wants to take something mechanized into the 
wilderness?
  I remember distinctly being in Ogden, Utah, and a youngster came up 
to me, young by my terms anyway, and he was in a wheelchair and had the 
broad shoulders and the biceps and the bit. We talked about what he 
could do. He unfortunately lost his legs in Vietnam. He made an 
interesting statement to me. He said, ``As a kid, I used to go in the 
wilderness areas with my uncle and my dad and we would fish.'' He 
talked about the north slope of the Uinta Mountains and he said, 
``Congressman, I am not subject to this wheelchair. I play tennis,'' 
and he said, ``I'll take you on.'' And he probably would have defeated 
me.
  He said, ``I play basketball. I road race. I do all of these things, 
and I do it in this wheelchair.'' He showed how he could get on his 
hands, and said ``I

[[Page H10846]]

am not subjected to this wheelchair, and I would still like the right 
to go to the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains and fish as I did as a 
youngster.''

                              {time}  1100

  Well, what does one say? That at that point we decided we would put 
an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act which would allow 
people in wheelchairs to go into wilderness areas.
  I notice that the environmental community, especially the Sierra 
Club, really took that on. They did not like the idea at all. They said 
this was a poor idea. Why would we ever encroach on these wilderness 
areas? But we came to the floor and fortunately Members saw the wisdom 
in that, and we now have amended into that bill the right for people in 
wheelchairs to go into wilderness areas.
  I do not know why we do not expand it and make it more accessible to 
more people. It is really not wilderness areas. It is severely 
restricted areas is what it amounts to. My good colleague from Colorado 
has a good idea to benefit more people who are disabled. A lot of 
people are disabled in America, whether it be a slight disablement or 
be something rather substantial like my friend I was talking about in 
the wheelchair. So I think that this is a good piece of legislation, 
one of the things we should do to help people out who have some 
unfortunate thing happen to them somewhere in their life.
  Therefore, I strongly recommend to my colleagues that they do 
everything in their power to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 1998.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth HOB, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Don: It is my understanding that the Committee on 
     Resources will soon consider H.R. 4501, a bill to require the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to 
     conduct a study to improve the access for persons with 
     disabilities to outdoor recreational opportunities made 
     available to the public.
       Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation and 
     in maintaining the continued consultation between our 
     committees on these matters, I would be pleased to waive the 
     additional referral of the bill to the Committee on 
     Agriculture. I do so with the understanding that this waiver 
     does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or 
     similar measures. In addition, in the event the bill should 
     go to conference with the Senate, I would reserve the right 
     to seek the appointment of conferees from this Committee to 
     be represented in such conference.
       Once again, I appreciate your cooperation in this matter 
     and look forward to working with you in the future on matters 
     of shared jurisdiction between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                            Robert F. (Bob) Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                       Committee on Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1998.
     Hon. Robert F. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth HOB, 
         Washington, DC.
       Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4501, to require the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to improve the 
     access for persons, with disabilities to outdoor recreational 
     opportunities made available to the public, authorized by our 
     colleague, Congressman Bob Schaffer.
       I appreciate you waiving the Committee on Agriculture's 
     additional referral of this bill and agree that it does not 
     prejudice your jurisdiction over the subject matter. In 
     addition, I will be pleased to support your request to be 
     represented on any conference on the bill, although I hope 
     that one will not be necessary.
       I will include our letters in any Floor debate on H.R. 4501 
     and once again thank you, Gregory Zerzan, and David Tenny for 
     your cooperation on this matter which is very important to 
     Congressman Schaffer.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  No one argues, no one argues with the purpose of the gentleman's 
remarks, but he cited the exact provision of the Wilderness Act that he 
and others have attacked now for 20 years and that is no motorized 
vehicles in wilderness areas. This comes at the same time in the 
session that we see Members on the other side supporting helicopter 
flights over wilderness, roads through wilderness of questionable need, 
added on as riders to the environmental legislation and tragically, 
unfortunately, I think that here again the disability groups are being 
used to try and confront what they really want, and that is opening up 
of the wilderness areas with roads and other means to overfly these 
areas and to start invading the various concepts of wilderness.
  This has been how they contest it in the gentlemen's States. People 
said they have rights to go into these areas. They bulldozed roads into 
some of the areas in southern Utah that are under study that are 
existing wilderness areas. This is a constant battle.
  Again, the wilderness disability groups and other groups have worked 
with the administration. They have worked out memorandums of 
understanding, and I have very serious concerns about Members using 
this legislation to try and attack a fundamental key component of the 
wilderness legislation about the use of motorized vehicles or any other 
motorized object in the wilderness area. But this has been under 
attack, as I have said, since the Wilderness Act was put into law by 
many Members on the other side of the aisle. I do not think that we 
ought to do this where we have had had no hearings on the committee.
  This bill has not been reported out of the committee, and most of the 
wilderness groups do not seek an exemption in the case of that. We 
ought to bring forth the hearings. We ought to find out exactly what 
you believe the problem to be. But as the gentleman knows, he was a 
cosponsor of the study over the last 7 years. We just went through all 
of this. For that reason, I would again ask Members not to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time 
I yielded back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would like to respond to my friend from California.
  I think it is very interesting, as we look at all of the various 
environmental organizations who have decided to put legislation or 
introduce legislation that comes into the west. I find it also 
interesting that most of those who introduce this legislation have 
never even been in the country and never seen it. I would ask some of 
these people if they would harken back to the 1964 Wilderness Act and 
also the many things that were said in the House and Senate and both 
committees when the bill was passed. Hubert Humphrey said some very 
interesting things about it. Let us read the act. Untrammeled by man, 
as if man was never there, no sign of man, intended to mean no roads, 
no cattle ponds, no fences, no structures, no sign of man, as if man 
was never there.
  You are the first man God puts on earth and there you are, in a 
pristine beautiful area. I say, why then is it that my friends who 
introduced this legislation, expecially in my home State of Utah, put 
legislation in that goes right over the top of structures, of class B 
and class C roads, some of them even paved. I call their attention to 
one called King Top mountain in Millard County. It has paved roads in 
it. It has stop signs in it. It has mines in it. It has a whole area. I 
ask them, let us take it out. It does not even come close, but they 
would not do that.
  So they go down to this idea of my friend from California and others, 
fine, let us live by the 1964 Wilderness Act. Let us not be introducing 
bills that go over the top of these areas and we would not have to be 
doing these things.
  I can name you, having been part of a lot of these wilderness bills 
in the last 18 years, most of them that are introduced Utah, Wyoming, 
Arizona and Nevada absolutely blatantly go against the spirit and the 
intent of the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  It did not take long to get past the disability issue here to see the 
anger over the fact that we have a national Wilderness Act in this 
country. It does

[[Page H10847]]

not say no sign of man. It talks about the context in which the 
wilderness will be considered and which the wilderness will be created 
and it will be untrammeled and you do not see permanent impact of man 
in these situations.
  We have structures in wilderness areas. We have old trails in 
wilderness areas. In some cases we have old mines. As we try to create 
wilderness today in 1998, clearly the context is different than if you 
are trying to create it in 1898, because lands have been utilized from 
time to time. That does not mean that it is permanent upon the land. 
That does not mean overtime those trails will not revert back, as they 
are overgrown, what have you, if that is the concern that Members have, 
or even some of those crazy roads that some of your constituents have 
bulldozed into what they thought was going to be a wilderness area. 
Over time even out there in the desert some of those will be healed 
through time and through nature.
  But the fact of the matter is, the Wilderness Act says disability 
groups have not asked for this exemption. They have worked out a 
memorandum. This is really not about disabilities. This is really about 
trying to find another way in which you can get into under the old 
Wilderness Act and get those motorized vehicles in there.
  I do not think the disability groups appreciate being used as a 
stalking horse for that effort. It is not the first time, because we 
have seen here in terms of the IDEA legislation in education where last 
year education for people with disabilities was thrown up as every 
alternative. They were used to try to cut every other budget within the 
Department of Education. Those were all rejected by the Congress. It is 
not because they were not concerned about people with individual 
disabilities. It was concern that they were being used as an attack on 
other segments of the education budget. And here we see that same 
effort being undertaken here.
  Again, I will repeat myself, you are just duplicating a study which 
you are not supposed to be for. You just finished a study. We just 
worked out the memorandums. We have ended in consultation with these 
groups. I suspect that the longer this debate goes on, the clearer the 
case is made that this is about an attack on wilderness status of 
public lands less than it is about access to people with disability to 
those lands.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me respond if I may.
  I think it is interesting that my friend from California used the 
term the context is different in 1998 than it was in 1964. I think that 
is a direct quote. I would agree with that. I think it is different.
  So if we are going to say that all of our friends in the extreme 
environmental community can come up with all of these wild bills that 
go right over the top of cities, airports and the whole nine yards, 
then we ought to say, let us look at this wilderness bill again. I 
would hope the gentleman would join with me in the next session of 
Congress, if we are both still here and maybe look at some of these 
things.
  Why do we not define what a road is? I agree with the gentleman, some 
roads are reclaimed. Are two tracks a road or does it take a freeway to 
be a road? It does not say. Why do we not put a sunset on these things 
instead of a WSA being in perpetuity. Let us bring it to a head. Let us 
put 10 years on it, as has been suggested by both Democrats and 
Republicans alike.
  If ever there was a time to take care of some contentious issues, 
this wilderness issue is one of the more contentious ones. I would hope 
that maybe we could do something about it instead of this nebulous 
loose term that we use as we look at the 1964 Wilderness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4501 directs the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to contract with an independent 
entity in consultation with the National Council on Disabilities to 
study ways to improve access for the disabled to outdoor recreation. 
Few agencies have a thorough understanding of the needs of this 
important population of Americans.
  Over the last several years the disabled have proven that personal 
determination and technological advancements overcome seemingly 
insurmountable odds. This bill will bring a heightened awareness of 
those issues and help facilitate the hopes and goals of over 40 million 
disabled Americans through outdoor recreation.
  This bill has had the inputs, suggestions and support of many 
organizations, including particularly the Rocky Mountain National Park 
Associates, the Wilderness Inquiry, and I thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for their support in this well-timed 18-month study. 
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this sound bipartisan 
measure.
  This measure does enjoy bipartisan support not only here in Congress 
but throughout the country as well. I think as we look across the 
country at how we manage our public lands, national parks and forests, 
other public lands, that we keep in mind that there are many, many 
Americans who are taxpayers who are citizens who have every right to 
enjoy this great, rich legacy that our country has set aside for all 
Americans to enjoy. This is public lands, I speak to.
  Making sure that the new improvements, the new developments, that all 
of the new designations that are made in our public lands, systems and 
structures take into account the needs of the disabled and the rights 
that they have to enjoy these national treasures is something that is 
of paramount importance. That is what is embodied in this important 
legislation. Those are the issues that I hope all Members of this body 
will agree are important in moving forward on this day and in 
persuading the Senate to do the same following our action.
  I want to thank the chairman again for the opportunity to present 
this legislation, to bring it to the floor and for his vigorous support 
of it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Again, let us just understand what is being said over 
here. Now this is an attack on extreme environmentalists. This was 
supposed to be about disability groups.
  The gentleman was in the room last year when the disability groups 
and the agencies and others penned the agreement of understanding 
pursuant to his study to do exactly what this legislation has done. 
That is what the memorandum of agreement was about, it was about 
further consultations and reviews of laws and access and all of the 
rest of that as a result of the Hansen-Vento work that had been 
completed.
  Now all of a sudden we are going to create new legislation without 
any hearings as to its purpose at all. I would again say that this is 
really about an attack on wilderness. This is not about access issues. 
Members ought to reject this, what I have to tell Members, I think, is 
somewhat cynical use of the disability issue, when we know that many of 
the concerns that are being articulated here have in fact been resolved 
during the process of being resolved with the combined efforts of all 
of the various agencies that are outlined in this legislation and the 
disability groups across this Nation. We should not accept this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4501.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________