[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JIM MATHESON

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 17, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2691) making 
     appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a sixth generation Utahn. I 
come from the West, and I come from a State with public lands. Quite 
frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about. I 
have grown up with a legacy of the use of those public lands in my 
State. My roots are in southern Utah.
  Utah is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, 
and it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are 
very special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world 
have discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and 
I think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of 
land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable 
value.
  When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are 
talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is 
really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and 
in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has 
been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion 
and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been 
no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress.
  As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the 
pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to 
make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can.
  There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple. 
There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah 
and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I 
have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and 
anticipation of the amendment from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) that would be introduced today.
  I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and 
there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a 
divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders. The 
sportsmen community, the recreation community.
  There are many different points of view, and these points of view all 
have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been unable 
to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these issues.
  In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of the 
Interior in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 
2477. Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are 
looking at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and 
Congress said the Department of the Interior should not make any other 
rules until Congress deals with it.
  Now we flash forward to 2003. The Department of the Interior under a 
different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we 
are revisiting the issue of whether or not Congress should be involved 
in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the 
stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue.
  There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for 
roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that 
are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would 
agree they are really not roads. I would submit to the Members, in 
fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the 
problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to 
deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some 
precedent that would place them at a disadvantaged position when we 
deal with the controversial claims.
  So we have been involved in one litigation action after another, and 
one administration promulgates one set of rules, and another 
administration promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not 
making any progress.
  I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect 
amendment. It is not perfect to any stakeholder in this debate. But 
what it attempts to do is make some progress, some progress in trying 
to designate the least controversial roads and allow them to move 
forward. In Utah, we call them class B roads. That is a State 
classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute 
amendment.
  These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles. 
These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that 
there is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire 
RS 2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come 
together on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to 
make some progress.
  I also want to mention one other component of my substitute 
amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of 
roads that cross private property, and I say that private property 
rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that 
type of land.
  Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been 
associated with this, and this is not the end of that pattern. It is 
unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going to 
see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on 
January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that. 
I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things. 
It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job.
  In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. 
Congress did not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, 
and it is up to Congress to come together now.
  This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move 
forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the 
solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to 
try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the 
stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS 
2477 claims.

                          ____________________