[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8705-S8707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2723. A bill to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as 
wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in 
Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and 
the 20th anniversary of the Oregon Wilderness bill from 1984.
  But perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the 
single most important exploratory committee ever to be launched by this 
Federal government: the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
  I can see no better way to mark this auspicious year than by enacting 
a new Oregon Wilderness bill, the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood 
Wilderness Act of 2004,'' which includes, in tribute to the great 
river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of five free-
flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River 
System.
  In the last few years, some of Oregon's most important treasures have 
been Congressionally protected: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 
acres of Wilderness; the Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull 
Run Management Unit and will help provide drinking water for over 
700,000 Oregonians; Soda Mountain has been designated a National 
Monument; and the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded and 
is the subject of legislation under consideration by this august body, 
as I speak, to make it Oregon's second National Park.
  The wilderness bill I introduce today continues to encapsulate, as 
did the draft wilderness proposal that I floated on this subject in 
March of this year, the wish of the people in my State to protect but 
also actively relate to her treasures. Thousands of Oregonians 
responded to my draft proposal--far more than I ever could have 
expected. As a result, this is their bill more than it is my bill.
  Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge must be protected because the 
people of Oregon love these areas, they are proud of these areas, and 
they are demanding that we come together to protect Oregon's treasures 
for this and future generations. The people of Oregon helped write this 
bill, and I believe the people of Oregon on a bipartisan basis will be 
the ones who help get it passed and signed by the President.
  This bill I introduce today protects the lower elevation forests 
surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark 
saw them. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of Oregon. They 
provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened 
steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical 
habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic 
bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled 
recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.
  But the bill I introduce today differs in many ways from the draft 
proposal because it responds to the many comments I heard in the 
ensuing 4 months. I received thousands of comments on the proposed 
legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public 
meetings I held in Oregon, on

[[Page S8706]]

April 11 and 14 of this year in Southwest Portland and in Hood River. 
Each meeting lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was 
given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second 
Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge in June hosted by 
Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 
community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon 
congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. 
And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from 
Oregonians.
  What I overwhelmingly heard was the need to protect and build on 
Oregon's Wilderness system is as important today as it was in 1804, 
1964 or 1984--and is arguably more so--but it must be accompanied by 
tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. Mount Hood is 
clearly going to be at risk otherwise.
  The Mount Hood National Forest is the eighth most visited National 
Forest in the United States. It is one of fourteen Forest Service-
designated ``urban'' national forests in the entire Nation. In the 20 
years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in 
the Mount Hood area--wild and scenic rivers were last set aside 16 
years ago, the population in local counties has increased 
significantly--20 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River 
County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County.
  The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized 
activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on 
wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, 
wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor 
recreation sometimes it seems--I heard this repeatedly--we are in 
jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''
  A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the 
number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the 
public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that 
they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of 
the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more 
opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places.
  As the Forest Service is well-aware, Mt. Hood's non-mechanized use 
will increase dramatically over time, but the Forest Service's own 
documents acknowledge that we are not today even close to ready for 
that eventuality.
  The Forest Service's current Land and Resource Management Plan for 
Mount Hood, page III-36, which notes the following:

     the present capability to supply recreational opportunities 
     such as hiking on trails in primitive and semi-primitive non-
     motorized areas is predicted to fall short of satisfying 
     demand.

  According to that Forest Service management plan, the Mount Hood 
National Forest already provides resources for nearly twice the current 
demand for developed recreation like skiing, power boating and 
sightseeing by car, but meets less than two-thirds of the demand for 
backcountry recreation. The future is even grimmer. The Management Plan 
goes on to project that by 2040, the Mount Hood National Forest will 
only meet 16 percent of the demand for wilderness recreation, while 
still meeting over 100 percent of the demand for mechanized recreation.
  This Forest Service-projected shortfall means an ever-increasing 
number of Oregonians will be forced onto inadequate, existing 
wilderness, drastically impacting the mountain, its visitors, and its 
well-deserved reputation as one of this country's greatest natural 
wonders.
  Of the more than 600 people who attended the two meetings I held in 
April in Oregon, 128 spoke--110 in favor of more wilderness and 18 
spoke in opposition.
  Additionally, I received more than 1,100 written comments about the 
proposal and over 1,000 of those expressed support for additional 
wilderness.
  I know my colleague wishes to speak. I want to wrap up by 
highlighting the key areas I had Oregonians focus on in these meetings 
and how we responded.
  First, we heard that Oregonians felt there was not enough wilderness. 
Second, we heard concern from some who enjoy mountain biking that their 
recreational opportunity would be unfairly curtailed. Third, we heard 
from people in the towns, mountains, and gorges about fire protection 
for their communities. Fourth, we heard about forest health and 
timber--again, a very important set of concerns for our region. 
Finally, we were told about developed recreation with many being 
worried about maintaining a role for skiing and other recreational 
pleasures on Mount Hood.
  In each of these five areas we took steps to address these concerns.
  First, the legislation I introduce today to respond to the call of 
the people of my State for more wilderness would increase the amount we 
had originally proposed by designating approximately 177,000 new acres 
of wilderness.
  These include very important areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood 
wilderness areas--spectacular ridges that frame the Columbia River 
Gorge that all will marvel at and essential other areas of beautiful 
fall colors and the best deer and elk hunting existing in the entire 
forest.
  Second, and especially important, I thought the mountain bikers 
raised valid concerns. So we took two steps. I proposed and I am very 
interested in talking to my friend from Tennessee who has such an 
interest in the environment and recreation, generally, about an idea we 
proposed in this legislation to create a Mount Hood Pedaler's 
Demonstration Experiment. We call it Hood-PDX, which would in effect be 
the Nation's first mountain bike area that would join such a treasure 
as Mount Hood. In this demonstration project, Hood-PDX would be managed 
as wilderness though it wouldn't be wilderness. It would be a pilot 
project encompassing over 13,000 acres and over 50 miles of trail. The 
mountain bikers would have 10 years to establish that bikers can 
coexist peacefully with wild natural areas.
  We also made boundary adjustments to keep them on over 120 miles of 
trail which they were concerned about losing.
  Third, we took steps to protect our communities--particularly Cascade 
Locks, Government Camp, and Rowena--and so this bill creates fire 
safety zones for communities in this area.
  This legislation also reiterates the Forest Service's mandate for 
thinning for forest health on the Mount Hood National Resources, and 
especially the resources to get the job done in the area.
  Finally, we add a proposal for developed recreation that would 
reestablish a southside winter recreation area that encompasses those 
areas on the southside of Mount Hood that have exceptional potential 
for commercial recreation.
  The protection of these important areas will depend on the hard work 
and dedication of all Oregonians. I want to particularly thank my 
friend and colleague Senator Smith who meets with me every Thursday 
over lunch. We talk repeatedly about this issue and he has been very 
gracious. We are going to work together to address the various issues 
raised by our constituents and raised by our colleagues in the other 
body, particularly Congressmen Walden, Blumenauer, and Hooley.
  This is a special day for Oregon. This is the formal beginning of an 
important debate about how to protect special Oregon treasure.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would like to salute the Senator 
from Oregon. I am glad I was here to hear his discussion, especially 
about mountain bikers' great conservation majority in this country. We 
ought to do a better job of creating a bigger conservation majority in 
the Senate. We sometimes split up on the issues, it would appear. But I 
don't think that is necessary.
  For example, I was in Idaho a couple of weeks ago and took a mountain 
bike ride on the Hiawatha Trail which is between Idaho and Montana 
where the Milwaukee Railroad used to run from Chicago to Takoma. At one 
point, they were going to dig up the tracks. But this is a place where 
they have long tunnels and the speculator high trestles where people 
used to go in the 1950s and 1960s. But now, because of the work by 
Members of this body, some on this side of the aisle, some on that 
side, that is a rails-to-trails project. On that Sunday morning, there 
were maybe 500 or 600 mountain bikers who had that experience.
  It made me think of something I failed to do when I was Governor of 
our

[[Page S8707]]

home State. I still deeply regret it. I thought toward the end of my 
term about but couldn't quite get done the notion of whenever we build 
a new highway we should provide for a pedestrian or bike trail along 
the side of it--it is too expensive to do a lot of times on existing 
roads--that every time you build a new road or widen a road, acquire a 
little bit more right of way. If we had done that 20 years ago in 
Tennessee, we would all be grateful for that today.
  Senator Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, and I are 
working on legislation called the American Outdoors legislation, to try 
to assure a steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for urban parks, for the Game and Fish Commission, 
and other conservation purposes.
  Senator Wyden, Senator Landrieu, and I are all in the same committee. 
I look forward to working with them on this legislation.
                                 ______