Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield further, the amendment of the gentleman from New York does not address what my colleague was speaking about a moment ago, the allowed areas of use. We all agree that there are appropriate areas for use. But the wilderness study area is not. I would welcome the opportunity to come and tour the area with all of my colleagues. But when I get there, this is not what I want to see. I do not want to see this destroyed wilderness.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have here a map of the area of the wilderness study area and it shows the areas that were permitted for off-road vehicle use in March. They go right smack through the middle of the wilderness study area. There are four routes. They essentially bisect and hit some of the most scenic and, I believe, fragile parts of that area. Let me just point out that that is right smack in the middle of this wilderness study area. I have photographs here of the damage that is being done by these off-road vehicles in the wilderness study area. I mean, these photographs are in the wilderness study area. And it is exactly that that my amendment is intended to protect. If wilderness study area is going to mean anything, we have to protect it from the most damaging environmental effect; and, at least today, that is the most damaging force on the wilderness study areas. So to say this only codifies what has already been approved underscores exactly what I am talking about. If we do not pass my amendment, if we do not defeat the Boehlert amendment, we will, in fact, suffer the kind of damage that my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), was referring to earlier that will leave the place much diminished by the time those millions of Americans accept the invitation of my colleague to come from all over the United States and visit.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this would be codifying the March decision?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, does the amendment of the gentleman allow off-road vehicle use in wilderness study areas?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to make sure I understand and all my colleagues here understand what is at stake. Is it not true that what we are talking about is whether this protective area will include land that falls within natural boundaries that otherwise would not be included because they are on the other side of an arbitrary east-west latitudinal county line?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for addressing this important issue. I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment, and to offer support for the underlying Udall amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a commonsense approach to ensure that we do not have wilderness destruction by default. Like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and many others, I believe that the entire area deserves the greatest protection we can offer. In a sense, I am from the West. I represent part of western New Jersey. I want to make the point that this is a national treasure that people in my district, as well as in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), as well as in the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), as well as in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), value strongly. H.R. 3605 does not provide the protection this area needs. Like many, like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and many others, I, too, am a cosponsor of H.R. 1732, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. I believe it is only prudent to add the lands in the San Rafael Swell to those areas designated in this act as wilderness study areas. I believe that by making all the lands in this region wilderness study areas, we can be certain that this land will be protected until Congress makes a permanent decision on classification. This amendment would preserve the land and preserve our options. This amendment thoughtfully addresses the inadequacies of H.R. 3605. I know no one who understands this issue better than the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and I rise in support for his amendment. I urge all Members to support this reasonable compromise.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will significantly improve the protections provided to the San Rafael Swell under H.R. 3605, and I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), who initiated this work and who would like to be here today to advocate it. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his work as a champion of environmental protection and conservation, not just on this issue. The San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act utilizes a never-before-used so-called legacy district designation to protect the San Rafael Swell in eastern Utah. However, this legislation falls far short of providing the resource protections that the San Rafael region so richly deserves. The chief environmental threat, the chief environmental threat to these lands is off-road vehicles. This abuse of ORVs in Utah has exploded over the past 10 to 15 years; and as a result, ORV abuse has become much more common, with ORV'ers pushing new trails into remote areas each year. In fact, this past March, the Bureau of Land Management was forced to make an emergency ORV closure of part of the Swell's wilderness study areas. The BLM found extensive damage to soil, to vegetation, and other resources caused by ORV abuse. With this kind of damage occurring in the most pristine areas of the region, my colleagues can be sure that other spectacular lands in the San Rafael Swell are at risk. Nevertheless, H.R. 3605 does nothing to deal effectively with these problems. Since 1991, the BLM has attempted to come up with a plan to regulate ORV use but has failed to do so. This failure has led to severe damage in the Swell. H.R. 3605 would essentially codify BLM regulations that have failed to protect the San Rafael region. The legislation stipulates a 4-year planning process with no guarantees that future ORV use will be controlled. In the short term, during the 4 years of further study, the Swell will continue to be at extreme risk. I am offering a simple amendment to manage ORV use and protect the vast geological and scenic wonders within the San Rafael Swell. My amendment does two things: one, it does not permit motorized vehicles in any wilderness study area or other roadless areas within the conservation area; and, two, it restricts motorized vehicles on other areas within the conservation area to roads and trails designated for such use. Now, I would like to make a distinction here. What I am trying to do is to prevent ORV abuse not ORV use. I am not trying to stop citizens and recreation enthusiasts from enjoying responsibly this spectacular region from their vehicle. More importantly, with my amendment, there would still be 1,000 miles of road marked and recognized for use that would still be open. Let met put this into perspective. A few years ago, the Grand Staircase Escalante, to which the gentleman referred a moment ago, was designated a national monument in southern Utah. This area consists of almost 2 million acres and has about 900 miles of road available for use. The San Rafael Conservation Area is half the size and has a thousand miles of roads for open use. It is clear that there will still be enough roads for those who wish to visit and to use the region. In closing, I would just like to say that if ORV use is not managed to protect conservation area values, then the designation of a national conservation area is meaningless. If we do not put in these protections, the designation would be meaningless. So please help protect the San Rafael Swell with the protection that it needs. I ask support for my amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert as a Substitute for the Amendment offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLT. So I want to make sure my understanding is correct: it is whether we include land that happens to be on the other side of an arbitrary east-west latitudinal county line.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT. It is my understanding that these are areas that are not closed under the Secretary's action.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, one of them comes from the San Rafael Reef inside the wildnerness study area. The other comes from Red Wash inside Mexican Mountain. The point is, both of these are within the wildnerness study area, and that is what we are trying to protect.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, evidently my friend and the BLM think that this constitutes protection. That is the point. The BLM may say that it is compatible with use. It sounds like they are prejudging the results of their study. The fact of the matter is we should curtail this use now before further damage is done. This is in the wilderness study area. This is in the wilderness study area. If my colleague could see these, he would have to admit this is damaging. The BLM has pointed out that the number one damage to this area in vegetation, in topography is from off-road vehicles.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that test. I do not find it convincing and I certainly do not find the many failures that preceded and followed that convincing.

Mr. HOLT. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that was the test where the intercept vehicle tracked the decoy for a while.

Mr. HOLT. I do know something about the subject having studied and taught physics over many years. In the vacuum above the Earth's atmosphere, it is almost trivial to set up decoys that would spoof such a system.

Mr. HOLT. I have had classified briefings on the subject.

Mr. HOLT. I am aware that there is a system. It does not protect 75 percent of the Russian people.

Mr. HOLT. I am aware of the 1968 ABM treaty.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.