George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand it perfectly. I understand shut-in wells. I have shut-in wells all over California. We shut in the Bakersfield.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), had it about right. That is that we are arguing over a pot of money here that in and of itself does not cure either problem. If we left it in the account, it would not cure the problems that the gentlemen in opposition to the amendment have spoken about, and if we are fortunate enough to transfer it into the fish and wildlife account, the fact of the matter is that we still will not deal with that account with the urgency which it is due. The problem with this amendment is that it is different in different parts of the country, but I would invite colleagues to come to the Sierra and look at the watershed there and see that we are in continued decline in those great mountains from activities that have taken place in the last several years, and many years ago. We still have not been able to restore habitat. We still have not been able to restore water quality. In fact, they all continue to be in decline. The very species that have already been listed continue to be in decline so it is not about recovery. That is why this money is so urgently needed in the fish and wildlife account. That is why the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) felt it was necessary to offer this amendment. It is not as though this would leave the forestry account naked because, in fact, it puts the forestry account back to what the administration requested, and several million dollars above last year's level so that they can continue. It is not like the investment in the forestry account has been the best deal for the American taxpayers. From 1995 to 1997, we spent $1.2 billion to administer this fund and we got back $125 million. We lost almost $900 million administering this forest program. The suggestion is that one is either for forest health if they want to cut trees or one is against it if they want to do fish and wildlife habitat. The fact of the matter is that both of these are tools of forest management. Habitat restoration is part of forest management, as is forest health. But this leaves the salvage accounts that are used in forest health intact. It leaves the wild lands fires account intact, and it allows us to address some of the most urgent needs where we continue to have these watersheds, habitat, and species in decline. The bottom line is this, our budget may be in surplus but our society is not. We have argued now appropriation bill after appropriation bill where the needs, the urgent needs, for those who are from States with great forest resources, are telling us we need $750 million a year, and we are arguing over $14 million. We are arguing over $14 million. So we have a society that is in great deficits. When HHS was out here earlier in the day, we were arguing over the lack of being able to provide a decent education to children, to be able to provide help for handicapped students, all of which are in deficits. We walk around pulling our suspenders and talking about a surplus. Well, this is a deficit account here, both on the forestry side and on the fish and wildlife side, but the more urgent account in this particular case happens to be fish and wildlife because the decline is continuing and that threatens the economy; that threatens the ability of commercial fishermen; that threatens the forest health in a grander scale and then comes back and calls for more people to limit the logging. So we should support the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment does one of two things. Either this amendment stands between us and energy independence in a globalized energy world or it saves mom and pops. They have used all the arguments. Never do we see people run so fast to mom and pop oil operations than when they talk about the oil industry. All of a sudden Chevron disappears, Shell disappears, Exxon disappears, Mobil disappears, and it is only the mom and pops that we care about. I remember when we got rid of the oil depletion allowance, it was going to be the end of mom and pops, it was going to be the end of the oil companies, it was going to be the end of the industry. If everybody who said they had a mom and pop oil company in their district had one, we would have been independent then. That was 1975. For the gentleman to argue that this amendment is the difference between energy independence and nonenergy independence, this is the difference between $30 barrel oil and $60 barrel oil just shows a lack of understanding of the world oil market. Oil did not go above $30 a barrel a few weeks ago, a few months ago when we in California were paying $2 a gallon because they knew that they would drive down the world economy and they would lose their customers. You do not go to $60 a barrel because you can. Because if you do, you turn off your customers. That is why they have got a range. They said they would go between 20 and 30 or 22 and 30 or 28 and 22. There is only one market in the world. There is only one price of oil in the world. We used to have a domestic market. Domestic producers produced at one price and foreign producers produced at another price. That does not happen anymore. The world price of oil is set once a day. That is the world price of oil. It does not matter if it comes from Texas, it does not matter if it comes from Saudi Arabia or if it comes from the former Soviet Union. That is the world price of oil. That world price of oil is managed very carefully. It is managed very carefully by those producing states because they have to have enough because they have high unemployment, terrible economies, they have got to keep showering money on their people, and not too high so that they turn off the rest of the world economies. So let us not pretend like this amendment is the difference. We take 10 million barrels a day. That is 260 million gallons of gasoline a day. If you just took the 50 cents extra they charged on the people in Chicago and Michigan, they could pay all this research time and again. It is four times that amount. I have these research facilities in my district for the oil companies. Oil executives will tell you that they do not make any decisions based upon what the United States Government does because they have to make such great commitments of capital that they cannot worry about our tax laws, our depreciation laws or our research laws. They make those commitments because they have to think in 10-year time lines, they have to think in billion dollar drilling rigs and they have to think in multi-billion dollar pipelines and they have to think in multi-billion dollar commitments around the world. Did the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) know that he could affect this whole industry with $53 million? These are people who are betting billions of dollars on a single rig, drilling in a thousand feet of water in some of the most hostile environments in the world, people who are deciding whether they are going to take a pipeline through Iran or Turkey, a wonderful choice. But they are betting their companies are shareholders in it all. But for the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, it will not come together. What are we doing? What are we doing using the taxpayer dollars to subsidize this research? The marketplace takes oil out of the ground. I remember those tight, tight sands up there in Wyoming. They were just a tax break away from busting loose in those sands. Gas would have come flowing out of those sands. Just one more tax break. Money is what takes oil out of the ground. It is funny, those mom and pops, they turn it down at $15 a barrel and they turn it right back on at $30 a barrel. It is money. It is the marketplace. It is not this. At this point in time, this research is simply wasted taxpayer dollars. We are better off putting it into the National Forest System lands, we are better off putting it into the recreational opportunities where we have an incredible backlog of public lands that the people of this country want to use on behalf of their families and to recreate and to enjoy. In that one we are not meeting our needs. We can take this money and transfer it from this program where according to their own Committee on the Budget there is no discernible evidence that this is in fact working as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) pointed out. So we ought to put it to a place where it can be deployed immediately and it can be deployed on behalf of the American people. The oil companies I think will take good care of themselves given the price increase.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we had oil that you could not give away and at the right price it became one of the most valuable fields in the entire State, in the entire Nation. I understand people shut in their wells. But let us not pretend that it is a lack of this research that shuts in those wells. People make an economic decision and that is the marketplace. I have been through this cycle. I have been through this with all of the oil companies in my district, with all of this research to inject. We have been through it in Prudhoe Bay. We have been up there, and we have talked to them about means to make the oil process more efficient. That is what the oil companies are doing, because it is in their interest to do the enhanced recovery, the tertiary recovery, all of those programs. That is what they are doing. It is in their interest, also. It is in their interest also to collect it from the mom and pops.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy (NNI). I am pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Resources Committee Mr. Young and a number of our colleagues. The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy will provide an essential and comprehensive training program for American Indian leaders so that present and future generations of tribal leaders will have access to necessary management and policy decision making skills. The Native Nations Institute will be based at the University of Arizona and be under the leadership and guidance of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. The Udall Center will take on primary responsibility for the implementation of NNI's programs while the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation (established by Public Law 102-259) will approve NNI's annual budget and manage any federal appropriations. The governing committee of NNI will be comprised of individuals from the Morris K. Udall Foundation, the Udall Center, representatives from Indian Nations, and representatives from other academic groups directly involved in NNI's projects. The Native Nations Institute will empower Native American leaders by providing a comprehensive program that focuses on (1) leadership and management training and (2) policy analysis. The leadership and management training program has six components that will (a) provide for the current educational needs of the senior leaders and managers of Indian Nations, (b) provide a distance learning program that reaches a broad reservation audience, and (c) provide a Master's degree in Public Administration focused on tribal governance and designed for mid-career individuals and students who are seeking careers in tribal government. In addition, the leadership and management program will (d) create an alliance with tribal colleges that provide curricular materials, program cooperation, and assistance in meeting the educational needs of Indian reservations, (e) provide a nine month Washington DC internship program focusing on federal government, and (f) create a curriculum development program designed for NNI and for other educational institutions working in Indian country All of the components in the leadership and management program will share a common focus--they will enable skills such as nation-building, strategic planning and policy making, administration and management, and external relations to be developed and strengthened. As policy makers ourselves, we can do no greater service to Indian tribes than to provide them with opportunities to help strengthen their governments. Policy analysis, the second program at the NNI, will address contemporary issues facing tribal governments including economic development, solving intricate social problems, interacting with other governments, and managing natural resources. NNI will perform policy research grounded in Indian country to address these issues and will use this research in the leadership and management training program by providing data, case studies, and analysis for the program's students. By providing indigenous people customized educational experiences in policy and management, we will continue to move toward the policy goal of self-determination for Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to recognize and to continue to fulfill our obligation to Indian Nations by supporting the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy Act of 2000.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I find it interesting when we are talking about a program to try and provide technical assistance to some of the poorest nations and some of the poorest people on Earth that the gentleman would come down and make a case for giving 2 percent of the richest people maybe on the face of the Earth a tax cut worth almost $400 billion. But that is why we do not have the money to deal with this program, because they have already made their decisions. It is not the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Porter) problem. His problem is the money that the leadership gave him because they took most of the money for their tax cuts, tax cuts that have been rejected by the American public time and again because the American public understands there is an agenda that has to be dealt with by this Congress and by this Nation of securing Social Security, securing Medicare and paying down the debt, taking care of the education of our children. But they refuse to do that. So this appropriation bill comes to the floor with inadequate resources. Let us talk a little bit about the gentleman's amendment. This is an effort to continue to provide technical assistance to the ILO against child labor. These are efforts that have been successful. The gentleman talked about the effort in the soccer ball where before young children were given soccer balls to sew because theoretically they had flexible small hands and they could sew those soccer balls. They did it until such time as their hands were crippled. Then they were released from those jobs. They could not really go to work, and they had never been to school. Led by the Secretary of Labor, Senator Harkin, myself, and others, we brought the manufacturers of soccer balls together along with the ILO, along with various countries and those manufacturing processes were brought in-house. They were brought in-house and adults were given those jobs and children were sent to school and schools were built so that children could participate in an education and their parents could earn enough money. Now when American children play soccer in this country, they know that the soccer balls are not made by the misery of child labor in foreign countries. That model can be replicated and is being replicated time and again, but it needs assistance to do that. That was part of the debate about globalization that we went through last week, about whether or not American workers are going to have to compete against these kinds of unfair labor practices and whether or not it is just enough for America to say send us anything as long as you can keep the costs down and you do it through human misery. That is not what the American people want. They have said time and again they want child labor reduced, they do not want to buy articles of clothing, sporting goods, and other commodities that are made with child labor. This is an effort. The administration made the request, and the request could not be met. Not because this committee did not want to do it, because the priorities were set earlier in the year with the $1 trillion tax cut. What we are going to see time and again is appropriations bills come to this floor, the priorities of this Nation are not being met because of that tax cut. The interruption that took place earlier today to report the rule for the repeal of the estate tax is just part of that package. They could not pass the whole package, so now they are going to separate it into pieces. But that is going to address 2 percent of the wealthiest people in this country. It is going to cost us almost $400 billion over 10 years, and it is very hard to do justice if you do not have the money to try to help people who are far less fortunate than we are so that they can have a good life for their families, their children can go to school, and they can start to aspire to the same kind of dreams that we want for our children. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. They have dragged out every phrase that is designed to scare the American people that the big Federal Government is rushing into promulgating this rule. Only to the Republicans would 10 years be a rush. Only to the Republicans would it be irresponsible to try to cover people who every day are getting crippled and losing job opportunities and losing compensation ability to support their families by a well thought-out rule. Only the Republicans would think that it is new science to have a report that reviews the existing science. There is no new science in this report. This is a review of literature as mandated by this Congress. But year after year, they have tried to delay this rule; and they have been successful in doing so. For those who say, well, we want our States to do it, what happens if one lives in a State that does not want to do it? I must say there is a lot of room for one's States to do whatever they want to do and a lot of room for one's employers to do whatever they want to do, because only 30 percent of the people working in general industry have any kind of effective program at all. Our committee in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, they were suggesting they really did not see this. This was not a real injury. This was a fiction. I guess they do not go to the supermarket and they do not see the checkers who are wearing arm braces and wrist braces. They do not see the flight attendants who are wearing wrist braces. Maybe they do not go to Home Depot, an employer that has an ergonomics program and people are wearing back braces. They think that is dressing up. That is not a cumberbund; that is a back brace. Why? Because they are insurers and they work together, and they made a determination that they could reduce back injuries. Maybe the Republicans would recognize ergonomics injuries if we applied it to tennis and golf. Because certainly my colleagues have friends who are wearing arm braces on their left hand as they come through the ball and they have an ergonomics injury or from their forearm smash. Maybe then my colleagues would recognize that as ergonomics. But those people my colleagues see in the supermarket and the working place, on the construction site and the manufacturing areas, in the steel mills and the auto plants that are wearing those braces that is not for that reason. That is for the reason of repetitive motion. It is not to be laughed at. It is not to be made fun of. It is not to put people in the place of if they will have a responsible employer, they have protection; if they have an irresponsible employer, they will not have protection. The fact of the matter is that this rule is very well thought out. This rule is not one size fits all that is supposed to scare one away. It is not one size fits all. It is targeted where 60 percent of the injuries occur, of this kind of injury occur. It has been vetted. Thousands and thousands of people have commented on it. Seven thousand people I guess have had written comments. A thousand witnesses testified on this. OSHA went beyond the minimum requirements in terms of taking public testimony, and hearing witnesses went far beyond that. Yet, the gentlewoman from the other side would suggest to us that this is a rush, this is a hurry up. There is no such thing. This is a carefully thought-out rule designed to protect workers in the American workplace. It is a rule designed to save employers billions of dollars in worker compensation costs. It is designed to save employees millions of hours of lost time so they do not lose the wages that they use to support their families and provide for their families. That is what this rule is about. But every year, the Republicans have been able to stop it. Every year, the Republicans have been able to keep it from going into effect. Many of our colleagues refer to the fact that it was Elizabeth Dole, George Bush's Secretary of Labor, that brought this issue to the forefront and started this process. But that was 10 years ago. In that 10 years' time, hundreds of thousands of Americans have suffered this injury and suffered the loss of work, the loss of opportunity, and the loss of the ability to provide for their families. That is what is at stake here tonight. That is all that is at stake here tonight is whether or not people will go and they will go into a safer and safer workplace or whether they will be put at the whims of the chicken factories and irresponsible businesses that use people up and then throw them away, people so badly crippled in their hands they cannot take another job if they can no longer do that job. We have seen that. It is time to get rid of it. That is what this rule does, and we should support the Traficant amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have problems, but they do not rise to this occasion, so we support the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. These are not designated wilderness. These are study areas. They can be withdrawn from study areas. That is how we resolve the conflict. But right now we leave those areas open and that is unacceptable.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The point being, the gentleman from Utah is quite correct. This is the problem. This is why we worry. When we reject all these amendments and accept the bill or accept the bill with the Boehlert amendments, we are allowing additional wilderness areas to continue to suffer degradation by what goes on around them. As the gentleman points out, people go off, because this is not a place where it is clearly signed or it is fenced or it is any of these other things. People will go off sometimes because they innocently leave an area and sometimes because they are just simply irresponsible. But the fact of the matter is we know how this goes. I ride ORVs. My sons have done it. We race motorcycles. A trail becomes a road pretty soon. There is a new area and away people go. The fact of the matter is if we are going to prevent that, we have got to have a policy. At least then people can see you designate it on the lands, on the maps that they are wildnerness study areas, you cannot go in there. Because while the Secretary precluded and closed some roads in the wildnerness study areas, what he did not do was close the wildnerness study areas to future activity. That is not what these regulations do. The Boehlert amendment with all due respect is the current law. It is the current law that has got us into this situation. This Secretary, this BLM is the reason we are here today because for 10 years they have not figured out how to do this. Now they are saying trust us. We are saying, fine, we will trust you; but we are not going to trust you in terms of continuing to degrade the wildnerness study areas. What the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment does is take those wildnerness study areas and say you can ride ORVs everywhere else that the Secretary will agree to and the BLM in the other adjoining areas that are not protected; but stay out of here until Congress makes the determination. The same is true with roadless areas. I think that that is a fair compromise. It is a fair compromise because it allows for the protection of these areas and allows for responsible continued ORV activities. That is why we should accept this amendment. With all due respect, the Boehlert amendment is the bill. The bill is the law, the current law. So we have not progressed at all except to leave it in the hands of the BLM, leave it in the hands of the Secretary; and with all due respect, it is that 10 years that has given us these photographs that have taken place.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would invite the gentleman to read the Wilderness Act, because that threshold is quite properly set, because we cannot achieve the quality that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) talked about, and others have experienced, by simply changing designations. It is about a place. It is about the quality of the place. It is about a place that is untrammeled. And that is why, as we go through these areas in Utah or California or anywhere else and we look at them, they are taken in consideration with their surroundings. So if ORVs have gone crazy in the meantime, or people have punched in roads, or mining claims have been established, they are not qualified for wilderness because we cannot achieve the qualities in the Wilderness Act. As the West continues to fill up with people at the rate that it is, the preservation of these qualities is more and more difficult. I am not lecturing the gentleman, because the gentleman appreciates this. But my point is that the Boehlert amendment does not go to these areas that were cut out by an arbitrary county line and so we start to lose those qualities here, and they impact on the wilderness study areas on the other side of the line. That is the tragedy of the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in opposition because I think that the amendment, while well intentioned, fails to recognize the battle that rages in the West over wilderness study areas. What the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is trying to do with his amendment is to protect many of those lands that, in fact, have been identified as having wilderness qualities eligible for wilderness study areas, but have not yet been designated. That is one of the problems that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) will address, because if we look at the southern edge of the boundary here, we have significant areas that have been identified in the 202 process, and that is halted and it is halted as of this day, which means, in fact, they can be managed in an area that is inconsistent with the notion that they would later be designated as a wilderness study area. That is also true on the western edge of this swell also where that is going on outside of the boundaries. Now, why do we have to designate these wilderness study areas, which is different than designating them as wilderness? That is a separate determination. We do that because we have to protect the environmental assets that are on the ground, in place. We know that out West there is a hard attitude in some communities against wilderness, and we know that there is constant lobbying going on in terms of claims on land, in terms of efforts to push roads into lands, into ORV policies that do not adequately protect them, and then later, those are used as evidence saying that these lands should not be wilderness because they have been degraded. So this amendment does not really protect those lands, even those lands that have already been designated by BLM in its process that it went through of reevaluating these lands after a rather flawed process in the late 1980s and in the early 1990s. This is not a stagnant situation. This does not just stay frozen in time because of this bill or this amendment. With all due respect, wilderness is about politics. Wilderness is about politics. It is about judgeships, it is about appointments, it is about what the administration wants and does not want. This is not child's play; this is the big leagues out West. So U.S. senators saying what they want and what they do not want in wilderness has nothing to do with the environment, and what members of delegations tell the administration, this administration and the next administration and the last administrations. It is sort of nonpartisan, if you will, in some cases, or bipartisan, because this is the struggle about the politics of local communities and of the States. If we do not adopt the Udall amendment, all of that continues and these areas are quite eligible for further degradation of those environmental values. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is trying to upgrade that but, in fact, the amendment does not do that. That is why we need to designate these lands as wilderness study areas. Finally, let me say, as the gentleman from Utah suggested, that this is an arbitrary amendment, that we are just slamming down wilderness study areas. The fact of the matter is much of it is as a result, or all of it is as a result of the 202 process that has been gone through and has identified these areas. This is far from arbitrary. In fact, very little about wilderness is arbitrary in the West because it has been argued for so many years and has been identified and the values have been argued back and forth. So the fact of the matter is, to provide the real protections that these areas are entitled to means that we have to reject the Boehlert amendment and pass the Udall amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset of this debate that the gentleman from Utah has worked very, very hard on this legislation; and I think any of us who are familiar with these issues in the West recognize the controversy that they provoke. As many of us are also aware, the controversy goes on for a considerable period of time. In this particular area, we have had controversy and discussions since the 1930s about what to do in the San Rafael area. This legislation deals with the San Rafael Swell, which is an incredible dome of uplifted sedimentary rock that rises some 1,500 feet above the surrounding desert measuring 50 miles long and 30 miles wide. This is an area that those who may be familiar with the area recognize is sheer-walled cliffs and twisting canyons with incredible mesas and buttes. This is the incredible beauty of this area of the West, this area of Utah; and that is why it has been an area of such great controversy because there are those who live there and make their livelihood there. There are those who want to protect it in the highest form of protection we can provide as a national treasure, and there are those who simply want to drive by and look at it as part of their summer vacation. It is a dramatic area, it is a beautiful area, and it clearly has resources and values and assets that are on a par with Arches, Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. This is not a minor piece of legislation. This is dealing with one of the great environmental assets in this Nation. But again it is also that fact that makes this legislation so controversial and even the discussion of the parts of this legislation is controversial. The gentleman from Utah has worked hard with the community in trying to develop a consensus and worked with the Secretary of Interior as he pointed out over many, many months recently to see whether or not they could come up with a legislative package that addressed all of their needs. I am sad to say that I do not believe that they have yet arrived at that package, that this legislation has a number of flaws that need to be corrected. We repeat some mistakes that we know have turned out to be very costly from the past, and, that is, when we start setting environmental and ecological boundaries that are based upon political jurisdictions and political decisions that follow existing roads or follow existing section lines or follow existing political boundaries of counties or townships, that we very often make a terrible mistake because that does not reflect the true protection of the environmental assets, it does not reflect the movement of wildlife, it does not reflect the expanse of habitat, it does not reflect necessarily the corridors that are needed for wildlife to move during different seasons and wet and dry periods of the year. Yet in this legislation once again we see that almost the entire southern boundary here is based upon a county line. As we know, as we struggled with the issues surrounding Yellowstone Park and other preserves in this country, those old decisions that were made in that fashion have turned out to be very bad for the protection and the conservation of those resources. I think that we even see in areas where we would be considering wilderness protection, protection of those assets in some cases, the boundaries here split those in two without taking that into consideration. The same is true with known wildlife habitat. I also think that we make the mistake in this legislation in not addressing the need for wilderness area. I appreciate the controversy that that raises in the West when discussing the wilderness area, and our committee from time to time has tried to work around that area; but to simply set these up as conservation areas is to allow a whole range of activities in those areas that then later work against the qualification of those areas for wilderness areas, whether it is communication towers, whether it is roads, those kinds of uses that then people use as evidence to say, Well, you can't consider this a wilderness area. So a great deal of damage can be done to the wilderness areas and the potential for wilderness protection if in fact we do not arrive at that level of protection. We have studied this, we have had a number of wilderness assessments done in this State, most recently several years ago, and clearly have identified these areas. There will be amendments on the floor to establish this as a wilderness area or a wilderness study area. I think the Members ought to give serious consideration to that. The other one is, there has been a tragic history here of really irresponsible off-the-road vehicle use. Clearly that is one of the uses of lands in many parts of the West. It is very controversial. Some people adamantly disagree with it and do not believe there should be any ORV use. I do not think that is realistic necessarily, or appropriate or necessary; but what we do have to have is responsible policies. In the past, this area has been closed because of those irresponsible policies and now simply to engage and let those people continue this for another 4 years I think is a mistake and again fails to recognize what we have learned from the past management of this land. We would in effect be codifying the same BLM regulations that have failed to protect this area. We also have the problem of creating something called the Western Legacy District. We do not know what a Western Legacy District is; we do not know what values it is there to protect. It appears that apparently this county has determined that. I think if we were looking for historical assets or whatever the basis is or environmental assets, we might find others that are more worthy of that designation. Clearly some definition, some protection of both the areas and of the taxpayer ought to be written into this legislation. I am also deeply concerned, again this is a controversial area in the West, about the issues of Federal reserve water rights. Here the Secretary apparently turned over whatever would be a federally reserved water right to the States, the State of Utah; but that does not provide for the kinds of protections necessary to protect the full range of a Federal asset here because it is a rather limited water right that the State has for conservation based mainly on wildlife and puts the State in the position of negotiating with its own citizens who may want to make withdrawals and consumptive use of this water. I know this is controversial, but we should be protecting these Federal assets to the full extent of the law and the need of the area; and if we start just continuing to take consumptive use upstream from this area, we then denigrate the environmental values and assets of this area. Clearly, I think the Secretary has made a mistake on the Federal reserve water rights. There will be amendments offered after the general debate on these areas. I would hope Members would support the amendments by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) because I do believe that they strengthen this bill; and most importantly they provide the kind of protection that the people of this Nation are entitled to for environmental assets that are as magnificent as the San Rafael Swell and the surrounding areas.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee amendment because I think, absent the Inslee amendment, we do not have the kind of package here that is necessary. The Boehlert amendment does not fully protect the lands to the south. In fact, some of the wilderness areas are, in fact, split by that amendment. The point here between the Udall amendment and the Inslee amendment is to, in fact, provide the kind of protection that is necessary to maintain the potential wilderness qualities of these areas by designating them as wilderness study areas and expanding the boundary. I appreciate apparently mining is okay, good enough for the wilderness areas inside the boundary study areas, but it is not good enough for the areas outside the study. Let us be consistent here. I would prefer we did not have mines in either one of them. The fact it exists, and that is why it is a study area to see whether or not it can meet the definition of wilderness. Wilderness is not something that we go back and we create. Wilderness either exists or it does not exist, and we designate it. We do not create it. It was created by the creator, if you will, at this point. The question is whether or not we have the ability to recognize it and to protect it. As I said, it is a difficult and a tough threshold. If one would read the definition of wilderness, in contrast to those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain, and it goes on with the characteristics. These areas are tougher and tougher to find. The gentleman from Utah raises a number of concerns that we obviously have as we look at these wilderness areas, as a number of them probably will not qualify. Although that particular area may have great environmental value, but when put into this definition, it may in fact not qualify because of preexisting activities that are there. That is why the current protection is so important because those activities will continue on. They continue on with a lesser level of protection, and then that is used as evidence to suggest why that area cannot be designated as wilderness because it is already fully trammeled by man. It is fully under restraints because of the activities of man. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is going to address one of those issues. We now see we have wilderness study areas under the bill that has preserved routes for ORV vehicles that run right through the middle of the wilderness study areas. So rather than even try to repair those areas, that is what happens, it becomes a process of boot strapping. This become a process of boot strapping in the West where a trail becomes a road, and a road becomes an impediment to wilderness. That is why these amendments are necessary. That is why the Boehlert amendment offered as a substitute to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) does not go far enough, and the boundary change is important so that these lands will be brought in under this protection. We will not continue this process of arbitrarily drawing these boundaries based upon roads, based upon political subdivisions. So, in fact, what we have here, and I would hope that my colleagues would pay attention to it, is a package of amendments that really, really protect this area in a manner in which it is entitled to. Between the Udall amendment, the Inslee amendment, and the Holt amendment, we, in fact, provide the kind of protection that, unfortunately, the BLM has not provided in the past and has been called to task for that. But in one case in the bill, we find ourselves reaffirming bad decisions they made by preserving those ORV routes. I appreciate the Secretary's involvement. I think the Secretary with all due respect made a bad deal here, made a bad deal. He made a bad deal in the Federal Reserve water rights. He made a bad deal in the protection of wilderness study areas. He made a bad deal on the ORVs. That is why the Congress of the United States is involved in this process. We can correct some of that, and we can provide the kinds of protections. So I would hope that people would support the Inslee amendment.