Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is defined specifically under the law as pedestrian, or a pack animal trail may qualify. The Department's own regulations in 1938, state when a grant becomes self-effective. The grant refers to the section becoming effective upon the construction or establishment of a highway in accordance with the State law. That is the law of the land, the State law over public lands not reserved for public use. ``No application should be filed under R.S. 2477, as no action on the part of the Federal Government is necessary.'' That is the law. What Secretary Babbitt is doing is saying you have to file. He is changing and reinterpreting the law 20 years after it was repealed. I ask the Senator if that is not a correct interpretation of what this Secretary is doing. He is changing the law. He is saying you must file. The law says you don't have to file. Is not that correct? I ask my friend from Arkansas. Is he not redefining the law?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is what prevailing regulations stated during the entire time that the act was in effect. What this Secretary has done, unlike Hodel, who met with all the other Governors--let me add for the Record at this time the letter from our Governor dated January 29 to the Secretary. Dear Mr. Secretary: I wish to express my dismay about your issuance of a revised policy on R.S. 2477 rights-of-way determinations without consultation with the State of Alaska or, to my knowledge, other Western States. The department not only failed to seek comment or input from Alaska, it did not even pay the courtesy of informing the state that it planned such a revision. Further, the department did not even notify the state when it released the revised policy publicly. Don Hodel didn't do that. Don Hodel met, my friend, the senior Senator said, with a Democratic Governor of my State and consulted on the policy. He did it publicly in an open process. It was the input of the Western States that brought the withdrawn definition and policy together. This Secretary changed that definition and simply suggested that it be the passage of vehicle traffic, and that is contrary to the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Governor Knowles be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the senior Senator from Alaska would like to make a statement. Mr. President, while my senior Senator addresses the Senate floor schedule, let me remind the Senator from Arkansas once again----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from Utah will yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Isn't a good deal of this debate about exactly what a highway is? And hasn't the Secretary, in effect, taken the assumption that he has the authority to change the terminology of what a highway is?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is Federal law now.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I might just add, has my friend from Utah concluded his statement?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Utah for yielding. I would like to highlight, specifically for the benefit of my friend from Arkansas, who is back on the floor, what this debate is about. It is about what a highway is. Looking at the State of Arkansas, it is quite clear what a highway is. A highway is, as indicated on the highway map of the State of Arkansas, extended networks of access across the State, traditionally used for recreation, commerce, and so forth. The question we have here before us is the definition by the Department of Interior, how they are defining a highway. In 1988, the Department, after months of discussion and consultations with the Western States, developed its official policy on the R.S. 2477 right-of-way. That policy worked in conjunction with the States, as they defined historically what a highway was. I will quote this definition, because this is what this debate is boiling down to: A definite route on which there is free and open use for the public. It need not necessarily be-- And this is the key. It need not necessarily be open to vehicular traffic, for pedestrian or pack animal or trail may qualify. It does not have to be for an automobile; pedestrian, pack animal, trail may qualify. That is where we have been in this debate up until now, and that is why it is appropriate that this be in here, to ensure that we will have that definition as opposed to what the Secretary of Interior has arbitrarily proposed in changing it. He proposes to state that, through an action used prior to October 21, 1976, ``by the public for the passage of vehicles [cars] carrying people or goods from place to place.'' That is the change. That is the significance. He is doing this arbitrarily. He is saying that no longer is pedestrian access or pack trail or wagon trial adequate. It must be vehicles. Mr. President, in 1917 they did not have very many vehicles in Alaska. We do not have very many today. But the point is, we have trails. We have to have the right, as evidenced by those trails, as we look at the restrictions that Federal withdrawals have placed on our State. And here they are, Mr. President. How in the world are we going to get across Federal lands? All these colors--the brown, the green, the cream--these are the Federal holdings in the State of Alaska. The only thing that belongs to the State that we have access through are the white areas. The point I want to make is, how in the world are we going to get a highway across from the Canadian border to the Bering Sea without crossing Federal land? We cannot do it. How are we going to get north? How are we going to cross all these Federal areas without this basic right that we had when we became a State 38 years ago? We are simply not going to be able to do it, unless we have this law that states specifically that the interpretation of a highway is for pedestrians, pack animals, to qualify. Because, Mr. President, if you look again at Alaska today, this is our highway network. That is where we are. That is our highways, 1,300 miles. We have a road north-south to Seward, a road over to the Canadian border. We have nothing to the west-- absolutely nothing. This is an area one-fifth the size of the United States. My point is, under the law as it is currently stated, you must have proof of a traditional route across public land, prior to 1976, to qualify. The Secretary proposes to change that. He would say you have to have had a road. That eliminates Alaska. It eliminates much of Utah, and several other Western States are affected. That is where we are. I am reading from a definition of ``highway.'' The term ``highway'' is the generic name for all kinds of public ways. Whether they be carriage ways, bridle ways, foot bridges, turnpike roads, railroads, canals, ferries, navigable rivers, they are considered highways. But that is going to change under this definition. So, clearly what we are talking about is keeping in place the law that has been for 130 years in the departmental regulations as they have been codified since 1932, and again in 1994. The fact is, if R.S. 2477 was not in existence prior to October 1976, it will not and it cannot be, by definition, created now. So there is no threat here to public land. There is no threat to the parks. This is all a smokescreen. The reality is, we will simply be assured of having the rights-of-way across public land that we were promised as opposed to it being taken away. So I urge my colleagues to recognize the significance of what this inclusion means, why it is appropriate that it be there, why it is an emergency right now, and why I encourage all Members to reflect on the significance of this. The motion proposed by the Senator from Arkansas should be stricken, because it simply does not belong in the sense of his offering the amendment to strike this section. So, I see my friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, is seeking the floor. I yield the floor at this time, other than again to remind all my colleagues, what we are trying to do here is keep in place a law that for 130 years has provided us with the protection, the assurance that we would be able to cross public land if, indeed, we had valid proof that we had used the routes prior to 1976. So we would have the assurance of being able to proceed with the orderly development of our State. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Arkansas. But the Senator from Arkansas says that this is not an emergency, and, as a consequence, this particular provision that is in the appropriations supplemental should not be here. Well, he is absolutely wrong because this is an emergency. It's a raid on the Western States of this Nation. The reason it is a raid, Mr. President, is because we are going to change the rules all of a sudden. Why are we changing the rules? Because the Secretary of the Interior doesn't want the States to continue to have the rights that we have had for 130 years. We have had a law for 130 years, a law that ensures access across public lands, which specifically addresses that there was some kind of a highway, some kind of an access in existence prior to October 21, 1976. Now, the Secretary of the Interior proposes to take this authority away from the States and give it to the Federal Government. That is why it is an emergency. We are fighting for survival. Here is a picture of my State of Alaska. I hope the Senator will take a good look at it, because here is Alaska today, Mr. President--a State with 33,000 miles of coastline. You can see our highway system here. We had one new highway built in the last 20 years, the Dalton Trail, which parallels the pipeline. This is an area one-fifth the size of the United States, Mr. President. If the motion to strike prevails by the Senator from Arkansas, our traditional access routes will be eliminated. Let me show you a map, Mr. President, of the State of Arkansas. There is the highway system in Arkansas, Mr. President; it's a fully developed State. It has been a State of the Union for over 100 years. My State has been in existence for 39 years. Here is a map of Arkansas today--roads all over the place. They are necessary for the economy of the area. I don't take issue with the road system. These roads came about in the development over a long period of time in the State, as we would anticipate. So there we have the basic issue. The Senator from Arkansas says that virtually any access across public land would be provided if indeed this portion that he wants to strike remains in the legislation. Well, let me tell you, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over R.S. 2477, I'll just say that the rights-of-way are the future vitality of our State. Despite all the rhetoric that has been made about this provision, it simply amounts to a tightening of a permanent moratorium placed on the Federal Government last year. It is that simple. What we want to do is keep in place the law as it has been for 130 years, keep the departmental regulations as they have been codified since 1932, I believe, and again in 1974. Now, the only thing that has changed in this debate is the level to which the administration will go to provide scare tactics to influence this process. Let me state here that I find some of the rhetoric coming out of the Interior Department concerning this provision absolutely reprehensible. I have a copy of a letter the Secretary of Interior sent to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee last week. At best, this letter shows an alarming ignorance of the history, topography, and the economy of the Western States. At worst, it shows the level of deceit that this administration is evidently willing to go to in order to mislead the American public about this issue. Now, in this letter there is a claim that a provision in this bill will create some 984,000 miles of new highways in Alaska, based on a 1923 Alaska law creating section-line rights-of-way. That is a fallacy, Mr. President. This is in a State--my State--which currently has just over 13,000 total miles of roads, along with the marine highway system. Alaska has a population of about 600,000, a budget deficit, and the last road built in Alaska cost more than $6 million per mile, down from Whitehorse to Skagway, the U.S. portion. If you take the miles the Secretary is talking about in his scare letter, you would have to spend just roughly $6 quadrillion to build these proposed roads in our State--more money than even the current administration could even dream up in taxes. The Secretary contends that this is going to happen because the section-line law exists in Alaska. Here are some facts about that. The State has had a section-line law on the books since 1923. That is the one correct statement in Secretary Babbitt's letter. The State has had the ability to assert section lines since 1923. There are no current rights-of-way based on section lines in Alaska. The State has never filed a section-line right-of-way. We have the right, but we also have the self-discipline. According to the Governor's office during last year's hearing, the State has no intention to ever file a section-line right-of-way. The fact is, section lines have little or no practical application as transportation corridors in Alaska due to the difficulty of the terrain. Second, the Secretary also states: My efforts over the past several years have been directed to establish a clear, certain, and fair process to bring these claims to conclusion . . . the public will be poorly served by Congressional action that has the effect of rescinding the Department's current orderly manner of proceeding to deal with the right-of-way claims. I find that statement interesting, considering what the Secretary wrote us in 1993, which was: I have instructed the BLM to defer any processing of R.S. 2477 assertions except in cases where there is a demonstrated, compelling, and immediate need to make such determinations. So, in fact, the administration's orderly process of dealing with these claims is to take no action whatsoever. Well, Mr. President, the fact is, if an R.S. 2477 was not in existence on October 21, 1976, it will not and cannot, by definition, be created now. This is what the statement of my friend from Arkansas suggests will lead to simply an open and arbitrary selection of areas across public land. He said, ``Just about anything, anybody, any excuse, will get you access.'' It will not, Mr. President. It is misleading and it is inappropriate to suggest that. You must have had in existence on October 21, 1976, evidence of utilization of that area as a trail, as a highway, some kind of route. Let me show you what we have here, Mr. President. This is a map made in 1917, before Alaska became a State. What it shows here is rather interesting, because this is what this issue today is all about. It is about access, early access. The two definitive identifiers in red here are winter stage lines and U.S. Government winter U.S. trails to Fairbanks. We didn't have a highway system. These two large red routings were trails, winter trails. In the summertime, they were used as wagon trails. That was access into the interior. Today, these two represent highways. These greens are the R.S. 2477's that provide access routes across public lands, so that we can get from Fairbanks out to McGrath, we can get from Nome out to the gold fields, across public lands. Let me show you why it is so important in Alaska relative to having the assurance of access across public lands. This is Alaska. Every color you see is a Federal withdrawal, Mr. President. Take a look at it. Federal withdrawal. Now, how in the world are we going to get from the southern part of the State to the northern part of the State through all these colors, because the only area that the State controls are the white areas? We have to have access. This law gives us that access. That is why this is an emergency. It is an emergency because the Secretary wants to take that authority away. We have had the authority for 130 years. Look at what we have done with it, relative to highways in Alaska. We haven't wandered all over the place. We have 13,000 miles of roads. But we have to have access, and that is why it is so vital that this matter be addressed now. We have to have access down from Prudhoe Bay. We have a little, tiny corridor, 3 miles wide. This is all Federal withdrawal. How are we going to get east and west if we don't have this provision? We simply can't get there from here. So while it doesn't mean much from the standpoint of the constituents in Arkansas, who have a State that is fully developed with a road system that looks like this, we have a situation where it is the lifeblood and the future of our State to have the assurance that we are going to have access, because the Federal Government basically owns our State. The Secretary wants to take that authority away from us. The senior Senator from Alaska and I and the Senators from Utah are all sensitive to the realities associated with this. This is our lifeblood. We have to have it. It is an emergency. It is necessary now. The administration and the Secretary want to take the authority away from the States and give it to the Federal Government. We all know what that means, Mr. President. That means disaster. The fact is, again, if an R.S. 2477 was not in existence on October 21, 1976, it will not and cannot, by definition, be created now. So when we look at those old maps of Alaska, we have to go back and ascertain and prove that we have had a trail, we have had a sled dog trail, we have had a regular route of access. If we can prove that, then we have a right to public access across the land. That is what this issue is all about. It is a legitimate States rights issue. The only thing is, most of the States aren't affected anymore. But some of the Western States are, and it is our lifeblood. The problem, of course, is the prevailing attitude of the Secretary of the Interior, who basically controls public land in our State--his particular attitude toward allowing us--which we can do under current law--to get across those public areas. But that is going to be taken away. And as a consequence of that, Mr. President, we are at the absolute mercy of the Secretary of the Interior if the motion to strike by my friend from Arkansas prevails. I am not going to speak about what happened in Utah last fall. The Senators from Utah are here to state that. It is a perfect example of what happens when a small cadre of administrative officials take it upon themselves to decide how America's public lands should be used. I have worked with my friend from Arkansas for a long time. We have been able to work on many issues that we agree upon. But during that time, we have had different approaches to some issues. In 1995, a number of Western Senators, upset about the Department of the Interior's proposed regulations on R.S. 2477, sought to place the language in the proposed highway bill overturning the effect of the proposed regulations. Many of my colleagues will remember that the final passage of that bill was delayed until late in the evening until we could resolve the issue during the day. The Senator from Arkansas and I met to discuss the issue. We didn't come out with any finality about how to solve the R.S. 2477 debate. But we did agree for the time being placing a moratorium on the Department from issuing any regulations. That made sense. So in the 1995 national highway bill there appeared a 1-year moratorium on the department from issuing any rules or regulations on the issue. For the most part, this held the status quo, as it has been for the past, as I said, 130 years in terms of R.S. 2477 right-of-way. I, along with a number of Western Senators, introduced Senate bill 1425 last Congress to set out an orderly process by which people can submit their right-of-way claims to the department to seek formal recognition. My friend from Arkansas opposed that, and in the end we agreed upon compromise legislation that passed out of the committee. The compromise legislation placed a permanent moratorium on the Government by stating, ``No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this act.'' It is this language that was placed in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act, and is law today. We agreed to only prevent final rules and regulations in the hope that the Department would work on developing a more reasonable recognition process that could be submitted to Congress for approval. Unfortunately, it has been about 8 months now since that legislation passed, and there is no indication that the Secretary has any intention of submitting regulations. Instead, what the Secretary has decided now to do is to shred the longstanding departmental policy regarding R.S. 2477 regulations and replace it with his own. That is why this is an emergency now. It is the lifeblood of the Western States who are still developing and need access, and need the assurance that we will be able to cross public land as long as we are able to prove that we have traditionally used that access route prior to 1976--a wagon trail, a snow machine trail, a dog sled trail. And it doesn't mean much in New York. It doesn't mean much in Arkansas. But in Alaska that is how we can get there from here. We simply have to have that assurance. The real difference between the provision in the bill before Congress today and the permanent moratorium passed last year is that there is less likelihood that the administration will be able to find a way to skirt around congressional intent with this provision. Mr. President, in my State these were coveted promises that we were advised would be available to us when we accepted statehood--that we would have the opportunity to access across public land based on traditional utilization, trails, rights, and so forth. To make the statement that almost anywhere indiscriminately one could claim a route across public land, or parks, or recreation areas is absolutely absurd. The only areas, again, that have any justification for consideration under R.S. 2477 are the historical areas of use prior to 1976 across unreserved public lands. So, Mr. President, as we conclude this debate, I encourage my colleagues to dismiss the rhetoric suggested by my friend from Arkansas who is, obviously, carrying the weight of the Secretary of the Interior. But when he makes statements that just about anybody or any excuse is justifiable in coming across public land is unrealistic. When he suggests that this is no emergency and should not be on the appropriations supplemental, he is wrong because it is an emergency. They are going to take this away from us by administrative fiat. That is the bottom line. So here we are today, Mr. President, responsibly; 13,000 miles of road, an area one-fifth the size of the United States. This action by the Secretary of the Interior would eliminate the right that we have as a State, and the commitments that we had coming into the Union, to have the assurance that we would have continued access across public land. So I encourage my colleagues on this vote to recognize the significance of what this means to Western States. This was a promise made by the Federal Government--a commitment that they are proposing to take away. It is unrealistic. It is unjust. This belongs in here because we need the continued assurance that we will have an opportunity, and in an orderly manner, to pursue, if you will, access that was guaranteed when Alaska became a State and when other Western States came into the Union. I yield to the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe there may be a second degree pending.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would the Senator from Arkansas yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend. I wonder if the Senator from Arkansas feels it is appropriate that the Secretary of the Interior arbitrarily has gone ahead and changed the definition of what a highway was. Is it right for the Secretary to take a previous policy that was worked out in conjunction with the States where there was a definitive highway definition in the historical terms--and I quote--``as a definite route or right-of-way that is freely open for all use, it need not necessarily be open to vehicular traffic, or a pedestrian or pack animal trail may qualify''-- and as a consequence, isn't it true that this was the policy of the Department of the Interior until earlier this year when Secretary Babbitt, behind closed doors--not a public policy; behind closed doors, without consultation--unilaterally changed this definition? And isn't it true that the new definition now reads, ``a thoroughfare used prior to October 21, 1976, by the public for the passage of vehicles carrying people or goods from place to place''? He changed the definition. Is that, I ask my friend from Arkansas, appropriate and fair and part of a public process, or, indeed, is that not a simple dictate by the Secretary who arbitrarily changes the interpretation of what was Federal law? Is that right, I ask my friend from Arkansas, and correct?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will respond relative to the issue that is before the Senate here, and that is the manner in which the Secretaries--Hodel on one occasion and, today, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt--have acted. First of all, as I indicated, Secretary Babbitt, behind closed doors, without consultation with Western States, unilaterally changed the definition. Don Hodel did not. Don Hodel worked out a policy in conjunction with the States defining a highway and its history, and it was done in consultation with the States. My friend from Arkansas should recognize that is a significant difference. This Secretary is moving on his own volition to interpret as he sees fit. The previous Secretary of the Interior brought in the Western States affected and they worked out a definition and a process. Now the definition has changed to any vehicles, and the appropriateness of that is what I question the Senator from Arkansas with regard to the motivation. It is here that one Secretary developed a public process.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Where?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will my friend yield?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield on this subject?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Arkansas is aware of the circumstances under which the Secretary of the Interior initiated his arbitrary decision recognizing what the law says. I have a chart here. I will ask my friend from Arkansas relative to what R.S. 2477 says. The statute's authority grants right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public use. We have defined, if you will, what it means as far as a highway is concerned.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on the nomination of George J. Tenet to be Director of Central Intelligence.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing Wednesday, May 7, 9:30 a.m., on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] and safety issues and programs.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology be authorized to meet on May 7, 1995, at 2 p.m. on the National Science Foundation and Technology Administration fiscal year 1998 budgets.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an oversight hearing on SBA's finance programs on Wednesday, May 7, 1997, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to rise this afternoon to introduce a very important piece of legislation that I know the occupant of the chair will find interesting. It is called the Public Land Management Participation Act of 1997. This legislation is intended to put the word ``public'' and the populace back into public land management and the word ``environment,'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this act will ensure that all the gains that we made over the past quarter of a century in creating an open, participatory Government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are really protected. For those who thought that those battles were fought and won with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969 and the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, I have some bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 20, 1975, Mr. President, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington State spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we Americans have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on those far-flung public lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. I quote and emphasize, Mr. President, ``They belong to all Americans.'' Amazingly--there exist today legal authorities by which the President, without the public process or congressional approval, can create vast land management units called national monuments, world heritage sites, and biospheric reserves. Special management units which affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed. What people can do on those lands is also affected, what the future will be for surrounding communities. That is a powerful trust to bestow on anyone, even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says, ``Trust us. We are from the Government, and we know what is best for you.'' On that day, standing not in Utah but in the State of Arizona, our President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create 1.7 million acres of national monument in southern Utah. Notice, Mr. President, he did not do this in Utah. He did it in Arizona. One can only assume he might have had some protests if he had done it in Utah. The withdrawal, however, took place in Utah. It created a 1.7 million acre national monument in the southern part of the State. By utilizing this antiquated law, the President was able to avoid--that's right, avoid--Nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws as well. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah last fall is but the latest example of a small cadre of administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is by no means the only one, Mr. President. As the Senator from Alaska, I have had a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter created 17 national monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 million acres of lands. That is an area about the size of South Carolina. He withdrew these lands, with the stroke of his pen--no public process, no hearing, no participation from the State. This was then followed in short order by Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, who withdrew an additional 50 million. A total of 105 million acres, Mr. President. All this land was withdrawn for multiple use without any input from the people of my State, the public, or the Congress of the United States. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head, like the sword of Damocles; we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later, the people of my State are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, the people of Utah and Congress, had not been denied a voice in the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I would not be here if environmental protection procedures had not been ignored. But the people were denied the opportunity to speak. Mr. President, Congress was denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure was simply ignored. The only voice we have heard was the President's. Without bothering to ask us what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than we did what was good for us. Now, this is an administration that prides itself in a public process. There was no public process here, Mr. President. We had been debating for some time the issue of Utah wilderness. It was ongoing, but the President, for political expediency, took it upon himself to invoke the Antiquities Act. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kind of unilateral public land decisions for the American public. Since the passages of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, we have had a system of law underpinning public land use decisions. Embodied with this law is public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present the action to the public, the public debates the issue. The public can then appeal bad decisions, the courts resolve the disputes, and the management unit is then created. Where was this public process, Mr. President, in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of Federal land in southern Utah? The answer is clear: There wasn't any. Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, activities which affect the environment are subject to strict environmental laws. Does anyone believe there was no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? Imagine how the sensitive natural features of the high desert environment would respond to the rhythmic pounding of unlimited hiking boots worn by legions of adoring visitors as they tromp through the area. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? There is not any. The creation of specialized public use designations such as national parks and wilderness areas are debated within the Halls of Congress, right here. These debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? There aren't any, Mr. President. They simply don't exist because, in the heat of an election year, the administration determined that the public process, environmental analyses and congressional deliberations were simply a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in a public process or you do not; you can't have it both ways. If we can no longer trust the administration to involve the public in major land use decisions, then where does it fall? It falls right here to the Congress. Mr. President, the legislation which I offer today will require any future designations of national monuments, world heritage sites, or biospheric reserves to follow the public participation principles laid down under existing law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, just good old-fashioned public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, my legislation will require that the agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by the land use decisions; full public participation in the creation of these units with all appeal rights protected; compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; congressional review and ratification, and Presidential signature. No longer will an administration be able to sidestep public participation and environmental reviews to further political agendas. Nobody--not even the President of the United States --should be above the law. The Public Land Management Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public, the Congress, and the President--no more loopholes. I don't question the need for national monuments, world heritage sites, or biospheric reserves. Sometimes they are needed to protect historic treasures, natural resources, et cetera. But if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has governed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one, regardless of high station or political influence, has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those lands is decided. This legislation reestablishes that bond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.