Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment because I think the language of the bill raises serious questions and goes beyond what is needed. I am told, as is the gentleman from Washington, by the BLM that they do not need this provision and that they are capable of processing all of the grazing permits that will expire in the next fiscal year. So I think for that simple reason alone, we ought to adopt this amendment and not get in the way of the work that the BLM is doing on its own at this point.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. It is balanced, fair, and adequate for the job. I only wish I could say the same for the bill. I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio. I do not think he is the villain in this situation. In fact, in my opinion he has been given an impossible task, because his own leadership has made it basically impossible for his bill to adequately provide for the important environmental and other programs that it covers. As a result, the overall bill falls short of what is needed, even though it does include some good provisions. If I might, I would like to just touch on a few of those provisions. The bill does provide some funds for the acquisition of a tract in the Beaverbrook area of Clear Creek County, part of the district I represent, owned by the city of Golden, Colorado. I requested inclusion of funds to enable these lands to be acquired for Forest Service management. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman for inclusion of $2 million for that purpose. The amount provided, like the bill's total for such acquisitions, is simply inadequate to meet this and other urgent conservation needs. In a similar fashion, the bill sets up a pilot project under which the Forest Service can arrange for Colorado State foresters to assist with fire prevention and improvement of watersheds and habitat on national forest lands that adjoin appropriate State or private lands. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with Jim Hubbard, our State Forester, and I believe this can be very valuable, especially in the Front Range areas of Colorado where residential development is spreading into forested areas. Again, I appreciate the inclusion of that provision, especially since it states that all the environmental laws will continue to apply. Again, the bill does not provide enough important support for many other Federal land management agencies, including not just the Forest Service but the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. It also fails to adequately address matters of concern to Native Americans. In fact, I think it takes a step backwards. The total funding for the Indian Health Services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is cut by $520 million. I think in effect the bill sends the message that we are no longer willing to meet our trust responsibilities to our American Indian tribes. There can be no denying the need. Information I have seen indicates that in 1997, the Indian Health Service could provide only $1,397 dollars per capita for its patients compared to about $3,900 in per capita health spending by all Americans. Even though Indians have a 249 percent greater chance of dying from diabetes and a 204 percent greater chance of dying from accidents than our general population. Since then, health care funding for our Indian citizens has failed to keep up with the growing Indian population and has also failed to rise along with inflation. The bill is also loaded with undesirable riders. Let me mention three of them. One deals with the management of new national monuments. The idea there may be to reign in the President, but I think it would choke needed management and the real victims would be the American people and our public lands. Another rider that should be thrown off is the one on global warming. By restricting funds that would be used to prepare to implement the Kyoto Treaty, this rider effectively would stop work on the most important tools for holding down costs as we combat global warming. This provision is extreme and should not be a part of this bill. Finally, the bill does not do enough to promote energy efficiency. We need to do more to invest in Energy Department research and development programs that reduce our dependence on imported oil while furthering our national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental protection, national security and economic competitiveness. The rule properly permits amendments to address some of these shortcomings and I will be urging adoption of desirable amendments, but in my opinion unless the bill is dramatically improved it should be not passed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill, but only very reluctantly. My reluctance does not mean I don't support estate-tax relief for family-owned ranches and farms or other small businesses. In fact, I definitely think we should act to make it easier for their owners to pass them on to future generations. This is important for the whole country, of course, but it is particularly important for Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes. But we do not need to do all that this Republican bill would do in order to make sure the estate tax is no longer too heavy a burden on the small business and farm owners. The Democratic alternative--the substitute for which I voted--would have provided real, effective relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. That alternative would have raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $4 million for a couple owning a farm or small business. So, under that alternative, a married couple owning a family farm or ranch or a small business worth up to $4 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. Also, the Democratic alternative actually would have provided more immediate relief to small business and farm owners. Unlike the Republican bill--which is phased in over ten years--the Democratic alternative would have taken effect immediately. That means a couple passing on their farm or small business in the near future would avoid more tax under the Democratic plan than under the Republican bill. They would not have to hope to live long enough to see the benefits. In addition, by increasing the general exclusion (now at $675,000) to $1.1 million next year, the Democratic alternative would allow for any person to pass on ``millionaire'' status to their children without a penny of estate tax burden. And the Democratic alternative also would lower estate tax rates by 20% across the board. So, the Democratic alternative--which I voted for and which deserved adoption--would provide important relief from the estate tax and would have done so in a real, effective, and prompt way. Furthermore, the Democratic alternative would have provided this relief in a fiscally responsible way that would not jeopardize our ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors and pay down the public debt. By contrast, it is precisely the fiscal overkill of the Republican bill that makes me most reluctant to vote for it. Once fully phased in, the Republican bill would forgo nearly $50 billion a year in revenue with no guarantee that this revenue loss will not harm Social Security and Medicare in future years. The bill's sponsors say it will cost $28.2 billion over 5 years and $104.5 billion over 10 years. But that is far from the whole story. Because of the way the bill is phased in, its true cost is cleverly hidden and does not show up until after the 10-year budget window. That means the full effects of the Republican bill will come just at the time when we will have to face budget pressures because my own ``baby boom'' generation is starting to retire. And if we feel we need to ``phase in'' H.R. 8 because we cannot afford the full repeal now, how are we ever going to afford it 10 years from now? We do not need to engage in this fiscal overkill. According to the Treasury Department, under current law only 2% of all decedents have enough wealth to be subject to the estate tax at all. To be more specific, the Treasury Department tells me that in 1997 estate-tax returns were filed for only 297 Coloradans. Furthermore, according to the Treasury Department, of those estates that are affected by the estate tax, only 3%--that is only 6 in 10,000 American estates--were comprised primarily of family-owned small businesses, ranches, or farms. Looking just at our state, that means that in 1997 fewer than a dozen estate-tax returns were comprised primarily of small businesses, ranches, or farms. Of course, those numbers only relate to the cases in which an estate tax was actually paid. Clearly, in many other cases families have taken actions to forestall the estate tax. I understand that, and do think that in appropriate cases we should lessen the pressure that prompted some of those actions. As I said, the Democratic alternative would have provided real, effective, and immediate estate-tax relief to the owners of small businesses, including farms and ranches, and would have done so in a fiscally responsible way. That is why I voted for it. In contrast, the biggest beneficiaries of the Republican legislation are not those middle-class families who own small ranches or farms or other small businesses, but instead are very wealthy families with very large assets. Over the past two decades, income and wealth disparities have increased. The Republican bill, while it does have some positive aspects, would increase those wealth disparities. I find this troubling, and it adds to my reluctance to support the bill. However, I will vote for the bill because the Republican leadership has made it clear that it is this bill or no estate-tax relief bill, at least for now, here in the House. That being the case, I have decided that the Republican bill-- although very flawed and excessive--is just acceptable enough for me to vote for today. I do so in the hope and expectation that the bill's faults can be corrected as it proceeds through the legislative process and that ultimately it can be refined into a bill that deserves to be enacted into law. If that does not occur--if that hope and expectation prove unfounded--I will not vote for a bill that fails to meet that standard.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal 2001. I believe that a strong and effective defense system is vital to the future of this country. I believe that we must do all we can to identify potential threats in this new post-Cold War environment and to prepare for the possibility that these threats might require a military response. But I question the price that this bill is asking us to pay to achieve these goals. My concerns about this bill have to do with priorities. By that, I mean I think the priorities among the programs funded in the bill are wrong. But, even more importantly, I think the sheer size of the bill reflects an imbalance between military spending and other important priorities. First, the big picture: At $15.8 billion over FY2000 appropriated levels, the President's budget request for defense programs in FY2001 indicates the importance of defense spending for this Administration. But--not content with a bill to meet the President's request for $60 billion in weapons procurement as well as to fully fund missile defense and other major weapons systems--the Republicans want more. The bill we will vote on today appropriates $4 billion more than the budget request, and $22.4 billion more than last year's appropriated levels. Along with defense funds provided in the recently passed Military Construction Appropriations bill and funds expected to be provided in the FY2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, total defense appropriations this year come to about $310 billion--more than $4.5 billion over this year's budget request. With this defense bill alone appropriating more than half of the discretionary funds available to Congress, it is clear to me that something is wrong with our priorities. The President's budget balanced increases in defense with increases in funding for education, health care, national parks, science, environmental protection, and other non- defense programs. What the Republicans have done is to increase defense spending even more, all at the expense of domestic programs that are so important to the citizen of this country. Second, there are the bill's own priorities: Not only would this bill provide too much, but it also would provide too much of the wrong thing. I can't support funding F-22 production when the Appropriations Committee's own Survey and Investigations staff reported that a December 2000 date for beginning production is premature, and when the GAO recommended that six, not ten, planes be built, which could save as much as $828 million. Nor can I support funding for national missile defense procurement until the technology has been proven and until we've come to some agreement with our allies as to how to proceed. We must not view national missile defense as a substitute for arms control efforts. I believe Congress should primarily be encouraging further reductions in global nuclear weapons, while examining the need for, timing of, and feasibility of national missile defense within a global arms-control context. I don't believe that we should be doing anything more than examining these questions at this time. There are some good things about the bill. For example, I'm pleased that the measure provides a 3.7 percent pay increase for military personnel, and that the bill includes important provisions to revamp the military health care system, including restoring access for all Medicare-eligible military retirees and creating a plan to implement a permanent health care program for military retirees over 65. But Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide a balance between our domestic and international responsibilities. We may be more secure than ever before, but I question whether the country wouldn't be better off if we were to invest more in education, health care, and the needs of our children. We must remember that this nation's strength comes not just from military preparedness, but also from its citizens. Adequate investments in them are just as important as protection for them.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as we go forward with the budget process, I'd like to bring the attention of my colleagues to an article published in the Baltimore Sun. The author is a senior fellow at the Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues at the University of Denver. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the points he makes, I think the article is valuable for purposes of informed debate. [The Sun: Tuesday, March 21, 2000] Special Interest Defense (By James L. Hecht) For a while, it looked as if Congress might do the right thing: kill an unneeded weapons program, saving $60 billion and increasing security. But in the end, Congress gave a higher priority to the interests of Lockheed Martin, providing $1 billion in this year's budget to buy up to six F-22 fighters--and keeping alive the possibility of buying more than 300 more at a cost of at least $187 million each. The F-22 is an example of how the military budget is driven more by the desire of members of Congress to get re-elected than by security. The public interest is no match for lobbyists for the military-industrial complex who in 1996 contributed an average of $18,065 to every member of Congress, almost three times the level of tobacco-industry influence peddling. Why is the F-22 an unneeded weapon? The American F-15 and F-16 fighters are the best in the world and, if more fighters are needed, these can be built for less than one-quarter the cost of an F-22. Moreover, the F-22 may be outdated soon by the Joint Strike Fighter, an even better plane on which the Pentagon is spending billions for development. We spend more than $30 billion a year to maintain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads. A 1,000-warhead force with the destructive force of 40,000 Hiroshima explosions would be more than enough--and save about $17 billion a year. How political pork supersedes military needs is demonstrated by the appropriation in last year's budget of $435 million for seven C-130 cargo transport planes. The Pentagon requested only one. They got seven because manufacture of these planes provided jobs in Newt Gingrich's district. Huge expenditures for unneeded weapons is one reason that U.S. military spending is more than twice as much as all potential adversaries combined, including Russia, China, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While polls indicate that 72 percent of Americans believe it better to have too much defense than too little, 83 percent think that spending should be no greater than that of all potential adversaries combined. America's unreasonable military spending also results from the policy that the United States be able to simultaneously fight and win two major regional wars without the help of allies. This two-war doctrine is rooted in the idea that the United States should be able to exercise unilaterally its ``global responsibilities.'' But having this capability and then using it to act alone or with little military support from allies--as we did in Kosovo and continue to do in the skies over Iraq--decreases our security. We make bitter enemies of people that are no threat to us militarily, but can be a serious threat if in anger and frustration they resort to terrorism. Our security also is decreased because our huge military spending consumes money that otherwise could be spent on education. With the economic success of nations becoming increasingly more dependent on a well-educated work force, shortchanging educational needs is a threat to the economic security of Americans in the 21st century. Security is the most important function of government. But we should not--in the name of security--needlessly spend tens of billions of dollars a year for the benefit of politically connected interests.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding to me. Just to set the record straight, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who is trying to do the right thing, and he is almost right but I think we need to do more, if we look at his amendment, it would leave out the following areas: The limestone cliffs, Jones Bench Rock Canyon, Molan Reef, Eagle Canyon, and the red desert and others. This is about wilderness study areas, not about creating wilderness. This is about maintaining areas in the wilderness study category so Congress can make those decisions when we deem fit.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I regret that this bill is before the House today because I do not think it is ready for this prime time appearance. By that I do not mean that the bill is all bad. It does have some positive aspects. And I do not mean that the sponsors are not serious when they say that they want to improve the management of this special part of the public lands. I know they are sincere and I respect their efforts. What I do mean is that the bill still has several serious flaws. We should have fixed those flaws when we considered the bill in the Committee on Resources, but that did not happen. We should have revised the bill so that it would cover the entire San Rafael Swell area, but we did not. We should have provided the BLM with all the tools it needs to protect the resources and values of these public lands that have been shaped by the forces of wind and water, but we did not do that, either. And we should have made the bill truly wilderness neutral by providing at least interim protection for the wilderness resources of these lands. Again, we did not do that in the committee. So here we are with a bill that falls short. We will be considering some amendments to try to do at least part of the work that we could have done in the committee. Those amendments deserve approval. But unless the bill's flaws are corrected, it should be rejected so that we can start again in the Committee on Resources and do the job right the next time. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: Environmental Defense, Western Water Project--Trout Unlimited, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, June 5, 2000. Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Babbitt: We are writing about H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act, that was reported out of the Resources Committee, as amended, on May 16, 2000. Environmental Defense and Trout Unlimited have not been a part of the negotiations and debate that surround this legislation, and we are not in a position to express a general position on that legislation. However, we have been made aware of this legislation's water rights provision and have carefully reviewed that legislation language. We have very serious concerns about this provision. We do not believe that its terms will permit the Bureau of Land Management to protect and conserve the water-related resources of the San Rafael Swell. And we are gravely concerned about the precedent that this legislation likely will set. Thus, we urge you to insist that this legislative provision be removed or substantially strengthened. i. general comments By way of background, we note that H.R. 3605 withdraws those lands within the proposed national conservation area from disposal under the public lands laws. That is certainly a positive step forward. However, we also note that H.R. 3605, both as introduced and as amended, expressly disclaims either an express or implied federal reserved water right. This is a dramatic departure from the general approach that the Congress has taken when it reserves lands either for wilderness or for national conservation areas. For example, section 201(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (which dealt with Bureau of Land Management lands) both effected a reservation of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservation and directed the Secretary to take all necessary steps to protect those rights. Section 706 of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 and section 8 of the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989 were to like effect. Similarly, when it established the El Malpais National Conservation Area, the Congress expressly reserved water to carry out the purposes of the national conservation area. And when Congress established the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, the Congress expressly reserved a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the national conservation area. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 460XXX. Admittedly, in individual cases the Congress has seized upon an alternative strategy to protect and conserve the water-related resources within a reservation. The Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 is perhaps the best example of such an approach. The water rights language in that legislation established a model for providing a high level of protection for water-related resources within a reservation without resort to a reserved right. However, the water rights language approved by the Resources Committee for the San Rafael Swell would neither effect a reserved right nor establish an alternative approach for protecting water- related resources. Instead, the Resource Committee's amended bill would effectively abdicate the United States' responsibility for protecting and conserving water and water- related resources within the Swell. We believe that would be a serious error. ii. specific comments Set out below are our more specific comments on the water provisions added to the bill during Resource Committee markup: A. Water rights already have been appropriated. Subsection (k) of the amendment avers that available water resources within the external boundaries of the conservation area already have been appropriated. While we do not have the information to determine whether that is an accurate statement, we will assume for the sake of argument that it is; most river basins in the West would fit within that general description. But even if this is an accurate description, it is not a sufficient basis to both disavow a reserved right and fail to adopt an equally effective alternative for the protection of water resources within the national conservation area. We should start with the fundamentals. And the fundamentals are that those of us who have visited the Swell, as you perhaps have, know that at certain times of the year there is abundant water in the water courses that arise upon or flow through the proposed national conservation area. And of course, the riparian vegetation that adjoins those watercourses is dependent upon those flows. But the assertion that water resources within the basins that will, in whole or in part, be encompassed by the national conservation area are appropriated is not necessarily in conflict with the presence of flowing and standing water within the proposed national conservation area. Neither is a sufficient argument to disclaim not only a reserved right but even a meaningful alternative for protecting water resources within the proposed national conservation area. It may be that water storage projects upstream of the proposed national conservation area are not capable of capturing the entire flow of the streams during heavy rains or during the spring. It may be that the water rights upstream of the proposed national conservation area are unperfected and may, or may not, ever be made absolute. It may be that upstream appropriators are simply unable, at this time, to make full use of the waters that arise upon or flow through the national conservation area. Thus, there may be water that is available for a junior appropriation even though the area appears fully appropriated. B. No express or implied reservation of water. The water provisions in the committee amendment do preserve pre- existing valid existing water rights. However, there is no evidence in the record that we have seen to suggest that the Bureau of Land Management possesses existing water rights adequate to protect water-related resources within the national conservation area. Moreover, as noted above, subsection (1) of the water provisions added during committee markup expressly disclaims either an express or implied federal reserved water right. This is a deeply troubling precedent. But notwithstanding the claim that is routinely made in legislation such as this that water provisions are not intended to create a precedent, our own experience had disapproved any such claim. If the Congress follows this course, this legislation language inevitably will become the template for future legislation. That would be a tragic mistake. Although western interests have been hostile to federal reserved and non-reserved rights for over a century, these tools have been indispensable to the protection of water resources on reservations created on the public land. If this legislation instead adopted the course traveled by so many other public lands statutes, the Secretary would have the ability to file for a water right to protect the Swell's water resources. Admittedly, the water right would be junior to all pre-existing water rights. Nevertheless, such a water right would enable the Secretary to prevent senior water rights from being changed or expanded if such actions would ``injure'' the junior reserved right. Similarly, the existence of a reserved right, however junior, would permit the Secretary to protect water resources within the Swell from injury by over-use of water upstream of the national conservation area (either through diversions in excess of upstream rights, or by over-application of water to a beneficial use). In the absence of a reserved right, the Secretary will be seriously challenged in his or her ability to address problems such as these. Indeed, we believe future Secretaries will be entirely disabled from effectively dealing with issues such as this. At the same time, without a reserved or nonreserved right (both of which appear to be foreclosed by this legislation), the Secretary may well discover ten or twenty years in the future that he or she is unable to secure adequate water supplies even to serve the visiting public at visitors centers, campgrounds, and similar facilities. C. No other authority for water resources. The most troubling part of the amendment is the provision directing that if the United States determines it needs additional water resources, it must attempt to work with a state agency that is eligible to hold instream flow water rights in order to acquire such rights in accordance with state water law. But under Utah state law, only the state may hold an upstream water right; neither an individual nor a federal agency can acquire an instream flow right. Moreover, and even more troubling, Utah state agencies may only convert existing water rights to instream flows; there is no statutory basis that would enable even a state agency to file a new, junior appropriation for an instream flow within the national conservation area. Ut. Rev. Code Sec. 73-3-3. The current bill language thus creates a chimera for protection of instream values. Worse, it would preclude entirely the Secretary from obtaining any right to divert water for other legitimate governmental uses associated with the conservation area, such as providing water for fire protection. iii. summary This legislation, as it currently stands, would tie the hands of the United States. The Bureau of Land Management would lack the tools that are needed to protect valuable resources within this reservation. Indeed, this legislation effectively abdicates the federal government's responsibilities in that regard. Those of us who have visited the Swell, as you have, know full well that the Swell is an extraordinary place. It is a place that was shaped by the forces of wind and water. Whatever the other merits of this proposal may be, it would be a tragic mistake to accept a legislative proposal that contains this sweeping precedent on water resources. We urge you to insist that this provision be removed or substantially strengthened. Respectfully, James B. Martin, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense. Melinda Kassen, Director, Colorado Office, Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited. Daniel Luecke, Senior Scientist/Regional Director, Environmental Defense. Bruce Driver, Executive Director, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the lands in the San Rafael Swell area that would be designated as wilderness by H.R. 1732, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I am a cosponsor of that bill, as are 160 other Members of this body. However, this amendment would not designate those lands as wilderness. Instead, it would require that instead they be managed as wilderness study areas. Mr. Chairman, I am very familiar with these lands. I have walked the length and breadth of the San Rafael Swell. I have floated Muddy Creek down through the beautiful Narrows. I am convinced that these lands fully deserve and need the full protection that would come with their designation as wilderness. So when the Committee on Resources considered this bill, I gave serious consideration to offering an amendment to provide that wilderness designation. However, I decided against offering that amendment. I did so because of the assurance by the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), that he intends for the bill only to defer consideration of wilderness designations in this part of Utah and not to influence one way or another the outcome of the future debate. I have great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). I know that he means what he says. So I decided to offer an amendment which is completely consistent with his intention, and that is what I am now offering. This amendment is the same that I offered in the Committee on Resources. This amendment would assure that this bill is truly wilderness neutral because it would assure that the Congress would retain all its options with respect to these lands. It would do that by requiring that they be managed so they will retain their present suitability to be designated as wilderness until Congress decides in the future, not now, on that question of wilderness designation. The amendment would also simplify and unify the management of these lands. Right now, some of them are formal wilderness study areas, others are lands that are subject to the BLM's inventory process, while others are not in either of those categories. To be specific, the amendment will require interim protection of about 1,054,800 acres of public lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Of that total right now, about 263,000 acres are classified as formal wilderness study areas. Another 500,000 are being managed as if they were wilderness study areas, but the remaining 291,000 acres, which would be designated as wilderness under the Redrock Wilderness bill, do not even have that interim protection. My amendment would change this. It would end the current differences in bureaucratic classification. It focuses on the most important characteristics of these lands, the things that they have in common, their wild, unspoiled character and their eminent suitability for being added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Mr. Chairman, by itself, this amendment will not make this a perfect bill. But by adopting this amendment, the House can assure that the bill will not prejudice the outcome of the future debate about designated wilderness in the San Rafael Swell area. I personally think that the wilderness debate has been delayed too long. I would prefer that we were debating the question today. But for now, I can support deferring this debate about wilderness provided that in the meantime we act to prevent the wilderness characteristics of the superlative public lands from being impaired. That is the purpose of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is not all that I would really like, but I think it is a reasonable and appropriate compromise. And I urge its adoption.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to acknowledge the good work that I have completed with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my friend and colleague. I do think there is a dilemma here. I think that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wants to do the right thing, he is trying to do the right thing with his amendment, but I think it is only almost the right thing, and I think that that is just not quite good enough. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) points out that the rub here is that if we allow these lands to be degraded, then they do not meet the standard of wilderness, and so our choice then, the decision that we talked about making in the future could be precluded and we would not be able to make that choice. There are half a million acres of lands that only have administrative protection under the wilderness study status, and there are another 260,000 acres of land that have no protection at this time. So I would, with some reluctance, need to oppose this amendment from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). It just does not quite get there; it only keeps the status quo in place.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to first express my great respect and affection for my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I think we do see this in many ways in a similar fashion. We both agree that the Congress ought to decide the ultimate fate of these lands, and that is simply what this amendment would do. It would just say these are going to be wilderness study areas, that we will manage them in that way, so we do not preclude the option of Congress. As you know, Mr. Chairman, if these lands are left in a state where they can be degraded in any way, then the point becomes moot as to whether they have wilderness values in 5 or 10 years; and that is all this amendment would do is make sure these lands are managed in the way that we say we want them to be managed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in support of the Inslee amendment, and talk specifically for a minute about the Muddy Creek area. I have had the opportunity to float Muddy Creek, which runs out of Emery County and down into Wayne County. I appeal to my friends from Utah and say that I think this would be a great reason to include the Inslee amendment because those lands would be protected.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is excellent news; and I appreciate the chairman for working with me, as I had appealed to him in previous colloquy. We would like to get all of the watershed. But I wanted again to make the point that we are talking about in the Inslee amendment taking into account the natural features, the geographic features, of this beautiful area; and I think that is the important point that we ought to acknowledge in the Inslee amendment. My colleagues may remember John Wesley Powell, the first head of the geologic survey, the one-armed Civil War veteran who first ran the Grand Canyon, suggested we organize the West on a watershed basis. Had we had the vision to do that, I think we would have a much easier time of managing our precious water resources in the West.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah, for yielding. The gentleman asks me what I want. I appreciate all the good work that has been done. What I want is for the gentleman to support my amendment. I think it makes good sense. I want to just make the point that this is not about creating new wilderness, as my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), might suggest. This is just about protecting these lands that are already in pristine shape in the wilderness study category.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I agree. My question is, are we going to walk, ride, or float? I also would acknowledge that the local people ought to have some input in this, and I think they have. But as my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) suggested, the West's economic structure is changing. People are coming to the West for different economic reasons. They want to have these open spaces. They want to have places in which to recreate. I think that is the intent of my legislation, my amendment, is to keep that option open in the long term. I thank my colleague.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.