Date: 1988-10-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. 1 rise In support of S. 2751 and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. Speaker. this measure is the culmination of many yesr of work on the part of the Members of the Montana delegation. who have sought to resolve difficult and often emotional issues regarding the preservation of wild lands in their State. I support and commend them. In particular. I want to commend our colleague. Hon. PAT WILLIAMS. for his leadership on the House side in crafting this legislation. Mr. Speaker. there is one matter in S. 2751 which I need to clarify for the benefit of the Members of the House who have previously dealt with the issue of wilderness in their own States. That matter is the socalled release and sufficiency language Included in the Senatepassed bill. As my colleagues know. moreorless standard release language has been Incorporated in every statewide wilderness bill that has passed the House and been signed into law since 1984. This language was drafted to ensure that legal challenges to wilderness designations in States which had reached agreement on additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System could not be brought solely on the basis of Inadequate review of the wildemess option by the Forest Service. In essence. this language says that the Forest Services RARE II wilderness review was legally sufficient and all lands not designated as wilderness by the specific bill in question were released for multipleuse management by the Forest Service until reviewed once again in accordance with the update of the land and resource management plans for the national forests In that State. These plans are prepared in accordance with Section 6 of. -the National Forest Management Actof 1976. A unique situation arose In Montana in that all the forest plans in the State had been completed prior to resolution of this wilderness question. In preparing these plans. the Forest Service reviewed other lands for possible wilderness. in addition to those that they had studied under the RARE II process and other study process mandated by specific legIslation. In order to clarify that all lands studled for wilderness designation but not incorporated Into the National Wilderness Preservation System by S. 2751 are to be released for multipleuse management and to ensure that the Integrity of the wilderness review process used In this regard is sufficient. a minor change in the release and sufficiency language for Montana was required. This language Is incorporated in S. 2751. I want to point out. Mr. Speaker. that this language does not represent a new pollicy or position on the part of the Committee on Agriculture regarding wlierness release. It is simply necessitated by the unique circumstances encountered in reviewing the wilderness option In Montana. It is. in fact. my belief that any change In wilderness release and sufficiency policy should be thoroughly reviewed by the committee before they are made. If such a review indicates that changes are needed. then they should be done in a comprehensive manner and not until all remaining statewide wilderness bills have been completed. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue. I urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 2751.