The House of Representatives met in the evening of October 10th (though the Congressional Record has it as legislative day 11 Oct) to consider "Further Protecting Outstanding Scenic, Natural, and Scientific Values of the Grand Canyon". That record ran from p. H10436 to p. H10451, 16 pages worth of the most public debate the legislation would receive in its two-year history.
The principals were, in order of speaking, Representatives: Pepper of Fla, Quillen of Tenn, & Gross of Iowa, on the rule to govern debate; then on the bill: Taylor of NC, chair of the Parks Subcommittee, Seiberling of Ohio, Steiger of Ariz, leading the Republicans, Yates of Ill, Hosmer of Calif, Rhodes of Ariz, Udall of Ariz, Foley of Wash, Dellenback of Ore, Ketchum of Calif, Meeds of Wash, Regula of Ohio, Skubitz of Kan, Dingell of Mich.
Of course, members of the House have the right to revise and add to their remarks in the Record so all that is printed is not necessarily exactly as spoken. Sadly I was not present, so can offer no personal views on the content & manner of the debate. Many members only came when it was time to vote, as indicated at points during debate.
In any case, following the main discussion, the bill as sent over by the Senate was read until Taylor moved the reading be dispensed with and the bill opened for amendments. Each was read, then agreed to, or debated and then voted on, all being voice votes except for the Havasupai transfer on which there was a roll call. The amending process completed, the House passed the amended bill by voice vote.
It called for general debate to continue for no more than one hour, then the bill would be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. The Havasupai transfer had to be ruled in order since it was non-germane to the purposes. After amending, passage shall be voted on. This was described by PEPPER, and the non-germaneness brought out by QUILLEN & GROSS. The House then resolved itself into a committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to consider the bill, and Taylor led off the debate.
TAYLOR stated that the bill would expand the park from the upper reaches of the Canyon to its terminus, 1.4 million acres. Interlocking parts of many federal areas would be consolidated in a sensible administrative framework, providing maximum protection. There are two major controversies, on the Havasupai and on a hydroelectric dam. I have "some serious reservations about the wisdom" of the Havasupai transfer in section 10 and will vote against it. The lands need to be thoroughly studied and then the issues thoroughly debated. On the dam, I believe "the mood of the people and the mind of the Congress" are unchanged, and "no dam should ever be constructed at this site". There were public hearings and consideration by both my subcommittee and the full committee. I recommend approval, with an amendment of section 10 and rejection of the dam.
SEIBERLING agrees with Taylor on his three main points. The Havasupai have already received a very generous settlement. A transfer would set a bad precedent and open the door to commercial exploitation by anti-preservation interests.
STEIGER disagreed with Taylor on section 10 accusing him of taking land, as advocated by "the Sierra Club types", away from the Havasupai and giving it to the Park. But the bill itself was "worthy", and Senator Goldwater considers it one of his most significant pieces of legislation. It costs no money, but the bill is "well thought out". I will offer an amendment to "knock out the land the House added on the north side", which has Arizona delegation support.
YATES asks why, if the Havasupai claims were satisfied and paid for, are we giving them back land? (Typical Steiger, violates the rules and uses Yates' first name, and there is a skirmish of politeness.)
STEIGER speaks of "oversimplification and overstatement". (He then suggests Seiberling is feeding Yates questions, and Yates responds that he has read the report and wants an answer.)
STEIGER: The Havasupai have left unexpended half of the award in expectation of receiving land in trust.
HOSMER (confusing the Havasupai and the Hualapai) then extols the relief they would get from the dam. [Personal note: Hosmer was, in the 1960's, one of the more vicious advocates of building Grand Canyon dams.] This issue has persisted for a dozen years because of people who have never seen nor been anywhere near the Grand Canyon. The "rabid environmentalist campaign" resulted in … the utility business (being) forced, instead of using clean hydropower, to build a bunch of dirty, coal-fired plants which are messing up the atmosphere in the Far West". These things "are being taken away from the Havasupai. the opportunity to do something besides scrub for bugs and worms out in the wilderness".
STEIGER lists the areas he wants to delete: Kanab Canyon, Whitmore, Parashaunt and Andrus Canyons, Blue Mountain, Mt. Dellenbaugh and Twin Points.
SEIBERLING then seeks to correct Steiger's earlier statement that the bill would take land from the Havasupai and put it in the Park.
STEIGER insists the bill gives land to the Havasupai; the amendment would take it away.
SEIBERLING: Clearly an error
STEIGER: Does not the bill give the land to the Havasupai?
This back and forth continues as Steiger tries to force Seiberling into accepting Steiger's misconstruction of what is amending what, with the implication that the Havasupai already have land the Park is taking away. The picture of Steiger that he presents here as a thoroughly nasty piece of discourteous work was at odds with the frank pleasant way he always treated McComb & me in our meetings. Anyway, he yields to his Arizona senior:
RHODES, who says the bill protects the Canyon "as well as law can do". It also gives the Havasupai a chance for a viable economy. I visited there one Thanksgiving; they were friendly and interesting. The best way for them to have a better economy is through tourism, but only if the land is kept the way nature intended, which is what the Havasupai wish. Their only desire is for accommodations in Supai. But the horses are bags of bones; the canyon is not very productive, so they need land on the rim where they could invest funds for an irrigated pasture, for fodder and even their own food. This is not a steal; it is to help this tribe help itself.
YATES asks: Do not the Havasupai have the right to graze on this land now?
RHODES: the right, but not the capability; they are not allowed to put money into permanent improvements, so it is absolutely necessary that they are given land for investment. This bill is to help people who want to help themselves, and it will help protect the Grand Canyon "of the United States" for all time.
UDALL provided the major statement for the committee bill. He and Goldwater had sat down to put together a bill to protect once and for all this beautiful area. It will lump into a Park a lot of different areas, and I hope we do not lose sight of this main thrust as we settle "a couple of peripheral controversies". I authored the Havasupai amendment at the committee stage. The Senate simply had a study. I was "happy" when President Nixon approved a transfer even larger than my amendment called for. "We are going to have a tough time in choosing up sides between the Sierra Club, which opposes this amendment, and the Indian organizations all over America who think the time has come" to give the Havasupai "a decent reservation". They now use the land, but cannot get needed improvements nor reside on the permit area. "This is not a giveaway of national park land. It is simply a protection of this tribe".
This is one of the most important national park proposals in recent years. (He then gives a historical sketch including the earlier bills Goldwater introduced, and coming up to the Senate-passed version amended and reported.) There are some constructive changes: 230,000 acres of spectacular side canyons and overlooks were added. "My idea was to define the Grand Canyon as a geologic entity which would provide park protection from rim to river." I have seen them from the air; no mistake, they are part of the Canyon and belong in the Park. Certain ranchers and hunters are concerned, and the committee included a study for two of the areas to see "whether the public interest would best be served by deleting these areas".
The major controversy is the Havasupai enlargement. Our original bill included 170 kac, but the Senate changed that to a study. The Havasupai have a unique claim; their right to use is protected and they have grazing permits. But there is a history of friction with federal agencies. There has been an ICC settlement, but the Committee rejected arguments that this ICC work would be upset. The Committee concluded the Havasupai needed a larger land base. Moreover, a number of restrictions were adopted to prevent adverse effects, limiting the Havasupai prerogatives as compared to other tribes. While conservation organizations are inflexible in their opposition to this compromise, there is a great deal of support in Arizona and nationally. The transfer is of land "no closer" than ¼ mile of the rim. There is 65 kac from the Park and Monument and 120 kac from the Forest. The land "is to remain forever wild" except for limited tribal uses; no industry or commercial development. There will be a secretarial land use plan, in which NPS and interested citizens will be involved.
I agree with Rep. Meeds that this is no kind of threat to the ICC system. And Congress did a few years ago grant land to tribes in the Taos Blue Lake dispute. Anyway, as a strong defender of our Park & Wilderness systems, I know that Congress has made many changes in boundaries, as recently in Capitol Reef and Arches. This is an equitable and proper solution to a difficult problem.
This legislation is a significant step toward best protection for the Canyon. 1.4 million acres will be in the Park, the best protection possible. This is one of our most important Parks, and has many accolades, but still defies description. Nevertheless, there is no disagreement on the need to preserve it for all future generations.
FOLEY gave the principal statement against the Havasupai transfer. As the gentleman from Arizona just said, the Havasupai do indeed use these lands, and have for years with no cost. This is a proposal to transfer title. And why? To develop the lands for their economic advantage, by obtaining long-term investment capital to develop grazing. Yet these lands are among the poorest grazing in the U.S. They are unsuitable, even miserable, for grazing. Scenically, they are magnificent, as Senator Goldwater has attested, and are now in a National Park. This act is to enlarge and protect the Canyon, but it is "marred beyond repair" by the ill-advised proposal of transfer. I can see no way to make valid and economic use "without violating the essential purpose and sanctity of these parklands". If given the opportunity, tourism development would be terribly destructive. There is a draft federal-state study, participated in by the Havasupai, suggesting aerial tramways, lodges & motels, and additional roads.
There are other ways to help, and anyway they did accept and receive a final claim settlement award, and that was supposed to bar any other claims, in spite of what they now say. The ICC system established by Congress will be no bar to other tribes asking for lands.
YATES asks if the report says both Agriculture and Interior are opposed to giving land.
FOLEY passes this to UDALL who says, yes, but then President Nixon changed the administration position, and now advises giving them more than we want to give.
FOLEY says the President made a statement in Arizona without consulting the two departments. So they reconsidered, and have a new position. I would hope we can defeat this position and "expeditiously" move to examine what can be done. There are many possibilities for special programs, but I plead against the transfer of title of these lands that are now in the ownership of all Americans, "integral to the most important and dramatic physical monument in this country".
DELLENBACK notes that there are few members on the floor to hear the debate, but goes on to support Foley's "cogent" arguments. This was a fine piece of legislation until it attempted to deal with an issue for which it is the wrong legislation: How do you help the Havasupai in education, health, economy? This bill will not help. But this bill does 1. threaten the National Forest System, and it would be a precedent, perhaps affecting 40 million acres. 2. It takes land from the Park System, again establishing precedent. 3. It jeopardizes 400 ICC decisions. In this case, the settlement was fair and accepted. So drop this bad amendment from this good bill.
Now began, if not a debate, then some back & forth. First, SEIBERLING asks UDALL:
If, under the land use plan's call for "residential, education, and other community purposes", the last of these "are intended to include possible commercial development such as motels or tourist attractions, or the like"?
UDALL wants to "nail this down once and for all. The answer is 'No'." As the author of the amendment, my judgment is that such purposes are those "relating to activities of the community similar to those mentioned". On that same page, "and I wrote this in so there never would be any doubt about it because I do not want tramways, and I do not want commercial development on this reservation" there is "restrictive" language: "the lands … shall remain forever wild and no uses shall be permitted under the plan which detract from the existing scenic and natural values".
SEIBERLING pushes: So the draft federal-state plan calling for "intensive tourist development" including aerial tramways, resort hotels, and rerouting Interstate 40, and the like "is not contemplated and not permitted with the language of the bill"; is that UDALL's interpretation?
UDALL: "Absolutely". And if I may say, I have fought a lot of fights with the Sierra Club. I have been with them most of the time, "but the tactics they use with this plan are really unfair and are unworthy of their fine organization". This draft plan was preliminary, done by some people working for the Governor [Historial note: this was Governor Jack Williams, a Republican, a supporter of the dam, and no doubt in favor of such commercial development.]
The draft "has been rejected by the tribe; it has no status, the bill does not permit the things they are talking about anyway; yet (the Club is) going through the Halls of the House, waving this plan around as though it will be adopted tomorrow morning if the bill is passed.
SEIBERLING asks if the uses called for by the report language -- "traditional uses -- agricultural uses, grazing, residential use by members of the tribe and ceremonial and religious uses"--are not already permitted to them under the present Park law covering the land?
UDALL: "Pretty much." We have this great debate, but things could be done either way. "We are arguing mostly about who is going to have the title on the piece of paper in Washington."
But they could not get homes, schools or clinics, or roads.
SEIBERLING asks, so why not permit them to get these benefits instead of transferring land?
UDALL admits that was his "second best solution", a "suitable" solution. It would have achieved much of what we are trying to do. But we are saying to the Havasupai: This is your aboriginal land; keep it; use it; preserve it for the future.
FOLEY asks if the Forest Service could permit special uses. We do not have to transfer title to accomplish any of the special needs.
UDALL agrees; that is "essentially" correct. "It is the decent way to do it. It is the open way:. We are saying: This is your land; you may use it but you cannot use it in ways "that will destroy the park value".
FOLEY suggests the thrust of the Indian Claims Commission was to make money, not land, settlements.
FOLEY: so we are going against that 20-year tradition of paying with money, not land.
RHODES then suggests that in that case, we would have taken and paid for all the land. But we did not. We left certain lands in trust, and we are saying this land should be left in trust and go back to them.
SEIBERLING replies that we can say such, but the land was incorporated into the National Park over 50 years ago. And I add, I think the primary reason for this is the decision Nixon made at a political meeting. It was embarrassing to the two departments and to some Arizona people in office. Nixon is gone; we are not bound, and ought to reject this "dangerous precedent".
STEIGER as minority organzer, now yields time to
KETCHUM, and he charges we seem to have a great many Indian experts … all of a sudden. There is a great deal of hassle about these 459 Indians locked into 518 acres, miserable, poor Indians. This is a big deal, giving them back 185,000 acres. We are trying to give them back the land to give them the one thing they do not have--pride. We have been talking about clinics and such, but that is not what they want; they are tired of being referred to as lazy Indians. "They deserve this land so that they can do the things" in the bill. Give them the land. The are not going to ruin the Park Service or jeopardize the Forest Service. Would they do this with tomahawks? Does the ICC prevent this thing from being settled just because "shyster lawyers" convinced them they got "a tremendous deal" when the lawyer is getting a piece of the action? I do not blame the Havasupai for thinking they were getting some dollars but had not given up their claim. So pass this bill, and give them the land and their pride.
[I have to pause here and admire Rep. Ketchum's perspicacity, trenchantly expressed.]
TAYLOR then responds that there are 250 Havasupai, that they have another piece of reservation, and the right to use 250,000 acres of Park and Forest lands for traditional uses, i.e., grazing, hunting, fishing, burying the dead. No one proposes to take this right away. If we are setting a precedent, let justice be done.
MEEDS addresses the Havasupai view of the ICC process. Yes, the ICC could not award land, but the Havasupai believed their title was not extinguished. Also, they depended on Congress, even after paying them 50 cents an acre, to pass special legislation to give them their land back. All who have worked on the compensation, Senator Fannin and others, clearly intended at that time to have special legislation to give the Havasupai some land. So the Havasupai took their claim and refused to accept the 50 cents an acre for the land here in question. "They have refused to accept the money for years now", and that ought to make clear their intent not to lose title. It is very clear that the Senators backing the compensation bill intended to come in with a bill to give the Havasupai title to this land, which they have lived on for 1000 years and have treated better than most conservationists would; it is their home. So the real issue is not a deterioration of park values, but human values of these peoples' home.
STEIGER offers some of the "bottom-line facts" so far ignored. We are talking about changing title, from NPS and NFS, to being in trust for the Havasupai. Those "not blessed with very tight connections to the Sierra Club will not understand the sheer horror of this". These "environmental activists", "Green Bigots", are in fact "bigoted about practically everything". I "really delight" in the impossible position this bill puts them in, these people who have "a difficult time spelling 'canyon' or 'Havasupai', though they profess a great love for mankind and the future. But they deny these 459 impoverished people title because that offends them. So human values are abandoned and "crocodile tears" are found only for the transfer. There is no "magic" in NPS and FS administration.
We were told 40 million acres of forest are in jeopardy because of these 459 "land-maddened people" That is not sophistry; that is just baloney. This situation is unique, and they have had use of this land for hundreds of years. And if there were another such situation, I would lead the fight on that. [I have to interrupt this diatribe just to point out that he would lead the fight unless it involved a grazing allotment of one of his friends.] No acres are in jeopardy; the agencies' prerogatives are, their "innate greed and innate blind parochial self-interest". Do not be seduced by the false statements by the Sierra Club about any plan, already refused by the Havasupai. If you dont want to give them land because you dont like Indians, ok. But there is an "obsession" here that should be upsetting; the Sierra Club has been once again proven wrong; "people who defend bureaucratic prerogatives at the expense of human values are really out of reach with the times".
RHODES asks if the land would be held in trust by the Secretary.
STEIGER Yes, and the Secretary has to approve any plan for any change in land use.
RHODES points out then that a tram or any device like that would have to be adopted by the Secretary, so that is not in the control of the state or the Havasupai. The Secretary would have the last word and would be bound by the legislative record. And I do not want any trams or anything unsightly.
DELLENBACK: It is hazardous to trade verbal barbs (with Steiger) and I wont. Still, while I do not agree with many who lobby us, and I have disagreed with the Club, I think to take the sincere, earnest, good people in the Club and categorize them (as Steiger did) is particularly unsound and unfair. As to his "cavalier disregard and his simplistic statement" that other Forest land is not in jeopardy, (Steiger) has made clear at times he is glad he is not a lawyer, so let me say that for a lawyer every precedent is not exactly the same as what comes after. It is a legal fact that if we take land away from the Forest and Park, we create a precedent that can be used, not just in identical, but in similar cases.
STEIGER asserts that on 11 previous occasions Forest land has gone in trust to tribes. The precedent that is so frightening is already set. And my "overgenerous description" of the Sierra Club is a judgement call; you have defended them and they needed defending.
FOLEY chastises Steiger's comments as degrading the debate. [Historical note: Years later, when Foley had become Speaker of a beleaguered Democratic-controlled House, the Gingrich-led Republican sniping was exactly in the spirit of Steiger's insults -- Sam was a tea swilling politician ahead of his time.] There is an issue here of policy, of precedent, of how best to protect the Grand Canyon. We must "never transfer" these lands out of national ownership. They will not help economically unless commercial tourist development is permitted. They can now use the land, but the federal-state draft study recommends totally incompatible projects. The Havasupai resolution repudiating them is dated July 28, and the study August 30. The study suggests at least a possibility of tramways and motels. The Havasupai now have use; if special permits are needed, they can be granted under present law. We have authority to give land, but if so, protection will not be as assured as now. Their economic problems call for attention; we support effective efforts, but land is not the answer, and not the answer for the Canyon, "the protection and preservation of which is the purpose of this legislation'.
REGULA says the bill is of greatest importance to an "ancient and honorable native American people who are struggling for survival". They have occupancy; why not leave it as is? The real issue is which agency should administer the land. The land is not commercial forest, and so it should be the BIA. However, without trust title, the BIA is not interested in helpful development. Formal legal title will give the Havasupai an economically viable land base, and without endangering the scenic and environmental values of this Park. Almost all the land is plateau, stopping ¼ mile from the rim. There will be a strict land use plan. The Use Area will remain forever in the Park.
The Havasupai enjoyed uninterrupted use of this land until some prospectors arrived, leading to an Army recommendation, first for an unsurveyable reservation, then for one diminished to 518 acres, established in 1882. Their use was confirmed in 1919, but lack of title discouraged their efforts and precluded the BIA from helping. Legislation to grant title was proposed in 1920, 1931, 1943, 1952, 1957 & 1968. Congress failed to act; life has gotten worse. They face an uncertain future with dire problems. The enlargement is a vital step to preserve the cultural identity, by giving the BIA an incentive to provide for development.
FOLEY notes that Congress has "plenary authority" to tell the BIA to deal with the problems, yes?
REGULA replies that the BIA would not be interested in a viable agricultural community if the land is not transferred from the Forest Service to the BIA for management.
FOLEY asserts we can direct the BIA to do what we think right.
REGULA says that is what this bill does, make the Department of Interior responsible.
SKUBITZ (who was the senior Republican on the Committee, though Steiger led that side in this debate) sums up the bill as doubling the size of the present Park, drawing from federal lands. There were two controversies. Dam construction was not adopted in committee. There are meritorious arguments on both sides of the other issue, the Havasupai being granted trust title. There will be vigorous debate on this, so let us get on with deliberation.
The Clerk began to read the bill as sent over to the House by the Senate.
TAYLOR asked for unanimous consent to consider that done.
No objection, and the first amendment was read, starting the Park at the Paria, and was agreed to.
The next amendment was to increase the acreage to 1,406,500 as approved by the Committee.
STEIGER offered a substitute amendment for 1,275,439 acres, first apologizing for not having a map, then naming the additions which would be removed from the Committee amendment. This has come about "because of the pressure and the advice of the Arizona fish and game people and the many hunters in Arizona and Utah who use this area, and a great many sportsmen and ranchers in the area". The land was thought to be inaccessible. Its condition is excellent, so the current administration is good. There are some unique features such as bighorn sheep preserves which would be lost, in the hunters' feelings. NPS management would not be suitable. The Senate did not include these lands; there were no hearings on adding them. I would hope the Senate version would prevail.
UDALL opposes Steiger's substitute that would remove all the Committee additions. There is the possibility of having a conference. I am flexible in looking at not going as far as the Committee did, but it did find, and I agree, that the lands should stay in the Park. We provide a study and a report back on whether the hunting would be damaged. I want to pledge that if the recommendation is made to take the lands out, I would be inclined to support such legislation. But the wise thing tonight is to approve the Committee additions.
TAYLOR agrees with Udall that the 131,000 acres deleted by the Steiger amendment, which the (Parks) subcommittee had carefully studied, should be kept in. The matter was considered 4 months later by the full committee, and (STEIGER) did not then express any opposition, though he submitted several other amendments. So leave them in; we will consider them in conference, and the Secretary can consider them further in a study.
HOSMER brings up the "enormity" of what is proposed. This is wonderful territory, now to be doubled to 1.4 million acres. This may be overdoing it. Particularly if there are honest people who make some kind of use, it should not be locked up tight by the likes of the Sierra Club. And he is only asking for one hundred and some acres. I resent the argument that because it was not dragged through all the committees, the substitute should not be offered. (TAYLOR) argues that again & again, and it is just sophistry.
STEIGER asserts the "most controversial" addition, Kanab Canyon, was not to be studied. [Not true; the Committee amendment did include a Kanab study.] So what we are doing is adding an area nobody has looked at, that nobody has examined either committee or staff. We are advised that this is an improper addition, according to people who use it.
HOSMER goes on to attack the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations as "nothing more than a group of lobbyists who come to the House … day in and day out, week in and week out, and month in and month out… That is what the Sierra Club is…a bunch of people who … get other people to contribute money to them, and who make fat salaries, as they run around fighting … issues they probably dredged up themselves." Every time a dam is proposed, the Club rushes out against it. In this bill they "come in and jumped on some poor Indians". They oppose the bill because they say these natives of America would spoil it. (He goes on about another issue entirely the Club is to blame for.) I am a voice from downtown America which they are trying to lock up and turn into a park for the birds and bees and animal first and people last. They are to blame for inflation, too. [Nice to know that he quit Congress in December.]
Steiger's substitute was rejected.
The Committee amendment adding lands was agreed to.
The next amendment named the new map, and was agreed to.
The amendment to study Parashant and Kanab was agreed to.
The amendment to add exchange of State lands was agreed to.
The Havasupai amendment was being read when UDALL asked for unanimous consent to just have it printed. DINGELL objected. After more reading, TAYLOR asked for reading to end, and it did.
FOLEY spoke in favor of keeping the Senate-passed study language for the Havasupai, and started to read it.
DINGELL noted the lack of a quorum. 59 members only being there, proceedings were suspended until 100 members had appeared, a quorum for the Committee of the Whole.
FOLEY noted there has been almost an hour of debate; most points covered. I plead for rejection of the transfer amendment, and return to the Senate language for a study, to look at Havasupai needs, and the effect on the involved lands. We opponents see that economic benefit can only come in ways "destructive of the enormous scenic values". It would create a dangerous precedent. The study is to take only a year, leading to a more considered judgement.
STEIGER points out that the entire Arizona delegation supports the transfer, and that is because we know the equities involved. [That is true, by the way. At least all the Republicans had at one time or another earlier introduced transfer legislation.] The precedents have already been set; parochial agency battles should not stand in the Havasupai's way. This is their last chance. "Anyone who believes that these people are going to get legislation through here that is not attached to a Grand Canyon bill does not understand legislation" (my emphasis). Vote "no" to lock them into the canyon for eternity; to support "Arizona ideals", vote for it.
UDALL attacks the letter circulated by the Club as inaccurate and misleading of the amendment. Section 10 specifically delineates what can be done, and except for those uses, the land is to remain forever wild. The language can not be interpreted to allow destructive developments. The Havasupai are not allowed to do what they please on some parcels as the Club charges. He now reads from the Committee Report on what is allowed and what is not and on the land use plan and its revision. We could not make restrictions any more explicit.
And by the way, the Secretary right now could approve a tramway or other development, but does not because "it is undesirable". "The language in this act will clearly make it more difficult to exploit the natural and scenic qualities of this area than at present. The Secretary…must…follow the letter and intent of the statute and can be held accountable." "I am sure … any proposed land use … will be scrutinized for conformity with the provisions of this act." The Secretary will certainly "seek public comment and input from the Park Service and Forest Service". I do not share environmentalist fears. I would not support it if it set any kind of precedent.
We have had a long day, and this issue has been lobbied extensively through letters, Dear Colleague letters, and outside organizations. We had a good, rousing debate tonight, and I thought the pros and cons were ably presented. There are two reputable, responsible positions. We do justice to the Havasupai by voting for the amendment, and protect their legitimate rights.
DELLENBACK acknowledges the unanimity of the Arizona delegation, but suggest they are wrong, since impact of the amendment is national. A study can still lead to a resolution. We should not reject the ICC work.
KETCHUM notes that it was not just the Arizona delegation, but Committee members from other states who supported the land transfer.
DELLENBACK agrees, and repeats that it is a national issue.
TAYLOR notes he has been to see the reservation. Beautiful, but hard to get to. He then reprises the history, emphasizing the ICC process and the impact on it. If that process is overthrown, and all tribes demand land return, all federal lands will disappear.
SEIBERLING again brings up the draft development study, and the ICC award. He asserts they have had "dangled before" them visions of tremendous income, and so they have come to ask for the land. Why would they just want residences and schools on this parkland? I would be surprised if there were residences on the desert plateau up above. This is a "shibboleth … created by various political activities" including Nixon's. They ask for title to do what they already can do, and thus create the precedent. Are we going to start the process of dismantling the National Park System?
The vote was called. It appeared that the noes had it, and
RHODES demanded a recorded vote.
By electronic device, the ayes were 180, the noes 147, not voting 107 (see below).
The wilderness study amendment was agreed to, as was the clarifying amendment deleting the 1919 agriculture provision.
The Committee rose and then reported to the House that the bill with sundry amendments had been adopted. The Speaker ordered the vote. The amendments were agreed to, and the bill was voted on; the ayes appeared to have it. Lack of a quorum was noted, but 250 members were present, a quorum. The ayes and nays were demanded, and refused, and so S. 1296 as amended was passed.