Anyway, my company is an investor-owned electric utility, natural gas and steam utility, which provides steam service to Denver. It is the largest energy utility in Colorado with an electric generating capability of approximately 2,600 megawatts, and daily natural gas availability of 1,425 billion cubic feet. You can see that I represent a company, and not only that company, but an industry that is completely concerned about the passage of Senate bill 2801. We are concerned about employment. We are concerned about jobs. We are concerned about providing the energy that must maintain the economic viability of our great country. I am also testifying for another organization which you can see is extremely interested in the nonpassage of this bill and that is the National Association of Manufacturers. The National Association of Manufacturers is a voluntary organization of industrial and business firms, both large and small, located in every State. They have some 11,000 member companies and are affiliated with an additional 158,000 companies through its associations department and the National Industrial Council. Together these firms represent 80 percent of our national industrial output, 85 percent of the industrial employment. NAM represents producers, processors, and users of American natural resources, and it is, therefore, deeply concerned with the U.S. growing dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals. These resources are essential to manufacuring, the economy, and our national security. As such, we are concerned with any legislative proposal that further impairs our ability to produce adequate amounts of domestic oil, gas, and minerals. Senate bill 2801, the Wilderness Protection Act of 1982, does just that. NAM strongly opposes this measure. Further, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of a loosely knit organization representing some 250,000 people in the State of Colorado known as the Colorado Resource Consortium which also opposes Senate bill 2801. I am submitting a copy of the consortium's mailing list for the record,1 if I may do so. Senator WALLOP. By all means. Mr. ROLANDER. Many advocates of this bill claim the bill is necessary in order to preserve our Nation's wilderness areas, our crown jewels, from the chain saw and the bulldozer. The same proponents also view the bill as a compromise measure. We feel it is neither. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting the rest of my statement so it can be part of the record, and I know I only have probably 15 seconds left to go. Senator WALLOP. About a minute. Mr. ROLANDER. That's more than I thought, sir, but we have to maintain to look at this piece of legislation as a compromise. We feel S. 2801 is not a compromise. To have a compromise, a true compromise, any future bill must provide permanent release language for those 36 million acres determined to be unsuitable for wilderness under the 1979 RARE II study; also must provide provisions for the immediate reversion of BLM wilderness study areas to multiple use once they are determined to be unsuitable for wilder 1 Retained in subcommittee files. ness designation; also must provide the opportunity to explore wilderness areas at least until the statutory deadline of December 31, 1983, for inventory purposes. Mr. Chairman, in my next 10 seconds I would like to share a statement that was made to me by a Spanish American friend as it relates to wilderness and the wilderness process. We were sitting down chatting about the various economic affairs of the States. We were talking about wilderness, and this gentleman says, "Do you know what the wilderness process means to me?" This is a Spanish American, and certainly knows a lot about discrimination. He says to me it is a prime example of sophisticated racism. Now that might or might not be a truism. I did want to share that with you, and I want to thank you on behalf of the NAM for the opportunity to appear before you and the subcommittee today. I hope we can work together in future times. Testimony of Robert Rolander On Behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers The Wilderness Protection Act of 1982 Subcommittee on Public Lands and Reserved Water Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Rolander, I am a Government Affairs Representative for the Public Service Company of Colorado. The Public Service Company is an investor-owned electric, natural gas and steam utility, which provides steam service to Denver. It is the largest energy utility in Colorado, with an electric generating capability of approximately 2,600 megawatts and daily natural gas availability of 1,425 billion cubic feet. I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). The National Association of Manufacturers is a voluntary organization of industrial and business firms, both large and small, located in every state. NAM has over 11,000 member companies and is affiliated with an additional 158,000 companies through its Associations Department and the National Industrial Council. Together, these firms represent 80 per cent of our national industrial output and 85 per cent of industrial employment. NAM represents producers, processors and users of America's 16-780 0-83--17 -2 natural resources, and is, therefore, deeply concerned with the United States' growing dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals. These resources are essential to manufacturing, the economy and our national security. As such, we are concerned with any legislative proposal that further impairs our ability to produce adequate amounts of domestic oil, gas, and minerals. S. 2801, The Wilderness Protection Act of 1982, does just that. NAM strongly opposes this measure. Further, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of a loosely knit organization known as the Colorado Resource Consortium, which also opposes S. 2801. I am submitting a copy of the Consortium's mailing list for the record. Many advocates of S. 2801 claim the bill is necessary in order to preserve our nation's Wilderness heritage, our "crown jewels", from the "chainsaw and the bulldozer." These same proponents also view the bill as a compromise measure. We feel it is neither. Not in the Public Interest To begin with, not only is S. 2801 unnecessary, it is not in the public interest. -3 S. 2801 seeks to lock-up 35 million acres of public lands without adequate inventories of the resources these lands contain. These lands contain publicly owned natural resources that belong to all Americans. The public has a right to know the nature, extent and location of these resources; in essence, we have a right to know what we are being asked to give up. Ignores the Inventory Process S. 2801 considers only Wilderness preservation, without regard to other, equally legitimate needs. It ignores the public interests served by meaningful resource inventories, informed land use decisions, and an orderly, phased and environmentally sound exploration and development program in the portions of wilderness study and candidate areas found to have high energy values. We should remember this country is still: a net importer of logs, over 50% dependent upon foreign sources for 9 of 13 spending $80 billion per year for foreign oil. |