[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 423 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2473.
{time} 1645
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2473) to designate certain National Forest lands in the State of
Montana as wilderness, to release other National Forest lands in the
State of Montana for multiple use management, and for other purposes,
with Ms. Woolsey in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be recognized for 30
minutes, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 30
minutes, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] will be recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] will be
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Studds] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, this initiative, H.R. 2473, is really the work of our
colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams]. The gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams] is not able to be with us at this time. We
have agreed with him to proceed with the general debate on this matter,
and we assume that all of the time will not be utilized today.
I will be reserving 10 minutes for the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] upon his return on Tuesday next to use that time in general
debate for his statement, and I would ask the indulgence of the other
Members not to reserve time at the end of today but to proceed on that
basis.
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is attending the graduation
of his son and left here about 30 minutes ago to try to make a plane.
Madam Chairman, this is an enormously important bill. The Montana
wilderness proposal involves 6 million acres of land, 3 million of
which is classified by this bill as wilderness and other special
management areas. It is a classification and a definition of land in
Montana in terms of wilderness. Montana has some of the largest
noncontiguous blocks of roadless land along with Idaho, in this
intermountain west region.
{time} 1650
It is the land that has been immortalized in the film and book by
Norman MacLain, ``A River Runs Through It.'' It is the ``Big Sky''
country. It is a magnificent legacy and a natural heritage in Montana.
There is no place like these lands in the world.
We in Congress have responsibility in terms of stewardship, in terms
of classifying the use of such lands, in terms of passing them on to
future generations through our actions on this floor in the week ahead.
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] has done a great job and
done it, I might say, with a lot more pressure than most of us face in
terms of this issue, as his constituents are most immediately affected
by the actions in this measure.
He has shown, Madam Chairman, great courage, great insight, and a
great deal of work in the process. He has to live it, sleep it and eat
it, I might say, day in and day out. We owe to Pat Williams and the
people of Montana a decision on this important issue.
Madam Chairman, this issue has been before the Congress for well over
a decade, in fact 16 years, I think, is what is claimed. In any case it
has been a long time that this land has been in the planning process.
Congress has attempted in the past to act on this legislation, and it
was vetoed, in fact the only wilderness bill ever vetoed, in 1988 by
the then-President Reagan.
I would suggest to my colleagues I think that the President did not
act correctly at that time, but, hopefully, we will put that behind us
and move ahead now with the type of debate and consideration that will
provide for the deliberate consideration and finally the enactment of
this legislation which is so important to the Great Sky country. In
providing for the preservation of wilderness, we will exercise our
responsibility as stewards of our natural heritage and legacy.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, the issue of Montana wilderness has been considered
by this body even before I arrived here nearly 14 years ago. As a
member of the Natural Resources Committee, I have participated in
numerous hearings and mark-ups on this issue.
Coming from a western public lands State which is 64 percent
federally owned and as author of the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act, I
believe that decisions on wilderness are best left to the members of
the affected State. They are the only ones elected by those who are
directly affected by these decisions. Therefore, I agree with Chairman
Miller that we should defer to the members of the delegation for
direction.
Unfortunately, the Natural Resources Committee and the House often
fails to defer to those members that are duly elected by constituents
who live and work in the areas proposed for wilderness. For example,
next week the House will consider a 7 million acre wilderness bill for
the California desert, which is opposed by all four members who
represent that area.
I personally believe the acreage in this bill is excessive. It
designates twice as much wilderness as the professional land managers
at the Forest Service recommended in their exhaustive rare II study. In
fact, some of the counties affected by H.R. 2473 have voiced their
opposition to this bill and I personally believe that local support is
very important. However, I will defer to the gentleman from Montana on
that matter. In turn, I hope he defers to the four gentleman
representing the California desert when H.R. 518 comes up next week.
I am concerned with several precedents in this bill that could become
boiler plate language for other wilderness bills. I disagree with the
Montana ecosystem and economics study created in section 9, which the
Congressional Budget Office claims will cost $8 million. Similarly, I
prefer stronger release language to help assure that the 3 million
acres released for multiple use is actually managed that way.
Finally, I am concerned that this bill will affect land management
decisions and the local economies outside the State of Montana. For
example, wilderness and special management designations in Northwest
Montana will exacerbate the timber supply crisis in Oregon and other
nearby States. I supported a reasonable but unsuccessful amendment by
Mr. Smith of Oregon, who represents such an affected area.
In conclusion, while I defer to Mr. Williams generally on his bill
affecting his State, I have some reservations. I will support
reasonable amendments which I believe improve the bill, but keep the
basic package in tact.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire of Chairman Vento regarding
the intent of this bill.
Madam Chairman, I am uncomfortable with the wording of the release
language in section 11 of the bill.
Section 11 states that the released land ``Shall be managed for
multiple use in accordance with land and resources management plans''
and that ``those roadless areas need not be managed for the purpose of
protecting their suitability for wilderness designation''.
Will this language prohibit consideration of the released land for
possible future designation as a wilderness, and does it in any way
limit wilderness reviews to be conducted in these areas by the Forest
Service?
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, the release language does not prohibit consideration
of the released land for possible future designation as a wilderness by
Congress, nor does it in any way limit future wilderness reviews to be
conducted by the Forest Service. This would occur when the forest plans
are revised.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
I would like to say at this time I do appreciate the gentleman's
leadership on Western issues and his tireless efforts on our behalf.
I would like to make a few comments regarding this legislation;
specifically the water language, which is of particular significance to
me because it was modeled after similar language contained in the
Colorado Wilderness Act, which was passed last year. The Colorado water
language was carefully crafted to try to prevent the assertion of a
Federal reserve water right. I believe any Federal water language
reported out of the House will become boilerplate language for other
wilderness legislation facing States in the western part of the United
States.
Madam Chairman, when the Montana wilderness bill was originally
introduced, those in Congress, as well as water users in Montana, were
led to believe that this bill would preclude the creation or assertion
of a Federal reserve water right as well. While this originally may
have been the intent of H.R. 2473, the present legislation does not
reflect this concern. As one who is very familiar with the language in
the Colorado wilderness bill and has worked closely on water issues, I
can testify that the present language in H.R. 2473, does not protect
the water rights of those in Montana. Rather, the changes made in
section 4(b) of H.R. 2473 effectively permit the assertion of a Federal
reserve water right. In addition, this language sets a bad precedent
for preserving State water law throughout the west.
When Mr. Williams originally introduced H.R. 2473, it read ``Nothing
in this Act shall be construed as a creation, recognition, disclaimer,
relinquishment, or reduction of any water rights of the United States
in the State of Montana existing before the date of enactment of this
Act.'' However, the Natural Resources Committee significantly changed
this language by striking the words ``creation'' and ``recognition''
effectively eliminating the little protection this provision attempted
of provide Montana water users.
{time} 1700
While I am not saying that by restoring the original language we will
make the bill perfect, because this bill is fair from perfect, however,
it will help improve the bill considerably. By reinserting the original
language, water users in Montana will at least be ensured the
protection they were told to expect. Several organizations in Montana,
including the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. Stockgrowers Association
and some of the County Commissioners are just as displeased with the
changes that the gentleman from Montana made to this bill in Committee.
These Montana groups realize that by removing the two words, they are
not protected against the assertion of a Federal reserve water right by
the Federal Government in any wilderness areas established by this act.
It is important that the original language is restored, not only for
the benefit of those water users in Montana, but for everybody in the
West who cares about protecting the most precious private property at
all, namely water. The least we can do is restore the original language
that Montana water users were promised. Congress has an obligation to
protect private property rights and a responsibility to clearly state
that principle in this legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to point out that there is a
difference of opinion on this. I do not want to take the gentleman's
time to debate him, but I wanted to say I think it is timely to point
out that, while there is a slight change from the Colorado language,
the change we believe is relevant to Montana. I say to the gentleman,
there is a provision in the water language that you have before you
that says, ``on or before the date of enactment of this act,'' so we
are dealing with preexisting conditions--in other words, taking care of
it in this way.
Madam Chairman, I understand that the gentleman will want to continue
this debate. I think that he has plans for that, and so I will not
pursue it at this time with him.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I would like to be able to reserve, along
with the rest of the committee members, some time later on so we can
continue this debate when maybe the gentleman from Montana would be
here to argue that perspective. But in the water language debate that
we had in the State of Colorado there was balance on both sides so that
those who were concerned about creating a new Federal reserve water----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]
has expired.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Hansen] for yielding me an additional minute.
So, in the debate we had that proper balance, and with the committee
action I see that we have lost that balance and so would look forward
to further debate on this particular issue.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Hansen] for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Allard] in a colloquy, if I might. I want to thank him for his
leadership in the House Committee on Agriculture. We had joint referral
of this bill. We had a very close vote. It was, as I recall, 22 to 19,
and it was basically because of the concern that the gentleman has
raised in regard to legislation that is in this bill becoming what we
call boilerplate portions of legislation or an example that can be used
in additional bills. The gentleman, at least the way I understood it,
was concerned about what could be a substantial Federal reserve of
water rights.
Madam Chairman, I thought we were going to the Committee on Rules
after the bill passed out of the Committee on Agriculture to make sure
that the original bill language would be preserved and each committee's
amendments be made in order for consideration under the 5 minute rule
in the Committee of the Whole. Now what happened to that?
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, we acted in the Committee on Agriculture,
as the gentleman will recall, after the Committee on Natural Resources
had acted on the Montana wilderness bill, and, as the bill was reported
out of the committee on Natural Resources, two words were stricken on
the water language which we were discussing earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has
expired.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. So, Madam Chairman, the legislation was reported out of
the Committee on Natural Resources in a different form that when it was
before us in the Committee on Agriculture. The piece of legislation
that we had before us in the Committee on Agriculture was as it was
originally introduced by the bill's sponsor. I raised this point, as
the gentleman will recall, in the Committee on Agriculture, and we were
assured that our concerns would be reflected in any action by the
Committee on Rules. The bill that was eventually reported to the floor
of the House that was the one that was reported out of the Committee on
Natural Resources----
Mr. ROBERTS. OK; bottom line, if the gentleman would simply respond
to this:
The version that you were advocating and the version that was in the
original bill had language that, and I'm quoting here, ``could not
create or recognize new Federal Reserve water rights,'' in wilderness,
special study areas, et cetera, that are carved out of National Forest
lands.
Is this in or out of what the Rules Committee has made in order in
H.R. 2473 as original text from language reported by the Committee on
Natural Resources?
Mr. ALLARD. That is out.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has
expired.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Hansen], my friend, for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the Montana
wilderness bill. Its purpose really is to do two things. It is first to
designate about 1\1/2\ million acres of wilderness in Montana, and, by
the way, this has been mentioned, but it is twice the size that the
Forest Service recommended to be designated as wilderness in Montana.
And the second thing this bill provides is the, quote, release of some
3 million acres of lands not suitable for wilderness but in wilderness
study areas. Supposedly these lands are now released to be used for
timber production.
Not so. This bill is a sham, and, if anybody says that we are
releasing 3 million acres of land for timber production, they are not
telling the truth. This bill will establish massive and more wilderness
areas, and it certainly gives nothing back to the hard-working people
of the State of Montana who depend upon natural resources.
The release language in this bill is so weak that even the lands not
suitable for wilderness will be set aside in a park-like status in
perpetuity. Preservationist will continue to block timber sales and
timber communities will continue to choke to death. Meanwhile all of
our constituents outside the State of Montana will suffer because
prices of housing will go up through the roof, as they already have,
because of shortage of wood, and the American dream of owning a home
will be further and further away.
Well, do not let anybody say that there is release of multiple use
lands in the State of Montana, and I want to tell my colleagues why. I
was told the same thing on the floor of this House in 1984, of all
times, when the Oregon wilderness bill passed the House of
Representatives. At that time those who wished for more wilderness
offered 1 million acres of wilderness and a carrot: quote, release of
more than 2 million acres for the harvest of timber. In other words,
the wilderness study area would be allowed to be used for multiple use
purposes. Ten years later almost, Madam Chairman, how many acres have
been released in Oregon for multiple use? Seven thousand acres. That,
my colleagues, is seven-tenths of 1 percent or less than was promised
on the floor of the House to me and to Oregonians.
Now what has happened in Oregon since then? We know the story. With
the Endangered Species Act, the spotted owl, the marbled merelet, the
salmon issue, we have lost 6,000 jobs in Oregon right now. They are
gone. Mills are closing every week. We have no timber policy program in
the State of Oregon. Whatever happened to the released lands?
{time} 1710
Eighty-five percent of the timber lands in the Northwest are set
aside from ever having timber harvested from them. That is a place, my
friends, where 50 percent historically of the soft woods for this
Nation have been growing and have been harvested in the past.
I was fascinated by Mr. Farr's question to the chairman. His question
was, well, if we pass this bill, does it mean that we are not going to
be allowed to put these other acres into wilderness?
Well, he did not have to ask that question. The facts are that 3
million acres will go into park-like wilderness if you pass this bill
with this release language.
Now, I attempted to amend this bill in committee and attempted to
tell this story to people. There would be some who would wonder why in
the world would a person from Oregon be so concerned about the Montana
wilderness bill? Well, I have given you one example, my own example of
the injury done to the so-called release language, the same language,
by the way, in this bill. The Oregon bill had the same language in the
bill as this one does. You do not think there is going to be the same
results?
There is another result. Oregon mills are closing. People are losing
their jobs. The mills left operating are reaching out to Montana, South
Dakota, Canada, reaching for wood desperately to maintain their mills,
their employment, and the 72 little communities in Oregon that depend
upon the timber industry. They are reaching out.
So we are reaching out in Oregon, trying to find desperately wood to
take care of this Nation's needs, and to provide some small employment
left in our timber industry. And, yes, we are interested in Montana,
and, yes, we do not want it all set aside. And, yes, we do not want 4
million acres unavailable, beyond thinking about Montanans. Think about
what they are living through. They are facing again, mass unemployment,
like Oregon. They are facing losing their homes, changing their
lifestyles, for the promise of release.
It is a sham. Do not fall for it in this bill. We did it in Oregon 10
years ago. We should have learned something. But do not injure
Montanans like we have injured Oregonians.
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I reserve 5 minutes of my time for next
Tuesday. I have no further requests for time, and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I would just rise again in support of the bill. I
understand that the procedure here is that the gentleman from Montana
[Mr. Williams] has been ceded the time to manage for the Committee on
Agriculture and intends to use that on Tuesday next. My intention,
Madam Chairman, is to reserve 5 minutes for the Committee on Natural
Resources, and then it is my understanding the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Allard] will reserve the 7\1/2\ minutes of the Committee on
Agriculture, and the other time would be ceded to not be used by the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. We would then each have
12\1/2\ minutes on Tuesday next.
That is the understanding we have gained. I thought since the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] was not here, we would extend the
option to him. But we will proceed this way. That way we get a better
comfort level.
Madam Chairman, I would just mention that with regard to water, I
think there are six pages of water language in the bill. So those
Members who aspire to the issue have done well in terms of putting
additional language in the bill. For my part, I would just as soon be
silent with regard to water language in this bill, and let the existing
laws as they are applicable in Montana and nationally with regards to
whatever water rights accrue to wilderness prevail.
The issue here, in terms of this language, is to try to provide some
guarantee, some comfort level, some assurances, that we will deal with
this matter based on Montana law, regarding Federal water rights.
I might say to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] that each
State's water language that we have passed, for Arizona and other
Western States, such as Colorado, has had different water language in
it. The fact that the Colorado and Montana water language are so
similar is a surprise to me. I can assure the gentleman that the intent
is not to upset the type of balance that was achieved. As I said, we
will have an opportunity to debate that further.
With regard to the comments that were made on release language, which
is another sensitive issue, we are releasing the lands not designated
here to the forest planning process. We are not releasing them to other
purposes. Those purposes will be guided by the forest plans that are
now in effect, until such time as they are revised, either timely or
untimely.
The issue is some of these lands will be subject to sale for timber.
Some will be open to claim under the mining laws.
I might say, furthermore, that this release language is substantially
different than that which had previously been acted on and agreed upon
by Congress. In fact, that is an agreement that was then worked out, I
believe, by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley] when he chaired
the Committee on Agriculture, along with our predecessor on the
committee, chairman Mo Udall, and subcommittee chairman, John
Seiberling. So the fact is we have evolved into a different type of
release language here.
I would point out further that I think there is a good faith effort
when we do go through this to release these lands to multiple purpose
use. I would say though that I am not, nor is anyone in this body,
capable of legislating and limiting scientific inquiry and knowledge,
nor should we be. So as we gain greater information about these
ecosystems, whether they be in the temperate rain forests of the
Pacific Northwest or the boreal forests of the inland West, and the hot
dry areas in other places where we see fragile lifeforms struggling to
survive and sometimes grow magnificent forests, that new information is
going to be used. It should be used. I think we would want it to be
used in terms of making the best decisions for these resources on
Federal lands that exist.
That is something that we have to face. I think we have very often
been cast in the role of acting inconsistently, some would say acting
in bad faith, when indeed it is the use of the information available. I
have been especially surprised by the development of information and
the subsequent limitations that have been faced in the Pacific
Northwest in terms of vertebrate fish species, and in terms of other
types of problems in those temperate rain forest areas.
The issue here concerns resources and how the national forests should
and could be used. I think that it should be apparent to all of us that
the demographics, the demands on these forests, are changing. The
demographics of our populations are changing, and the demand on those
forests are changing.
People want them. If you talk in terms of recreation, of
preservation, of conservation of these resources, of restoration of
them, the attitude of the public, I think, would lean very strongly in
that direction, trying to be sensitive. We are trying to be sensitive
to the needs of local communities, small communities, that while not
representative of the numbers present here, that we have an obligation
to, insofar as they are dependent upon and utilize the Federal estate.
But I might point out that the nature of that and the character of
that has changed. Where private lands early on were utilized and limits
placed on the use of public lands because they would devalue the timber
and the resources coming from private lands, today, after much of the
supply on these private lands has been exhausted, and in some cases
where they have been mismanaged and overmanaged in other cases, now we
find increasingly this dependence on using the national forests in a
way that would be fact destroy much of what is valued as an important
resource by the American people, and, frankly by the world.
So it is a dilemma that we face in these issues, but I think one in
which we are trying to find a path that is fair, that does prescribe
the use of these lands and does permit us to exercise our
responsibilities.
{time} 1720
I know there are those of my colleagues that come closer to ground in
terms of these issues and face some tough decisions, but I think that
nevertheless they are issues that we can face up to and that we can
respond to.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
I recognize Mr. Hansen has yielded back his time. I would be happy to
yield to him in the event that he had any further comments or
observations with regard to my editorializing, as he sometimes has put
it, on other comments. But we are in an open and fair system here.
I appreciate the gentleman's efforts. We will be debating the
amendments in detail.
Madam Chairman, I will get general leave for everyone's statements
when we conclude today. I would then, therefore, yield back all but 5
minutes of my time. The gentleman from Utah has done the same. And the
Committee on Agriculture has reserved time for next Tuesday.
Is that the understanding of the Chair?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Chair's understanding.
The Chair is advised that the time controlled by members of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is yielded back. Other time
is reserved as indicated by the managers.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today H.R. 2473, as
amended by the House Natural Resources Committee. H.R. 2473 would
designate certain national forest lands in the State of Montana as
wilderness, release other national forest lands in the State of Montana
for multiple use management and for other purposes.
Montana has over 6 million acres of qualifying roadless areas in its
10 national forests and 3.4 million acres of already designated
wilderness. H.R. 2473, as amended by the Natural Resources Committee,
would add an additional 1.7 million acres of wilderness, designate
240,000 acres of special management areas and designate 375,000 acres
as wilderness study areas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the House approve final passage of the
legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Vento) having assumed the chair, Ms. Woolsey, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2473) to
designate certain national forest lands in the State of Montana as
wilderness, to release other national forest lands in the State of
Montana for multiple use management, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________