[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.

                          ____________________