[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1410
 
                   THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). 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 further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2473.


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, May 
12, 1994, 25 minutes remained in general debate.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen] each have 5 minutes remaining in debate, and the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard] each have 7\1/2\ minutes remaining in debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for moving forward 
today on the legislation we reported from the Natural Resources 
Committee, from Agriculture and from Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I 
want to thank both Chairmen Vento and Miller, and the various chairs, 
for their responsible handling of my bill and for the work of both 
their staffs in crafting what I believe to be an exceptional piece of 
land law. This is always hard work with strong beliefs at play and this 
process has been handled professionally and graciously.
  I am not certain I can say I am glad to be here. A Montana wilderness 
bill has been considered in every Congress since 1986 and to date with 
no resolution. I began this process with determination, impatience, 
frustration--but above all else determination and in spite of business 
as usual from the polarized extremes on this issue I am pleased that we 
are moving forward. I am also saddened at how long this has taken and 
how much of this renowned body's time we have consumed.
  I began this process 16 years ago because I believe this 
consideration is important, our Federal land managers believe it is 
critical to future management of our forests, our resource dependent 
industries cry out for resolution and management certainty, our State 
and private game managers believe it is important if we want continued 
quality hunting without a lottery, and our local communities are 
demanding an end to the 16 years of disagreement and controversy.
  The work of the committees and the always-heavy response from 
Montanans help mold a piece of legislation which, as I said when I 
presented it, is not etched in stone. We have asked for an open rule 
and even as we present this legislation today it is not a take-it-or-
leave-it proposal like the Senate offered the House last session. I 
trust in the process and I have remained committed to open discussion 
and compromise and will continue to do so. I hope this legislation 
passes here today and we can only hope that the Senate shares our 
concern and will also let the process work.
  With this bill I have introduced five pieces of legislation 
specifically addressing the remaining RARE II wilderness designation in 
Montana. This will be the 15th piece of legislation introduced by some 
member of the Montana delegation on this issue of roadless 
designations. If this bill is fortunate enough to move through today it 
will be the sixth piece of legislation to enjoy passage in one or the 
other Chamber. One bill gained acceptance in both Chambers only to be 
vetoed by former President Reagan.
  The statistics are impressive by any legislative standard. Fifteen 
pieces of legislation were introduced over as many years. The Montana 
wilderness bill has been the subject of 50 congressional hearings. We 
have heard 235 hours of direct testimony. We have 20 printed hearing 
records. We have testimony from hundreds of Montanans from 
organizations claiming, by the way, to represent double the State's 
entire population.
  Since I began consideration of this issue, four Presidents have 
managed our national forests. All four have urged resolution of this 
issue as this region's highest priority for job protection. These were 
not casual partisan requests. They were bipartisan requests in response 
to direct testimony before several committees. ``Settle RARE II or we 
will be unable to manage this Nation's resources in an appropriate 
way,'' has been the constant message sent to Congress by the Forest 
Service. This fact is somewhat surprising because, as I have said, 
after calling for its passage, President Reagan vetoed the Montana bill 
Congress presented to him in 1988. This remains the only sustained veto 
in the history of the Wilderness Act. I might add that these issues are 
among the chief examples of how destructive bickering gridlock can be.

  We call Montana the ``last best place,'' and as Montanans we are 
proud of the job we have done as the stewards of this Nation's natural 
resources. Montanans have always understood that some of the wild 
lands--wild lands that protect our game herds, give birth to our 
rivers, fuel our economies, and restore our souls--would need to be 
protected as wilderness. It was a Montana Senator that oversaw the 
beginnings of the 1964 Wilderness Act and Montana legislators have led 
the way in applying that law to the protection of our important wild 
land heritage. Their successes are the flagships of our national 
wilderness system--the Bob Marshall, the great Bear, the Selway/
Bitterroot, the Absaroka/Beartooth. The understood the less grand or 
less well-known wild places as well, places like Welcome Creek, the 
Rattlesnake, the Pintlar, and the Scapegoat. This is a heritage of 
which all Americans can be proud.
  There is no wilderness in this legislation that has not been 
advocated by local Montanans and Montana citizen groups. I have spent 
14 years in the front rooms of the homes of too many Montanans to name 
and I have reviewed every comment submitted over that time by Montanans 
about my proposal for wilderness. This legislation reflects those 
efforts and those suggestions.
  If you want to know the bill that has taken into account the 
snowmobile concerns of the West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce--it is 
this one. If you want to know if a bill takes into account the proposal 
put forward by the Big Hole ranchers and the Beaverhead County 
Commissioners--this one does. If you are concerned that the Clearwater 
Monture still reflects the historic agreements between timber and 
conservationists--my bill does. If you support wilderness and mining in 
the Cabinet Mountains then you will want to know that the mining-
wilderness agreements still stand on Scotchmen Peak--in my legislation 
they do. If you want to know if Montanas water rights are protected--
this is your legislation. If you are concerned that Montana avoid the 
economic dislocation of the spotted owl controversy--my legislation 
will. There are many, many examples making this a very precise piece of 
legislation. I still believe that Montanans know what is best for the 
stewardship of the lands that surround them. I submit this legislation 
as a reassertion that Montanans can best determine management of our 
roadless lands.
  Does this mean that everyone is in agreement? No. There are far too 
many opinions on this subject for everyone to completely agree. There 
are far too many paid dissenters to believe that legislation will not 
have its group of opposition. But if one strips away the dogmatic 
rhetoric and addresses specific concerns within the precedent carefully 
set and developed by this committee, then you arrive at something close 
to this legislation.
  This legislation is very similar to the bill this House reported last 
Congress, but is not identical. This is an issue that continually 
evolves and this legislation addresses the new circumstances we have 
today. For example, the Bureau of Land Management has completed its 
wilderness inventory and because of peculiar management arrangements 
has recommended Forest Service lands for wilderness which were not 
inventoried by that agency in its wilderness review. Mount Jefferson is 
an example of this situation. Montanans have made a good case for the 
protection of species diversity, a goal not specifically addressed in 
the 1964 Wilderness Act. There are changes in this legislation that 
reflect my desire to meet these goals, areas like the Snowcrest range 
in southwestern Montana. There have been land consolidation efforts in 
Montana that have opened the opportunity to designate wilderness where 
just a few years ago checkerboard ownership would have stopped 
designation, the Crazy Mountains is an example of this situation. I 
have heard the logic of folks concerned about the Yaak drainage, I have 
reviewed the scientific work on grizzly recovery in the Yaak, and I 
have more than doubled my recommendations for that area. The Island 
ranges of eastern Montana have not shared the same scrutiny the 
wildplaces of the high mountains have, and I seek to set in place a 
series of wilderness and study lands that will help define wilderness 
in the East.

  I want to note that this legislation also represents the essential 
completion of the Bob Marshall ecosystem. The last remaining area to 
receive a perfect WARS rating in the RARE II process--Deep Creek--is 
made wilderness, and the scenic Castle reef is protected. Long-fought-
over wilderness additions like the Spotted Bear are, with new science, 
added to the Great Bear. The important involvement of the Blackfeet 
Tribe in the management of the Badger-Two Medicine is specifically laid 
out in this legislation. The skirts of the Swan Front are pulled down 
along that valley's important entrances to the Bob, and the important 
wildlife lands of the Monture are preserved. All these additions are 
added to the Bob under the name of the Arnold Bolle Additions. This 
past winter Arnie passed away, and there is no more fitting tribute to 
this great teacher and scientist than for these capstone additions to 
the Bob to place Arnie Bolle's name alongside the great Bob Marshall.
  If the House will indulge me I would like to use this time to make a 
personal appeal to the various factions that struggle, along with me on 
this consideration.
  To those folks who insist on having significantly more wilderness 
than is in this bill, I ask that you cast off the cries of apocalyptic 
doom and the false rhetoric of political correctness. Foot stomping and 
petulance are not a substitute for hard work and education. The 1964 
Wilderness Act was not designed to be a hammer held over the heads of 
land managers and local communities; it was specifically designed to 
require that work be done to gain a political conscience and it demands 
of all of us to view conservation as as life pursuit and not a 
political pastime. You cannot protect our important wild lands by 
alienating local constituencies and we will not protect our great wild 
animals by using Federal land law as a tool to punish the folks who 
have lived with these lands for generations. One cannot save wilderness 
from the academic ivory tower, or the wine and cheese reception rooms. 
Do not give in to the voices of dispair that are asking that the legal 
gains we have made over the past decades be subverted because working 
in the political process is too slow or too hard. Please help me pass 
this legislation.
  To those of you who fear wilderness as a conspiracy to rob you of 
an economic future, I ask that you reject the well-oiled propaganda of 
the extraction industries and realize that American business is capable 
of doing business in the right way and it is the public's 
responsibility to ask of them that they not destroy our way of life or 
our national wild land resources in the name of profit. These 
industries are not as fragile as many would have you believe and they 
will not wilt and die because we ask them to be responsible in the 
preservation of our last wild places. These industries are much more 
likely, as Montana has clearly shown, to disappear because of corporate 
opportunism, Wall Street shenanigans, or lack of certainty in land 
planning than because we saved a bit of what was still wild and 
untouched at the end of the 20th century. You cannot reach the true 
multiple use of our lands by simply saying no to the growing 
understanding that there must be balance in this equation. We cannot 
save jobs by allowing the profit motive to cut every tree or darken 
every stream. They will not protect your communities or lifestyle from 
the corporate boardrooms. Please help me pass this legislation.

  To my colleagues in the Senate, I ask that you do the job we have all 
been elected to do. I ask that you do not shirk your responsibility 
because it is an election year and compromise may upset your political 
constituency. I ask that you do not view compromise as capitulation but 
as the responsible act that fuels our democracy. This process does not 
need imperial naysayers who promise that they will say no to any 
proposal that does not grant a favored constituency 100 percent of what 
they want. What this process needs are teachers and arbiters who will 
help bring folks along the responsible path of balance. I believe that 
the vast majority of Montanans are demanding just that and will thank 
you for it. Please do not draw lines in the sand, but draw upon your 
sense of duty and help me pass this legislation.
  I make this appeal from my heart: Do not continue the polarization 
that is tearing at Montana. Let us instead invite everyone to the table 
and as friends and neighbors let us work together to see that the 
future provides room for our hopes and dreams. It is not a public 
relations gimmick. Montana is a State that can do it right: good jobs, 
strong communities, clean places to hunt and fish, room to be lost in 
and room to grow up strong and proud, businesses that we can be proud 
of, and elk at our back door. We can only do this, however, if we do it 
together.
  This is what this body is about today. This is not just another lands 
bill, this is our last chance this century to set Montana on a course 
of cooperation and hope. I believe that if we allow ``no'' to be our 
voice, then we will be dooming Montana to years of struggle, and loss 
of jobs and wilderness. If we do the right thing we will provide the 
way toward the Montana we all want it to be. The appropriate management 
of our Federal lands is not something that is solved by one piece of 
legislation or one action of Congress. Good stewardship requires 
vigilance and dedication. So please help me pass the legislation the 
committee has presented here today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind Members that the rules of the 
House prohibit making reference to the Senate.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I want to comment in general terms with respect to 
the Montana wilderness, of course, a neighbor of mine. It is my general 
impression that one who comes from the State ought to have a primary 
role in determining the shape of the wilderness that exists there.
  Madam Chairman, I do want to talk about a couple of things, though, 
and one of them is water, reserved water rights, and it is my 
understanding the gentleman will have an amendment. I want to make it 
clear that the reservation of water rights is one of the difficulties 
that we encounter in each of these kinds of bills and it threatens the 
ability of States to administer the water that is set out for them in 
their constitution.
  Madam Chairman, I am hopeful there will be in this bill a clear-cut 
statement on reserve water rights that does give to the States their 
rightful opportunity to do the management of the water.
  Madam Chairman, I am also interested as a generic issue in the 
release language that goes in wilderness bills. The concept that is 
followed and should be followed in the future is that we set aside a 
portion of the wilderness for use, and I am in favor of that, but the 
remainder is to be released for multiple use and that is the deal and 
what we do.
  Madam Chairman, I see an increasing dependency on the part of Members 
of Congress to come in, use the wilderness bill as a way of 
micromanaging the remaining lands, the multiple use lands, of saying 
they have to be managed in certain ways in terms of the timber 
management, they have to be managed in certain ways of road 
construction.

                              {time}  1420

  Madam Chairman, I think that ought to be an inherent decision. Two of 
them that go: No. 1, there ought to be language that assures the States 
of the right to water. There ought to be language that assures that the 
release language is clear and that the released lands will be available 
for multiple use.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 2473, the 
Montana Wilderness Act of 1994, falls short in many areas.
  As with other portions of this bill, inadequacies should be pointed 
out as a matter of principle and precedent for other pending wilderness 
bills. In the agriculture Committee Congressman Bob Smith offered an 
amendment that would have vastly improved the bill by offering hard 
release language. The Smith amendment would have clearly stated that 
multiple use on released lands would be allowed. This amendment 
narrowly failed in committee. While the Smith amendment will not be 
offered today, I think it is important that the imperfection of the 
release language be noted for the Record.
  Mr. Smith and other members of the House Agriculture Committee are 
not alone in recognizing that the current release language is 
imperfect. The Montana Stockgrowers Association has been advised by a 
Montana attorney that, ``the release language is not strong enough to 
clarify that areas not designated as wilderness, or wilderness study 
areas and will be subject to multiple use principals. The language 
should be clear that any areas which are not included in the act shall 
be managed according to multiple use principles, and should contain 
strong language prohibiting the frivolous appeals which may be 
associated with various interpretations of existing forest service 
plans and the concept of multiple use.'' The Montana Farm Bureau is 
also unhappy with the release language, in a letter to the sponsor of 
the bill they state that, ``Hard release language was lacking.''
  I wanted to point out the inadequacy of the release language to the 
Congressman from Montana and hope that either on the Senate side or in 
conference this section of the bill can be fixed.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam Chairman, I, too, would like to stand and raise a 
concern with regard to the language in the legislation dealing with 
federally reserved water rights.
  Water has been an issue in many of our wilderness debates over the 
last few years, and one of the current concerns I have in a State that 
is now dealing with wilderness legislation is the precedent that may be 
set by this kind of legislation in terms of whether we adequately 
protect the States against further Federal control of water decisions.
  As I understand it, originally the language in this act which had 
been resolved between many of the disputing parties had stated, in 
section 4(b)(2)(A), that nothing in the act would be construed as the 
creation, recognition, disclaimer, relinquishment, or reduction of any 
water rights held by the United States in the State of Montana on or 
before the enactment of this act. But that now, as I understand it, the 
words ``creation and recognition'' have been deleted from that phrase, 
leaving open the question now as to whether this act does in fact 
create or recognize Federal rights over water decisions in the States 
by the enactment of this legislation.
  I have been made aware by many groups in Montana who are concerned 
about this and about the impact that this will have on water decisions, 
particularly about the impact that legislation of this type will have 
not only in Montana but in States like my own of Idaho or elsewhere.
  We can protect wilderness lands. We can do what is necessary to 
preserve the great environmental heritage that we have in so many of 
the places in the West. But we do not need to take away State 
sovereignty over decisions involving water to do so.
  I would encourage this House to reject this legislation so that we 
can continue to work out reasonable language on water that will enable 
us to assure that State sovereignty over water rights is maintained and 
that we do not allow precedent of enacting federally reserved water 
rights to go into place with this legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2473, the Montana Wilderness Act, as reported by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, addresses the controversy over 6 
million acres of national forest roadless lands in Montana. The 
committee's bill is an important conservation measure that deserves the 
support of the House.
  Most aspects of the Montana wilderness issue are of national 
importance and transcend that individual State. I have had hundreds of 
Minnesota constituents, as well as hundreds of others from around the 
country write, call, or otherwise contact me to express their concerns 
about Montana wilderness. Rarely has this type of response and interest 
occurred with regards to wilderness measures.
  Congressman Williams, myself, and others have worked on an 
appropriate response to address the many concerns raised about the 
Montana wilderness issue--concerns that I voiced and concerns voiced by 
the people of Montana. The bill we bring before you today reflects 
these concerns and is the direct result of congressman Williams' help 
and support. The improvements in the bill that the natural resources 
adopted were offered by Mr. Williams.
  The Natural Resources Committee version of H.R. 2473 improves the 
bill over past Montana wilderness bills that we have brought to the 
floor. It places 500,000 more acres into protected status than the bill 
in the 102d congress; it uses an updated version of the standard 
release language that we have used in past wilderness bills, a version 
that allows for judicial review; and it leaves wilderness study areas 
in protected status until Congress acts. As a result, this legislation 
would now designate 1.7 million acres of wilderness, 240,000 acres of 
special management areas and 376,000 acres of new wilderness study 
areas added to the 700,000 acres already in wilderness study status. 
The total protection is over three million acres. This is a sound bill 
and a good work product.

  In all the controversy surrounding Montana wilderness, let's not 
forget why we must protect Montana's national forest wildlands. These 
lands include not only some of the Nation's most spectacular scenery, 
but also an irreplaceable wildlife and fish resource, including 
threatened and endangered species such as the wolf and grizzly bear. 
The wild places of Montana are truly a resource of national importance 
and a heritage that Montanans are justly proud to preserve.
  It is important that we resolve the Montana roadless issue in this 
session of Congress. We already have spent a dozen years trying to find 
a resolution. In 1988, Congress was able to pass a Montana wilderness 
bill, only to have it vetoed by President Reagan. In the 102d Congress 
the bill passed both Houses only to finally fail in the last hours of 
the Congress because of a Senate filibuster unrelated to this issue. As 
the years go by, 6 million acres of unprotected national forest 
roadless lands are becoming increasingly vulnerable to development. 
Further delay could lead to specific rifle shot actions--at the very 
least, action that results in road construction, mining, and timber 
harvesting in the heart of Montana's most scenic wildlands--at the 
worst, an unprecedented action that the Forest Service may decide to 
just protect its own recommendations in the forest plans and the 
congressionally designated wilderness study areas and go ahead on its 
own and release 4.8 million acres to general forest management. It has 
the legal authority to do this. Thus, it would be irresponsible for us 
to stop the legislative process and leave these lands threatened. The 
only way to truly protect wilderness is to act and to pass wilderness 
bills. Abandoning the legislative process at this point would seriously 
harm public policy--not help protect wilderness.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill which is a significant 
addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System and protects 
some of the most spectacular wildlands in America.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes, the remainder of my 
time, to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlemen, 
both the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Idaho.
  The release language that some from other States would prefer would 
create a situation that their industries would like. It would turn 
Montana's timber into America's bargain basement, having cut their own 
and mismanaged their own lands. And I do not mean the gentlemen in this 
Chamber or the gentlewoman in this Chamber, but people in their States 
and the Forest Service and the industries in their States having 
mismanaged the timberland now look at the timberlands in Montana and 
salivate and they want to change the release language in a way that 
makes us their final bargain basement.
  Yes, there are some Montana groups that would agree with that, but 
the bulk of Montanans do not agree with it. The release language we 
have in this bill is the same release language they had in their bills 
when they voted for them and passed them. The legislation offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado had the same release language I have in my 
bill which he objects to.
  Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is very generous 
and kind to me both in committee and here on the floor, and I am very 
appreciative.
  With regard to water, the Montana water users, made up of industry, 
farmers, and ranchers, have written a letter of support for the water 
language in my bill. They are supportive of the water language in my 
bill.
  In order to assure that it protects Montana's State water rights, we 
gave it to the Montana attorney general and asked him to review it and 
rewrite it, if necessary. And he did that, both of those things, 
reviewed it, rewrote it. The committee accepted it, and it is the 
language in this bill. Montana's water rights are absolutely rock-solid 
protected under this bill.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in order to respond with this very quick comment: Those of us who come 
from States in the western part of the United States realize it is not 
a matter of industry versus the rest of the world.
  We realize that what you do for one environment you may end up taking 
from another environment. For example, in Colorado, and I assume the 
same is true in Montana, we have communities, cities like the city of 
Greeley, Fort Collins, Loveland, who have put in a lot of effort in 
developing parks and green areas in their communities. Now, the 
question is does the Federal Government use of the water for their use 
or do the cities who have bought and paid for that water and have a 
water right in their own communities, do they have priority for that 
water to maintain those green areas?
  Many times that is what we are talking about when we are talking 
about preserving a water right. Those cities and those communities 
doing a lot to improve the environment also have a right to that water, 
and the Federal Government, in my view, should not have a right to 
preempt them and say that our needs are greater than what those local 
needs are. That is why I think it is so very important when we talk 
about water language that we recognize the proper balance. My 
understanding is that the gentleman from Montana is interested in 
changing a couple of words that I expressed in the past, and if the 
gentleman is willing to make those changes, of course I would go along 
with those changes.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment, and each section is considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2473

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be referred to as ``The Montana Wilderness Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Many areas of undeveloped National Forest System lands 
     in the State of Montana possess outstanding natural 
     characteristics which give them high value as wilderness and 
     will, if properly preserved, contribute as an enduring 
     resource of wild land for the benefit of the American people.
       (2) The existing Department of Agriculture Land and 
     Resource Management Plans for Forest System lands in the 
     State of Montana have identified areas which, on the basis of 
     their land form, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location 
     will help to fulfill the National Forest System's share of a 
     quality National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (3) The existing Department of Agriculture Land and 
     Resource Management Plans for National Forest System lands in 
     the State of Montana and the related congressional review of 
     such lands have also identified areas that do not possess 
     outstanding wilderness attributes or possess outstanding 
     energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation, or 
     other values. Such areas should not be designated as 
     components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (4) Montanans and those interested in Montana's wildlands 
     have been fully involved in the formulation of this 
     wilderness proposal. That the wilderness designations 
     recommended in this legislation have been developed with the 
     support of Montana wilderness advocates and is therefore the 
     product of years of negotiations.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) designate certain National Forest System lands in the 
     State of Montana as components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, in furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), in order to preserve 
     the wilderness character of the land and to protect 
     watersheds and wildlife habitat, preserve scenic and historic 
     resources, and promote scientific research, primitive 
     recreation, solitude, and physical and mental challenge; and
       (2) ensure that certain other National Forest System lands 
     in the State of Montana will be made available for uses other 
     than wilderness in accordance with applicable national forest 
     laws, planning procedures and the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 3. WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS.

       (a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act of 1964, the following lands in the State of 
     Montana are designated as wilderness and, therefore, as 
     components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Certain lands in the Beaverhead, Bitterroot, and 
     Deerlodge National Forests, which comprise approximately 
     31,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Additions--Proposed'' (North 
     Big Hole, Storm Lake, Upper East Fork), dated March 1994, and 
     which are hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a 
     part of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness.
       (2) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 33,000 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Italian Peaks Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Italian Peaks 
     Unit of the Howard Zahnizer Great Divide Wilderness.
       (3) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 84,920 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``East Pioneer Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the East Pioneer 
     Wilderness.
       (4) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National Forest, 
     Montana, comprising approximately 40,000 acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``West Big Hole Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which shall be known as the 
     West Big Hole Unit of the Howard Zahnizer Great Divide 
     Wilderness.
       (5) Certain lands in the Bitterroot, Deerlodge, and Lolo 
     National Forests, which comprise approximately 76,600 acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Stony Mountain 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which shall be 
     known as the Stony Mountain Wilderness. The provisions of 
     section 4 of this Act shall not apply to the portion of such 
     lands within the drainage of the Burnt Fork.
       (6) Certain lands in the Bitterroot and Lolo National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 55,500 acres, as 
     generally depicted on maps entitled ``Selway-Bitterroot 
     Wilderness Additions--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which 
     are hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a part 
     of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
       (7) Certain lands in the Custer National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 13,700 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Pryor Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated March 1994, and which shall be known as the Pryor 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (8) Certain lands in the Custer National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 28,000 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Custer Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness 
     Additions--Proposed'' (Burnt Mountain, Timberline Creek, 
     Stateline, Line Creek Plateau, and Mystic Lake), dated March 
     1994, and which are hereby incorporated in and shall be 
     deemed to be a part of the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness.
       (9) Certain lands in the Deerlodge and Helena National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 26,800 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Blackfoot Meadow-
     Electric Peak Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and 
     which shall be known as the Blackfoot Meadow Unit of the 
     Howard Zahnizer Great Divide Wilderness.
       (10) Certain lands in the Flathead and Kootenai National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 120,400 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``North Fork 
     Wilderness--Proposed (Tuchuck, Thompson-Seton, and Mount 
     Hefty)'', dated March 1994, and which shall be known as the 
     North Fork Wilderness.
       (11) Certain lands in the Flathead, Helena, Lolo, and Lewis 
     and Clark National Forests, which comprise approximately 
     261,440 acres, as generally depicted on maps entitled 
     ``Arnold Bolle Additions to the Bob Marshall Wilderness--
     Proposed'' (Silver King-Falls Creek, Renshaw, Clearwater-
     Monture, Deep Creek, Teton High Peak, Volcano Reef, Slippery 
     Bill, Limestone Cave, Choteau Mountain, and Crown Mountain, 
     Lost Jack, Spotted Bear), dated March 1994, which shall be 
     known as the Arnold Bolle-Bob Marshall Wilderness Additions 
     and are incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a part of 
     the Bob Marshall Wilderness.
       (12) Certain lands in the Flathead National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 960 acres, as generally depicted on a 
     map entitled ``Mission Mountains Wilderness Additions--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which are hereby 
     incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a part of the 
     Mission Mountain Wilderness.
       (13) Certain lands in the Flathead and Lolo National 
     Forests, comprising approximately 175,500 acres, as generally 
     depicted on maps entitled ``Jewel Basin/Swan Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994. Those lands contiguous to the 
     west slope of the Bob Marshall Wilderness referred to in this 
     paragraph are hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to 
     be a part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, while the remaining 
     lands shall be known as the Swan Crest Wilderness, the 
     boundaries of which are depicted on the map referenced in 
     this paragraph.
       (14) Certain lands in the Gallatin National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 14,440 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Gallatin Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness 
     Additions--Proposed'' (Dexter Point, Tie Creek and Mt. Rae), 
     dated March 1994, and which are hereby incorporated in and 
     shall be deemed to be a part of the Absaroka Beartooth 
     Wilderness.
       (15) Certain lands in the Gallatin and Beaverhead National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 20,400 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Lee Metcalf Cowboys 
     Heaven Addition--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which are 
     hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a part of 
     the Lee Metcalf Wilderness.
       (16) Certain lands in the Gallatin National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 18,300 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Earthquake Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Earthquake Unit 
     of the Howard Zahnizer Great Divide Wilderness.
       (17) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 22,900 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Camas Creek Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Camas Creek 
     Wilderness.
       (18) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 15,000 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Mount Baldy Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Mount Baldy 
     Wilderness.
       (19) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, Montana, 
     which comprise approximately 10,000 acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Gates of the Mountains 
     Wilderness Additions--Proposed'' (Big Log), dated March 1994, 
     and which are hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to 
     be part of the Gates of the Mountain Wilderness.
       (20) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 10,700 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Black Mountain Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Black Mountain 
     Unit of the Howard Zahniser Great Divide Wilderness.
       (21) Certain lands in the Kootenai National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 39,620 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Additions--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which are hereby 
     incorporated in and shall be deemed to be part of the Cabinet 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (22) Certain lands in the Kaniksu and Kootenai National 
     Forest, which comprise approximately 52,000 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Scotchman Peaks 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994, which shall be 
     known as the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness.
       (23) Certain lands in the Kootenai National Forest which 
     comprise approximately 42,000 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Yaak Wilderness--Proposed'' (Roderick 
     Mountain, Grizzly Peak, Dark Mountain), dated March 1994, 
     which shall be known as the Yaak Wilderness.
       (24) Certain lands in the Kootenai and Lolo National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 17,900 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Cataract Peak 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994, which shall be 
     known as the Cataract Peak Wilderness.
       (25) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 19,400 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Cube Iron/Mount Silcox Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994, which shall be known as the 
     Cube Iron/Mount Silcox Wilderness.
       (26) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 94,700 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Great Burn Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, which shall be known as the Great Burn 
     Wilderness.
       (27) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 60,100 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Quigg Peak Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, which shall be known as the Quigg Peak 
     Wilderness.
       (28) Certain lands in the Kootenai National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 24,600 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Trout Creek Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994, and which shall be known as the Trout Creek 
     Wilderness.
       (29) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 21,700 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Nevada Mountain Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated March 1994, and which shall be known as the Nevada 
     Mountain Unit of the Howard Zahnizer Great Divide Wilderness.
       (30) Certain lands in the Helena National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 56,100 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Elkhorn Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 
     1994, and which shall be known as the Elkhorn Wilderness.
       (31) Certain lands in the Gallatin National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 500 acres, as generally depicted on a 
     map entitled ``North Absaroka Wilderness Addition--Proposed 
     (Republic Mountain)'', dated March 1994, and which are hereby 
     incorporated in and shall be deemed a part of the North 
     Absaroka Wilderness.
       (32) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National Forest, which 
     comprises approximately 90,000 acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Snowcrest Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     March 1994 and shall be known as the Snowcrest Wilderness.
       (33) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 4,700 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Mount Jefferson Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated March 1994 and shall be known as the Mount Jefferson 
     Unit of the Howard Zahnizer Great Divide Wilderness.
       (34) Certain lands in the Deerlodge National Forest which 
     comprise about 30,300 acres, as generally, depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Flint Creek Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 
     1994 and shall be known as the Flint Creek Wilderness.
       (35) Certain lands in the Gallatin and Lewis and Clark 
     National Forests, which comprise approximately 34,800 acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Crazy Mountain 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994 and shall be known 
     as the Crazy Mountain Wilderness.
       (36) Certain lands in the Beaverhead and Deerlodge National 
     Forests, which comprise approximately 19,500 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Tobacco Roots 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and shall be known 
     as the Tobacco Roots Wilderness.
       (b) Maps and Descriptions.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall file the maps referred to in this section and legal 
     descriptions of each wilderness area designated by this 
     section with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the United States House of Representatives, and 
     each such map and legal description shall have the same force 
     and effect as if included in this Act.
       (2) The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 
     errors in the maps and legal descriptions submitted pursuant 
     to this section.
       (3) Each map and legal description referred to in this 
     section shall be on file and available for public inspection 
     in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Washington, 
     D.C. and at the office of the Regional Forester of the 
     Northern Region.
       (c) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, each 
     wilderness area designated by this section shall be 
     administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance 
     with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, except 
     that, with respect to any area designated in this section, 
     any reference to the effective date of the Wilderness Act 
     shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Wilderness Area Perimeters.--Congress does not intend 
     that the designation of wilderness areas in this section will 
     lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones 
     around such areas. The fact that nonwilderness activities or 
     uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness area 
     shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to 
     the boundary of the wilderness area.
       (e) Grazing.--The grazing of livestock, where established 
     prior to the date of enactment of this Act, in wilderness 
     areas designated in this section shall be administered in 
     accordance with section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 
     and section 108 of an Act entitled ``An Act to designate 
     certain National Forest System Lands in the States of 
     Colorado, South Dakota, Missouri, South Carolina, and 
     Louisiana for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, and for other purposes'' (94 Stat. 3271; 
     16 U.S.C. 1133 note).
       (f) State Fish and Game Authority.--In accordance with 
     section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or 
     responsibilities of the State of Montana with respect to 
     wildlife and fish in the national forests of Montana.
       (g) Hunting.--Nothing in this Act or the Wilderness Act of 
     1964 shall be construed to prohibit hunting within the 
     wilderness areas designated in this section.
       (h) Collection Devices.--(1) Within the wilderness areas 
     designated in this section, maintenance and replacement of 
     essential hydrological, meteorological, or climatological 
     collection devices and ancillary facilities are permitted, 
     subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.
       (2) Access to the devices and facilities described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be by the least intrusive practicable 
     means available as determined by the Secretary. Access, 
     installation, and maintenance shall be compatible with the 
     provisions of the Wilderness Act.
       (i) FACA.--The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act notwithstanding, the wilderness managing agencies are 
     hereby authorized to use citizen advisory groups, task 
     forces, and ad hoc committees among the public involvement 
     techniques employed to assist the agencies in the development 
     of wilderness management direction.

     SEC. 4. WATER.

       (a) Findings, Purposes, and Definitions.--(1) The Congress 
     finds that--
       (A) the lands designated as wilderness by this Act are 
     located at the headwaters of the streams and rivers on those 
     lands, with no actual or proposed water resource facilities 
     located upstream from such lands and no opportunities for 
     diversion, storage, or other uses of water occurring outside 
     such lands that would adversely affect the wilderness values 
     of such lands;
       (B) the lands designated as wilderness by this Act are not 
     suitable for use for development of new water resource 
     facilities, or for the expansion of existing water resource 
     facilities; and
       (C) therefore, it is possible to provide for proper 
     management and protection of the water-related wilderness 
     values of such lands in ways different from those utilized in 
     other legislation designating as wilderness lands not sharing 
     the attributes of the lands designated as wilderness by this 
     Act.
       (2) The purpose of this section is to protect the water-
     related wilderness values of the lands designated as 
     wilderness by this Act by means other than those based on a 
     Federal reserved water right.
       (3) As used in this section--
       (A) the term ``water resource facility'' means irrigation 
     and pumping facilities, reservoirs, water conservation works, 
     aqueducts, canals, ditches, pipelines, wells, hydropower 
     projects, and transmission and other ancillary facilities, 
     and other water diversion, storage, and carriage structures; 
     and
       (B) the term ``historic'', used with reference to rates of 
     flow, quantities of use, or timing or frequency of use of 
     water, means the pattern of actual average annual use or 
     operation of a facility prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Restriction on Claims and Clarification of Effect.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court or 
     agency shall have any jurisdiction under any Act of Congress 
     (including the ``McCarran Amendment'', 43 U.S.C. 666) to 
     consider any claim on behalf of the United States asserted by 
     the Secretary or by any other person to or for water or water 
     rights in the State of Montana based on any construction of 
     any portion of this Act, or the designation of any lands as 
     wilderness by this Act, as constituting an express or implied 
     reservation of water or water rights.
       (2)(A) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a 
     disclaimer, relinquishment, or reduction of any water rights 
     held or claimed by the United States in the State of Montana 
     on or before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as constituting 
     an interpretation of any other Act or any designation made by 
     or pursuant thereto.
       (C) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as establishing 
     a precedent with regard to any future wilderness 
     designations.
       (c) Prohibition of New or Expanded Projects.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after the 
     date of enactment of this Act neither the President nor any 
     other officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall 
     fund, assist, authorize, or issue a license or permit for, or 
     exempt from licensing or permitting--
       (A) the development of any new water resource facility 
     within the lands designated as wilderness or for wilderness 
     study by this Act; or
       (B) the enlargement of a water resource facility or the 
     expansion of the historic rate of diversion, quantity of use, 
     or timing or frequency of use of a water resource facility 
     that is located within or that would adversely affect the 
     wilderness values of lands designated as wilderness or for 
     wilderness study by this Act.
       (2) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, 
     nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect or limit 
     operation, maintenance, repair, modification, or replacement 
     without enlargement of water resource facilities in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act located within the 
     boundaries of the lands designated as wilderness or for 
     wilderness study by this Act.
       (d) Access and Operation.--(1) Subject to the provisions of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall allow reasonable access 
     to water resource facilities in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act located within lands designated as 
     wilderness or for wilderness study by this Act, including 
     motorized access where necessary and customarily employed on 
     routes existing as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the 
     Secretary, to the extent required for the continued exercise 
     of any valid water rights associated with such facilities, 
     shall allow the present diversion, carriage, and storage 
     capacity of water resource facilities existing on the date of 
     enactment of this Act located within lands designated as 
     wilderness or for wilderness study by this Act, and access 
     routes to such facilities existing and customarily employed 
     as of such date, to be operated, maintained, repaired, and 
     replaced as necessary to maintain the present function, 
     design, and serviceable operation of such facilities and 
     routes, so long as such activities have no greater adverse 
     impacts on wilderness values than as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (3) Water resource facilities, and access routes serving 
     such facilities, existing on the date of enactment of this 
     Act shall be maintained and repaired when and to the extent 
     necessary to prevent increased adverse impacts on wilderness 
     values.
       (4) There shall be no enlargement in the historic rate of 
     diversion, quantity of use, or timing or frequency of use of 
     water resource facilities existing on the date of enactment 
     of this Act located within lands designated as wilderness or 
     for wilderness study by this Act.
       (e) Monitoring and Implementation.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall monitor the operation of and access to 
     water resource facilities within the boundaries of the lands 
     designated as wilderness and for wilderness study by this 
     Act, and shall take all steps that the Secretary finds 
     necessary or desirable in order to further the protection of 
     the resources and values of such lands and to implement the 
     provisions of this section, including, to the extent 
     consistent with this Act, the utilization of any procedures 
     available under Federal or State law, including laws of the 
     State of Montana concerning either the utilization of water 
     or the establishment, adjudication, and administration of 
     water rights.
       (2) In implementing subsection (d)(3), the Secretary may 
     require the owners of water resource facilities or parties 
     entitled to use access routes to perform necessary 
     maintenance or repairs, and may require the relocation or 
     removal of such facilities or such routes if such necessary 
     maintenance or repairs are not performed or not feasible or 
     such facilities or routes are no longer in use.
       (f) Application to Other Areas.--Solely for purposes of 
     implementation of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this 
     section, lands in Montana which as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act are managed as wilderness study areas pursuant to 
     Public Law 95-150 shall be deemed to have been designated for 
     wilderness study by this Act, and such lands shall be managed 
     pursuant to the provisions of such subsections in addition to 
     other applicable provisions of law.

     SEC. 5. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS.

       (a) Designations.--For the purposes of conserving, 
     protecting and enhancing the exceptional scenic, fish and 
     wildlife, biological, educational and recreational values of 
     certain National Forest System lands in the State of Montana, 
     the following designations are made:
       (1) The Mount Helena National Education and Recreation Area 
     located in the Helena National Forest, comprising 
     approximately 5,220 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Mount Helena National Education and Recreation 
     Area--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (2) The Hyalite National Education and Recreation Area 
     located in the Gallatin National Forest, comprising 
     approximately 18,900 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Hyalite National Education and Recreation Area--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (3) The Northwest Peak National Recreation Area located in 
     the Kaniksu and Kootenai National Forests, comprising 
     approximately 16,700 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Northwest Peak National Recreation and Scenic 
     Area--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (4) The Buckhorn Ridge National Recreation Area located in 
     the Kaniksu and Kootenai National Forests, comprising 
     approximately 22,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Buckhorn Ridge National Recreation Area--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (5) The West Big Hole National Recreation Area located in 
     the Beaverhead National Forest, comprising approximately 
     90,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``West 
     Big Hole National Recreation Area--Proposed'', dated March 
     1994, and which shall be known as the West Big Hole National 
     Recreation Area.
       (6) The LeBeau Natural Area located on the Kootenai and 
     Flathead National Forests comprising approximately 5,350 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``LeBeau 
     Natural Area--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (7) The Ross Creek Cedars Natural Area located on the 
     Kootenai National Forest comprising approximately 700 acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Ross Creek Cedars 
     Natural Area--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (8) The McIntire Natural Area located on the Kootenai 
     National Forest comprising approximately 75,000 acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``McIntire Natural 
     Area--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (b) Maps and Boundary Descriptions.--The Secretary shall 
     file a map and boundary description for each area referred to 
     in this section with the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, United States Senate, and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, United States House of Representatives, and each 
     such map and boundary description shall have the same force 
     and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, That the 
     Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     such maps and boundary descriptions. Each such map and 
     boundary description shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service and the office of the Regional Forester of the 
     Northern Region.
       (c) Management.--(1) Except as otherwise may be provided in 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall administer the areas 
     designated in subsection (a) so as to achieve the purposes of 
     their designation and in accordance with the laws and 
     regulations applicable to the National Forest System.
       (2) Subject to valid existing rights, all federally owned 
     lands within the areas designated in subsection (a) are 
     hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation and 
     disposal under the mining and public land laws, and 
     disposition under the geothermal and mineral leasing laws.
       (3) Commercial timber harvesting is prohibited in the areas 
     designated by this section with the following exceptions:
       (A) Nothing in this Act shall preclude such measures which 
     the Secretary, in his discretion, deems necessary in the 
     event of fire, or infestation of insects or disease.
       (B) Fuel wood, post and pole gathering may be permitted.
       (C) Commercial timber harvesting may be permitted in the 
     Hyalite National Recreation and Education Area, but must be 
     compatible with the purposes of its designation.
       (4) Where the Secretary determines that such use is 
     compatible with the purposes for which an area is designated, 
     the use of motorized equipment may be permitted in the areas 
     subject to applicable law and applicable land and resource 
     management plans.
       (5) The grazing of livestock, where established prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act may be permitted to 
     continue subject to applicable law and regulations of the 
     Secretary.
       (d) National Education and Recreation Areas and Natural 
     Areas.--(1) The Secretary shall manage the Mount Helena and 
     Hyalite National Education and Recreation Areas with a focus 
     on education. All management activities shall be conducted in 
     a manner that provides the public with an opportunity to 
     become better informed about natural resource protection and 
     management.
       (2) The Secretary shall manage the LeBeau, McIntire and 
     Ross Creek Cedars Natural Areas for the enhancement of 
     biodiversity and scientific study. These forests' unique 
     natural qualities are to be the focus of the area's 
     management.
       (e) Land and Resource Management Plans.--Those areas 
     established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be administered 
     as components of the national forests wherein they are 
     located. Land and resource management plans for the affected 
     national forests prepared in accordance with the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, as amended by the 
     National Forest Management Act, shall be amended to be 
     consistent with the purposes for which the areas are 
     designated. The provisions of the national forest land and 
     resource management plan, relating to each area designated by 
     this section, shall also be available to the public in a 
     document separate from the rest of the forest plan.

     SEC. 6. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--The following areas are hereby designated 
     as wilderness study areas and shall be managed in accordance 
     with the provisions of this section:
       (1) Certain lands on the Gallatin National Forest, 
     comprising approximately 21,500 acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Sawtooth Mountain Wilderness Study Area--
     Proposed'', dated September 1992.
       (2) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest which 
     comprise approximately 22,000 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Sheep Mountain Wilderness Study Area--
     Proposed'', dated November 1991.
       (3) Certain lands in the Lewis and Clark and Gallatin 
     National Forests, which comprise approximately 111,700 acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Crazy Mountain 
     Wilderness Study Area--Proposed'', dated October 1992. The 
     Forest Service shall complete a study of public and private 
     land consolidation alternatives for this area which shall be 
     submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress 2 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Certain lands in the Gallatin National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately 4,500 acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``South Cottonwood Wilderness Study Area--
     Proposed,'' dated September, 1992, and shall be managed as 
     part of the Gallatin Wilderness Study Area in accordance with 
     Public Law 95-150.
       (5) Certain lands in the Lewis and Clark National Forest 
     which comprise approximately 100,000 acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Tenderfoot-Deep Creek 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated March 1994.
       (b) Report.--When the forest plans are revised, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives containing recommendations as to whether the 
     areas designated in subsection (a) should be added as 
     components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (c) Management.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     wilderness study areas designated in subsection (a) shall be 
     managed to protect their suitability for inclusion in the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (d) Maps.--The Secretary shall file a map and boundary 
     description for each area referred to in this section with 
     the Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, United States Senate, and each such map and 
     boundary description shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this Act: Provided, That correction of 
     clerical and typographical errors in these maps may be made. 
     Each map and boundary description shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Chief of 
     the Forest Service and the Regional Forester of the Northern 
     Region.

     SEC. 7. BADGER-TWO MEDICINE AREA.

       (a) Withdrawal.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights 
     including rights held by the Blackfeet Nation under existing 
     treaties and statute, all federally owned lands as depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Badger-Two Medicine Area'', dated 
     September 1991, comprising approximately 116,600 acres, are 
     withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, and 
     disposal under the mining and public land laws and from 
     disposition under the geothermal and mineral leasing laws. 
     Until otherwise directed by Congress, the Secretary shall 
     manage this area so as to protect its wilderness qualities.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall preclude the gathering of 
     timber by the Blackfeet Nation in exercise of and consistent 
     with valid treaty rights within the Badger-Two Medicine Area.
       (3)(A) With respect to oil and gas leases on Federal lands 
     within the Badger-Two Medicine Area, no surface disturbance 
     shall be permitted pursuant to such leases until Congress 
     determines otherwise.
       (B) Notwithstanding any other law, the term of any oil and 
     gas lease subject to the limitations imposed by this section 
     shall be extended for a period of time equal to the term that 
     such limitation remains in effect.
       (b) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of the 
     area referred to in subsection (a) as to its availability for 
     inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and 
     in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Not 
     later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall report to Congress. In conducting this 
     review:
       (1) The Secretary shall establish a committee composed of 2 
     representatives from the Blackfeet Nation, as well as one 
     representative from the National Park Service, one 
     representative from the Forest Service, and representatives 
     of various concerned user groups, including proportional 
     representation for environmental groups, industry groups and 
     other interested parties. The Committee shall not exceed 
     eleven members. The Blackfeet Tribal Business Council shall 
     choose the 2 Tribal representatives. The Blackfeet Tribal 
     Business Council shall conduct a public meeting to receive 
     recommendations of the community regarding the selection of 
     these members. The committee shall regularly advise the 
     Secretary during the preparation of the report required in 
     this subsection and submit its findings to Congress 
     concurrently with those of the Secretary.
       (2) Special consideration shall be given to the religious, 
     wilderness and wildlife uses of the area, taking into account 
     any treaties the United States has entered into with the 
     Blackfeet Nation.
       (3) In consultation with the committee, the Secretary shall 
     establish a process to provide information to the Blackfeet 
     Nation and interested public about options for future 
     designation of the Badger-Two Medicine Area.
       (c) Rights.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     diminish, prejudice, add to, or otherwise affect the treaty 
     rights of the Blackfeet Nation or the rights of the United 
     States.
       (d) Map and Boundary Description.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     file a map and boundary description of the area designated by 
     this section with the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, United States Senate and Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the United States House of Representatives and 
     such map and boundary description shall have the same force 
     and effect as if included in this Act.
       (2) The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 
     errors in the map and boundary description submitted pursuant 
     to this section.
       (3) The map and boundary description referred to in this 
     section shall be on file and available for public inspection 
     in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service and the 
     office of the Regional Forester of the Northern Region.

     SEC. 8. LANDS ADMINISTERED BY BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress has reviewed the suitability of 
     a portion of the Axolotl Lakes Wilderness Study Area (MT-076-
     069, BLM Wilderness Study Number) as generally depicted on a 
     map entitled ``Released portion of Axolotl Lakes WSA'', dated 
     September 1992, for wilderness designation and finds that 
     this portion has been sufficiently studied for wilderness 
     pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782).
       (b) Direction.--The area described in subsection (a) shall 
     no longer be subject to the requirement of section 603(c) of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 pertaining 
     to management in a manner that does not impair suitability 
     for preservation as wilderness.
       (c) Administrative Jurisdiction.--Those lands designated as 
     wilderness pursuant to section 3(a) of this Act, which, as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, are administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior as public lands (as defined in the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976), are hereby 
     transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and shall be added to and managed as part of the 
     National Forest System, and the boundaries of the adjacent 
     National Forests are hereby modified to include such lands.
       (d) Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For purposes of 
     section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the boundaries of affected National 
     Forests, as modified by this section, shall be considered to 
     be the boundaries of such National Forests as if they were 
     the boundaries of the National Forests as of January 1, 1965. 
     Money appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     shall be available for the acquisition of lands, waters, and 
     interests therein in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 9. MONTANA ECOSYSTEM AND ECONOMICS STUDY.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``ecosystem'' means a dynamic complex of 
     plant, animal and microorganism communities and their 
     nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit.
       (2) The term ``Northern Rockies'' means Federal lands and 
     resources in the State of Montana.
       (3) The term ``Panel'' means the independent scientific 
     panel for the study of the Northern Rockies ecosystem 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Independent Scientific Panel for the Study of the 
     Northern Rockies Ecosystem.--
       (1) Establishment.--The President shall establish an 
     independent scientific panel for the study of the Northern 
     Rockies. The Panel shall conduct the study and submit the 
     reports and recommendations required by subsection (c).
       (2) Membership.--(A) The Panel established under this 
     subsection shall be composed of 11 members, appointed by the 
     President, from a list of candidates to be developed and 
     submitted to the President by the National Academy of 
     Sciences and lists from well-established professional 
     societies with an interest in the environmental sciences.
       (B) Each member of the Panel shall be a recognized expert 
     in the field for which the member is considered for 
     appointment and shall be free of economic conflict of 
     interest with regard to the subject of this section. Each 
     member also shall have research experience in the Northern 
     Rockies region or otherwise be familiar with the issues and 
     ecology of the region. As a whole, membership of the Panel 
     shall represent an appropriately broad diversity of 
     disciplines, and members shall have recognized experience in 
     natural sciences, economics, and administrative policy.
       (C) The list of candidates provided by the National Academy 
     of Sciences shall consist of at least twice as many nominees 
     as positions available in each category specified in this 
     section.
       (D) The Panel shall work cooperatively with all relevant 
     State and Federal agencies, university research stations and 
     departments, and Indian tribes.
       (E) The Panel may establish, at its discretion, such 
     subregional review teams and working groups as it deems 
     necessary to complete its tasks in a timely and professional 
     manner.
       (3) Pay and expenses.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), members of the Panel established under this 
     subsection shall each be paid at a rate not to exceed, and 
     consistent with, the rate paid to employees of the United 
     States performing similar duties and with similar 
     qualifications for each day (including travel time) during 
     which they are engaged in the actual performance of duties 
     vested in the Panel. While away from their homes or regular 
     places of business in the performance of services for the 
     Panel, members of the Panel shall be allowed travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner 
     as persons employed intermittently in Government service are 
     allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (B) Other than reimbursement of expenses pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), members of the Panel who are full-time 
     officers or employees of the United States shall receive no 
     additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their 
     service on the Panel.
       (4) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Panel shall be 
     appointed by the President.
       (5) Agency assistance.--Upon request of the Panel, the head 
     of any Federal agency shall provide facilities, equipment, 
     personnel, and other types of support to the Panel to assist 
     the Panel in carrying out its duties under this Act.
       (6) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate 30 days after 
     the submission of the final report under subsection (c).
       (c) Study of Ecosystems Management of the Northern 
     Rockies.--
       (1) Study.--(A) The Panel shall define the boundaries of, 
     and map, the ecosystems of the Northern Rockies, including 
     any corridors the Panel deems necessary to connect isolated 
     ecosystems. In making the determination of ecosystem 
     boundaries, the Panel shall consider--
       (i) restoration and maintenance of natural biological 
     diversity;
       (ii) productivity on a long-term, sustainable basis of 
     essential natural ecological elements, functions, and 
     successional processes;
       (iii) preservation of the integrity of genetic stocks of 
     native communities of plants and animals, with an emphasis on 
     areas of high species richness and endemism;
       (iv) restoration or maintenance or protection of high water 
     quality instream flows and watersheds (or riparian areas) 
     sufficient to protect fish and wildlife;
       (v) maintaining biological connectivity between and among 
     physiographic provinces; and
       (vi) maintenance of long-term, sustainable outputs of 
     economically valuable natural resources.
       (B)(i) The Panel shall define the essential management 
     purpose and biological function and desired condition of the 
     ecosystems defined under subparagraph (A). In conjunction 
     with carrying out subparagraph (A), the Panel shall assess 
     the ecological status and trends, including, where 
     appropriate, levels of risks associated with applicable 
     management alternatives of water quality, riparian areas, and 
     fisheries; uncommon, rare, threatened, and endangered 
     species; rangelands; soils; and late successional old growth 
     forest.
       (ii) The Panel shall analyze the timber quantity, quality, 
     and growth on the existing timber base as well as the success 
     of reforestation in the region to date, probable rates of 
     reforestation success in the future, and their effect on 
     timber supply and related issues.
       (C) The Panel shall gather and display in a useful form 
     biological data from each of the ecosystems defined under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (D) The Panel shall identify gaps in important research 
     areas and contract for or otherwise obtain research necessary 
     in the short term to accomplish the duties of the Panel under 
     this section.
       (E) The Panel shall analyze Federal land ownership patterns 
     and associated Federal land management mandates and practices 
     within the ecosystems identified in subparagraph (A) and 
     identify those mandates and practices which are inconsistent 
     or incompatible with ecosystem management levels of risk 
     identified under subparagraph (B).
       (F) The Panel shall identify opportunities to encourage 
     sustainable economic use of the natural resources of the 
     ecosystems identified by the Panel and the sustainable 
     economic outputs identified in subparagraph (A)(vi), in a 
     manner consistent with the goals and purposes of those 
     ecosystems. Special emphasis shall be placed on the 
     identification of opportunities for the maintenance and 
     growth of small businesses and the establishment of new small 
     businesses consistent with the goals and purposes of those 
     ecosystems. In making these recommendations, the Panel should 
     consider opportunities to improve environmental conditions 
     that could permit an expansion of the sustainable 
     contribution of commodity and noncommodity uses and outputs 
     of natural resources, including but not limited to each of 
     the following:
       (i) Increasing desirable natural vegetative growth through 
     reforestation with native species, thinning and other timber 
     stand modifications, prescribed burning, and seeding or 
     planting native grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
       (ii) Improving the quality of other biological resources 
     (such as species diversity and animal populations) through 
     habitat restoration, extended timber rotations, alternative 
     timber harvesting and bidding systems, and different 
     standards and methods for road construction, maintenance, 
     closure, and eradication.
       (iii) Enhancing the quality of non-biological resources 
     (such as recreation trails and developments, watersheds and 
     streams), through site restoration and rehabilitation, demand 
     management (such as user regulation and enforcement, 
     marketing to shift timing and location of uses) and 
     investment in recreational use.
       (2) Recommendations.--The Panel shall submit 
     recommendations on each of the following:
       (A) Specific, implementable steps for management of the 
     ecosystems defined under paragraph (1)(A), including removal 
     of inconsistent or incompatible mandates and practices 
     identified under paragraph (1)(E).
       (B) Ways to better monitor the resources within the 
     ecosystems.
       (C) Ways to create or improve direct cooperation between 
     scientists both within and without the Federal Government and 
     Federal land managers.
       (D) Methods, including incentives by which State and 
     private landowners might cooperatively manage their lands in 
     a manner compatible with Federal lands located within the 
     ecosystems.
       (E) Other institutional or legislative changes the Panel 
     determines will promote sound ecosystem management.
       (3) Reports.--(A) Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Panel shall submit an interim 
     report to the President and the Congress. The report shall 
     discuss the progress of the Panel in carrying out this 
     section and shall include--
       (i) a description of any ecosystems defined and mapped 
     under paragraph (1)(A) and (B);
       (ii) summaries of the biological data gathered to date 
     under paragraph (1)(C); and
       (iii) the additional research obtained under paragraph 
     (1)(D).
       (B) Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Panel shall submit a final report to the 
     President and the Congress which contains a description of 
     its activities under this section and includes the findings, 
     analyses, and recommendations made under this section.
       (C) The reports submitted to the Congress under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

     SEC. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Redesignation.--(1) Those lands comprising the 
     Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness, as 
     designated in Public Law 96-476 are hereby redesignated as 
     the ``Rattlesnake National Education and Recreation Area and 
     Wilderness''.
       (2) Those lands comprising 200 acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``West Pioneers Study Deletion--Proposed'', 
     are hereby released from study under Public Law 95-150.
       (b) Withdrawal.--(1) Those lands comprising approximately 
     27,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Gibson Reservoir Mineral Withdrawal Area--Proposed'', dated 
     October 1992, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, 
     appropriation and disposal under the mining and public land 
     laws, and disposition under the geothermal and mineral 
     leasing laws.
       (2) The Secretary shall file a map and boundary description 
     of the area designated by this subsection with the committees 
     identified in this subsection and such map and boundary 
     description shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act.
       (3) The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 
     errors in the map and boundary description submitted pursuant 
     to this subsection.
       (4) The map and boundary description referred to in this 
     subsection shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service 
     and the office of the Regional Forester of the Northern 
     Region.
       (c) Acreages.--All acreages cited in this Act are 
     approximate and in the event of discrepancies between cited 
     acreage and the lands depicted on referenced maps, the maps 
     shall control.
       (d) Access.--It is the policy of Congress that the Forest 
     Service affirm or acquire and maintain reasonable public 
     access to National Forest System lands in the State of 
     Montana.
       (e) Scapegoat and Great Bear Wilderness Names.--In order to 
     consolidate existing contiguous wilderness areas, those lands 
     comprising the Great Bear Wilderness Area designated by 
     Public Law 95-946 and any amendments thereto and the 
     Scapegoat Wilderness Area designated by Public Law 92-395 and 
     any amendments thereto are hereby incorporated in and deemed 
     to be a part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The designations 
     of the Great Bear Wilderness and Scapegoat Wilderness shall 
     refer to units within the Bob Marshall Wilderness.

     SEC. 11. WILDERNESS REVIEW.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Department of Agriculture has studied the 
     suitability of roadless areas for inclusion in the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System; and
       (2) the Congress has made its own review and examination of 
     National Forest System roadless areas in the State of Montana 
     and the environmental impacts associated with nonwilderness 
     management of such areas.
       (b) Release.--Those National Forest System lands in the 
     State of Montana which were not designated as wilderness, 
     special management, national recreation, or wilderness study 
     areas by this Act and Public Law 95-150 shall be managed for 
     multiple use in accordance with land and resource management 
     plans developed pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 
     amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and 
     other applicable law, and those areas need not be managed for 
     the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness 
     designation prior to or during revision of land and resource 
     management plans.
       (c) Plan Revisions.--In the event that revised land 
     management plans in the State of Montana are implemented 
     pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National 
     Forest Management Act of 1976, and other applicable law, 
     areas not recommended for wilderness designation, need not be 
     managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for 
     wilderness designation prior to or during revision of such 
     plans, and areas recommended for wilderness designation shall 
     be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability 
     for wilderness designation.
       (d) Further Review.--Unless expressly authorized by 
     Congress, the Department of Agriculture shall not conduct any 
     further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of 
     National Forest System lands in the State of Montana for the 
     purpose of determining their suitability for inclusion in the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (e) Previous Plans.--Except as specifically provided in 
     section 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this Act and in Public Law 95-150, 
     with respect to the National Forest System lands in the State 
     of Montana which were reviewed by the Department of 
     Agriculture under Public Law 94-557, the unit plans that were 
     in effect prior to completion of RARE II, the 1978 Forest 
     Plan for the Beaverhead National Forest, that such reviews 
     shall be deemed an adequate consideration of the suitability 
     of such lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, and the Department of Agriculture shall 
     not be required to review the wilderness option prior to the 
     revision of the land and resource management plans.
       (f) Revisions.--As used in this section, and as provided in 
     section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act, as amended by the National Foreign Management 
     Act, the term ``revision'' shall not include an amendment to 
     a land and resource management plan.
       (g) Size.--The provisions of this section shall apply to 
     those National Forest System roadless lands in the State of 
     Montana which are less than 5,000 acres in size.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.


               amendments offered by representative vento

  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I offer a series of amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be considered as read and considered en 
bloc. They are identified as amendments 1 through 8.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Vento: On page 2, line 16, delete 
     all of paragraph (3) and replace with a new paragraph as 
     follows:
       ``(3) review and evaluation of roadless and undeveloped 
     lands in the National Forest system in Montana have also 
     identified those areas which should be specially managed, 
     deserve further study, or which should be available for 
     multiple uses other than wilderness, subject to the Forest 
     Service's land management planning process and the provisions 
     of this Act.''.
       On page 10, line 14, delete the word ``Dark'' and replace 
     with ``Pink''.
       On page 16, line 3, strike ``FACA.--The provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act not withstanding'' and replace 
     with ``CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT--''.
       On page 25, line 14, add after the word ``Area'' ``and the 
     McIntire Natural Area''.
       On page 26, after line 13, add a new paragraph as follows:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall manage the McIntire Natural Area 
     with the goal of managing the Area to develop and test new 
     management approaches that achieve ecological health. 
     Management activities should be focused on improving water 
     quality, riparian area condition, and stream channel 
     stability.
       The emphasis will be on testing and evaluating ecosystem 
     management approaches. Timber harvest activities that 
     minimize soil effects and impacts to residual vegetation may 
     be allowed. Silvicultural prescriptions will emphasize 
     structural and vegetative diversity within stands, as 
     distinguished from even-age management prescriptions as a 
     usual treatment. Development of late-successional forests 
     will be emphasized on portions of the Natural Area.''.
       On page 28, line 6, delete ``100,000'' and replace with 
     ``94,000''.
       On page 45, line 12, strike ``and'' and replace with 
     ``or''.
       On page 47, line 6 after the word ``section'' add ``also''.

  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleagues and the Chair for 
their indulgence. These amendments have been discussed with the 
minority. They are mostly technical amendments. No. 1 replaces the 
finding dealing with lands available for multiple uses with boilerplate 
language used in previous wilderness bills.
  Amendment No. 2 changes the name of a portion of the Yaak wilderness 
designate by the bill from ``Dark Mountain'' to ``Pink Mountain.'' 
There is no Dark Mountain.
  Amendment No. 3 deletes the exception for the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act for citizens groups that will provide advice on 
wilderness management issues.
  Amendment No. 4 clarifies that timber harvesting in the McIntire 
natural area must be compatible with the purposes of the designation.
  Amendment No. 5 provides management direction for the McIntire 
natural area.
  Amendment No. 6 deletes the tenderfoot experimental forest from the 
Tenderfoot-Deep Creek wilderness study area.
  Finally, amendments No. 7 and 8 are simply technical corrections in 
the bill. There is no substantive change with respect to them.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, the minority has reviewed these amendments and has no 
objection to them and accepts them.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Montana, the 
sponsor of the measure.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I too thank the gentleman and rise in support of the 
gentleman's en bloc amendments. I want to say specifically with regard 
to amendment No. 4 in this series that the chairman and I have worked 
together to ensure that my intention with regard to the purposes of an 
area called the McIntire natural area are clear. The amendment provides 
absolute assurance that harvest is allowable but that it be done in a 
small and environmentally sound manner. This area is critical to the 
survival, for example, the survival of the grizzly bear. We want 
harvests to continue, but we want it done in a manner that is in 
keeping with the environmental standards that the area is required to 
meet. That was not as clear in my original legislation as I wanted it 
to be. The gentleman's amendment No. 4 clarifies it, and I appreciate 
the gentleman working with me on this.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I urge support of this noncontroversial 
series of amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further requests for time, the question 
is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento].
  The amendments were agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill 
     add the following new section:

     SEC.   . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     expended in violation of sections 2 through 4 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act''), which are applicable to those funds.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, 
Congress. While there is still some semblance of a Buy American Act, 
this would call for compliance with the Buy American Act. Since we 
still have a Constitution that talks about sovereignty of the American 
people and the Government of our country, this would in fact force 
compliance with the Buy American Act.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I have consulted with my principal consultant on Buy 
America, my mother, and she told me to accept the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, the gentleman's mother is showing good 
judgment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I 
think this is a good amendment, I support it, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. williams

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Williams: On page 18, line 7, 
     strike subsection (2)(A) and insert:
       ``(2)(A) 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.''
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, this amendment would conform the 
Montana water rights language in the bill to the language that this 
body passed in the Colorado wilderness bill. The amendment changes 
neither the meaning nor the intent of the water rights section at all, 
but simply adds back to the language as originally drafted.
  As my colleagues know, water rights law is a delicate business, and 
frankly in our haste to draft clearer, more concise language, we 
strayed a bit from the Colorado formula.

                              {time}  1440

  Several groups in Montana were not entirely comfortable about the new 
language, and, although no one really claimed that the language was not 
substantive, I want everyone to be comfortable with this water rights 
language because in Montana, as in so many other States, water rights 
is critically important, and so I am offering this language which 
restores a few words that were in the original Colorado language, and, 
in my judgment, this neither adds nor detracts from the water rights 
security that I had in the original language. It says the same thing, 
it achieves the same goal, but in a slightly different way and with 
language which adds a higher comfort level to some of the water users 
groups in Montana who deserve as high a comfort level on this issue as 
we can provide them.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Montana.
  As the gentleman has explained, this amendment would revise the part 
of section 4 of the bill that is intended to explain the effect--or, 
rather, lack of effect--that the bill would have on any Federal water 
rights already in existence in Montana.
  The effect of the amendment would be to make this part of the bill 
exactly the same as the corresponding provisions in the Colorado 
Wilderness Act of 1993.
  Frankly, in my opinion the version of the bill reported by the 
Committee on Natural Resources already achieves what would be achieved 
by the Williams amendment--that is, it makes clear that the bill will 
have absolutely no effect on such existing Federal water rights.
  The pertinent part of the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, which Mr. 
Williams would place into this bill, says that the act is not a 
recognition or denial of any existing water rights, which is clear and 
perhaps helpful.
  But the Colorado provisions also say that they are not to be read as 
``A creation * * * of any water rights of the United States * * * 
existing before the date of enactment.''
  As it did last year, this seems to me to be what our former 
distinguished colleague, Chairman Mo Udall, once referred to as 
``redundant reassurance of the self-evident.'' Nothing seems 
more unnecessary as to say that a wilderness bill does not create 
something that has already been created. The word ``create'' bothers me 
any way. It always seems more appropriate to say ``designate.''

  My experience with bills like the Colorado wilderness bill has 
prepared me for some strange things, but so far I have not heard even a 
Colorado water lawyer claim that existing water rights could or would 
be created again, retroactively. Still, in my opinion the Colorado 
language, however odd, has no effect, and so I joined our committee and 
the House in accepting it, even though in my opinion, it does not 
reflect the kind of care that we should exercise in fashioning 
legislation on such an important matter.
  I had hoped to improve on that record when we dealt with Montana, but 
evidently there is some impression that something more substantive was 
involved when the bill was revised in our committee. That impression 
has prompted the gentleman from Montana to seek to restore the Colorado 
language. The House accepted that language for Colorado, and I view 
that language as every bit as good today, in reference to the ``Big 
Sky'' State. Apparently the comfort of Members of Congress must come 
before clarification--learning to live with such creative thinking also 
is our plight.
  Therefore, Madam Chairman, I urge the House to adopt the amendment, 
in order to lay to rest the Colorado creation anxiety that has been 
expressed about this part of the bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. Williams. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Williams] for having yielded to me, and I rise in support of his 
amendment. In fact, I was prepared to offer this very same amendment 
myself, if the gentleman from Montana had not. I think it is essential 
to establish some balance in this argument on Federal reserve water 
rights, and now, with the gentleman from Montana's amendment, we have 
restored that balance where we say that not only do we not relinquish 
or reduce any Federal reserve water right that may be already there, 
but we are also saying there will not be a creation or a recognition of 
a new Federal reserve water right, and I think that brings things into 
balance.
  I say to my colleagues, ``It's a very important issue if you're 
talking about fairness and applying the Federal reserve water right, 
and I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.''
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Allard] for supporting the amendment.
  I have, as the gentleman knows, believed that we have had ironclad 
protection for States' water rights in the bill, but, as I say, if we 
can raise the comfort level, even though I do not think we are changing 
the policy of the water rights, then I am all for raising the comfort 
level, and we do want to go the extra step to be sure that we protect 
water out our way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 amendment offered by mr. hochbrueckner

  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hochbrueckner:
       Section 2 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of 
     subsection (a) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) respectively 
     and inserting after paragraph (1) of subsection (a), the 
     following:
       ``(2) Preserving areas in their natural roadless condition 
     is a vital component of protecting the biodiversity of lands 
     in Montana and securing and maintaining habitat for 
     threatened and endangered species.''
       (2) by inserting after the words ``character of the land'' 
     in subsection (b)(1), the words ``and the health and 
     diversity of native populations of fish, wildlife and 
     plants''.
       Section 9 (c)(3)(C) is amended by inserting after the words 
     ``the Committee on Natural Resources'' the words ``and the 
     Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries''.

  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Madam Chairman, today I rise on behalf of myself, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Manton], the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld], and 
the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] to offer an amendment to the 
Montana Wilderness Act of 1994. The Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries was granted a 24-hour sequential referral of H.R. 2473; 
however, due to the limited duration of the referral, we were unable to 
consider this bill in committee. The amendment which we are offering 
pertains to sections 2 and 9 of the bill. In section 2, the findings 
and purposes section, the amendment is intended to highlight the 
importance of protecting Montana's biodiversity and preserving areas in 
their natural roadless state. In addition, the amendment will ensure 
that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is informed of the 
progress of the panel conducting the ecosystem and economic study of 
the northern Rockies area within the State of Montana under section 9.
  The language being proposed has been discussed with Congressman 
Williams' office and it is our understanding that he supports the 
amendment. The amendment does not change any wilderness designation or 
other substantive provision of the bill.
  Madam Chairman, the Committee of Merchant Marine and Fisheries has 
jurisdiction over the conservation of fish and wildlife. The Rockie 
Mountains ecosystem contains many species, like the grizzly bear and 
the gray wolf, which require large expanses of relatively undisturbed 
habitat to thrive. This is why the wilderness, special management 
areas, and ecosystem study established in this bill are so crucial to 
fish and wildlife conservation. Furthermore, it is important to ensure 
sound management of the remaining roadless areas in Montana and we 
think this bill provides this opportunity. While more than 3 million 
acres of roadless lands are released to multiple use management, the 
bill makes clear that management activities must be in full compliance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act and other fish and wildlife 
conservation laws. In past administrations, we may have been concerned 
that releasing these lands would be a predicate to disaster. However, 
the current administration is committed to environmental protection at 
the ecosystem level.
  Madam Chairman, we commend the gentleman from Montana on his efforts 
to protect these lands and urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner]. I commend 
the gentlemen, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner], for their work on this 
amendment and urge support for it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, the minority has looked at the 
gentleman's amendment. We have no objection to it, think it adds to the 
bill, and we would accept it on this side.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I particularly appreciate the gentleman 
coming to me early and working with us on this amendment, and I 
appreciate his committee's review of the legislation. I am pleased to 
have the committee review the economic environmental study when it is 
completed, and I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I am 
particularly appreciative of the early warning that he gave us with 
regard to the amendment and the work that his staff and our staff did 
together.
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. Williams] for his kind remarks and his support along with the 
support of other Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. delay

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay:
       On page 34, line 8, strike Section 9 in its entirety.

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I did not intend to get involved in 
today's debate involving this bill which the gentleman from Montana has 
worked on for years. I defer to him regarding the boundaries and 
acreages of wilderness in his State. However, I am concerned about the 
costly and politically correct study this bill authorizes and the 
precedent it creates for future wilderness bills involving other 
States.
  My amendment would strike section 9 from the bill. This section, 
which is nine pages long, would establish an independent scientific 
panel for the study of the northern Rockies--a panel of 11 scientists 
appointed by the President from a list developed by the National 
Academy of Sciences. Each panel member is required to be free of 
economic conflict of interest. Moreover, this panel is given authority 
to establish such regional review teams and working groups as it deems 
necessary to complete its tasks in a timely and professional manner.
  The panel is given the herculean task of defining the boundaries of 
the ecosystems of the northern Rockies including any corridors it feels 
are needed to connect isolated ecosystems. Since two-thirds of Montana 
is privately owned, numerous acres of private lands will unavoidably be 
within the ecosystem boundaries.
  Furthermore, the panel is required to study virtually everything that 
swims, crawls, flies, or has roots in Montana. It also is charged with 
studying such trendy and politically correct concepts as biological 
diversity, isolated ecosystems, biological connectivity, ecosystem 
management, and sustainable outputs.
  Then, 30 months after enactment, the panel is required to complete 
its report on these subjects and include recommendations for improving 
management of the northern Rockies ecosystem.
  I am greatly confused as to why we are authorizing this study in the 
first place. Did we not create a new agency last fall with a $163-
million budget called the National Biological Survey which is supposed 
to do similar research as this scientific panel?
  Let me state the functions of the Biological Survey according to 
section 3 of H.R. 1845, which the House passed last October.

       (A) conduct research on biological resources, including 
     plants, fish, wildlife, and their habitat.
       (B) monitor methods by which ecosystems are managed.
       (C) collect and analyze data and information to determine 
     and inventory the distribution, abundance, health and status 
     and trends of biological resources.

  Why are we being asked to create yet another new scientific study 
which CBO estimates will cost taxpayers $8 million, when only 6 months 
ago we established the National Biological Survey. Just imagine if 
every other large State asks for a study like this. The cost would be 
staggering.
  Aside from the National Biological Survey and its $163million budget, 
which will likely be increased 9 percent next year, we have many other 
Federal agencies with talented and well-trained scientists. Why can we 
not trust scientists with agencies like the Forest Service, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Bonneville Power Administration, National Park Service, 
National Marine Fisheries Service and others to collect this data if it 
is so urgently needed? Why must we spend $8 million of money we do not 
have for something we do not need?
  If I was more cynical, I might think this was a full employment 
program for scientists aligned with preservation groups. After all, 
they coined many of the terms in section 9 like ecosystem management 
and biological connectivity. Perhaps, if I read the bill closer I might 
even find the trendy term ``biocentrism.''
  Montana resident and syndicated columnist Alston Chase writes:

       Biocentrism holds that all living things have equal rights. 
     Humans don't enjoy special status. This derives from the idea 
     that nature consists of interacting parts that operate as 
     ecosystems. Since everything is connected to everything else, 
     every creature is equally important.

  Continuing he says:

       Unfortunately, the idea is bogus. While there are many 
     reasons to protect land, water and wildlife, saving 
     ecosystems isn't one of them. Ecosystems are mathematical 
     tools used to analyze energy feedback loops. You can't draw 
     them on maps. There is no evidence that, left undisturbed, 
     they reach equilibrium. Also, not every creature is equally 
     important. The disappearance of spotted owls would be an 
     aesthetic calamity, but would no more jeopardize humanity 
     than extinction of Irish elk 10,000 years ago put an end to 
     life on the Emerald Isle.

  Finally, Alston Chase says:

       These policies are the Prozac of environmentalism. They 
     mean nothing but make us feel good. By calling ``old growth'' 
     an ecosystem, it implies that mature trees are a biologically 
     distinct category--which is an absurdity, like saying that as 
     people become aged they become different species.

  Mr. Speaker, let us not spend $8 million to conduct a politically 
correct study of the northern Rockies ecosystem. If there are gaps in 
existing data, why does Congress not trust the thousands of scientists 
in Federal agencies such as the newly created National Biological 
Survey and private entities to go out and collect it. Support the DeLay 
amendment.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This is an amendment that 
would prevent us from moving forward with the comprehensive scientific 
study of the northern Rockies ecosystem in Montana.
  The Biological Survey functions out of the Department of Interior. 
Such agreements as may exist between it and the Department of 
Agriculture, which I think would be desirable, are not covered under 
the Biological Survey per se. So it is a misunderstanding that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has personified in terms of the 
statement that he has made.
  I think that the Forest Service has a good range of scientists. They 
need the direction that this particular format and this study provides. 
I am pleased that the philosopher that he quoted has such views with 
regard to the scientific information. Apparently, in his view, all we 
need to do is have his philosophy. We do not need to study anything. 
But that is really what has gotten us to where we are today.
  The fact of the matter is, I would point out, that we have taken 
billions of dollars out of Montana and out of the West in terms of 
resources, and we have designated millions and millions of acres of 
land. The fact is we need a better knowledge base to deal with that. We 
need to deal with what the economics are in the State of Montana.
  That is why my colleague wants this amendment. He wants the 
information so that we can go forward on a rational basis. To invest 
back in the State of Montana and in the West is what the goal is that 
has to be done here. But we cannot do it based on hunches and 
philosophy, no matter how bright or intelligent the words are.
  We found repeatedly in our efforts to deal with this problem that we 
are changing the policies because we have such a lack of information 
day in and day out, within just months. And it is not a single species 
based kind of issue. It is multi-species based.
  It is the entire ecosystem, which, after all, an ecosystem is simply 
a cognitive construct that we have to use as a way of thinking about 
very diverse topics like these ecosystems, which are made up with these 
fauna and flora that are very diverse.
  So that is not the argument here. It is an argument of putting this 
in place, authorizing this, trying to get the information that is 
necessary so that we can make better decisions with regard to these 
lands.
  We do not have enough information very often to be making the types 
of decisions that are needed. I always thought if everyone had the 
right information, we would make the right decisions. But indeed there 
is a place for politics to come into this. There is a place where we 
have to bring that to bear. That is why we reserved the right to make 
these decisions.
  But I think this would be a real mistake to walk away. Here we are 
classifying 6 million acres of land. The gentleman has a modest 
amendment for a study here, and maybe he will get the money for it. 
Maybe he will not.
  But I think the point is, it is pointing the Forest Service in the 
direction they wanted to go. They want to deal with this on an 
ecosystem basis. The fact is the Forest Service lines, the lines for 
the national forest, have run across State lines for many, many years. 
They recognized early on that state lines were inappropriate in terms 
of the management units that they were charged with managing.
  This study, of course, goes a long way forward. It tries to put it on 
an objective basis, engaging the National Academy of Sciences, engaging 
the other departments and agencies of the Federal Government that have 
similar reform bills, and to try to come forward with a sound policy so 
we can make decisions on efficient and wildlife preservation, 
threatened and endangered species, oil and gas and mining rights. We do 
not have all the information. We need to provide some direction to the 
administration.
  If you think it is all right for them just to go ahead and do what 
they wanted to do in the National Biological Survey, that is fine. But 
I think there is some wisdom in this body. I think the House and the 
Senate, working together and operating and functioning on the basis of 
the gentleman's proposal here, should be given that chance.
  So therefore, I would ask that we reject the DeLay amendment today 
and move forward on the proactive policies of the gentleman from 
Montana.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, the gentleman says that we need this study 
independently. But in answer to the question, will this study partially 
duplicate what is contained in the forest plans, the Forest Service has 
said that the proposed study that I am trying to eliminate would 
partially duplicate the forest plans in a number of ways. And it lists 
the ways: inventory of timber, age of resources, identifying trends and 
alternatives.
  It is already going to be done, paid for by the Forest Service.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I think that it is not being done. This 
has been the answer from the Forest Service for a long time of anything 
that we had recommended. The truth is that if it is redundant, the 
thing is, it is based on using existing information but putting it 
together in a different way. That has not been the past. The corridors 
the gentleman criticized and some of the other aspects are at the very 
cutting edge of new science and land use management. I would urge 
rejection of the amendment for that reason.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would hope 
that we would reject the amendment by the gentleman from Texas. I think 
it shows a misunderstanding of what has been taking place in this 
region of our country.
  When we talk about ecosystem management in the case of the Northern 
Rockies, we are really talking about building on a community of work 
that goes far beyond the belief that we are going to simply classify 
the flora and the fauna and habitat and wildlife.
  These communities, I mean communities, talking about little cities 
and towns where people work, are interested in having this so that they 
can have a road map on how they are going to continue to provide the 
economic activity for those communities and these impacted areas. This 
is, in fact, one of the few areas of our country where when we talk 
about ecosystem management and where it has been talked about in long 
term, maybe even coined in this area of the country, the fact is they 
brought in the communities, because as we move to multiple use of these 
public lands, the people from the West say that they are always 
foreign, especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  We need to know what uses are available, what inventories are 
available, what economic activity can be sustained when it comes to the 
pressures between mining, between oil and gas, and tourism, and timber 
inventories and trying to keep that industry alive, as we change our 
understandings and concepts of these regions.
  In fact, if Members go out and they visit with people from the 
Greater Yellowstone Coalition and from other organizations out there, 
they would understand that this is being driven by communities that 
have had the good fortune to have some of the highest growth rates, 
some of the highest growth rates in our Nation over the last several 
years because of the attractiveness of this region.
  They also understand that there is going to be a limit to the size of 
the timber industry, to the extractive industries. They are trying to 
develop new industries, whether it is tourism or other such activities, 
but they need to know what is going to be available to them, what is 
going to be off limits because of special characteristics, however 
defined in an ecosystem map, and what is not going to be available to 
them.
  This is an economic tool. This is not politically correct. This is 
not cute. This is a very serious economic tool to prevent the kinds of 
problems that we have run into in so many regions of this country where 
we have sort of gone down one road until the policy is bankrupt, until 
the thing is so far gone that we lose the options.
  What these communities, what the citizens of this region have been 
talking about, asking for, participating in is ecosystem management so 
that they can make those determinations. To believe that this kind of 
study is simply for the purposes of a narrow point of view within the 
environmental movement or within the Forest Service, the National 
Biological Survey, this is a tool to be used by local governments, to 
be used by local planning organizations, to be used by citizens in 
those areas so that they can hold on to the best that they can have and 
still provide the economic wherewithal for their communities. That is 
the genesis of this effort in the Northern Rockies.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, the gentleman made a very eloquent 
statement about why the purpose of this particular section. That is, 
for local communities to have all this information. But if that is the 
case, why did the gentleman and the committee take out of the original 
bill this phrase, under the purposes of this study, ``to assure the 
disruptions to communities and local economies are minimized through 
the sustainable use of natural resources in the State of Montana''?
  If that is the concern of the gentleman, why did he take it out of 
the bill?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, that is the tool that 
ecosystem management brings to us. In our State, in California, we have 
had analysis of habitats and other areas. We are now able to start to 
be able to tell builders and local boards of supervisors and city 
governments where they can go without peril and where there is a 
problem, where we can achieve joint mitigation to offset problems. And 
so we cannot do that unless we have the kind of information that is 
available to us in these studies.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
would the gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I am answering the 
gentleman's question. This is one of the tools to be used for that 
purpose. That is not the purpose. This is a tool to develop and to 
bring together that information so we can make those kinds of 
judgments. That is not this study. This study is about the inventory of 
those qualities.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, the gentleman just made an eloquent speech 
about the purpose of this study.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, do not reject this tool 
because Members think it is something that it is not, because they do 
not understand the history of what has taken place in this region among 
the citizens and the communities who are trying to develop their 
economic well-being.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, as we listen to the debate on this particular 
amendment, this study mandate in title IX, which CBO estimates will 
cost $8 million, is a very expensive precedent. We do it for Montana. 
How about Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, Utah and any other Western State that 
has public land? And needless to say, this would be an extremely and 
enormous cost to the people of America.
  I applaud many of the things in this bill and appreciate our friends 
from Montana coming up with a good piece of legislation. But this part 
of it really bothers me, and I think the gentleman from Texas has done 
an excellent job in taking this out.
  Mr. Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior, when we did the 
biological survey, made this statement. He said, ``The mission of the 
National Biological Survey is to inventory all of the biological 
resources of the country.''
  That means, as he pointed out, everything that flies, that swims, 
that crawls. It did not limit it to the Forest Service or take our BLM 
but everything is involved.

  As we sit in our offices and we get all of these letters from people 
around the United States, they are saying, save money, avoid 
redundancy.
  The Endangered Species Act, for example, one of the main reasons that 
is going to be changed is under the listing process. Because under the 
listing process, all we look at is the biological features. We do not 
look at the economy of the area.
  In particular instance, here we are going to throw it out again, go 
down that same path and get us in trouble like we have on the 
Endangered Species Act.
  I cannot understand, and I ask my colleagues wherever they may be to 
take into consideration, if they want to save money, if they want to 
improve the Montana Wilderness bill, this is the best amendment to do 
it under. Why the redundancy? Why up here do we constantly say we have 
to have 100, 200, 300 scientists to analyze the same thing we are 
looking at.
  I think the gentleman from Texas got into the area that we do not 
even define the words. Every time we have had the Chief of the Forest 
Service, for the last times in front of the committee, I have asked him 
to define ecosystem. So far I do not have a definition. All of these 
other terms that we have looked at, please define them. They are 
indefinable terms. It is not like a contract that in the back we have a 
definition of terms that we can turn to and say, this means the 
following. We are going into indefinable things.
  I do not think this is necessary. Number one, if we want to save 
money, here is a good amendment to vote for. Number two, if we want to 
improve the Montana Wilderness bill, here is an excellent amendment.
  I think we should get on with this and vote for the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas which is an excellent amendment and well-thought-
out.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I am reminded of that statement, ``No good deed shall go 
unpunished.''
  I came up with the idea for this study because industry and timber 
industry workers in Montana asked me to find a way to determine the 
carrying capacity of the land in order to be certain that Montana's 
natural resources extractive industries would have a stable future. 
That is how this study got in the bill.
  Does it make sense to do it? Well, consider the spotted owl problem. 
That crisis, that catastrophe out there, our neighbors to the West of 
Montana, does not have a thing to do with the spotted owl. It has to do 
with folly, folly, the folly of the timber industry and the Federal 
Government, primarily the Forest Service, which would conspire to cut 
90 percent of the old growth timber in the Pacific Northwest and then 
leave the workers, the small businesses, the Main Street merchants with 
one argument, one debate left.

                              {time}  1510

  Do we cut out all the rest or do we put out the foreclosure and 
bankruptcy signs? Do we go on unemployment?
  Out our way in Montana, and I would add in Idaho, we still have an 
opportunity to avoid that kind of folly. However, to do so, we have to 
understand for tomorrow better than we do for today what the carrying 
capacity of the land is. This does not have anything to do with these 
push-button inflammatory words like ``biocentrism'' and 
``ecoanalysis.'' That is not what we are trying to determine here. We 
are trying to simply say how much extraction of the remaining natural 
resources can go on and still allow the place to carry its weight 
environmentally. That is what this study is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend $8 million on this study. I do 
not want to spend half of that on this study. CBO is simply wrong. In 
my view, CBO was looking at the study we should be having, which is a 
five State study. All of the Northern Rockies should be studied for 
this purpose. However, we are only studying Montana in this bill.
  If CBO thinks it is going to cost $8 million for this study in just 
the Federal land in Montana, then the folks down at CBO have their bow 
ties caught in their computers. It is not going to cost $8 million to 
study this, or anywhere near $8 million to study it. I do not support 
that kind of an expenditure.

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, the CBO made this estimate based upon ongoing studies 
like the Sierra Nevada study that is spending $7.5 million to do such a 
study.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to make clear I am not for an $8 million study. 
What we have in mind here would not cost $8 million or even any 
significant portion of $8 million.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will continue yielding, if he does not 
want to spend $8 million, why does he not just, in the bill, instruct 
the National Biological Survey to do this survey.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, the National 
Biological Survey is reviewing something entirely different than what I 
am trying to achieve here. I would not be satisfied that the 
information we are going to receive from the National Biological Survey 
will be appropriate to what industry, industries' workers, and 
environmentals and conservationists in Montana are trying to achieve in 
this study. It is two different studies entirely.
  I say to my colleagues, Madam Chairman, we ought to do this study 
throughout the Northern Rockies. This bill reserves the boundaries of 
the study within Montana, but it is important to the people of Montana 
and to the people of the United States to understand what the carrying 
capacity of the natural resources in their land and the carrying 
capacity of that land base really is.
  Although we have an awful lot of information, most of it gleaned from 
the Forest Service planning process, that information is not entirely 
appropriate to giving us those answers. In Montana, we want to avoid 
what has happened to our friends to the West in this crisis known as 
the spotted owl. Every State in the Northern Rockies wants to avoid 
that. The best way to avoid that, in my judgment, is to do this study, 
which I believe can be done for a fraction of the cost that the green 
eye shade folks down at CBO have claimed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLAY and by unanimous consent, Mr. Williams was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  I understand what the gentleman is trying to, Madam Chairman. I do 
not agree that it is different, that the National Biological Survey is 
different than what he is asking for. I would just cite for the 
gentleman, who says that people from Montana want this, a letter to me 
from John Hossack from Eureka, MT, who is retired from the Forest 
Service after 35 years of service.
  He says:

       Implementing section 9 requirements over the top of agency 
     direction will result in chaos, commonly known as ``analysis 
     paralysis.'' Congressionally and presidentially imposed 
     results will not be the same as those of the managing agency 
     and public participation disregarded in favor of a select 
     hand-picked committee of scientists. . . .''

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that retired 
gentleman from the Forest Service is speaking for himself. The agency 
that he used to work for, the Forest Service, supports this study.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 244, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--182

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barlow
     de la Garza
     English
     Ford (TN)
     Grandy
     Neal (NC)
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1537

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Mr. FOGLIETTA and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. KIM, LEWIS of California, SPENCE, EDWARDS of Texas, Mrs. 
LLOYD, and Ms. SCHENK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           amendment offered by mr. taylor of north carolina

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
       The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina: At the 
     end of section 9 (page 42, after line 21), insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (d) Panel Activities on Private and Other Non-Federal 
     Lands.--
       (1) Compliance with state laws.--The Panel shall comply 
     with applicable State and tribal government laws, including 
     laws relating to private property rights and privacy.
       (2) Consent and notice requirements.--
       (A) In general.--The Panel shall not enter non-Federal real 
     property for the purpose of collecting information regarding 
     the property, unless the owner of the property has--
       (i) consented in writing to that entry;
       (ii) after providing that consent, been provided notice of 
     that entry; and
       (iii) been notified that any raw data collected from the 
     property must be made available at no cost, if requested by 
     the land owner.
       (B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) does not prohibit entry 
     of property for the purpose of obtaining consent or providing 
     notice as required by that subparagraph.
       (3) Report to congress.--On January 1, 1996, the Panel 
     shall submit a report to the Congress. The report shall 
     identify all activities of the Panel on non-Federal lands and 
     shall certify compliance with paragraph (2)(A).
       (4) Policy on access to private and non-federal lands.--
     Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Panel shall develop and submit to the Congress a policy 
     for employees and agents of the Panel to follow in order to 
     help ensure compliance with paragraph (2)(A).
       (5) Panel defined.--In this subsection, the term ``Panel'' 
     includes any person that is an officer, employee, or agent of 
     the Panel, including any such person acting pursuant to a 
     contract or cooperative agreement with or any grant from the 
     Panel.

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I do not mind the 
confusion, because most environmental legislation we take up here no 
one knows much what is going on anyway.

                              {time}  1540

  I offer this amendment today in order to protect the most basic of 
our private property rights, the right to keep Government bureaucrats 
or their agents from snooping on your land and then taking actions that 
could significantly devalue and regulate that land without ever letting 
the landowner know they are there or getting that landowner's 
permission at all.
  Most people think their land is an extension of their castle, that 
people do not have the right to come on it without their permission. 
The Constitution, they feel, gives them that protection and provides a 
way for the Government to enter their land after going through judicial 
channels if it becomes necessary.
  Now, last year, when this House debated H.R. 1845, the national 
biological survey bill, I offered an amendment that would require first 
of all that Federal agencies must comply with all State trespass and 
privacy laws when coming upon property. But employees or agents of the 
survey must get written permission before entry onto private lands and 
then let the landowner, when possible, actually go with them at the 
time they go upon the property and that the Government provide the 
landowner with a copy of the raw data collected from their survey, if 
permission is given, and they would provide that at no charge.
  Now, the House overwhelmingly endorsed my amendment, 325 to 94. I am 
offering today that same amendment.
  The legislation we have before us today contains a minibiological 
survey called the Northern Rockies Ecoscientific Panel. Now, while I 
concede that much of the panel's work will be done on public land, 
unfortunately a portion of the work and some of the mandates require 
that it be done on private land. The mandate that all biological 
diversity be studied, that the conductivity and management be studied, 
and that watersheds that could impact Federal lands be studied----
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I have examined the amendment. I think that much of 
it complies with Montana law. Most of the requirements in terms of 
private property I have yet to see documented, but the problem with 
regard to Federal agencies wandering on people's land without 
permission, recognized in the will of the House and biological survey 
and the gentleman's amendment--I had not been aware of the gentleman's 
amendment, I might say, until about a half-hour ago--but I am willing 
to accept the amendment at this point if there is not going to be a 
recorded vote on it.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, we did not think to put the gentleman's language in 
this bill in committee because the bill says this. ``The term Northern 
Rockies means Federal land.'' That is in Montana. The Committee Report 
says, ``The committee notes that for the purposes of this section, the 
term Northern Rockies refers only to Federal lands.''
  So inasmuch as private land was not involved in the economic and 
ecosystem study, we did not think to add the language which the 
gentleman is adding now. But I have no objection to it. I think it 
secures the privacy of the private land.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank both gentlemen for their 
statements, and I hope that this amendment will be added and that there 
will be no further debate.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I think as we look at this particular piece of 
legislation and what was passed before in the biological survey, this 
is one thing the body could see the importance of, taking care of 
private land.
  If anything is sacred in America, it should be that. To think that 
these highhanded people could come on, using the good-neighbor policy 
that we had in the 1980's and pushing people around, I think the 
gentleman is right on. This is an excellent amendment and probably 
should be included in every piece of legislation that we do dealing 
with private and public ground. I commend the gentleman for his 
amendment and support it completely,
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further debate, the question is on the 
agreement offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
will request that the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], enter into a colloquy with me.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to seek a clarification from my 
colleague Chairman Vento. As the chairman knows, we are very fortunate 
in Montana to have some of the most skillful wilderness outfitters and 
guides in the Nation, including many individuals like Smoke Elser and 
CB Rich who have contributed immensely to wilderness ethic, management, 
and stewardship.
  In drafting this legislation, I sought to recognize the fact that 
these businesses provide services allowing visitors from Montana and 
across the Nation to utilize and enjoy many roadless national forest 
lands including lands designated by this bill.
  Many of these outfitters approached me about some statutory language 
that makes clear that outfitting is wholly consistent with the 1964 
Wilderness Act. I was reluctant to do that because it was my 
understanding that, in fact, this was true and I did not want to imply 
with this bill that somehow this was not true.
  Madam Chairman, am I correct in my assumption that this legislation 
does not affect the current law regarding outfitters in wilderness and 
am I correct that this legislation does not affect the traditional role 
outfitters have always played in the use of our national wilderness 
areas.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Montana is correct in 
his statement and observations regarding outfitting in wilderness and 
its compatibility with the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This 
act does not modify that basic policy.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for that 
assurance.


                    amendment offered by Mr. Bryant

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bryant:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 13. PROHIBITION ON EVEN-AGE MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Conservation of Native Biodiversity.--The Secretary 
     shall conserve native biodiversity to the extent possible in 
     each stand that is released to multiple use under section 
     11(b) that is managed or operated for timber purposes, 
     throughout each forested area, and shall provide for the 
     conservation or restoration of native biodiversity except 
     during the extraction stage of authorized mineral development 
     or during authorized construction projects.
       (b) Restriction on Use of Certain Logging Practices.--(1) 
     In each stand that is released to multiple use under section 
     11(b) and that is managed or operated for timber purposes 
     throughout each forested area, the forest plan shall prohibit 
     any even-age logging and any even-age management after one 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) On each site already under even-age management, the 
     Secretary shall (A) prescribe a shift to selection management 
     within one year, or (B) cease managing for timber purposes 
     and actively restore the native biodiversity, or permit each 
     site to regain its native biodiversity.
       (3) For the purposes of this section:
       (A) The term ``native biodiversity'' means the full range 
     of variety and variability within and among living organisms 
     and the ecological complexes in which they would have 
     occurred in the absence of significant human impact, and 
     encompasses diversity, within a species (genetic), within a 
     community of species (within-community), between communities 
     of species (between-communities), within a total area such as 
     a watershed (total area), along a plane from ground to sky 
     (vertical), and along the plane of the earth-surface 
     (horizontal). Vertical and horizontal diversity apply to all 
     the other aspects of diversity.
       (B) The terms ``conserve'' and ``conservation'' refer to 
     protective measures for maintaining existing native 
     biological diversity and active measures for restoring 
     diversity through management efforts, in order to protect, 
     restore, and enhance as much of the variety of species and 
     communities as possible in abundances and distributions that 
     provide for their continued existence and normal functioning, 
     including the viability of populations throughout their 
     natural geographic distributions.
       (C) The term ``within-community diversity'' means the 
     distinctive assemblages of species and ecological processes 
     that occur in different physical settings of the biosphere 
     and distinct parts of the world.
       (D) The term ``genetic diversity'' means the differences in 
     genetic composition within and among populations of a given 
     species.
       (E) The term ``species diversity'' means the richness and 
     variety of native species in a particular location of the 
     world.
       (F) The term ``group selection'' means a form of selection 
     management that emphasizes the periodic removal of trees, 
     including mature, undesirable, and cull trees in small 
     groups, where they occur that way, with a result of (i) 
     creating openings not to exceed in width in any direction the 
     height of the tallest tree standing within 10 feet of the 
     edge of the group cut, and (ii) maintaining different age 
     groups in a given stand. In no event will more than 30 
     percent of a stand be felled within 30 years.
       (G) The term ``stand'' means a forest community with enough 
     identity by location, topography, or dominant species to be 
     managed as a unit, not to exceed 100 acres.
       (H) The term ``clearcutting'' means the logging of the 
     commercial trees in a patch or stand in a short period of 
     time.
       (I) The term ``even-age management'' means the growing of 
     commercial timber so that all trees in a patch or stand are 
     generally within 10 years of the same age. Except for 
     designated leave trees, or clumps of trees, the patch or 
     stand is logged, completely in any acre within a period of 30 
     years, by clearcutting, salvage logging, seed-tree cutting or 
     shelterwood cutting, or any system other than selection 
     management.
       (J) The term ``salvage logging'' means the felling or 
     further damaging, within any 30-year period, of a greater 
     basal area than 30 square feet per acre of dead, damaged, or 
     other trees, or any combination of such trees.
       (K) The term ``seed-tree cut'' means a logging operation 
     that leaves one or more seed trees, generally 6 to 10 per 
     acre.
       (L) The term ``selection management'' means the application 
     of logging and other actions needed to maintain continuous 
     high forest cover where such cover naturally occurs, 
     recurring natural regeneration of all native species on the 
     site, and the orderly growth and development of trees through 
     a range of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained 
     yield of forest products. Cutting methods that develop and 
     maintain selection stands are individual-tree and group 
     selection. A goal of selection is improvement of quality by 
     continuously harvesting trees less likely to contribute to 
     the long-range health of the stand.
       (M) The term ``shelterwood cut'' means an even-aged 
     silvicultural regeneration method under which a minority of 
     the mature stand is retained as a seed source or protection 
     during the regeneration period. The standing mature trees, 
     usually 10 to 20 per acre, are later removed in one or more 
     cuttings.
       (N) The term ``timber purposes'' shall include the use, 
     sale, lease, or distribution of trees, or the felling of 
     trees or portions of trees except to create land space for a 
     structure or other use.
       (4) On lands released under section 11(b), no roads shall 
     be constructed or reconstructed in any roadless area, as 
     defined in the second United States Department of Agriculture 
     forest Service Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II, 
     1978) or in a land and resource management plan subject to 
     this section.

  Mr. BRYANT (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman and Members, many of you have cosponsored 
over the last several years a strong attempt to move in the direction 
of a new and more reasonable management of our publicly owned lands 
with regard to harvesting of forests. It is a proposal to prohibit 
clearcutting as a method of harvesting, H.R. 1164.
  The amendment before the House that I am laying out today is simply 
the application of this bill to the Montana wilderness bill. I want to 
start by saying that this amendment does not deal with whether to 
harvest timber on public lands, but with how to harvest timber. It does 
not deal with private lands in any way whatsoever. It does not prohibit 
harvesting.
  What it does do is recognize the Department of Agriculture is 
conducting even-age management, which is a fancy word for clearcutting, 
on the vast majority of the 57 million acres of available commercial 
timberland in our national forests as well as on other federally owned 
forests.

                              {time}  1550

  There is a picture out in the hall of what it looks like in Texas. I 
say to my colleagues, depending on what State you are from, we can find 
a picture to show you what it looks like where you live.
  No person in this country, scientist or otherwise, can look at these 
pictures and in any fashion whatsoever justify this as a method of 
caring for the lands which my colleagues, and I, and every other 
citizen in this country, own. The fact of the matter is that logging 
plantations end up replacing biological diversity in our native forests 
with this method of harvesting. It eliminates habitat for forest 
wildlife, and it destroys recreational opportunities.
  It is not as though there is no other alternative. There are many 
other alternatives. Under the environmentally-preferable selection 
management system harvesters mark individual trees scattered throughout 
an area and cut them for sale or culling, leaving an ever-improving 
stand to regenerate new trees naturally in openings that are created by 
the cuts. This system is used by private foresters from coast to coast 
for economic reasons and to maintain a healthy natural forest. We ought 
to use that system on our public lands as well.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would say that with regard to the 
4,000,000 acres that are going to be released by the bill pending 
before us today sponsored by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] 
that we will not permit clearcutting as a method of harvesting wood out 
of those lands. The environmental evils of clear-cutting are well 
known.
  Soil losses several times worse than under selection management, 
sedimentation of streams, devastation of native biodiversity, drastic 
impairment of recreational values, increase of susceptibility to insect 
diseases, and on, and on, and on.
  And the Forest Service has so much as admitted this when, in 1992, 
they issued a directive to reduce clearcutting by 70 percent. 
Unfortunately that directive has not been followed in spirit, and we 
are here today to try to see to it that beginning with this bill and 
all bills that will come after it we are going to say to the Forest 
Service, ``No more clearcutting. You're going to have to use selection 
management and reasonable methods of harvesting, but no more 
clearcutting.'' What remains of our vanishing forest biodiversity is 
mainly in our Federal forest, and most of that is in the remaining 30 
percent of our Federal commercial timberland, not turned into even-aged 
fields.
  Madam Chairman, I support the bill that the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. Williams] has brought to us today. It is a good bill, but it is 
important to note that part of this bill says that 4,000,000 acres, 
which are subject to forest plans that were ruled illegal by the 
courts, those plans will now be legal under the provisions of this 
bill, if they are going to be made legal, and if this 4,000,000 acres 
is going to be harvested, then it will not be harvested by this method 
of harvesting. Instead it will have to be harvested by a reasonable 
method of harvesting that puts the preservation of native biodiversity 
first.
  It also says they are not going to allow the construction, we are not 
going to allow the construction, of any more new roads in the 
designated wilderness areas. There are already 34,000 miles of roads in 
the 10 national forests in Montana. We do not need more roads. There 
are enough roads already. The roads surround many of the wilderness 
areas already, permitting access and permitting harvesting.
  Madam Chairman, I strongly urge the Members to take a careful look at 
this. I say, ``Let's begin a step towards a prudent way of dealing with 
our publicly owned lands. This doesn't affect private lands; you can do 
what you want to there. It doesn't say, `No harvesting,' but it says, 
`From now on we're going to use selection management as a means of 
harvesting, not clearcutting.' ''
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is supported by the Sierra Club, the 
Audubon Society, by the Friends of the Earth, by the Montana Wilderness 
Association, by the Save America's Forests Coalition, and I could go 
on, and on, and on and on.
  Madam Chairman, my colleagues may ask why there is any mention of 
roads whatsoever. It is because the building of roads on our national 
forest lands has proven to be the principal reason why we have found 
over and over, and the CBO recently found, that with regard to harvests 
in the northern Rockies expenditures in the timber activities----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bryant was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BRYANT. If we continue to allow the building of roads in these 
areas, Madam Chairman, we are going to continue to see a system whereby 
the rape of the land is substituted for the care of the land, a system 
whereby we spend more to get the timber out than we earn, in fact three 
times more in the northern Rockies to get the timber out than we are in 
the selling of the timber. It should not be permitted, and I strongly 
urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. It simply says:

       From now on we are not going to allow clear-cutting as a 
     means of harvesting in the 4,000,000 acres that are now going 
     to be subject to plans for harvesting that were ruled illegal 
     and will be made illegal by the passage of this bill.

  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's work in this 
effort. He has been a real champion, a real good environmentalist in 
terms of working with public policy.
  I want to point out to the gentleman, first of all, the amount of 
land released here is a little over--about 3 million, depending on how 
it is classified, but it is closer to three at that point, and on the 
amendment that he has offered I have just a question:
  Has a series of policies in it? Has all these definitions?
  And I realize, if I have the right copy of the amendment, and I want 
to make certain of that, that it has all the definitions--is that the 
copy of the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. BRYANT. Yes, it is.
  Mr. VENTO. I was wondering if the gentleman could explain how the 
amendment is applicable to the--to what is in the amendment because the 
bill has a different set of amendments as regards the study 
specifically. But I am not certain that I am connecting.
  I understand the gentleman's overall bill. As the gentleman knows, we 
heard that bill in committee, but I do not understand the relationship 
of the amendments and the definitions in this to his overall policy 
thrust.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, the purpose is to require that the Forest 
Service place native biodiversity at the top of the list of its 
priorities in managing these lands. Native biodiversity is defined as 
one of the definitions which the gentleman has referred to there.
  Mr. VENTO. Yes, it has a lot of definitions. It has the biodiversity, 
the conserve and conservation. It is the series of amendments, and I 
think I have the right amendment; do I not?
  Mr. BRYANT. Yes, the gentleman does.
  Mr. VENTO. There is four pages of amendments along with the one 
policy statement, and I was trying to connect the policy statement to 
those amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has 
expired.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Madam Chairman, it would ban all clearcutting and all road building 
on the Montana national forest lands released by this bill to 
management by the forest plans currently in effect. Certainly I agree 
that clearcutting has been abused and that timber management practices 
in the Forest Service need to be reformed. This is a necessary and 
worthwhile goal. To further this goal I held a hearing on H.R. 1164, 
Mr. Bryant's bill to ban clearcuts nationwide and held 2 days of 
hearings in February on reforming the Forest Service.
  The Montana Wilderness bill, However, is not the appropriate vehicle 
to try to reform the Forest Service timber management program. The 
purpose of this bill is to designate wilderness, wilderness study areas 
and special management areas such as national recreation areas. Its 
scope does not include the timber management program. Attaching this 
provision to the wilderness bill would do more damage than good. It 
would cause the following problems:
  First, a clearcut ban is very controversial. Attaching one to this 
bill will make it very difficult to enact the bill into law. The three 
million acres of national forest roadless lands protected by this bill 
would continue to be vulnerable to development.
  Second, the amendment is not based on good science and is unworkable 
from a silviculatural and forestry standpoint. Although the amount of 
clearcutting needs to be drastically cut back, there are some instances 
when small, environmentally sound clearcuts are the only scientifically 
correct alternative. Some species such as lodgepole pine will only 
regenerate in clearings with ample sunlight. Insect and disease 
outbreaks sometimes can be controlled only with clearcutting. Clearcuts 
can be necessary for salvaging fire damaged trees after a forest fire. 
The Bryant amendment does not allow for any of these types of 
situations. It is a total ban with no exceptions.
  Third, the administration already has announced in a new policy that 
clearcuts can be used only as a last resort. It is too early to tell if 
the policy is working. We need to give it a chance and to monitor its 
effectiveness.
  Fourth, this amendment would hurt the very cause it is trying to 
promote. By focusing just on Montana's released roadless lands, it 
deals with the clearcutting problem in piecemeal and inconsistent 
fashion. Timber management in Montana would end up being handled 
differently than it is in the rest of the country. Furthermore, timber 
management within Montana would also be inconsistent. Clearcuts would 
be banned on the released roadless lands, but would continue to be 
allowed on the rest of Montana's 10 million acres of National Forest 
lands. The clearcutting issue is a national issue and needs to be dealt 
with nationally, not locally. This amendment would have the effect of 
unintended consequences and put more pressure on other lands not in the 
measure.
  Fifth, this amendment further has serious technical flaws in the 
sense that it has four (4) pages of its five (5) that refer to 
definitions that are not in the operating language of the amendment a 
map with no destination is a serious problem.
  Sixth, this is piecemeal micro management that would be static, we 
have only begun to adequately understand these complex forest 
ecosystems. And while it pursues a legitimate concern the means and 
scope are simply a disservice and inappropriate policy path.
  For these reasons I hope that my colleagues will vote no on the 
Byrant amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  You would affect the other lands even more dramatically. So it is for 
this reason, of course, and for my problems with the definitions, that 
seem to be a map of nowhere, that I would suggest to my colleague that 
the amendment, while well intended, has a rather than unusual and 
adverse effect on this instance. Even if the policy were one that we 
could work on, I think there is a lot of merit to it, and I commend the 
gentleman for his hard work. But I must ask my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, in 1934 a forester by the name of C. J. 
Buck wrote a letter to Forest Service supervisors telling them to use 
no more clearcutting, favoring a shift to partial cutting and concepts 
of studying trees. This lasted for 20 years. So we have tried this 
experiment for 20 years to see if we could get away from clearcutting.
  Then the Forest Service reversed their position and said no, we 
cannot continue that way. And the question you may ask yourself is why 
did they reverse their 20 year position on clearcutting? Because the 
Forest Service felt that they had lost a very valuable tool, a tool for 
wildlife management, a tool for handling lumber.
  Now if you go out to the West, where a lot of us live, you see these 
great big green carpets of pine trees. A lot of people say well, we 
should never touch them. I have environmentalists say to me all the 
time, never touch those. Leave them just as they are, so they look like 
a green carpet. No clearcutting, no cutting, do nothing in the forest, 
not even spraying the trees for the pine beetle.
  It costs about $8 a tree to take care of the pine beetle. The best 
way to do it is by cutting it out, and you get rid of the infestation, 
and you also take care of some lumber problems in the area.
  But if you do not cut them, what do you get? What you get is the same 
system we have seen since the beginning, since man was here. Eventually 
the tree dies, and then you have got all of these toothpicks sticking 
up in an area. Then you have got a 100 percent chance that in August 
sometime you will have a thunderstorm, and you got another 100 percent 
chance you will have a fire.
  Then that beautiful green spot that the environmentalists always talk 
about is a devastated ugly mess, and you have a 100 percent chance you 
will have a torrent of water come down in September and it will take 
Mother Nature 130 years to bring it back. We could have stopped all 
that with a little management tool of the Forest Service known as 
clearcutting.
  For those of us who hunt, and I know that is a bad word around here 
sometimes, for those of us who hunt elk and moose in those areas, where 
do you find them? You find them in the meadows that are created by 
clearcutting. When you talk about wildlife management, where do elk 
calve. They have their calves in those meadows. Where could you see 
turkeys come in? In those meadows.
  We can all come up with horror stories, like we see up here. Sure, 
you see those for a while. I would like to see that picture 3 years 
after that. Mother Nature has a way of reclaiming herself.
  I can hardly believe we would take away a tool that the Forest 
Service uses in clearcutting. It is not done abstractly. It is not done 
to help some man out. It is done because they need that tool for 
wildlife management and they need that tool for those other areas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr BRYANT. Madam Chairman, if the Forest Service still covers this 
method of harvesting timber, why did they decide 2 years ago to order 
all of their employees to cease clearcutting in 70 percent of the areas 
it was being used, if they view it as such a practical means of 
harvesting?
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is very 
interesting they have ordered it in some places. In fact, the 
percentage of clearcutting has gone down. I do not disagree with the 
gentleman. Possibly in years past, in the early thirties and forties, 
it was used indiscriminately.
  Right now, as you look at the information they have, it is down to a 
very small percent. But I may ask the gentleman, why do you want to 
take away this tool that they use so well? These people who are trained 
at these public land colleges and understand it, who can stop this 
infestation of pine beetles, who can do things for wildlife, who can 
even help the lumber industry out.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
would be happy to respond to that. The response is very simple. It is 
public land. Even private foresters are moving away from clearcutting. 
Why would we want on land owned by you and me and our neighbors to 
strip the land bare, down to the flat muddy soil, and cause all of the 
negative impacts of clearcutting to take place on land we own, when we 
could do otherwise? We own it. Why should we not handle it in such a 
way that the public would want us to handle it?
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman, where did you get that picture? Is that a 1932 picture? How 
old is that picture?
  Mr. BRYANT. I will get that answer for you in the next 5 minutes. But 
what is the difference? What difference does it make how old it is?
  Mr. HANSEN. It makes a lot of difference. They do not clearcut as 
much as they used to in the past. They cut it back.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, there is no empirical evidence for that.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman talk 
about people in the private sector doing it. I do not see much of that 
in the private sector, as much as I have, but they still do it. I have 
seen it down in Idaho and Wyoming and Colorado and in areas where I 
live. It is still done in places where it is necessary.
  I cannot understand why the gentleman wants to put handcuffs on the 
Forest Service, when we have these professionals, we spend all this 
money training them, we put them out there, they come to us and 
recommend it. Why would we want to put handcuffs on them?
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I know the intent is good, but I 
cannot see why we would want to strangle the Forest Service this way.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I would again like to comment and inquire as to the 
intent of the release language of this bill. Is it meaningless as some 
claim or it is meaningful?
  It is my understanding that the roadless areas being released in this 
bill would be managed under current forest management plans. The 
problem, we all know, is that there is uncertainty about the validity 
of current forest plans. These plans were developed during the mid-
1980's and in large part mirror the objectives of the logging industry.
  Several forest supervisors in Montana, including John Mumma and 
Orvill Daniels, have stated that full implementation of current forest 
management plans would require the violation of Federal environmental 
laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the 
National Forest Management Act. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 
last year that the Flathead National Forest plan in Montana is illegal 
and that its logging levels are ``arbitrary and capricious''.
  I would like to thank Chairman Vento for our colloquy last week 
during which he said that wilderness designation of the released 
roadless areas would be considered only when the forest plans are 
revised.
  It is clear that these forest plans need revision and I believe that 
many of these plans will be up for review within the next 2 years.
  It is my understanding that the Forest Service is considering a move 
away from comprehensive revision toward an incremental amendment 
process. Under this scenario I would like the assurance that wilderness 
suitability of the released lands will not in any way be hampered by 
this new policy process.
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant]. This amendment will ensure that the lands released for 
development by the Montana Wilderness Act will be managed in an 
environmentally sustainable manner.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits clearcutting in the lands 
not designated as wilderness by this legislation. Clearcutting 
irrevocably destroys the natural characteristics of our forests, is the 
most costly logging technique, and produces inferior timber at a lower 
volume.
  This amendment allows logging, but only the type of logging that does 
not destroy the forests in the process. This type of logging is 
selection management. It allows trees to be cut from the forest while 
permitting the forest, and the animal and plant communities that live 
in it, to continue to flourish. Furthermore, selection logging produces 
the highest quality saw timber, and over time produces far more lumber 
and jobs than clearcutting.
  This amendment also prohibits construction of roads in roadless areas 
of the released lands. As the Forest Service moves toward ecosystem 
management, these roadless areas need to be protected from development. 
These areas serve as important reservoirs of biological diversity, 
which is ultimately the most important resource in the national 
forests.
  While there are enough environmental reasons to oppose roadbuilding 
in these roadless areas, the economics of this situation also can help 
justify protecting these pristine areas from logging and other 
development. There is a good reason why these areas have remained 
roadless--most of the roadless areas are extremely remote, mountainous, 
and generally not well-suited to timber harvesting.
  The cost of harvesting and removing timber from these areas is 
tremendous, and because of the difficulty of constructing good roads on 
steep slopes, timber sales in roadless areas almost always lose money.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bryant 
amendment. We cannot continue to support policies that destroy the 
environment and waste taxpayers' dollars. We cannot continue to pass on 
these environmental and economic deficits to our children.

                              {time}  1610

  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  It is a tragic irony that all American taxpayers are asked by our 
Government to pay for the destruction of national forests that are our 
common heritage.
  The logging that takes place in these forests not only costs 
Americans money, but significantly and irrevocably damages these 
pristine lands that enhance everyone's life--from Manhattan, NY to 
Manhattan, MT.
  The benefit of this taxpayer subsidized logging goes only to a few 
multinational corporations who fire their local workers as soon as 
every possible tree has been harvested.
  It is just plain wrong, Mr. Chairman.
  These untouched forests are the last refuge of much of the wildlife 
in the continental United States: grizzly bear, bald eagles, wolves, 
all depend upon the forests that will soon be opened to the timber 
industry.
  The only economic incentive that there is to log these beautiful 
forests is provided by the American taxpayer, who will spend millions 
of dollars to build the roads and manage the land for the benefit of 
these few corporations.
  And this is a significant subsidy: The Congressional Budget Office, 
in a report issued in March, found that expenditures were greater than 
receipts in these forests by a 3 to 1 ratio on average over the past 10 
years.
  I find it a sad state of affairs that while this body must consider a 
cut of $1 billion dollars to housing for low-income senior citizens, we 
are planning to spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to 
pay for the destruction of our forests.
  Most Americans would be amazed to learn that there are 8 times more 
miles of roads in our national forests than there are in the entire 
Interstate Highway System. There are 34 thousand miles of logging roads 
in the 10 national forests in Montana alone.
  In fact, the Forest Service itself testified, at a hearing on--the 
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act--that even where replanting 
takes place in the National Forests, it does not come remotely close to 
replacing the diversity of life that existed before the logging took 
place.
  As one colleague said, our magnificent old growth and diverse forests 
are being replaced by nothing more than glorified Christmas tree farms.
  These roadless forests in Montana, high on the slopes of the northern 
Rockies, are acknowledged by all scientific experts to be unsuitable 
for even the limited replanting that takes place in other parts of the 
Nation.
  The residents of Montana are truly blessed to live in a State with as 
much untouched wilderness as is currently there.
  But it is an indisputable fact that all Americans have a stake and 
interest in what happens to our national forests, both for ourselves 
and our children.
  If we cannot completely protect this small remaining percentage of 
our forests from the chain saws, the least that we can do is to prevent 
American taxpayers from having to pay the bill for forest destruction.
  But if we can eliminate this entitlement program for huge timber 
companies, I wouldn't be surprised to see their interest in logging 
these lands dwindle.
  End this wasteful handout.
  Vote for the Bryant amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I support the Bryant amendment, not only 
to protect Montana's forests from destruction, but to prevent loggers 
from forcing American taxpayers to subsidize a handout for the timber 
industry.
  Not only would this important amendment protect this precious 
wilderness from the devastation of logging and roadbuilding at no cost, 
it would save taxpayers millions of dollars in wasteful below-cost 
timber sales.
  We have heard a lot of talk about the cost of protecting the 
environment. This amendment is about the cost of not protecting the 
environment.
  Over the past 10 years, the American taxpayers have lost $5.6 billion 
as a result of logging on public lands. Without this amendment, 
taxpayers will have to foot the bill to build more roads to pristine 
wilderness areas at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per 
mile. With the deficit threatening our Nation's economic strength, this 
kind of abuse of our natural resources cannot be tolerated. These lands 
belong to the American people.
  This amendment represents the last, but chance to save these 
ecosystems so the public can continue to enjoy them and timber 
interests cannot exploit them.
  Preserving this land costs nothing, but destroying it would cost 
millions.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not rise 
in favor, necessarily, of clearcutting. I think there are very good 
reasons why we have reduced clearcutting.
  We have reduced it in the forests where I live. I am very much 
impressed with what the Forest Service is doing in terms of forest 
management. But I just want to make a couple of points.
  One is, I am amazed that our colleagues who stand and act as if it 
does not take any management to manage a forest. As a matter of fact, 
it does, if we are to have a healthy forest.
  The alternative to that, of course, is to have an insect-ridden 
forest where the trees dies and then it burns. I have been through some 
of that.
  That is not a healthy way to manage a forest. We need to have tools 
in the hands of professional forest managers.
  Clearcutting is used less frequently. I favor that. Clearcutting does 
have application from time to time, if we like to have elk and deer and 
wildlife with a place to graze.
  The idea of saying flatly that there will be no clearcutting and put 
that in the hands, put that as an anchor around our management people 
does not seem to me to make at all a bit of sense.
  I think we ought to pursue the notion that there is selective 
cutting, and we are doing that. We have to have healthy forests, 
however. They do need some management, and this is not a tool that 
would be helpful in management.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  First of all, I do not think that this amendment has any place in 
this wilderness bill. I admire the gentleman from Texas in bringing 
this issue to our attention, but I think it has no place in this bill.
  First of all, when we are talking about biodiversity and 
clearcutting, what we are really talking about is the great issue of 
forest health. I think this Congress is poised to deal with the issue 
of forest health. As a matter of fact, I have a bill that has had two 
hearings on it that deals with forest health.
  We have scientific consensus now that in the inland west that there 
are severe problems that deal with forest health. But I do not think 
that this amendment gets to that.
  I think, first of all, what it does do is singles out Montana and 
eradicates clearcutting in that State. I think that is inappropriate.
  I have in my hands a letter from the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Agriculture, Mr. Richard Rominger. He opposes this 
amendment, because he points out in the letter to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams] that the Forest Service has already curtailed 
clearcutting, about one-third. He says that this amendment would 
severely curtail their use of even-aged management of timber stands and 
that it would be inappropriate to take this action right now.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaROCCO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I would just point out that this does not 
affect clearcutting throughout the State of Montana and not on 
nonwilderness lands. It only affects something like 3 million acres 
that are released in this bill. So we have another 10 million acres 
that would not be affected.
  It would provide actually two different policies in Montana itself. 
And of course, a different policy than we have in all the other 
surrounding States.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
clearing that up.
  My point was that it applies only the State of Montana. But, of 
course, as the gentleman just pointed out, not to all of the lands that 
would be released.
  I think that we need to deal with forest health issues in this 
Congress, but I do not think that this is the place to do it, on the 
floor of the House on a Montana wilderness bill.
  I hope in the near future to be bringing to the floor of the House an 
Idaho wilderness bill. At that time I think it would be inappropriate 
to deal with this clear-cutting biodiversity issue then, because the 
purpose of that bill will be to deal with the allocation of wilderness 
and then to look at what we will be setting aside for the forest plans.
  The Forest Service administratively is already dealing with this 
issue. At hearing after hearing, the Forest Service has come before us 
and stated that they are already looking at the clear-cutting policies.
  This issue goes back to the 1970's. In the early 1970's, then Senator 
Frank Church looked at the clear-cutting issue. What has been practiced 
up until this time are known as the Church clear-cutting guidelines, to 
try and fit it into the landscape.
  We cannot deny the abuses. The gentleman from Texas is right in 
bringing this to our attention. But I would say that we should reject 
this amendment. It has no place on this floor at this time.
  It is a good debate that we should have in committee. I think we 
should debate it in the context of forest health. That is really so 
important to us in the inland west.
  I might say to my colleagues that what is going on in the inland west 
is that we are facing catastrophic fires over the next 15 to 30 years. 
We must pay attention, because it is a pay now or pay later attitude 
and situation that confronts us.
  I oppose the Bryant amendment. I support the position that my 
chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has taken on this 
issue.
  I think we should reject this amendment today, get on with voting on 
this amendment and heed the words from the administration and says that 
they are already dealing with this and instead of dealing with it in a 
legislative fashion, we should try and deal with it in an 
administrative fashion first and not single out the State of Montana. I 
hope we reject the Bryant amendment.

                              {time}  1620

  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Bryant amendment to H.R. 
2473.
  Although this legislation protects many forests in Montana as 
wilderness areas, it also releases nearly 4 million acres of 
unprotected forests areas to forest plans that promote clearcutting and 
waste our tax dollars.
  This is bad ecological policy and bad economic policy.
  Poor forest management disrupts our most valuable ecosystems by 
causing soil erosion and permanent loss of fisheries, birds, mammals, 
plants, and timber.
  Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the Federal Timber Program's 
expenditures were greater than receipts by a 3-to-2 margin in the 
northern Rockies.
  The main reason for below-cost timber and the expensive roads built 
with taxpayer dollars to provide access to cheap timber.
  Madam Chairman, our national forests have eight times more miles of 
roads than the U.S. Interstate Highway System.
  Our tax dollars should be spent to build and repair highways, not to 
wreak havoc on our precious ecosystems.
  The Bryant amendment would prohibit all forms of even-age forest 
management, or clearcutting, and prohibit the construction of roads in 
roadless areas.
  Madam Chairman, we have the opportunity to not only protect 
irreplaceable wilderness areas, but protect taxpayer dollars. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Bryant amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, I would simply like to make a couple of points in 
response to some of the points made on this side. First of all, in 
response to the gentleman's request for information, this picture was 
taken 3 years ago. It does not matter when it was taken. The fact of 
the matter is it represents a system of forest management that is 
absolutely reprehensible.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has a compromise bill to 
defend, and I understand that, but I do not believe in his heart he 
thinks that this is a good way to manage the forests. I do not think 
Members do, either. The fact of the matter is that many have local 
timber companies that want to keep on doing this. Everybody knows this 
is a bad idea. No one would manage their own lands that way. Why would 
the Members let our lands be managed that way?
  Selection management is a good enough manner of doing it, an 
economical means of doing it. What the Members are asking us to do is 
subsidize people. The fact of the matter is they are spending three 
times more getting this timber out of these mountainous areas then we 
are earning, at the present time when they continue to build all of 
these roads that will be prohibited by my amendment.
  Members ask why we are dealing with Montana only. That is because 
there is a Montana-only bill on the floor today. If there was a bill on 
the floor today that related to all the national forests, we would 
offer this amendment to the bill, but we cannot get that bill to the 
floor. Why? Because those timber companies are up here all the time 
saying: ``Don't get in our way. Let us continue to strip the land bare, 
to take everything, every living thing off of it, and leave it that way 
for years to come.''
  Then watch Members stand up over here and say that this is the way to 
care for the land, that this is going to bring elk back to the land; 
``We are concerned about the health of the forests.'' How healthy does 
that forest look right there? I say it looks pretty sick. Our method of 
managing the forests is pretty sick, as well.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is a step in the right direction. It 
says with regard to this one forest area that is now before us today, 
we are not going to let it go on anymore. We are going to prohibit 
clearcutting. We are going to insist that the Forest Service begin to 
utilize means that make sense, that protect native biodiversity and 
manage our lands like we would manage them if we owned them ourselves.
  Mr. VENTO Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's passion, but I have to 
look at the consequences of this. It affects 3 million acres in 
Montana. The gentleman will have two sets of forestlands that are 
managed differently. Naturally all of us oppose that.
  I think the point here, and I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
California yielding to me, is that the Forest Service has announced and 
is pursuing a new policy under former Forest Chief Dale Robertson and 
currently under Jack Ward Thomas, the new Forest Chief, I think those 
policies are going to yield some positive results and eliminate a lot 
of these types of problems.
  Madam Chairman, I articulated a number of instances in which even-
aged management, or clearcutting, actually can be useful in terms of 
fires, in terms of insect control, in terms of certain types of 
species, like lodgepole. I have pointed that out, and I would hope 
that, while I think there have been real problems in the past that our 
colleagues has pointed out, that we ought to try to work with the new 
Forest Chief and try to accomplish this.
  I think this is sort of a symbolic effort, in all respects, and I 
appreciate the problems my friend and I have had in terms of trying to 
limit roads in certain areas, certainly, but I do think at this 
particular point we ought to go along and not kill a bill that 
designates 3 million acres of wilderness.
  The fact of the matter is we have to look at what the net effect of 
putting this amendment on this bill is. This is a tough bill to pass 
through the Senate. It is a tough bill to pass through the Senate. If 
the gentleman thinks he is going to pass a bill for five States, he is 
going to pass a bill by forcing it on this, he has a locomotive that 
does not have much pull here. We have to convince two Senators over 
there that they have to accept this bill.
  I think it is important we move on, provide the protection, and the 
gentleman has made his point with regard to this, but I do not think it 
is worth killing the Montana wilderness bill over this particular 
issue. I am asking Members to kill the Bryant amendment for that 
reason. I want the Bryant amendment killed so we can save the Montana 
wilderness.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 283, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--142

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McCloskey
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Studds
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--283

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barlow
     Blackwell
     Byrne
     de la Garza
     Emerson
     Ford (TN)
     Grandy
     McCollum
     Neal (NC)
     Smith (OR)
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1648

  Messrs. QUILLEN, EVERETT, McDADE, COX, and KREIDLER, Ms. CANTWELL, 
Ms. LAMBERT, and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY and Messrs. SERRANO, McCLOSKEY, EDWARDS of California, 
COLEMAN, BARCA of Wisconsin, SYNAR, and MOAKLEY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________