Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)

[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.

____________________