[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]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION
ACT OF 1994
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 422
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 518) to designate certain lands in the
California Desert as wilderness, to establish the Death
Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National
Monument, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
by title rather than by section. Each title of the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause
5(a) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before
the beginning of consideration of the bill. The amendment
caused to be printed in the Record by Representative LaRocco
of Idaho (relating to an East Mojave Preserve) may amend
portions of the bill not yet read for amendment. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
After passage of H.R. 518, it shall be in order to take from
the Speaker's table the bill S. 21 and to consider the Senate
bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate
bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be in
order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the
Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of
H.R. 518 as passed by the House. All points of order against
that motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the
Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order
to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 21 and
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 422 is the rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act.
This is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
The rule makes in order the Natural Resources Committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment, with each title of the substitute to be
considered as read.
The rule waives clause 5(a) of rule 21--prohibiting appropriations in
a legislative bill--against the committee substitute. The waiver is
minor in nature, affecting sections 608 and 609, which set up credit
accounts for certain specific land transfers.
After very careful consideration, the Committee on Rules granted the
request of the Natural Resources Committee that only those amendments
printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill
be considered. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that second-degree amendments
to all amendments will be in order under the rule.
As the chairman of the Rules Committee has said on a great many
occasions, the committee does not grant the request for preprinting of
amendments thoughtlessly or carelessly. Several members of the Natural
Resources Committee testified on behalf of preprinting because of the
enormously complex nature of the bill and the need for proponents and
opponents to know exactly which areas will be affected by amendments
and any unintended problems those changes will cause.
It appears to the Rules Committee that all parties will benefit from
this request. For example, amendments affecting the boundaries of the
desert areas--whether increasing or decreasing the size of the
protected portions of the desert--can be checked ahead of time against
maps of land parcels and roads to ensure that the intent of the
amendments is actually accomplished.
The language of amendments affecting boundaries of an area as large
and complex as the California desert will be technical by definition;
preprinting will give both proponents and opponents the opportunity to
determine the effects of proposed changes on, for example, private
property rights and grazing permits.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the amendment of the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] may amend portions of the bill not
yet read for amendment. This is merely a matter of convenience,
requested by Mr. LaRocco, so that the gentleman will not be required to
offer his amendment to each title of the bill that it affects; the
intent of his amendment can be achieved by offering it one time.
The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. And finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides a hookup with
the Senate companion bill by providing for consideration of S. 21 in
the House and waiving all points of order against the Senate bill and
against its consideration.
The rule makes it in order to move to strike all after the enacting
clause and insert the text of H.R. 518 as passed by the House and all
points of order against the motion are waived. It will then be in order
to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 21 and request a
conference.
Mr. Speaker, the California Desert Protection Act is, in terms of
expansion of the National Parks System and National Wilderness
Preservation System, the single most important measure since the 1980
enactment of the Alaska Lands Act. It seeks to protect and preserve
some of the loveliest spots in the California desert.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that desert contains some of the truly rich
and scenic areas not only of my State, but also of our entire country.
Far from being a vast and useless wasteland, the rugged desert
mountains and adjacent lowland terrain provide the habitat for some of
the country's most unusual species of plants and wildlife.
The area is also a museum of human history--perhaps the most valuable
in North America because much of it has, until recent years, been
untouched for thousands of years. Unfortunately the desert's historical
and natural treasures are now being threatened, and we are seeing
irreversible damage and deterioration there. We must preserve these
valuable natural and historical resources for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlemen from California, Mr. Lehman, the
sponsor of the bill, and Mr. Miller, the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, Mr. Vento, chairman of the subcommittee for
working so diligently to seek a compromise on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the California Desert Protection Act, which is the
result of years of active consideration, designates 71 wilderness areas
on public lands that are now managed by the Bureau of Land Management
in the California Desert; it expands the existing Death Valley and
Joshua Tree national monuments and redesignates them as national parks;
it establishes a new Mojave National Park; and it designates wilderness
areas within the National Park System.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will give the House a chance to consider all
the controversies surrounding this bill, including those embodied in
the comprehensive substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis]. I understand that it has been estimated that at
least 45 amendments have been printed in the Congressional Record,
meeting the deadline set by the rule.
Those amendments cover a wide range of issues, including military
concerns about certain provisions of the bill, and they will give
members the opportunity to discuss every conceivable controversy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution so that we
may proceed to the consideration of this important piece of
legislation.
{time} 1720
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the Natural Resources
Committee to perpetrate a textbook case of legislative abuse. By
requiring that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior
to consideration of the California Desert Protection Act, the rule
continues a scheme that began in the Natural Resources Committee to
prevent the bill from being fully scrutinized and debated. The
objective is to enact the largest government heist of land in the lower
48 States without the support of the people in southern California who
are most affected.
First, the bill was discharged from the subcommittee of jurisdiction
without a markup. Then, we are told, the minority did not receive the
committee print until 5:10 p.m. the night before the 10 a.m. markup the
next morning, so Members did not have time to read the bill and prepare
amendments.
Once the markup began, the chairman skillfully used proxies, or
phantom votes, to defeat amendments that could be offered. Amazingly,
the phantom voting power was used by the Chairman to defeat an
amendment by one of his own Democrat colleagues to allow additional
trails to be used by off-road vehicles.
The amendment, which passed by a vote of 5 to 3, was overturned 17 to
23 by 20 phantom votes held by the chairman. But that was not the end
of the legislative abuse, Mr. Speaker.
Clause 2 of rule XI requires that a majority be present for the
reporting of legislation from a committee. Since there were only a
handful of members on hand for the vote to report the desert protection
bill, the chairman resorted to an unsuccessful rolling quorum. It is a
procedure that is brazenly contemptful of the rules of the House and
makes it nearly impossible for the minority to raise a timely point of
order.
This effort to prevent scrutiny is now being aided and abetted by the
Rules Committee, which has put before us a rule that requires that all
amendments to H.R. 518 be printed in the Record before hand.
Mr. Speaker, the bill raises a number of contentious issues,
including a lack of funds to pay for the land grab; the impact on
military training activities, water and private property rights,
hunting, and mineral exploration activities; and the ability of law
enforcement officers to conduct illegal alien and drug interdiction
activities.
In many of these areas compromises can be found, but those potential
compromises will be elusive because Members will not have the ability
to raise subsequent amendments once the debate has started.
Mr. Speaker, most Americans support a balance between protecting the
environment of the desert and maintaining legitimate multiple land-use
activities. H.R. 518 does not provide that balance and, if adopted,
this rule would ensure that such a balance will never be achieved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the
previous question so that I can offer an honest open rule that will for
an honest open debate on the California Desert Protection Act. Again, I
urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on the Rule for California
Wilderness Act (H.R. 518), Wednesday, May 11, 1994
1. Strike Pre-Printing Requirement--Motion to strike
provision requiring that amendments to the bill be pre-
printed in the Congressional Record prior to the
consideration of the bill. Rejected 3-4: Yeas: Solomon,
Quillen and Drier. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson and
Gordon. Not voting: Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter and
Goss.
2. Report Rule--Motion to order rule reported as moved.
Adopted: 4-3. Yeas: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson and Gordon.
Nays: Solomon, Quillen, and Dreier. Not Voting: Frost,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter and Goss.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 64 14 22 50 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 12, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).
Control.
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994.... MO H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act.. N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994.... O H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act..... N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994...... C H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons 7 (D-5; R-2).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).
Ban Act.
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994...... O H.R. 2442: EDA N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).
Reauthorization.
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994..... MO H.R. 518: California Desert N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
Protection.
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994..... O H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).
Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me. I want to thank the Committee on Rules for the
consideration of the rule and the reporting of this rule to the floor,
which I think will both allow us to have a timely consideration, a fair
consideration of the California Desert bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has considered legislation affecting lands
within the California desert for nearly two decades. In 1976, we passed
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA] which directed the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare and implement a comprehensive long
range plan for the California Desert Conservation Area. In response the
Bureau of Land Management released the California desert plan first in
1980, and after some revision, again in 1982.
Recognizing that something had to be done to protect the area's
natural resources without eliminating jobs and economic development,
Senator Alan Cranston introduced the first California desert bill in
1986. Since then, companion bills have been introduced in each
successive Congress. There have been approximately 15 hearings since
1986 on California desert legislation. On November 26, 1991, the House
of Representatives passed by a vote of 297 to 136 legislation very
similar to H.R. 518.
H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act, reflects compromises
that have been crafted to balance the wishes of those who want to use
the land for grazing, mining, and recreation, with those who prefer
areas remain untrammeled. Not one use of the California desert today
will be prohibited if and when this bill becomes law. In some cases,
the bill provides for activities to continue under different management
prescriptions than today but the bill will not eliminate any activity
that occurs today in the California desert.
In creating this compromise Congressman Richard Lehman, the author of
H.R. 518, Subcommittee Chairman Bruce Vento and I have drawn the park
and wilderness boundaries to exclude project sites for all known
operating mines, including Chemgold, Viceroy, and American Sulphur
Company. In addition, the committee adopted an amendment that could
allow grazing to continue in the Mojave and Death Valley National Parks
at no more than the current level, subject to other Federal law.
The Natural Resources Committee also made changes to allow for the
continued use of popular offroad vehicle areas. There are approximately
33,000 miles of roads, including 18,000 miles of primitive routes and
15,000 miles of paved and unmaintained dirt roads which will remain
open to dirt bike riders and other off road vehicle users if this bill
becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, the California desert encompasses 25 million acres--
approximately one quarter the size of the State. Within the 25 million
acres, there are three desert ecosystems known as the Sonoran, Mojave
and Great Basin, 90 mountain ranges, sand dunes as high as 700 feet,
more than 2,000 species of plants and wildlife, and a wealth of
archaeological sites.
H.R. 518 would affect approximately 9 million of the 25 million acres
in the California desert. The legislation would designate 3.9 million
acres as wilderness administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and
create a 1.5 million acre Mojave National Park. The existing 600,000-
acre-Joshua Tree National Monument and 2 million-acre-Death Valley
National Monument would be expanded by 200,000 acres and 1.3 million
acres respectively, and the areas would be redesignated as national
parks. In addition, H.R. 518 would designate 700,000 acres of
wilderness in the newly created Mojave National Park.
Mr. Speaker, the rule for consideration of H.R. 518 merits our
support. This is an open rule, with the caveat that members have their
amendments printed in the Congressional Record in advance. There are
156 maps accompanying this legislation, and in many instances the full
ramification of an amendment cannot be understood without examining the
map. The rule gives members the opportunity to examine the maps prior
to voting.
There is widespread support for this legislation throughout the
country. In California, 16 county governments, including Los Angeles,
San Diego, Contra Costa, Riverside, and San Francisco have endorsed the
legislation. In addition, 36 city governments, including Los Angeles,
Palm Desert, San Diego, Laguna Beach, Ventura, Sacramento, Riverside,
Davis, and Redlands support H.R. 518. About 1,600 scientists and major
conservation organizations would like this legislation enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage members to support the rule for H.R. 518,
the California Desert Protection Act. I also appreciate the efforts of
Congressmen Lehman and Vento who have devoted a great deal of time to
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is very widespread support for this legislation
throughout the country and throughout our State of California.
Overwhelmingly, the people of the State of California support this
legislation and the parks and the wilderness areas that it will create.
Many, many local county and city governments support the creation of
the national parks and the wilderness areas and support this
legislation, as do so many scientific organizations, environmental
groups, civic organizations and others on behalf of the Desert
Protection Act.
Finally, I would like to say that this legislation very much mirrors
what has taken place in the Senate when, after over 10 years of
deliberation, the Senate finally took up the bill as introduced by
Senator Feinstein and worked its will on that legislation. This
legislation reflects many of the changes that she made in the Senate. I
dare say that without her effort in the Senate and her tenacity to
stick with this issue until she could bring it to a vote in the U.S.
Senate, we would not be here today considering this legislation.
{time} 1730
We think that the House has considered this in the past. The hearings
have been held. The subject has been debated far and wide throughout
the country and throughout our State. The time is now for the
consideration of this legislation.
This rule is put forth by the Committee on Rules. I thank my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for presenting
this rule this evening to the House. It provides for free and open
debate. Anybody who wanted to offer an amendment is able under this
amendment to provide one.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comment that was made
about the preprinting of the amendment, this legislation deals with
many, many maps and millions of acres, and many amendments that will be
offered deal with boundaries within the parks and within the wilderness
areas. It was important that we be able to look at these amendments and
determine what these amendments would or would not do before we could
decide whether we could accept them, had to reject them, or to work our
some other arrangement with those who would offer those amendments.
Already since those amendments have been published we have been beset
with a number of amendments where the authors of the amendments do not
know where the lands are, who the beneficiaries are, or what they do.
That is the exact purpose, so we could give this House an informed
judgment of what the impact of those amendments will be, and yet
everybody who has an interest in this legislation was entitled to the
right to provide for those amendments. I would hope we would pass the
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to some of the comments made by our distinguished chairman the
gentleman from Martinez, California [Mr. Miller]. For starters, I would
note that he referred to the fact that the legislative history of this
is very, very long. It has been considered for several years. Fully
one-third of the members of his committee are new, having just become
Members of the 103rd Congress. While he says that many people
throughout the country have focused attention on and debated the
California Desert Protection Act, I would hasten to add in many other
parts of the country this is not a top priority.
I believe that for many of the Members, this is the first time they
have actually had an opportunity to face this issue.
He does, correctly, raise the point that we are dealing with
thousands and thousands of acres. However, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing
with thousands and thousands of acres as we were looking at the Montana
bill that we just voted out a few minutes ago.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should recognize that an open
rule for that legislation seemed to work things out adequately, and
gained a great deal of support. Why can it not also work here?
Further, Mr. Speaker, I would say that as we look at where we are
today on this question, it appears that we are only going to consider
general debate tonight, and who knows when we are going to bring out
the amendments that were required to have been filed last Friday. There
is going to be much more time for Members to look at and address this
issue. Unfortunately, those of us in the minority and other Democrats
who might want to have amendments that they could offer to the
legislation that is pending will not have that chance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Redlands, California [Mr. Lewis] one of the two Members, including
Mr. McCandles, who have worked diligently to fashion a very balanced
compromise on this, but, unfortunately, have been shut out.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much
for being so generous in yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would not take much time, but this is a very, very
important issue to my district, since most of my district is impacted
by the proposal of the chairman in the committee of the House. Mr.
Speaker, I want my colleagues, first of all, to know that I very much
appreciate their patience with this process. The issue is very, very
important to the four Members who are elected to represent the people
who live in the affected districts in California. There are four
Members who have their districts substantially made up of desert
territory.
The issue is very complicated, and subject, I believe, to endless
possibilities in terms of length of this debate, and deserves as much
time as the Members can bear.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to start this debate, though, by speaking to
my chairman, Mr. Miller, and wish Mr. Miller a happy birthday. It is
nice to be with you, Mr. Miller.
I would further like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules
for granting at least a modified open rule. Frankly, a modified rule at
least gives the four of us and others interested the opportunity to
present some amendments to try to change this process, but indeed,
there is little doubt that every effort was made to put limitations
upon us through the Committee on Rules process and appear to be open,
in contrast to what occurred on the Montana legislation.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, above and beyond the courtesy the chairman
of the Committee on Rules has shown me, I must confess to the Members
that I am somewhat disconcerted on this relative to fairness. This bill
has been handled in the most outrageous fashion of any legislation that
it has been my experience to deal with in my 25 years in public
affairs. I would like to briefly describe the heavy-handed tactics of
the senior members on the majority side of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
The nature in which this bill was rammed through their committee, as
described by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier],
is essentially an outrage to the process, the approach that should be
used to balance public affairs and compromise that leads to good public
policy. Not only did the committee circumvent the process of the
subcommittee markup, but the chairman, Mr. Miller, presented an
entirely new piece of legislation on the day of the markup, and the
committee staff saw it the evening before, essentially making it
extremely difficult for people to respond appropriately with amendments
in the committee process.
This legislation normally would be considered to be noncontroversial
legislation, if we were going to handle a markup in that fashion.
Traditionally the committee will use such rules or exercise such rules
when there is not any partisan confrontation or serious controversy. In
contrast to this, this legislation is by no means noncontroversial or
bipartisan. The substitute legislation offered by the chairman extended
well beyond the original text of H.R. 518. The majority claims that
since similar legislation was considered in previous Congresses, a
subcommittee markup was not necessary. That explanation fails to
account, as David Dreier indicated, for 14 brand-new members on that
committee, freshmen who have not been through this process, and indeed,
no only deserve to have the right to consider possibly amending, but in
turn carry out their responsibility to so participate.
Instead, item after item ended up being passed by way of the phantom
vote that was so eloquently expressed by my representative from the
Committee on Rules. The committee, under the leadership of its
chairman, has done a real disservice to the constituents of the
gentlemen from California, AL McCandless, Duncan Hunter, Bill Thomas,
and myself, who were elected to represent the people who live in, who
understand, and who love the desert. All of us feel that we have been
treated in this process somewhat like second-class Members of this
body.
I would say to any one of these Members who happens to be watching on
television or listening here on the floor, think about your own
district. If someone was going to carry legislation that directly
impacted the planning process, the use of the lands that make up the
majority of your district, you would expect at least to have the
courtesy of some consultation, some discussion. There was no attempt on
the part of this committee to reach out to those Members, to ask them
to participate in the process. Indeed, a preconceived idea of the way
our districts ought to work by people outside our districts was the
total process of this committee.
It was clear that one could make amendments in committee if they had
time to figure out where they should go and what form they should take,
but there is also, no doubt, beyond a small, strictly partisan meeting
held the day before to discuss some of these things, a clear message
was sent by the chairman that no amendment should be passed by way of
majority votes on the committee. There was too much involved in terms
of the past work of the chairman, I guess, perhaps too much California
politics involved as well.
The chairman has also attempted to circumvent the Committee on Armed
Services by removing from the text of H.R. 518 any reference to the
military activities which are conducted at the key military
installations in the California desert. During consideration of H.R.
518 Mr. Miller and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will offer
an amendment dealing with land withdrawals and military overflights. I
caution my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, pay very,
very close attention to the way the Miller-Vento amendment reads. It
could severely impact the training and testing activities conducted in
the desert, the very activities that are vital to our national defense,
and which General Schwartzkopf indicated were fundamental to our
success, for example, in the recent confrontation in the Middle East.
I hope it is clearly understood by the Members of the House that the
legislation before us, H.R. 518, severely impacts the land use and
local economies of the Members' districts involved, Al McCandless of
Riverside County, Duncan Hunter in Imperial County, Bill Thomas in Kern
County and my district, which is large enough desert to put four
Eastern States very easily inside.
{time} 1740
Mr. Speaker, we are debating the California wilderness bill. One way
or another, this committee has decided that they can handle the
planning, the future economic values, the development, the growth
potential, indeed the lives of the people who live in areas that large
and forget about those people they elected to represent them.
I hope it is clearly understood by the Members of the House that the
legislation before us severely impacts not just that land use, the
fundamental violation is the relationships between Members in this
House. It is outrageous to think that the chairman would actually go so
far as to ram legislation in this fashion through without even bringing
in those Members for personal consultation about their districts. It is
unbelievable that that kind of process has developed here in this
committee.
Mr. Speaker, we will hear the proponents of H.R. 518 describing it as
a compromise. Compromise, indeed. This could not be further from the
truth. H.R. 2379, the California Desert and Employment Preservation Act
introduced by my colleagues and I who represent the desert is the only
compromise that truly deserves that description. H.R. 518 is nothing
more than a wish list for a small band of well-funded and influential
preservation groups with a narrow ideological agenda.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 518 cavalierly ignores the recommendations made by
the Bureau of Land Management as mandated under legislation coming out
of this very committee a number of years ago.
I would like the Members to particularly focus on this point. My
predecessors, Jerry and Shirley Pettis, Jerry was tragically killed in
an airplane accident. He had had legislation calling for the creation
of a commission that would lead to dealing with the complex issues in
this region. Shirley when she arrived here was approached by the
chairman of this committee, at that time Philip Burton. Mr. Burton
suggested that they should shepherd this bill through because it was a
complex area that deserved maximum public input.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of that the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act was passed. It created a 15-member commission. On that
commission were representatives of environmental groups, of ranchers,
of miners, all those who care about and understand the desert. They met
for a period of 4 years. There were some 40,000 individual comments,
some $8 million were spent of public taxpayers' monies leading to a
compromise. Yet this committee and this chairman and this subcommittee
chairman have chosen to ignore all that money and this work.
Mr. Speaker, I want the members to get a clear sense that we are not
just unhappy about this process.
I do not consider it just an outrageous way to handle public affairs
and public policy development. I believe the Members of this body know
that I am not enamored with the rhetoric of the extreme. Indeed I
believe deeply that the American public is disgusted with partisan
confrontation that too often dominates the floor debate. Most issues
have little to do with partisan politics and certainly this kind of an
issue should have little to do with it. But if the Committee on Natural
Resources is any indication of the way the rest of the policy
committees in the House in the future intend to act in terms of the way
they will treat the minority in this place, then, friends, Katy bar the
door. No wonder the floor debate is so often dominated by the extreme.
The world's greatest deliberative body has become a partisan shouting
match precisely because of the excesses of the majority. If this
continues, the over 50 years of dominance of a single party in this
House is going to end up destroying not just comity but really
undermining the fundamentals of what has originally been designed to
make this the greatest deliberative body in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from California yielding me so
much time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said in a short time about the
procedures used in the committee and the procedures used by the
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which happens to be me,
and I have just got to tell the House that not only does it reflect
badly on the Members who are constructing that record but it simply is
not true.
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting if this is the most
important piece of legislation to the gentleman who was just in the
well or to his colleagues from California, Mr. McCandless and Mr.
Hunter, who he named in his remarks that they would never once ask me
for an appointment to have a substantive discussion on this matter,
they would never send me an amendment or a note or a request for any
change in this legislation in the over 2\1/2\, 3, 4 years since I have
been chairman of the committee and we have had this under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that has never happened.
Mr. Speaker, when various committees in the Congress impact my
district, I go see the chairman or the subcommittee chairman or the
Member who has that bill or whoever it might be and say, what is going
on here? Is there a chance we can talk about this? Can I offer some
amendments?
Mr. Speaker, I have never had that request from the gentleman or the
other gentlemen from California, Mr. McCandless or Mr. Hunter. I do not
know. Maybe the gentleman has to explain back home why this bill got 90
votes in the Senate for it, and the loss, but do not put that on me,
because that never happened.
Mr. Speaker, the first mention I got was a nice note the other night
from the gentleman saying how upset he was with the process. That is
the first time, and we have had this bill in our committee under active
consideration for 3 years, because we passed it in the last session and
we have had it this time.
Mr. Speaker, let us understand that clearly. The gentleman was in our
committee when we took up the bill for full consideration and as
everybody on my committee knows, in spite of the gentleman's
characterization of it, every member of my committee is entitled to
offer amendments. I have never prevented a member of my committee from
offering that because I grew up in the tradition of listening to
people. There happened to be one from the gentleman's side, John
Ashbrook, who told me what it was like to be in the minority around
here and when people act that way.
Mr. Speaker, when we discharge the committee, my habit, and people
from my committee on both sides of the aisle know this, I will say,
``The gentleman is asking for unanimous consent to discharge the
subcommittee. If there is no objection,'' then there is a deliberative
pause for several seconds. I say, ``Hearing no objection, so ordered.''
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was in the room when that happened and
maybe his lieutenants on the committee bumbled, fumbled, or mumbled but
the fact is they never made that request. They never made request for
an additional hearing, they never made a request for amendments and, in
fact, a few minutes after we were into the hearing and the markup, most
of them had left the room.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that is the way this committee has been run
from the time I have been on it. I think there are two committees in
this House that respect minority rights. That does not mean the
minority gets to win because they do not have the votes to win on
crucial issues, but their rights are preserved, the procedure is
preserved, and as the gentleman from the Committee on Rules knows, we
always come and ask for an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, we are here on an open rule. We are simply asking for
management. The fact remains for those listening to this that I am sure
there is some other explanation going on here and that is that the
gentleman in all likelihood if we can take the last time the House
considered the bill, the fact the Senate has considered the bill and
the expected outcome is not going to win his debate here, so now the
gentleman has decided to make this personal and impugn the integrity of
the committee and me as the chair.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply here to say it never happened, I would never
run a committee that way, and the members of my committee know that is
the case.
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. In the most contentious
hearings, whether it was the energy bill or whatever it is, I have
members of my committee on the minority side come to me all the time
and say, ``Thank you for letting me offer the amendments.'' I consider
that their right. I either win those votes or I lose those votes. I am
not there to block people from having a say. I used to vote all the
time with the minority before we got so partisan not to cut off debate
so that people would have a chance, but now we have all of these rules
that we only get 1 hour of debate, 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes of
debate.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the way to run this
institution. The gentleman is talking about some other episode, folks,
because those rights were protected. Those amendments were not offered.
Why is this bill different than the Montana bill? There were no
boundary changes offered to Montana today if the gentleman was there on
the floor while we were considering the bill. The amendments we are
considering here have numerous, hundreds and hundreds of boundary
changes, and what we asked for was the right to have those printed in
the Record so we could look, so tomorrow if we start amendments we
could say to the Members of the House, this is or is not the impact,
and those who offer the amendments from either side could agree or
disagree but we would understand that.
{time} 1750
I am very troubled that my colleagues would engage in this kind of
tactic to somehow try to taint this process, to taint this legislation.
This is an urgent and necessary piece of legislation. The people in
our State overwhelmingly support it. The gentleman who spoke and some
who will speak do not support it. That is the process. That is the
process.
But let us not lead people to believe that something took place that
did not take place or that somebody was shut out of a process when this
process has been open and we have had, as I said, some 15 hearings. I
do not know what the Republicans did on their side of the aisle. We
took people through the Senate bill. We talked about the changes.
The gentleman stands in the well and says that the amendments that we
brought were more expansive. No. They are not. We took what we passed
and moved toward the Senate. We started taking out mining companies and
all the things that concerned the gentleman in the desert. The bill is
narrower than when the House passed it last.
So there is somebody kicking up some dust here trying to avoid, I
think, what probably will be the results when the House is finished
with the deliberation. But I will not stand here and have the integrity
of this committee on either side, because the minority was there, and
at each and every stage there is a pause before amendments. I even make
them call the votes twice of every Member. All the votes are called
twice. All the requests are stated twice in our committee. And that is
how we run the Natural Resources Committee.
I do not know how other chairs run it. That is how we run it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman would probably like to be
informed that I did sit on the floor for the last time with the author
of this bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], just a week
ago to discuss some of these possibilities. He is the author.
Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman was
talking about me when he was standing in the well. You were referring
to the chairman of this committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me just complete the statement. The
response of the author of the bill was, ``Jerry, I am not going to be
able to help you with this. The chairman is going to do exactly what he
wants to do with this bill, and he already has in his mind what he is
going to do. He is going to roll right over me,'' is what he said to
me.
Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, how long has the
gentleman been in this body?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am not sure that that is relevant. But
long enough.
Mr. MILLER of California. Well, are you incapable of having a face-
to-face conversation with another Member? Are you incapable of coming
over and asking me whether that characterization is accurate or not,
especially when this is so important to your district? I would think
you would stretch out a little bit. The aisle is not that far.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I say to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller], certainly I stood on that side of the aisle for that reason.
You know very well how I feel about that. The fact is you and I have
had occasion on more than one circumstance to talk about this
legislation.
Mr. MILLER of California. You have never requested a substantive
discussion on this bill at all. Never.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Your style is always so gentle.
Mr. MILLER of California. Do not tell me about my style.
Mr. LEWIS of California. You always just gently suggested, ``I will
just roll you over, Lewis. Do not worry about it.'' I know your style.
Everybody else knows your style.
Mr. MILLER of California. No. Except it does not work that way.
Mr. LEWIS of California. It seems to.
Mr. MILLER of California. I guess the gentleman made a horrible error
in judgment. My door has never been closed to people who have had an
interest in a piece of legislation. And it never happened.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it accurate to say that a significant
number of the votes on this bill in committee were ghost votes, the
Members were not even present to vote?
Mr. MILLER of California. No. It is accurate to say that when votes
were taken, because in many instances the Republicans left the room,
votes were voted by proxy on both sides. The gentleman knows that is
allowed under the rules. The gentleman's side of the aisle does not
agree with that, but they voted their proxies, we voted our proxies,
not ghost votes, not phantom votes. I appreciate that characterization.
That means something else to the public.
Let us talk about what went on in that committee in this body.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I do know this, the public expects Members
to be there and cast their own vote. They do not expect ghost votes.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman was in the room, he could
have asked any Republican member to enforce the right to call a quorum
to vote on anything. The fact is you did not do it. You fumbled the
ball. You fumbled the ball, and that is it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Miller, probably the value of this is
that there is a clear display of your gentle style. I appreciate it.
Mr. MILLER of California. No; it is the firmness when you impugn the
integrity of the committee which I run or my chairmanship of that
committee or me personally. There is nothing to suggest that I have to
take that, and you know you made a bad error in judgment about how you
handled this legislation. You will not rub that off on this committee,
the membership of this committee on either side of the aisle, or on me.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from La Quinta, California, [Mr. McCandless] another of the
Members who represents one of the areas which will be affected if this
were to become law. He is going to be retiring, and let us hope that he
could play a role in the compromise. Unfortunately, he has not been
able to, up to this point.
Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the dialog
that just took place.
Having been born in the area that we are talking about and having
spent a great deal of my younger life and all of my adult life in the
area, I have a certain feeling for it. In fact, people say, ``Are you
going to stay on the east coast after you retire?'' I say, ``No, once
you have sand in your shoes, it never leaves.'' Now, what that means is
that people like myself, who live in the areas in question where the
impact is going to take place, relative to this legislation, love the
area in which they live. We love the people, love the climate, love
everything that is special about it, and so we are not about to go out
and destroy something that we have been raised in.
Now, the problem here is when we talk about the history of this
legislation, yes, there is a long history. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] touched on a part of that. It started in 1968.
That was the beginning of it with Bob Mathias, and it went on through
the points that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] made with
respect to Jerry and Shirley Pettis.
Interestingly enough, that original part of the history, the
legislative history of this bill, also included Senator Cranston, who
with the Pettises and Bob Mathias ultimately worked down to the point
where in 1976, this body passed the FLPMA legislation the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis] referred to.
Now, I arrived on the scene in about 1975, as a part of the
governmental process upon which this FLPMA legislation took place. As a
member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, I followed this
process almost on a weekly basis, because another member of our board
was the representative of county government for Riverside County on the
advisory commission, and they went out into the field. They held
hearings. They took all kinds of information from the people who are
involved there in all walks of life, in all disciplines, in every part
of the desert areas in question. They filed their report after the long
and arduous process, with the Secretary, as his advisory committee, and
Secretary Andrus, a Democrat I might add, under the Carter
administration, accepted the plan.
We now come back to the bill before us, and now some are not
satisfied with the 6 years of work on the part of the group who spent
hours and hours and weeks and weeks doing this advisory work all this
because a small group was not satisfied. They wanted more.
This was a consensus. This was a consensus plan. But that small
faction who were unsatisfied, and wanted more than the compromise gave
them, talked Mr. Cranston into bringing back up all of this that goes
beyond the 1980 plan to satisfy their agenda.
Obviously that side of the issue became more successful than we have
to date, because this passed the Senate in recent times.
The point I am trying to make here is that we in the desert, both
those who live there and all of those who represent it, love the area.
We want to preserve the desert. But those who support H.R. 518 say that
because we oppose it, well, we do not care about the desert. We are
happy to see motorcycles run all over it.
Let me tell you, ladies and gentleman, what is going to happen here
in my area where you have four-wheel-drive clubs that are very
responsible, that are made up of working people who cannot afford to
fly-fish in Australia. They are not even going to be able to travel to
their own property which is privately owned, because it will have
become an inholding surrounded by wilderness, or some other designation
that will be a part of this bill.
Now, how would you like to continue to pay taxes on a piece of
property that you have enjoyed, as a kind of a campout place over a
weekend, and now not be able to even get to it?
{time} 1800
These are the points that I am interested in, that the people who
live in the area are interested in. I might add, the people who are not
supporting this bill are the people who live in the area, the people
who use the area, not the people from San Francisco or someplace like
that, far from the desert.
If you talk to the people within the framework of the counties
impacted by this bill, they will tell you they are not supportive of
this, on an overwhelming basis.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by simply saying that I am sorry that
we got involved in this kind of a donneybrook. Mr. Vento was kind
enough, several years ago, to invite me and others to attend and be a
part of the hearings that were held in the desert, and from that we
were able to see what it was people wanted, from the vast majority of
people who showed up. Interestingly enough, Mr. Vento, with the
consent, I guess, and the agreement of the full committee chairman,
created a new chairmanship and presented this particular piece of
legislation to that new subcommittee chairman, who then handled it and
has handled it during those previous years. That is kind of an
interesting paradox in itself because when you talk to the subcommittee
chairman, you get the direct impression that there is no use even
talking to anybody else about this bill. We were not able to talk with
the Senator who sponsored this bill over in the other body. We were not
able to talk to a number of people. They did not want to talk to us.
So, these are the frustrations that you see being vented here today
that, in my mind, are not as personal as the framework within which
this bill has passed through the years, and the disappointments we have
had after we thought we had something that Secretary Andrus approved
and that President Carter approved. And then we go back and reinvent
the wheel.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time at
this time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time.
At this point I yield myself such time as I may consume and will
close by simply saying that the four Representatives of this area--
Messrs. Lewis, McCandless, Hunter, and Thomas--have worked for years to
fashion a compromise on this. Unfortunately, they have not been able to
be part of this process.
I have just been handed a note here saying that they requested a
hearing on their bill and they were denied the request for the hearing
that they had wanted to have on their legislation.
The gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] does still have sand
in his shoes, I know that. He loves the desert. He is very generous in
allowing many of us from California and other parts of the country to
enjoy the magnificent desert empire.
It seems to me that as we look at this issue, we can address this in
a very balanced way. All we need to do is defeat the previous question
here, and then pass my amendment, which will be a true open rule,
basically waiving this preprinting requirement, which is jeopardizing
the process of free and fair debate, and then we can proceed and have
all of these ideas considered and then the House will be able to work
its will.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to continue the debate. I would just point
out that the gentleman referred to a request for a hearing of me. I was
working as a subcommittee chairman with this jurisdiction in the 101st,
and this Congress. Under the rules of the committee--I might say that
the request came to me 2 days before we had the hearing on the measure
that was before us, the major measure, H.R. 518. I might say, for the
sponsors of that bill, I was not able to prepare and to get witnesses
to respond to a bill that quickly which was introduced just a couple of
days before the hearing, but the members did discuss their bill at the
hearing. Whether that was adequate or not, I do not know. I would like
to say on this matter further----
Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is referring to H.R. 2379, as they
introduced it.
Mr. VENTO. That is correct.
Mr. DREIER. The indication they gave to me was that they had made the
request that you hold a hearing on that issue and were denied that.
Mr. VENTO. They wanted the hearing held at the same time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The Chair would
advise Members that all debate should be addressed to the Chair.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, the
request was, since we were having hearings on H.R. 518, that they asked
to be heard the same day or at the same time so they could discuss the
bills together. Unfortunately, it had not been introduced but just a
few days, several days before the hearing, nor was there a request up
to that point.
So it was not possible to prepare the witnesses to respond to this
bill at that point. But they did discuss the bill at the hearing.
Mr. DREIER. If I may reclaim my time, I will close by saying that the
chairman of the full committee made what I believe to be a very
eloquent argument for the open rule. He referred to the fact that in
his committee he allows amendments to be offered regularly. And he
usually asks for us to do that right here on the House floor. I am
going to give my friend from Martinez a chance to continue that ``Mr.
Open Rule'' moniker which we regularly like to put around him, and vote
to defeat the previous question, bring about an open rule, and let us
do just the way they do in the Natural Resources Committee, have free
and fair debate here.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, if I may, I would remind my
colleagues that this in fact is an open rule. It is clear from the
number of amendments which were submitted for preprinting, about 45 of
them, that the rule, even with that provision, gives the House a chance
to consider virtually every technical or policy issue associated with
this bill to protect the California desert.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum
is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the
question of adoption of the resolution.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 172, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 175]
YEAS--245
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--172
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--16
Barlow
Blackwell
Brown (CA)
Byrne
de la Garza
Emerson
Fish
Ford (TN)
Grandy
Leach
Neal (NC)
Sharp
Smith (OR)
Tucker
Valentine
Washington
{time} 1825
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Byrne for, with Mr. Emerson against.
Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Leach against.
Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.
Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. DOOLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248,
nays 165, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 176]
YEAS--248
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NAYS--165
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--20
Barlow
Brown (CA)
Byrne
de la Garza
Emerson
Fish
Ford (TN)
Grandy
Harman
Leach
McKinney
Neal (NC)
Reynolds
Sabo
Sharp
Smith (OR)
Tucker
Valentine
Washington
Waters
{time} 1835
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Byrne for, with Mr. Emerson against.
Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Leach against.
Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________