[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 72 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 422 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. 518.

                              {time}  1039


                     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. 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, with 
Mr. Peterson of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1040

  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May 
17, 1994, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment, and each title is considered as read.
  No amendment to the substitute shall be in order except those 
amendments printed in that portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to 
consideration of the bill.
  The amendment caused to be printed in the Congressional Record by the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] relating to an east Mojave preserve 
may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                                H.R. 518

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
     Act may be cited as the ``California Desert Protection Act of 
     1994''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:


                          findings and policy

       Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) the federally owned desert lands of Southern California 
     constitute a public wildland resource of extraordinary and 
     inestimable value for this and future generations;
       (2) these desert wildlands display unique scenic, 
     historical, archaeological, environmental, ecological, 
     wildlife, cultural, scientific, educational, and recreational 
     values used and enjoyed by millions of Americans for hiking 
     and camping, scientific study and scenic appreciation;
       (3) the public land resources of the California desert now 
     face and are increasingly threatened by adverse pressures 
     which would impair, dilute, and destroy their public and 
     natural values;
       (4) the California desert, embracing wilderness lands, 
     units of the National Park System, other Federal lands, State 
     parks and other State lands, and private lands, constitutes a 
     cohesive unit posing unique and difficult resource protection 
     and management challenges;
       (5) through designation of national monuments by 
     Presidential proclamation, through enactment of general 
     public land statutes (including section 601 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2743, 43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and through interim administrative 
     actions, the Federal Government has begun the process of 
     appropriately providing for protection of the significant 
     resources of the public lands in the California desert; and
       (6) statutory land unit designations are needed to afford 
     the full protection which the resources and public land 
     values of the California desert merit.
       (b) In order to secure for the American people of this and 
     future generations an enduring heritage of wilderness, 
     national parks, and public land values in the California 
     desert, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the 
     Congress that--
       (1) appropriate public lands in the California desert shall 
     be included within the National Park System and the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System, in order to--
       (A) preserve unrivaled scenic, geologic, and wildlife 
     values associated with these unique natural landscapes;
       (B) perpetuate in their natural state significant and 
     diverse ecosystems of the California desert;
       (C) protect and preserve historical and cultural values of 
     the California desert associated with ancient Indian 
     cultures, patterns of western exploration and settlement, and 
     sites exemplifying the mining, ranching, and railroading 
     history of the Old West;
       (D) provide opportunities for compatible outdoor public 
     recreation, protect and interpret ecological and geological 
     features and historic, paleontological, and archaeological 
     sites, maintain wilderness resource values, and promote 
     public understanding and appreciation of the California 
     desert; and
       (E) retain and enhance opportunities for scientific 
     research in undisturbed ecosystems.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk 
will designate title I. The text of title I is as follows:

                     TITLE I--WILDERNESS ADDITIONS


                                findings

       Sec. 101. The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) wilderness is a distinguishing characteristic of the 
     public lands in the California desert, one which affords an 
     unrivaled opportunity for experiencing vast areas of the Old 
     West essentially unaltered by man's activities, and which 
     merits preservation for the benefit of present and future 
     generations;
       (2) the wilderness values of desert lands are increasingly 
     threatened by and especially vulnerable to impairment, 
     alteration, and destruction by activities and intrusions 
     associated with incompatible use and development; and
       (3) preservation of desert wilderness necessarily requires 
     the highest forms of protective designation and management.


                       designation of wilderness

       Sec. 102. In furtherance of the purpose of the Wilderness 
     Act (78 Stat. 890, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and sections 601 
     and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
     (90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the following lands 
     in the State of California, as generally depicted on maps 
     referenced herein, are hereby designated as wilderness, and 
     therefore, as components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System:
       (1) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventy-four thousand eight hundred and ninety 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Argus Range 
     Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated May 1991, and two maps 
     entitled ``Argus Range Wilderness--Proposed 2'' and ``Argus 
     Range Wilderness--Proposed 3'', dated January 1989, and which 
     shall be known as the Argus Range Wilderness.
       (2) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately ten thousand three hundred and eighty acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Bigelow Cholla Garden 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness.
       (3) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, and within the San 
     Bernardino National Forest, which comprise approximately 
     thirty-nine thousand two hundred acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Bighorn Mountain Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated September 1991, and which shall be known as the Bighorn 
     Mountain Wilderness.
       (4) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately forty-seven thousand five 
     hundred and seventy acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Big Maria Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     February 1986, and which shall be known as the Big Maria 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (5) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirteen thousand nine hundred and forty acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Black Mountain 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Black Mountain Wilderness.
       (6) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately nine thousand five hundred and twenty acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Bright Star 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Bright Star Wilderness.
       (7) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately sixty-eight thousand five hundred and fifteen 
     acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled ``Bristol 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 1'', and ``Bristol Mountains 
     Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated September 1991, and which 
     shall be known as Bristol Mountains Wilderness.
       (8) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-nine thousand seven hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Cadiz Dunes 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Cadiz Dunes Wilderness.
       (9) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately eighty-four thousand four hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Cady Mountains 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Cady Mountains Wilderness.
       (10) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and Eastern San Diego County, of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, which comprise approximately fifteen thousand 
     seven hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Carrizo Gorge Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986, 
     and which shall be known as the Carrizo Gorge Wilderness.
       (11) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately sixty-four thousand three 
     hundred and twenty acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     July 1993, and which shall be known as the Chemehuevi 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (12) Certain lands in the Bakersfield District, of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, which comprise approximately 
     thirteen thousand seven hundred acres, as generally depicted 
     on two maps entitled ``Chimney Peak Wilderness--Proposed 1'' 
     and ``Chimney Peak Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated May 1991, 
     and which shall be known as the Chimney Peak Wilderness.
       (13) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred fifty-eight thousand nine hundred 
     and fifty acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled 
     ``Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 1'' and 
     ``Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated 
     January 1989, and which shall be known as the Chuckwalla 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (14) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     thirty-four thousand three hundred and eighty acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Cleghorn Lakes 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated September 1991, and which shall 
     be known as the Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness. The Secretary may, 
     pursuant to an application filed by the Department of 
     Defense, grant a right-of-way for, and authorize construction 
     of, a road within the area depicted as ``non-wilderness road 
     corridor'' on such map.
       (15) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately forty thousand acres, as generally depicted on 
     a map entitled ``Clipper Mountain Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated May 1991, and which shall be known as Clipper Mountain 
     Wilderness.
       (16) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately fifty thousand five hundred and twenty acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Coso Range 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as Coso Range Wilderness.
       (17) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventeen thousand acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Coyote Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated July 1993, and which shall be known as Coyote Mountains 
     Wilderness.
       (18) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately eight thousand six hundred acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Darwin Falls Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be known as 
     Darwin Falls Wilderness.
       (19) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately forty-eight thousand eight 
     hundred and fifty acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Dead Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     October 1991, and which shall be known as Dead Mountains 
     Wilderness.
       (20) Certain lands in the Bakersfield District, of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, which comprise approximately 
     thirty-six thousand three hundred acres, as generally 
     depicted on two maps entitled ``Domeland Wilderness 
     Additions--Proposed 1'' and ``Domeland Wilderness Additions--
     Proposed 2'', dated February 1986 and which are hereby 
     incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a part of, 
     the Domeland Wilderness as designated by Public Laws 93-632 
     and 98-425.
       (21) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-three thousand seven hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``El Paso 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     shall be known as the El Paso Mountains Wilderness.
       (22) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-five thousand nine hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Fish Creek 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     shall be known as Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness.
       (23) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-eight thousand one hundred and ten 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Funeral 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which 
     shall be known as Funeral Mountains Wilderness.
       (24) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-seven thousand seven hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Golden Valley 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986 and which shall 
     be known as Golden Valley Wilderness.
       (25) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-one thousand seven hundred and twenty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Grass Valley 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986 and which shall 
     be known as the Grass Valley Wilderness.
       (26) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-two thousand two hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Hollow Hills 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Hollow Hills Wilderness.
       (27) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-six thousand four hundred and sixty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Ibex 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Ibex Wilderness.
       (28) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-four thousand and fifty-five acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Indian Pass 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1994, and which shall be 
     known as the Indian Pass Wilderness.
       (29) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Bakersfield District, of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, and within the Inyo National Forest, which 
     comprise approximately two hundred five thousand and twenty 
     acres, as generally depicted on three maps entitled ``Inyo 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', numbered in the title one 
     through three, and dated May 1991, and which shall be known 
     as the Inyo Mountains Wilderness.
       (30) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-three thousand six hundred and seventy 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Jacumba 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Jacumba Wilderness.
       (31) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred and twenty-nine thousand five 
     hundred and eighty acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Kelso Dunes Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated 
     October 1991, a map entitled ``Kelso Dunes Wilderness--
     Proposed 2'', dated May 1991, and a map entitled ``Kelso 
     Dunes Wilderness--Proposed 3'', dated September 1991, and 
     which shall be known as the Kelso Dunes Wilderness.
       (32) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, and the Sequoia 
     National Forest, which comprise approximately eighty-eight 
     thousand two hundred and ninety acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Kiavah Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated 
     February 1986, and a map entitled ``Kiavah Wilderness--
     Proposed 2'', dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 
     Kiavah Wilderness.
       (33) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately two hundred forty-nine thousand three hundred 
     and sixty-eight acres, as generally depicted on four maps 
     entitled ``Kingston Range Wilderness--Proposed'', numbered in 
     the title one through four dated May 1994, and which shall be 
     known as the Kingston Range Wilderness.
       (34) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Little 
     Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, 
     and which shall be known as the Little Chuckwalla Mountains 
     Wilderness.
       (35) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately thirty-three thousand six 
     hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Little Picacho Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and 
     which shall be known as the Little Picacho Wilderness.
       (36) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-two thousand three hundred and sixty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Malpais Mesa 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated September 1991, and which shall 
     be known as the Malpais Mesa Wilderness.
       (37) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately sixteen thousand one hundred and five acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Manly Peak 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated October 1991, and which shall 
     be known as the Manly Peak Wilderness.
       (38) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-four thousand two hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Mecca Hills 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Mecca Hills Wilderness.
       (39) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately forty-seven thousand three hundred and thirty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Mesquite 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Mesquite Wilderness.
       (40) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-two thousand nine hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Newberry Mountains 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986, and which shall 
     be known as the Newberry Mountains Wilderness.
       (41) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred ten thousand eight hundred and 
     sixty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Nopah 
     Range Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     shall be known as the Nopah Range Wilderness.
       (42) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-two thousand two hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``North 
     Algodones Dunes Wilderness--Proposed'', dated October 1991, 
     and which shall be known as the North Algodones Dunes 
     Wilderness.
       (43) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-five thousand five hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``North 
     Mesquite Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, 
     and which shall be known as the North Mesquite Mountains 
     Wilderness.
       (44) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred forty-six thousand and seventy 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Old Woman 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated May 1994 and a map 
     entitled ``Old Woman Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 2'', 
     dated October 1991, and which shall be known as the Old Woman 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (45) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately fifty-seven thousand four hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Orocopia 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1994, and which 
     shall be known as the Orocopia Mountains Wilderness.
       (46) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Bakersfield District, of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, which comprise approximately seventy-four 
     thousand six hundred and forty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Owens Peak Wilderness--Proposed 1'', 
     dated February 1986, and two maps entitled ``Owens Peak 
     Wilderness--Proposed 2'' dated February 1986 and ``Owens Peak 
     Wilderness--Proposed 3'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Owens Peak Wilderness.
       (47) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventy-four thousand eight hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Pahrump Valley 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986 and which shall 
     be known as the Pahrump Valley Wilderness.
       (48) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately two hundred seventy thousand six hundred and 
     twenty-nine acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Palen/McCoy Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated July 1993, and 
     a map entitled ``Palen/McCoy Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated 
     July 1993, and which shall be known as the Palen/McCoy 
     Wilderness.
       (49) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-two thousand three hundred and ten 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Palo Verde 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     shall be known as the Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness.
       (50) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seven thousand seven hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Picacho Peak 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Picacho Peak Wilderness.
       (51) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventy-two thousand six hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Piper Mountain 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Piper Mountain Wilderness.
       (52) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-six thousand eight hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Piute 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     shall be known as the Piute Mountains Wilderness.
       (53) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventy-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-
     eight acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Resting Spring Range Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 
     1991, and which shall be known as the Resting Spring Range 
     Wilderness.
       (54) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately forty thousand eight hundred and twenty acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Rice Valley 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Rice Valley Wilderness.
       (55) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately twenty-two thousand three 
     hundred eighty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Riverside Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, 
     and which shall be known as the Riverside Mountains 
     Wilderness.
       (56) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-seven thousand seven hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Rodman Mountains 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated January 1989, and which shall 
     be known as the Rodman Mountains Wilderness.
       (57) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Bakersfield District, of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, which comprise approximately fifty-one thousand 
     nine hundred acres, as generally depicted on two maps 
     entitled ``Sacatar Trail Wilderness--Proposed 1'' and 
     ``Sacatar Trail Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated May 1991, and 
     which shall be known as the Sacatar Trail Wilderness.
       (58) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one thousand four hundred and forty acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Saddle Peak Hills 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be 
     known as the Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness.
       (59) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-seven thousand nine hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``San Gorgonio 
     Wilderness Additions--Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which 
     are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a 
     part of, the San Gorgonio Wilderness as designated by Public 
     Laws 88-577 and 98-425.
       (60) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately sixty-four thousand three hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Santa Rosa 
     Wilderness Additions--Proposed'', dated March 1994, and which 
     are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be 
     part of, the Santa Rosa Wilderness designated by Public Law 
     98-425.
       (61) Certain lands in the California Desert District, of 
     the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise approximately 
     thirty-five thousand and eighty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated July 1993, and which shall be known as the 
     Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness.
       (62) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred seventy-four thousand eight hundred 
     acres, as generally depicted on two maps entitled ``Sheep 
     Hole Valley Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated July 1993, and 
     ``Sheep Hole Valley Wilderness--Proposed 2'', dated July 
     1993, and which shall be known as the Sheephole Valley 
     Wilderness.
       (63) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately forty-four thousand four hundred and ten acres, 
     as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Slate Range 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated October 1991, and which shall 
     be known as the Slate Range Wilderness.
       (64) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``South Nopah 
     Range Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986, and which 
     shall be known as the South Nopah Range Wilderness.
       (65) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seven thousand and fifty acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Stateline Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 
     Stateline Wilderness.
       (66) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately eighty-one thousand six hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Stepladder Mountains 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986, and which shall 
     be known as the Stepladder Mountains Wilderness.
       (67) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately twenty-nine thousand one hundred and eighty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Surprise 
     Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'', dated September 1991, and 
     which shall be known as the Surprise Canyon Wilderness.
       (68) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately seventeen thousand eight hundred and twenty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Sylvania 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated February 1986, and 
     which shall be known as the Sylvania Mountains Wilderness.
       (69) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately thirty-three thousand seven hundred and twenty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Trilobite 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', dated May 1991, and which shall be 
     known as the Trilobite Wilderness.
       (70) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately one hundred forty-four thousand five hundred 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Turtle 
     Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 1'', dated February 1986 and a 
     map entitled ``Turtle Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 2'', 
     dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the Turtle 
     Mountains Wilderness.
       (71) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Yuma District, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     which comprise approximately seventy-seven thousand five 
     hundred and twenty acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Whipple Mountains Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     July 1993, and which shall be known as the Whipple Mountains 
     Wilderness.


                   administration of wilderness areas

       Sec. 103. Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness 
     area designated under section 102 shall be administered by 
     the appropriate Secretary in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference in such 
     provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this 
     title and any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary who has 
     administrative jurisdiction over the area.


                                grazing

       Sec. 104. Within the wilderness areas designated under 
     section 102, the grazing of livestock, where established 
     prior to the enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to 
     continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, 
     and practices as the Secretary deems necessary, as long as 
     such regulations, policies, and practices fully conform with 
     and implement the intent of Congress regarding grazing in 
     such areas as such intent is expressed in the Wilderness Act 
     and section 108 of Public Law 96-560 (16 U.S.C. 133 note).


                              buffer zones

       Sec. 105. The Congress does not intend for the designation 
     of wilderness areas in section 102 of this Act to lead to the 
     creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around any 
     such wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities 
     or uses can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness 
     shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to 
     the boundary of the wilderness area.


                      mining claim validity review

       Sec. 106. The Secretary of the Interior shall not approve 
     any plan of operation prior to determining the validity of 
     the unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites 
     affected by such plan within any wilderness area designated 
     under section 102, and shall submit to Congress 
     recommendations as to whether any valid or patented claims 
     should be acquired by the United States, including the 
     estimated acquisition costs of such claims, and a discussion 
     of the environmental consequences of the extraction of 
     minerals from these lands.


                    filing of maps and descriptions

       Sec. 107. As soon as practicable after enactment of section 
     102, a map and a legal description on each wilderness area 
     designated under this title shall be filed by the Secretary 
     concerned with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives, and each such map and description 
     shall have the same force and effect as if included in this 
     title, except that the Secretary may correct clerical and 
     typographical errors in each such legal description and map. 
     Each such map and legal description shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Director 
     of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, 
     or the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture, as is appropriate.


                           wilderness review

       Sec. 108. (a) The Congress hereby finds and directs that 
     except for those areas provided for in subsection (b), the 
     public lands in the California Desert Conservation Area, 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management, not designated as 
     wilderness or wilderness study areas by this Act, have been 
     adequately studied for wilderness designation pursuant to 
     section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (90 Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1782), and are no longer 
     subject to the requirements of section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 pertaining to the 
     management of wilderness study areas in a manner that does 
     not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as 
     wilderness.
       (b) The following areas shall continue to be subject to the 
     requirements of section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, pertaining to the management of 
     wilderness study areas in a manner that does not impair the 
     suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness:
       (1) Certain lands which comprise approximately sixty-one 
     thousand three hundred and twenty acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``Avawatz Mountains Wilderness--
     Proposed'', dated May 1991.
       (2) Certain lands which comprise approximately eighty 
     thousand four hundred and thirty acres, as generally depicted 
     on two maps entitled ``Soda Mountains Wilderness--Proposed 
     1'', dated May 1991, and ``Soda Mountains Wilderness--
     Proposed 2'', dated January 1989.
       (3) Certain lands which compromise approximately twenty-
     three thousand two hundred and fifty acres, as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``South Avawatz Mountains--
     Proposed'', dated May 1991.
       (4) Certain lands which comprise approximately eight 
     thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Great Falls Basin Wilderness--Proposed'', dated 
     February 1986.
       (c) Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal lands 
     referred to in subsection (b) are hereby withdrawn from all 
     forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public 
     land laws; from location, entry, and patent under the United 
     States mining laws; and from disposition under all laws 
     pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral 
     materials, and all amendments thereto, and shall be 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782).


                  designation of wilderness study area

       Sec. 109. In furtherance of the provisions of the 
     Wilderness Act, certain public lands in the California Desert 
     Conservation Area of the Bureau of Land Management which 
     comprise eleven thousand two hundred acres as generally 
     depicted on a map entitled ``White Mountains Wilderness Study 
     Area--Proposed'', dated May 1991, are hereby designated the 
     White Mountains Wilderness Study Area and shall be 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976.


                           suitability report

       Sec. 110. The Secretary is required, ten years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, to report to Congress on 
     current and planned exploration, development or mining 
     activities on, and suitability for future wilderness 
     designation of, the lands as generally depicted on maps 
     entitled ``Surprise Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'', ``Middle 
     Park Canyon Wilderness--Proposed'', and ``Death Valley 
     National Park Boundary and Wilderness 15'', dated September 
     1991 and a map entitled ``Manly Peak Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     dated October 1991.


 wilderness designation and management in the national wildlife refuge 
                                 system

       Sec. 111. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act, the following lands are hereby designated as 
     wilderness and therefore, as components of the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Certain lands in the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, 
     California, which comprise approximately three thousand one 
     hundred and ninety-five acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Havasu Wilderness--Proposed'', and dated October 
     1991, and which shall be known as the Havasu Wilderness.
       (2) Certain lands in the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, 
     California, which comprise approximately five thousand eight 
     hundred and thirty-six acres, as generally depicted on two 
     maps entitled ``Imperial Refuge Wilderness--Proposed 1'' and 
     ``Imperial Refuge Wilderness--Proposed 2'', and dated October 
     1991, and which shall be known as the Imperial Refuge 
     Wilderness.
       (b) Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness areas 
     designated under this section shall be administered by the 
     Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness 
     Act governing areas designated by that Act as wilderness, 
     except that any reference in such provisions to the effective 
     date of the Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of this 
     Act and any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) As soon as practicable after enactment of this section, 
     the Secretary shall file a map and a legal description of 
     each wilderness area designated under this section with the 
     Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate and Natural Resources and 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of 
     Representatives. Such map and description shall have the same 
     force and effect as if included in this Act, except that 
     correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal 
     description and map may be made. Such map and legal 
     description shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the Office of the Director, United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Thomas of California: On page 6, 
     delete lines 13 through 22 and insert the following in lieu 
     thereof: ``(1) Certain lands in the California Desert 
     Conservation Area, the Bureau of Land Management which 
     comprise approximately seventy-four thousand two hundred and 
     fifty acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled `Argus 
     Range Wilderness--Proposed 1', dated May 1991, and two maps 
     entitled `Argus Range Wilderness--Proposed 2', dated January 
     1989, and Argus Range Wilderness--Proposed 3', dated May 
     1994, and which shall be known as the Argus Range 
     Wilderness.''

  (Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is both a substantive 
discussion and perhaps an illustrative and graphic one of the process 
that we are operating under.
  The substance is there is an exciting new technology by which we will 
be able to recharge satellites' batteries using a laser from Earth. As 
most of us know, those batteries on satellites now need panels to soak 
up the solar light to power the batteries. They are very heavy. It is a 
load that has to be sent into space. The idea is that you would need 
smaller batteries because you would be powering them by a laser beam 
from Earth. It also means you could possibly move to electron or ion 
electric motors for thrust to the adjuster rockets, it could save as 
much as $72,000 per pound in terms of thrust lift capability.
  It is a technology that has a chance of being perfected in the 
California desert. The Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake is 
obviously an ideal location because of the number of days a year it is 
clear--over 260. In addition to that, there is a functioning geothermal 
site on the base that not only supplies the power for the base, but has 
excess power currently going into the Pacific Gas & Electric power grid 
in that area. So we have a source of power and an emerging technology.
  The only problem is as we examined the desert bill, and to give you 
an idea of the scale of the discussion, this piece of blue paper is 1 
mile. The entire discussion has been the question of the deletion of 1 
square mile from wilderness.
  This is the Naval Weapons Center current boundary. This is the 
proposed wilderness in which this intrusion would not be wilderness. 
This area would be wilderness. Once again, the interlocking 
relationship between wilderness and non-wilderness.
  The only problem is, the bill, as it was written, would provide 
access road to the site location, proposed site location, along a 
2,000-plus-foot ridge, when if we did a 1 square mile deletion, they 
could run a road through a wash which had less than an 800-foot 
elevation shift through the entire area.
  It made perfect sense to me. On May 2, I wrote a letter to the author 
of the bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], indicating the 
facts and the requested amendment. I never got a reply. I thought I was 
following the procedure that was appropriate.
  That is why, on May 16, I offered an amendment to the bill to in fact 
delete 1 square mile.
  Following the filing of the amendment, I waited, and it was 10 days 
before we were able to negotiate a discussion about the possibility of 
doing something other than deleting the 1 square mile.
  The original counter offer from the staff on the committee was that 
we will allow the opportunity over a 5-year period. We are talking 
about an emerging 21st century technology, which is in its infant 
stages. We are dealing with the development of a new type of laser with 
a new type of energy source combined with a new type of satellite. And 
they said a 5-year window is what you are going to get.
  We countered with a 25-year window, which was, after all, in the 
original bill that was in the other body by the Senator from California 
[Mrs. Feinstein], because that is what they said was going to be 
available for grazing rights. It seemed to us that if cattle and 
grazing rights had a 25-year window, that emerging 21st century 
technology ought to have the same window.
  That, of course, was not acceptable.
  On June 9, we had a second redraft of the proposal which then put a 
15-year window into the structure. The problem was that along with the 
15-year window came the language that the road route had to be 
necessary.

  Well, we all know the ability to interpret necessary, and it seemed 
to me I was getting 15 years, and you may get the runaround forever on 
the definition of necessary. That entered into additional negotiations, 
and we are now into June, in which I was able to get the suggestion 
that you change necessary to desirable, because then, obviously, if you 
have to expend enormous sums of money building a road along a ridge, 
verses when less than half a mile away there is a route for millions of 
dollars less.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. If you are going to have to build a road 
along a ridge, when less than half a mile away was a route that would 
save the taxpayers an enormous amount of money, then I would prefer 
desirable, rather than necessary. The counter offer was, yes, you can 
have desirable but you have to add their language ``and such road by 
located so as to have the minimum practical impact on wilderness 
values.''
  Now they gave me desirable, but it has to have minimal impact. It is 
entirely possible the ridge route, which was the unacceptable route, 
may be the one with the desirable impact. On the one hand they give you 
15 years, and on the other they take it away with new language that had 
to be put in there. The dance continued.
  I said why is it you cannot understand that all I wanted is the 
opportunity to save taxpayers money in building a road in an area less 
than 1 square mile? My original amendment was to simply delete the 1 
square mile. The deletion of even 1 square mile produced this ongoing 
marathon language dance to try to indicate that they would hold in 
front of me a promise that I could not tell people honestly that I 
could deliver. Deleting the 1 square mile was certainly way to do it.
  We have now come to the point where in the negotiations, the language 
is desirable. Not necessary, but desirable. Desirable so that the 
taxpayers could save money. And the closing sentence is: ``Now, so far 
as practicable any such road shall be aligned in a manner that takes 
into account the desirability of minimizing adverse impacts on 
wilderness values.'' Not that it was necessary or absolutely required, 
but so far as practicable.
  Over a month of waltzing with language about 1 square mile, which is, 
using our mileage gauge, less than 1 mile away from an area that is 
non-wilderness to begin with is exempted from day one, is a graphic 
example of the kind of relationship Members who represent the area in 
this bill have to carry on in a working relationship.

                              {time}  1050

  Remember, my initial discussion with the author of the bill was left 
unresponded to, an ongoing discussion over word games, which frankly I 
thought was a bit much, to preserve the possibility for a 21st century 
technology, up until just 1 hours before the beginning of the bill on 
the floor of the House. This is as graphic an example as I can give the 
Members of the kind of working relationship that has gone on in this 
institution. It is the area I represent, and I resent the way in which 
I have been treated.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is going to be an extended discussion, probably 
over several days, regarding this desert wilderness and park bill. 
Fundamental to the discussion that we are going to have relative to the 
amendments that will be before us today is for people of the House to 
understand exactly what has taken place here on the part of the 
committee and the way it has been dealing with Members who are elected 
to represent this vast territory.
  Mr. Chairman, there are four Members of the House who represent the 
California desert. All of them happen to be Republican. All of them are 
very interested in the desert, having represented it for years and 
spending much of their lives in the region. Yet it is very, very 
apparent to me as a Representative of the region that those Members 
have not just been almost entirely ignored, they have been arbitrarily 
rolled over by this committee.
  I said earlier in our discussions that it is reflective of the 
thought that in this process, often power does corrupt, but absolute 
power corrupts absolutely.
  Many years ago, approximately 20 years ago, the House addressed 
itself first to the question of desert wilderness and eventual park 
development in this region. The House recognized it to be a very 
complex subject, a subject of critical interest to our national 
defense, a subject that was very important in terms of the natural 
resources available to the country's interest, a subject that at least 
deserved the attention of those who have an understanding of all of the 
mix of this complexity. So, the House passed what is known as FLPMA, 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act which essentially says the 
complexity is important enough for the country to address. We are going 
to create a commission that will review this in great depth and make 
recommendations to the House.
  Mr. Chairman, that commission was formed by House action in 1976. It 
was made up of people who represented all of the interests: The miners, 
grazers, the environmentalists, all citizens who care about the desert. 
They met for several years. There were some 40,000 individual comments.
  Near the end of the process, a very small group of people, people 
that I can only describe as elite environmentalists, decided they were 
opposed to the work of this public commission, and so going back, kind 
of like throwing mud at the wall, they took all of their wish list in 
terms of future park and wilderness and put it into a bill. For all 
intents and purposes, this legislation--H.R. 518--is a reflection of 
that arbitrary action.
  Indeed, this amendment today, Mr. Chairman, represents the extremes 
to which those extreme environmentalists have gone. We are talking 
about, out of over 7 million acres proposed in this bill for park and/
or wilderness, considering only 640 acres to be placed in wilderness 
study area status.
  Let me share with the Members the significance of this arbitrariness. 
SELENE is the Greek word for moon, an acronym for space laser electric 
energy. The purpose of SELENE, a National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration program, is to develop and test and then provide the 
technology for beaming laser energy through the atmosphere to high 
altitude space-borne vehicles, satellites, lunar facilities, and other 
extraterrestrial objects. I happen to serve as the ranking member of 
the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations that deals with 
NASA programs. I know of the significance of this effort to not just 
our national defense, but indeed, the edges of our technology.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has indicated, this 
location is an ideal location for our going forward with this 
technology. The SELENE Program calls for an array of six ground 
stations that would provide nearly complete global coverage of space. 
The first site is sited for the Naval Weapons Station at China Lake, 
CA, an area that has involved this sort of activity for many, many 
years. Remember, 640 acres is what this is about.
  Arbitrarily this committee played games with the author of this 
amendment, who happens for many years to have lived in, loves, 
understands, and represents the desert. It is very important for us to 
know that what we are about here is not just fighting for the sake of 
fighting. There is not a Member of this body, not a Member, Democrat or 
Republican alike, who would not be outraged if they were treated like 
this in terms of their district, as this committee has arbitrarily 
rolled over those of us who represent the desert.
  Indeed, it is incredible to me that we could go forward in this 
fashion and allow a little outside group to dominate the debate within 
the committee in such a fashion, and in turn, the interests that are 
truly American interests, as well as the interests of the people.
  Indeed, the very thought that a committee would act in this fashion 
ought to be unacceptable to the entire House. In the years I have been 
here, I have never seen this process so tainted.
  In the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, where I have 
served in the past, we have a bipartisan environment; indeed, in the 
Committee on Appropriations, none of this extreme arbitrary action: No 
consultation of significance with any of those four Members of this 
body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  (By unanimous consent (at his own request) Mr. Lewis of California 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is totally unacceptable, 
and I would hope the Democrats of the House would think ``How would I 
react if this chairman or this committee treated me this way?''
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would simply ask my colleague a question. As we look at this map my 
colleague from Bakersfield has in the well, we are talking about a 7 
million acre plan here.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Correct.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield further, at the same time we 
are seriously jeopardizing the national security interests of this 
country and the space program over a minor part of that, a total of 640 
acres, is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
how in the world could the committee have done this without having 
adequate consultation with the Committee on Armed Services and others 
who are very involved in national security questions?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly cannot begin to answer that 
question. They will suggest that there has been some consultation here 
or there.
  The gentleman in the well is a gentleman who is the author of this 
amendment because he represents the territory and knows it very well. I 
would appreciate it if he would use the balance of my time, the 
additional time I have asked for, to explain some of those details.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an emerging 
technology. As the Navy began looking at sites where they could locate 
the SELENE with the understanding of laser sight lines and energy 
resources, this area adjacent to the Naval Weapons Center was found to 
be appropriate.
  As we began examining, and as you might imagine, this is a very, very 
large scaled map of only several square miles, and when we look at most 
of the maps provided by the Sierra Club or other groups that people 
have relied on, you tend not to get this kind of scale in your general 
examination.
  We have found, however, that when we went to the topographical lines, 
which show us elevations, the only available route for the Navy was 
along a ridge route, which was an extremely expensive way to go. 
Members need to understand if this technology is perfected the Navy 
will build the road. They will build it either along the ridge, at an 
expense of millions of dollars beyond what it would have been for the 
taxpayers, and they would have preferred to have gone through the wash 
area, so I notified the committee, I notified the author, that this was 
in fact a problem we discovered. I did it in a timely fashion, prior to 
the consideration of the bill's final passage in the committee, and 
this was not considered. It was not brought up.
  I suggested to the author in the letter, and I will include this in 
the Record, that the letter be made part of the Record to examine this 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Redlands, 
CA, be given 3 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Which gentleman from California?
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from Redlands, CA. There is only one 
gentleman from Redlands, CA, here, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] recognizes that. I am not sure that the 
chairman of the committee understands that, but I do appreciate it.
  (By unanimous consent, and at the request of Mr. Dreier, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue 
to yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. The point was, Mr. Chairman, I went what I 
thought was the appropriate pattern of notifying the committee that 
this was a concern. I got no response back.
  That is the reason why I introduced the amendment to delete the one 
square mile, only for the purposes of providing an option for the route 
of the road and saving the taxpayers money. There ensued this waltz of 
amendment language basically trying to get me to accept language which 
in fact did not do what I wanted to do in the first place.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I might ask my 
friend a question?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to ask my friend, we have the saline project 
which is an emerging technology. If we in fact do not pass the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Bakersfield, CA, 
what happens to the saline program?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. It will go forward. The road will be built 
along the access structure that was provided, which will mean taxpayers 
will be spending millions of dollars more than they would have if we 
had not come to an accommodation on 1 square mile of area that was 
otherwise to be classified as wilderness, which I might point out 
again, once again, is exactly abutted with areas that were excluded 
from the beginning from wilderness. I am not talking about pulling a 
pristine heart out of a big chunk of wilderness. I am talking about an 
area adjacent to the Naval Weapons Center and adjacent to areas that 
had always been designated nonwilderness. I was simply looking at a 
corner of access to save the taxpayers money.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] testified 
before the subcommittee on the issue of the California desert. The 
gentleman at that time was not aware apparently of this particular 
emerging need and problem, is that correct?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Yes, more than several years ago I 
testified. I just said, perhaps the gentleman was not on the floor at 
the time, but I said it became apparent to us when we examined the 
final iteration of the maps.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I wrote a letter on May 2 prior to the 
final consideration of the committee.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, did the 
gentleman write a letter to the subcommittee chairman or the chairman 
of the committee?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I wrote a letter to the author of the bill.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am very happy to yield to my colleague, 
the gentleman from California, to explain why he did not respond to the 
letter.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the letter arrived in my office the night 
before the markup in the subcommittee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is only 1 acre out of 7 
million. It was the night before the subcommittee's markup.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, there 
was no amendment offered in the subcommittee or the full committee 
consideration of it. I think the thing is that we have obviously tried 
to make an effort here to accommodate the concerns of the gentleman. I 
understand the chairman has a second degree amendment which will 
address this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dreier, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the chairman of the 
subcommittee was not on the floor when I indicated to him that this was 
something that came up when we got to maps that more precisely allowed 
us to more fully understand where the area was. I wrote a letter to the 
author of the bill on May 2 and did not get a response.

  The first paragraph says, ``It is my understanding that the Natural 
Resources Committee will be marking up your California desert 
legislation, H.R. 518, on May 4, 1994. I would like to take this 
opportunity to request that you consider offering an amendment to this 
bill on this subject that is brought before the committee.''
  Mr. Chairman, I then go into an extensive explanation of why the 
amendment is needed. I got no response on that letter. I tried to 
follow the process. I introduced the amendment on May 16. I do not 
believe the gentleman was here when I reiterated that on May 25, there 
was a proposal which was unacceptable. On May 26, we countered with 
what we thought we wanted to do. On June 2, there was a reoffer which 
was unacceptable. On June 9 there was another counter. Later on June 9 
there was a counter back, and today we have had two exchanges along the 
way over less than 1 square mile to try to save the taxpayers a couple 
of million dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman wants to enlarge discussion to the 
more than 7 million acres that are in the bill itself, this can be 
magnified just as this map was to discover all kinds of problems like 
this. I discovered this problem in a timely fashion, I thought I had 
offered a possible solution, and we have gone through all of this 
rigamarole to the point that we are here today.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the only point I tried to make, in trying to 
point out the ability to save the taxpayers millions of dollars by 
offering an alternate route. What I got was language back which denied 
me, although it looked like I had the ability to offer that as an 
alternate route, that denied me the ability to do it.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California, 
I flew this area with the Bureau of Land Management for a number of 
days, and I think I know the location. But would the gentleman explain 
the terrain involved in the 1 acre under discussion and what it might 
entail relative to the border as it now exists?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, I will tell the gentleman it is not 1 acre, it is 1 square 
mile, 640 acres, it represents the 1 square mile area that we want to 
delete out of the wilderness.
  Once again, it is adjacent to an area that is not and never has been 
designated as wilderness. It is, as the gentleman knows, in that area 
which is very arid desert that has a lot of erosion that has gone on 
over the years, natural erosion, and that there are peaks and valleys, 
there are gullies that are dry washes, and that within a hundred yards 
of two points, there is an elevation change of 1,500 feet, sometimes 
2,000 feet.
  The problem was that the area that had been designated as access for 
the taxpayers to build a road has an average elevation of over 2,500 
feet.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. McCandless, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Riverside, CA.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the area adjacent to it has an average elevation of 800 feet 
in relation to the saline project. There are millions of dollars saved 
by this little finger being excluded.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, what we have is a cut through an area 
that offers drainage from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. It is a dry wash in the vernacular of desert 
terminology. There is nothing in the way of pristineness about it, the 
acre in question. It is simply a matter of geography and the ability to 
reach the site in question?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. It is geography. But I also pointed out in 
the letter and to the folks on the committee that the amendment did not 
block in any way the application of the Endangered Species Act or other 
laws. I just wanted to keep the option open for building a road in an 
area that would save the taxpayers money. There was no game-playing on 
my part.

  I thought it was a simple addition because of a failure, frankly, to 
examine in greater detail, the area.
  It only came to my attention, no question, at the 11th hour. That is 
why there is only the 1 square mile. I did not offer 100 square miles, 
I did not offer an area adjacent to the Naval Weapons Center running 
over several other areas that the road could be built. I talked about 1 
square mile.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Let us go back to the terrain, if the gentleman will 
permit.
  If we build the road on the area in question, being proposed by the 
committee, and we are building this road at a higher elevation, is that 
my understanding?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. It is to preserve the option of building it 
along several routes. If we do not have the amendment, there is only 
one route.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. That one route would then be at a higher elevation?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Which would then be a paved road.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Which would create an additional erosion problem at 
the lower elevations.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. In all likelihood. When it rains in the 
desert, it rains hard, and if it rains on that pavement, it will run 
off and it will run off down a slope which will cause greater erosion.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, what we have here, then, is actually 
something that will create greater erosion to the area in question than 
we would do with what is being recommended by the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is the dialog we have 
had all along. The fact is they wrote the bill, it was in it and they 
were not going to let it come out all along no matter what. It was the 
question of losing 1 square mile, not necessarily where it was, it was 
the loss of 1 square mile. Most of the discussions I have had with 
these folks is over bulk acreage. No one objected to certain sites 
which everyone agreed were appropriate wilderness areas. It is this 
mass grab for bulk acreage that is so difficult for someone like myself 
to understand who wants to preserve areas that clearly should be 
preserved. It just came home to me in trying to deal with 1 square 
mile. They would not give language which would allow it to occur.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and closing 
my remarks regarding this amendment, it is very obvious that there are 
two points to be made here:
  First to the Members of the House, if this were their district, how 
would they react to this treatment that is so arbitrary and capricious? 
First, our national defense is involved. The cutting edge of our 
technology is involved. I deal daily with NASA's programs, and this is 
absolutely ludicrous treatment of that part of the process. Above and 
beyond that, a Member's district who knows it best.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to seriously consider how they 
would react to this kind of arbitrary treatment.


Amendment Offered by Mr. MILLER of California to the Amendment Offered 
                      by Mr. THOMAS of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Thomas of California: Revise the 
     amendment to read as follows:
       On page 6, line 24, after the period add the following:
       If at any time within 15 years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act the Secretary of the Navy notifies the Secretary 
     of the Interior that permission has been granted to use lands 
     within the area of the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center 
     for installation of a space energy laser facility, and that 
     establishment of a right-of-way across lands within the Argus 
     Range Wilderness is desirable in order to facilitate access 
     to the lands to be used for such facility, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, may grant a right-of-way for, and 
     authorize construction of, a road to be used solely for that 
     purpose across such lands, notwithstanding the designation of 
     such lands as wilderness. So far as practicable, any such 
     road shall be aligned in a manner that takes into account the 
     desirability of minimizing adverse impacts on wilderness 
     values.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. 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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, what we have been treated to 
here over the last 20 to 30 minutes is a discussion between the Members 
on the other side of the aisle about an amendment that the committee 
has agreed to accept. When the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
came to me with this amendment, I believe after Committee on Rules, I 
said that we would take care of it, that we would work it out, and, in 
fact, we have worked it out.
  When the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] came to me this 
morning and said that he thought the staffs were being somewhat 
nitpicking, I said, ``Let me take a look at the language, we will work 
it out,'' and we have, in fact, worked it out. But rather than discuss 
this amendment on its merits and the need to accept it and to take care 
of the problem, they have chosen to try to use this amendment to 
stigmatize the presentation of this bill and the process by which this 
bill has been brought to the floor.

                              {time}  1110

  Now, the Members of the House were treated to the same debate and 
discussion during the consideration of the rule, and at that time the 
suggestion was that somehow the Committee on Natural Resources and its 
chairman, me, were somehow steamrolling the Members from this area of 
which this bill is so important to and in fact it is.
  At that time I relayed to Members of the House that none of these 
Members has ever asked me for a meeting, a discussion, or any other 
type of dialog on this legislation or amendments thereto. That stands 
true as we stand here today.
  It may be very important to them, but apparently not important enough 
to come and to talk to me about their concerns or their problems. That 
has not happened.
  So let us not try to use this amendment to stigmatize a process that 
has been very open during these deliberations.
  This amendment apparently was known at the subcommittee and was not 
offered at the subcommittee. This amendment was known at the full 
committee and was not offered at the full committee, where each and 
every member of the committee was entitled to offer any amendment they 
sought.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who spoke on behalf of 
this amendment, was present during the consideration of this bill in 
that committee, and the amendment was not offered.
  So I appreciate what is going on here to try to stigmatize the bill, 
because they have not been able to carry the day on the merits of the 
legislation and the protection of the California desert that is 
ovewhelmighly desired by the citizens of California, a bill that has 
passed the Senate by 69 Senators voting for it and, I believe, 29 
voting against it, a rule that passed overwhelmingly here. This has 
been, in fact, an open process.
  The Committee on Natural Resources at each and every markup protects 
each and every member of that committee with the right to offer those 
amendments. That is the way we run the committee, and that is the way 
it should be run for the committee, for the benefit of all Members, be 
they majority or minority. The same is true with respect to the 
consideration of this bill on the floor.
  We went to the Committee on Rules, and we asked for an open rule, as 
we have, I believe, each and every time that we have come to the floor. 
We have been in request of an open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. When I am done; when I am done. I sat here 
and let the gentlemen have their debate, and their argument, and now it 
is my time on the amendment. So the fact is that the record is replete 
that this has been an open process, and that is the way it will 
continue today as we consider through the amendments.
  We have had negotiations over this amendment. We have had 
negotiations on other amendments, and that is the legislative process, 
and the fact is it has worked out in that vein.
  So I would hope that the Members who are listening to this debate 
would understand that is how this bill has been considered, that is how 
each and every bill was considered in the Committee on Natural 
Resources, no matter how complex the bill or how simple. Members are 
entitled to have their say, to get their vote, to get a rollcall, 
however, in fact, they desired.
  Now, those who were not on the committee apparently think they know a 
lot more about the committee than the members of the committee, but 
that is how this committee is run, and that is why we continue to come 
to the floor and ask for open rules, because, in fact, you cannot 
protect us from anything that would not be considered in the committee, 
because that is the basis on which we consider legislation in our 
committee.
  So I would hope that we would, rather than trying to dredge up an old 
stigmatizing of the committee, that was attempted during the discussion 
of the rule, that we would get on with the discussion of the amendments 
and get to votes if that is required, to work them out if we can, and 
get on with the consideration of the legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would simply like to clarify this issue of open rules.
  You know, I have regularly praised my friend from Martinez, who has 
come before the Committee on Rules and requested open rules. In fact, I 
enjoy calling him ``Mr. Open Rule.'' But the fact of the matter is the 
preprinting requirement which was imposed under this rule, does, in 
fact, deny Members from having the opportunity to offer amendments 
under the standard open amending process. I think the Record should 
show that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows 
that, in fact, each and every Member of this House was entitled to 
offer amendments. There was no preclusion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, each and every Member was 
entitled to offer those amendments. We made our case for preprinting of 
the amendments because of this very exact point that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] stands there with the map. We needed to know 
the impact of the amendments on the land base which is the subject of 
this legislation. We are able to go to the map and look at this.
  In this case, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] makes a case 
that is far more expensive if you have to build a road through the 
mountains.
  At the same time we want to also make sure that, you know, we have 
problems with this and concerns with this bill and issues that have 
been raised all along the boundaries, because the boundaries have to be 
drawn somewhere. So that was the purpose of preprinting, not to 
preclude Members' rights to offer amendments. We have some 60 
amendments, I think, that were offered.
  Mr. DREIER. And yet there was a similar situation in Montana but 
there was no preprinting requirement.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my time. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will be recognized for debate only by the 
Chair.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just wish the gentlemen 
would show some of the courtesy that they complain so hard about. We 
have rules of debate in this House. Nobody is going to preclude you. 
You will be yielded to. You do not have to interrupt the gentleman from 
California. We can go along in regular order, and we can hash this out, 
and we can have our votes, and you will win and lose.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] came here and said he had 
a time problem. He wanted to know if I was going to recognize members 
of the committee first. I said, ``Bill, go ahead and offer your 
amendment. You have got to go to the Ways and Means Committee. You have 
the trade representative over there. Fine, go ahead.''
  This is a wonderful response to that kind of courtesy, to that kind 
of deference. But we have come to expect it from the other side.
  The fact is we will shortly, when this debate ends, we will accept 
the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] as modified 
by my amendment, which will allow the road to go through, if necessary, 
if the technology proves itself out, and in fact this land based is 
needed, so that is what has been going on here.
  At some point I would hope we would vote on the amendment to the 
amendment as perfected.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California oftentimes gets on a 
roll, and that I think he properly criticizes the fervor of some 
Members in terms of interrupting him, and then in the next breath he 
criticizes this gentleman from California because I refused to deny or 
talk other Members out of their right to strike the last word and have 
5 minutes.
  I did not go beyond any more than the gentleman went beyond in his 
time limit.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, I have not criticized anybody.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. No? You clearly left the inference that I 
wanted to get on here and get out of here, and then through subterfuge 
wanted to spend the rest of the time here. The rest of the time, after 
my initial statement, was not of my doing.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I am trying to point out we have not tried 
to prejudice Members' presentations of the amendment. That was not a 
characterization of what followed.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Reclaiming my time, if you will check what 
you said in the Congressional Record----
  Mr. MILLER of California. I know what I said.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. You expected that kind of behavior from 
this side of the aisle, clearly indicating, when I came to you and 
asked if I could go first, you said the chairman of the subcommittee 
had en bloc amendments. I said if he shows up at the beginning of the 
process, certainly, let him go first. I would like to try to be 
accommodated. He did not make it here.
  Mr. MILLER of California. You were accommodated.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. He did not make it here. I was 
accommodated. I used my time, and then the chairman goes ahead, and 
this is typical of the way in which you turn things. The chairman goes 
ahead and then, in inference, accuses me of sandbagging the operation.
  And the only way I could have not had this extended was to cut off 
Members who, under the rules of the House, have every right to carry on 
debate under the 5-minute rule. That is all I want to point out.
  Mr. MILLER of California. You have really lost the sun in this 
debate. You have absolutely lost the sun; if that is your 
characterization, then your vision is badly distorted.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I have the time. I thought he said he 
wanted to make sure the rules were honored, and here clearly he 
violates the rules that he wants to use to stop us. That is an example 
of the kind of duplicity that goes on around here. You cannot have it 
both ways. Either you want this side to honor the rules, then your side 
has to honor the rules. You use that as an argument to silence the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and then you go ahead after I 
said I reclaim my time yet you continue talking, because you believe 
you have the right not to have to follow the rules, and I resent the 
kind of double standard that you use on the floor all the time.
  All I wanted to do was point out that a simple amendment offered 
timely to the author of the bill was not considered. I offered an 
amendment which solved the problem.

                              {time}  1120

  I offered an amendment which solved the problem. We went through six 
alliterations of a change. And somebody who was not as stubborn as I 
was would have given up. What we finally did at the 11th hour was beat 
you back to a minimally acceptable language because frankly if you did 
not want to go to the one-square mile question of an amendment, I was 
willing to do that and you knew it and so I got the language that was 
minimally acceptable. And that is what has been done on every square 
mile in this desert bill. Your behavior on the floor clearly indicates, 
and the amendment process here clearly indicates, what we have had to 
go through and, frankly, this gentleman from California resents it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to the 
amendment and move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the issue before us in terms of the one-
square mile road is of some concern. The basis for some of the 
negotiations, I might say, are directly related to the military 
withdrawal of China Lake which has been a long-time military 
reservation. The issue in the negotiations went on eliminated from 
perpetuity to a 15-year time period exactly matches those of what we 
are advocating as the House position in terms of the Engle pact and the 
withdrawals we have to renew every 15 years. That is the basis of the 
compromise.
  Furthermore, this, of course, is a speculative project. I know some 
of my colleagues are convinced of the space-age technology and so 
forth, think that this is and they are absolutely convinced that this 
is going to become a reality. I do not know as much about it as some of 
the Members apparently who are present who obviously were trying to 
work in a fashion that will leave a window of opportunity so that if 
this goes forward the technology could be developed on such public land 
area.
  I might further say that one square mile area, through a wilderness 
area, especially a road with the attendant type of activities that go 
on on roads is has a fairly significant impact on a much broader area 
than just the one-mile square area. As the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] well knows, who has worked on wilderness with this 
gentleman before, and on other land use questions, roads have a 
significant impact in terms of the delivery and access to individuals.

  So the question about this really impacts a whole wilderness area, an 
area that, of course, is in a natural state now. Many of us know, and I 
know many of the Members on the other side, too, share the view that 
these wildernesses are not wasteland, that they are not lands that are 
worthless but are sensitive and should receive our care. So the concern 
and care with which we approach this--this gentleman was not aware of 
the gentleman's amendment about which he said he sent a letter. I saw 
the letter--and he is correct--to Mr. Lehman. But we were not contacted 
and it was not offered. So I was not aware until it was printed in the 
Record. So I instructed staff, along with Chairman Miller's instruction 
to work on the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Perhaps 
the gentleman was not here when I pointed out that the one-square mile 
that was suggested for deletion was directly adjacent to a corridor 
that abuts the Naval Weapons Center which is nonwilderness and that a 
significant finger to carve out a mine, is adjacent to the other side 
of the one-square mile.
  So the comments about that I think, need to be looked at in light of 
the map. Finally, the gentleman said 15 years in the amendment is the 
appropriate number because of other things that you have done. If that 
is the case, why was not the 15 years offered originally? Why did your 
staff come back with a 5-year window?
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, I think the concern was to eliminate, 
if there is so much certainty with regard to this, why was not 5 years 
enough? In other words, once the execution of this was to taken place, 
the window that is open here, once the execution takes place then the 
road would, of course, be used, or I assume this site would be used in 
perpetuity. So that is the basis of the decision. We thought the 
project was--the concern is how imminent is the project? Of course, 
that is the degree of confidence that the gentleman apparently did not 
have with 5 years, and it is 15 years now in the compromise. But the 15 
years obviously is the China Lake situation, so there is some symmetry 
here.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The original offer was 5 years.
  Mr. VENTO. I understand that.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Then the counter was 15. But the 15 years 
then was accompanied by language which made it an absolute necessity or 
it would not be approved. So it was not just the 15-year addition. It 
was additional language which limited the options and then there was a 
discussion over what is necessary. We got it too desirable. You then 
came with another sentence which made it impossible for the phrase 
desirable to work.
  So the gentleman's characterization that we simply came back with 15 
years is not borne out by all the facts as between the staffs. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. VENTO. The gentleman is welcome to the time.
  The point with regard to the 15 years I did not characterize with the 
other language, but I do not agree with the gentleman's interpretation 
of the argument over ``necessary'' and or ``desirable'' in terms of 
what the impact would have been. The concern, of course, is that we 
wanted to go forward. I am supporting the chairman's amendment to the 
amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and would just 
suggest that this is a workable, a reasonable alternative in terms of 
addressing this particular issue. The other ancillary suggestions, of 
course, are something that came up late, was not offered in committee 
and, therefore, we are trying to work it out here on the floor today 
and I hope that that would be accomplished.
  I might say too the gentleman from California has repeatedly stated 
that the gentleman from Minnesota was not here when he conducted his 
debate. This gentleman has been here throughout the debate. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has been here throughout the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lewis of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for securing this time for me.
  Mr. Chairman, this gentleman from Minnesota has been here throughout 
the debate on the matter, although I did arrive after the amendment was 
read and entered into the Record. I did hear the entire explanation of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say the point the gentleman is making is an 
important point. This is precisely the point that caused these Members 
who represent the desert to object so strenuously to the fact that the 
chairman of the full committee, the night before the full committee 
markup brought in a substitute that was his substitute without benefit 
of these Members seeing it beforehand. Rather than having the 
subcommittee deal with complex details like this, he chose to 
arbitrarily deal with it in the full committee.
  I would submit the least that could have happened with 14 new Members 
on your committee, that you could have had a subcommittee hearings on 
this process during this session of the Congress.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, the subcommittee, as the gentleman 
knows--and he testified before the subcommittee--did have a hearing on 
the California Desert bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Not on the substitute.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would restrain, I 
would be happy to yield as time permits.
  The point is that the procedure that was followed here is the usual 
procedure in the committee. Although there is no requirement to submit 
amendments of substitutes that are substantive, are very significant 
changes, as the gentleman is aware, there is a practice of trying to 
submit those to the minority and to the majority Members the day 
before, as early as possible. Obviously, with a complex bill that is 
sometimes late. But there is no requirement.
  Indeed, of course, many of the amendments being offered today, are on 
the day of the markup were not submitted.
  If the gentleman will withhold, I will yield as time permits. I would 
ask for additional time myself if necessary. But the point is there is 
nothing unusual about this process. It is difficult for Members, I 
realize it is difficult to keep up with all the issues that we have 
before us, especially if the Member is not on the committee. But this 
process is the usual process, it is an open process and it is a 
difficult process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must say that you are clearly making my very point about the way 
the committee does operate. It is suggested that the committee often 
operates in this fashion, submitting substitutes at the last minute. 
This is a very complex subject, it involves the districts of four 
Members of this House. An entire substitute at the full committee the 
night before, on complex issues like this, surely that might have been 
better handled at the subcommittee level.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, I might say that the Natural Resources 
Committee is one of the most productive committees and produces--works 
on a lot of different proposals that are complex. The types of changes 
included in this substitute, I might add, were very much a mirror of 
what had been introduced by Congressman Lehman in the initial bill, and 
were provisions that had been included in the Senate-passed measure. I 
do not believe that there were very many issues that were not dealt 
with by Members.

                              {time}  1130

  Now I understand for Members to go home and read a couple hundred 
pages of material at night is difficult. I must say that, if I want to 
play the role that I have to play, it is not uncommon occurrence for 
me, or for other Members around here, to do that. I say, ``If you want 
to be a participant in this type of process, this is the sort of 
assignment that we get on a regular basis day in and day out.''
  So, I would just say, ``Furthermore, this bill came up the next day, 
the substitute, all with unanimous consent.''
  Now I am not saying that our Members were happy with the 
circumstances, that they had this load of work and this particular 
prospect facing them. I am just suggesting to my colleagues that this 
is a process in terms of that we have to deal with, and clearly, in 
writing this, these subjects have been dealt with by the committee for 
the last 7 or 8 years. Here on the committee table before us is a whole 
record of hearings, of issues, almost all--I do not know of any that 
had been entirely new. There may be different policy initiatives and 
compromises in here, but all of which, I might say, also went in the 
direction of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] in terms of some 
of the suggestions.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have one very brief 
question.
  In this committee that operates in such a democratic fashion (small 
d; big D perhaps) just how frequently has there been a discharge of a 
measure of this significance in the full committee without a 
subcommittee markup?
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this is not unusual. We 
have done it for any number of proposals before the committee, the 
Columbia Gorge, many others, with the concurrence of the subcommittee 
chairman and the unanimous consent request. This was a unanimous 
consent. Where any Republican or any Democrat could have objected if he 
wanted to take on that particular responsibility.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And I presume the gentleman understands that 
none of the four Members who represent the desert serve on the 
committee.
  Mr. VENTO. I am aware of that, and I think it is regrettable. I wish 
the gentlemen had taken the time and would have the opportunity to do 
so, but admittedly I think there are many Members who are friends of 
the gentleman that do serve on the committee and are associates, and I 
think, as the gentleman even talks to the Members, and that is big D on 
this side, but they would have responded. Maybe not in agreement, but I 
think in fairness.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. The minority accepts 
this. We think it is a good amendment. It adds perfection to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in a generic sense and not with specific 
reference to this bill. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] said 
that there is nothing unusual about this process, and that is true. 
There is nothing unusual about this process except that the whole 
process is unusual in that there is very little comity extended to the 
Members whose districts are affected if their point of view happens to 
be different from that of the elitist majority. I know; I used to be a 
member of the subcommittee. I have cooperated with the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and I have opposed the gentleman from Minnesota.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this House could not 
and would not pass an omnibus national wilderness bill because, if we 
had such a bill, every Member of the House would be affected in the 
manner that the four gentleman from southern California are talking 
about. Everyone would have problems of this sort to be resolved, and 
consequently everyone would vote against it because they would not be 
accommodated in their representative capacity.
  The way we go about passing wilderness legislation in this body is 
generally district by district by district, and it is easy for 
everybody to gang up on one individual Member; in this case, four 
individual Members, because it does not affects us. It only affects 
them.
  I know. I had a wilderness bill, it only affected my district, the 
Irish wilderness bill. I know the gentleman will remember it back in 
1983. The language of the law, as I recall, the enabling act of 1964, 
says that wilderness must be pristine, untrammeled by man, no manmade 
structures. Well, we made wilderness out of this area in my district 
that once had been totally denuded, completely logged. A great forest 
has arisen there again because of good multiuse management by the 
Forest Service, and at this point they wanted to make a wilderness out 
of it. We had manmade ponds in this wilderness area that had been built 
to collect water to be used by the steam engines to haul the logs out. 
There were barbed wire fences all over the place and fallen-down farm 
buildings, but still it was designed a wilderness because it happened 
to be the next best place in Missouri, which produces 94 percent of all 
of the lead produced in the United States, to find lead. It happened to 
be the next best place in the country to look for lead and zinc. I 
realize how unpopular lead and zinc is in this body, but I want to tell 
my colleagues it provides a lot of jobs in Missouri, and it is worth 
about $2 billion to our economy. But the elitist interests wanted to 
shut down this industry and succeeded pretty well. We have got more 
mines closing every day.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that my sense of empathy and comity 
for the gentlemen from southern California has been greatly aroused as 
I listened to this debate. I really believe it would be the better 
practice of the House to listen in the early instance, the first 
instance, to concerns of Members who represent the district in which 
the wilderness is proposed to be located. There are some very serious 
representational rights involved here that I believe should have the 
opportunity to come to the top and to be heard, and I do not believe 
that our process allows for that.
  I understand where the gentleman from California, the chairman of the 
committee, and the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, are coming from. Their point of view happens to be 
different from those of us on the other side of these issues. So, I 
raise the point I do because I think it is instructive for the whole 
House. I say to my colleagues, ``Remember that what is happening here, 
should the Thomas amendment fail, is something that could happen to any 
single one of you if they want to put a wilderness in your district. 
Local interests need to be accommodated.''
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] for having yielded this time to me. Let me just follow up 
briefly with the general defect and flaw of this plan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, we have a problem in 
California right now, and the problem is that the people who live in 
California and the businesses that operate in California, and even the 
Government presence, the Federal Government presence in California, 
senses that we represent absolutism and extremism with respect to the 
heavy hand of Government suppressing any attempt to accommodate either 
people, or business, or even in some cases national security interests, 
and because of that the U-Haul trailers are heading in a one-way stream 
out of California, and it saddens me that we have this situation where 
there is never bipartisanship, there is never cooperation.
  We have 7,000,000 acres that are being proposed in wilderness, and 
yet the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] in whose district this 
640 acres, roughly one ten-thousandth of the land proposed for 
wilderness, is not accommodated when he makes a very compelling 
argument, and I just want to recount for my colleagues, who also have 
lots of good blue-collar constituents who work in the aerospace 
industry, and the high-technology industry, and many of these 
businesses that are leaving California, the fact that we would never 
see this, perhaps, in other States; in Texas for example.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some relatives here from Texas today watching 
these proceedings, and their Democrats would accommodate the 
Republicans, and they would sit down with the people whose districts 
were being affected, and I just want to recount for my friends on the 
other side, because I think it is an important California problem 
because our people have to eat, they have to put food on the table, 
they have to send their kids to college, the words of one of our 
aerospace leaders who made a statement last year: ``I will never build 
another plane in California because of the heavy hand of government.''
  Mr. Chairman, we are seeing this manifestation of this heavy hand of 
government in the treatment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] and his district.

                              {time}  1140

  There is a lot of difference here. I wish we had a relief map here 
which is 3-dimensional where we could see the extreme difficulty of 
trying to build this one access road to get to this very important site 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has described to us in 
this debate. There will be a lot of extra expense, and the committee 
could have accommodated the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and 
they did not. I think that was a tragedy.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 518, the so-called 
California Desert Protection Act.
  The proponents of this bill claim to represent the people of 
California when in fact Californians affected by it support a bill that 
has over 15 years of study behind it, and that is the bill of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and I urge my colleagues to support that bill.
  Under the substitute, 2.1 million acres of wilderness would be 
protected as a result of the studies that include on-the-ground 
inventories, many public meetings, and the completion of environmental 
impact statements and mineral reports on such areas recommended for 
wilderness. Yet the proponents of this bill neglect to tell us about 
that.
  In contrast, H.R. 518 is nothing more than blatant special interest 
legislation that will negatively impact millions of Californians. Only 
these few environmental groups support H.R. 518.
  The economic impact of H.R. 518 is of great concern to me. The bill 
comes at a time when our State is in a deep recession. The Bureau of 
Land Management estimates that management costs for just the South 
Algodones for law enforcement, equipment, materials, and maintenance in 
the first year would be $1.2 million. Thereafter annual costs would be 
$604,000 just for the South Algodones, which is a very small portion of 
the millions of acres involved.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will yield at the end of my statement.
  Mr. VENTO. What I have to offer is related to the statement the 
gentleman just made.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will yield if I have the time, and I will be happy 
to do that in just a moment.
  But for just the South Algodones, if we have to appropriate 
additional funding, that is no problem for this body because we do 
spend money that we do not have, but I guarantee that the check will 
bounce.
  The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior have 
identified $6 billion in costs. This is the Department of the Interior, 
not a Republican group. It is the Interior Department itself.
  Moreover, with the existing National Park boundaries, there are 
private lands totaling 336 areas that have long been authorized for 
acquisition, but we could not afford to buy the land. If we pass this 
bill, we still cannot afford to buy it, but the Federal Government is 
going to have to come up with new appropriations to buy these lands. 
That is no problem for this body which loves to spend money.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would just point out that on the South Algodones, the land the 
gentleman referred to is deleted by an amendment for wilderness in 
committee, and, therefore, it is not designated as wilderness in this 
bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank, the gentleman. As a matter of 
fact, we have hundreds and thousands really of people all over this 
community who are affected by this.
  Mr. VENTO. May we now, with that information, convince the gentleman 
to support this bill?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I said, that is just one small portion of the 
total, I would point out to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  There are further fiscal hardships on Yellowstone and Glacier 
National Parks. These parks need adjustment. How can we add 30 million 
new acres when we are having trouble managing the 80 million we already 
have?
  From a local standpoint, with the unemployment in Imperial County 
over 22 percent, this legislation would certainly aggravate a serious 
economic situation. Historically, the desert of California has afforded 
many of us uses--wildlife habitat, military training, mining, ranching, 
and farming. And I want to say also that I ride three-wheelers, and I 
appreciate the gentleman restricting the South Algodones from this 
bill.
  Recreational use in the desert has provided a way of life, as my 
friend, the gentleman for California [Mr. Hunter], said, for the blue-
collar worker who cannot afford to go on rich hunts. Let us not lock 
out our people. Let us not lock people out of the desert.
  Let us support the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
that provides for the recreational purposes and for all of the needs we 
are looking for in the future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The gentleman mentioned the substitute we will be considering later, 
and I think it is important that the public as well as the Members 
understand that the four Members from the desert, who represent the 
desert, are not opposed to wilderness and they do support our Park 
System.
  Our substitute, which is the item the gentleman mentioned, would 
still create the largest wilderness legislation in the lower 48 States 
separate from Alaska by designating 62 areas covering 2.3 million 
acres. My legislation would also increase the size of Death Valley 
National Monument an the Joshua Tree National Monument by transferring 
108,00 acres from the BLM to the Park Service for Death Valley and 
4,800 acres from BLM in the Joshua Tree. These are areas I represent.
  The public should know that currently there is a backlog of 22,000 
acres that have been authorized for wilderness that have not been 
acquired. The Santa Monica Mountains alone would cost some $500 
million. It is very apparent the public in California is concerned 
about these kinds of expenditures and they are not ready to produce the 
money. We just had the defeat of a major parks bill that was on the 
ballot in California. Indeed that proposition that would create funding 
for parks was defeated in the very district of the chairman of this 
committee who is proposing that we add millions and millions of 
unneeded parkland to the park system.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's yielding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes, 1 not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

     Gonzalez
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bevill
     Blackwell
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cooper
     Cox
     Dicks
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Grandy
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Laughlin
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Meek
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Orton
     Packard
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sharp
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Solomon
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams

                              {time}  1206

  Mr. GRAMS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 229, the Thomas of 
California amendment, as amended, I was unavoidably detained in 
committee and entered the Chamber as the vote was being announced.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    amendments offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have four amendments that were printed in 
the Congressional Record in accordance with the rule, and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc, considered as read, 
and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.


            Modification to Amendments Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments, as modified, offered by Mr. Vento:
       Page 11, line 1, after ``a road'' insert ``and utilities''.
       Page 16, lines 18 and 19, strike ``two hundred forty-nine 
     thousand three hundred and sixty-eight acres'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``two hundred nine thousand six hundred and 
     eight acres''.
       Page 17, line 4, strike ``May 1991'' and in lieu thereof 
     insert ``July 1993''.
       Page 32, after line 2 insert a new paragraph, as follows:
       (5) Certain lands which comprise approximately thirty-nine 
     thousand seven hundred and sixty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Kingston Range Potential Future 
     Wilderness,'' dated May 1994.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the modifications in the amendment, and 
incidentally, I appreciate the cooperation of the minority members of 
the Committee on Natural Resources and other members, the modifications 
merely correct the page and line references. They have already been 
discussed with the minority and they had no objections.
  These amendments respond to a number of concerns raised by the 
Department of Defense. The first of the en bloc amendments would make 
clear that the authority for a right-of-way between Fort Irwin and the 
Twenty-Nine Palms area could also be used for utilities.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Chairman, there is already language about a road there, but there 
was some question from the Department of Defense whether or not 
utilities could also be placed based on the language in the bill, so we 
have clarified that in the first en bloc amendment.
  The other three en bloc amendments would change the wilderness 
designation to leave a number of areas immediately adjacent to Fort 
Irwin in wilderness study status. The effect of this is to defer 
decisions about the designation of these areas until Congress acts on 
the proposals for the expansion of Fort Irwin. We expect these 
proposals will be forthcoming later.
  This is the same as the Senate bill. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that 
the initial wilderness study areas and the designation decisions and so 
forth were made early in the process over a period of 6 or 7 years, and 
obviously events have evolved and Fort Irwin is in a plan and they are 
looking at perhaps seeking further withdrawals and other modifications 
that would impact if we designated this as wilderness.
  That is to say, we have historically not taken wilderness areas and 
withdrawn them for military purposes. The effect of this is to leave it 
in wilderness study status where it will be managed as wilderness but 
leaves the possibility open for any expansions or modifications to 
withdrawals for Fort Irwin.
  Mr. Chairman, these amendments, I think, are noncontroversial.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Utah.-
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority has looked at this particular amendment. 
We support it. I believe it is supported by the DOD, and I remember the 
Committee on Armed Services supported this, we feel it takes care of 
the problems that we are having with the military issue on this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not able to catch the first part of the 
gentleman's dialogue relative to this amendment. I would ask to engage 
in a colloquy.
  My specific question is, there has been an expression on the part of 
the Marine Corps at the Twenty-nine Palms Base to have access to the 
north for a main rail spur which then they would be able to move on the 
rails the tanks that are a part of the activity there and the training 
exercises to the west coast or to some location in a rapid deployment 
procedure as well as to have a means by which to deploy into the Fort 
Irwin area and vice versa. It is roughly about a 22-mile corridor.
  Have we been able to accommodate this?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's question.
  The first part of the en bloc amendment dealt with utilities as well 
as a road. That was the first en bloc amendment. The remainder keeps 
the areas around Fort Irwin in wilderness study status. Based on our 
discussions with the Department of Defense, the bill and the modified 
version that we are making here with regards to this will meet any of 
their concerns at this time. I have a letter which so states. We will 
later be adding, of course, another title, noncontroversial, I think, 
with the concurrence of the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], and myself on the withdrawals.
  As far as we know, there has been no additional or new requests made. 
But if a request is made, these lands around here will be wilderness 
study so a request can be made and studied at that time. So far we have 
no such request for the withdrawal of the corridor that the gentleman 
has pointed out. So far as we know, the bill meets all the concerns and 
considerations of the Department of Defense at this time.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Do I understand, then, that the language of the bill 
as it currently exists, in the event that the armed services wish to 
proceed with what it is that I have discussed earlier, that the 
language of the bill would accommodate that as it now exists, or would 
this require an act of Congress to readjust the wilderness boundaries?
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, we have accommodated the corridor 
between Twenty-nine Palms and Fort Irwin in this legislation. We have 
taken other areas and placed them in the wilderness study rather than 
in the wilderness designation, so if there are further withdrawals, 
some of those withdrawals would have to come before Congress, being 
over 5,000 acres under the Engle Act and the bill when we finally 
conclude it based on the amendments that we have agreed to, that is, by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr, myself and others, will, in 
fact, deal with the concerns that the military has raised.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding.
  I want to ask a general question, for I am not sure the House 
understands the reason for our focusing upon items relative to military 
land available in this region.
  This area is the home of the National Training Center for the Army, 
that territory which General Schwarzkopf described as the most 
important in terms of the training required for us to be successful in 
the Middle East. Adjacent to it by about 30 miles as the crow flies is 
the Twentynine Palms training base. There are plans in the future to 
coordinate those activities extensively.
  Can the gentleman give me some specific indication as to how many 
acres would be available under this measure just to the east, if there 
is a need to move to the east, in terms of Fort Irwin's operation?
  Mr. VENTO. The gentleman is aware, of course, there are literally 
millions of acres of BLM land that is not designated as wilderness or 
park in the measure that is before us. Immediately in this area, of 
course, there was a concern in terms of designating wilderness in some 
area, 100,000 acres. What we are doing in this instance with this 
amendment is keeping it not as a wilderness designation but as a study 
area. The concern, as the gentleman from California knows, is that the 
military, the Army and the Department of Defense, have not requested or 
asked us for withdrawal or sought a withdrawal of any other land as of 
this time.
  We do not know what the request will be, if there will be a request 
forthcoming. We are going the extra mile by obviously recognizing that 
this is in the planning stages at various points, and in this 
particular instance responding by not designating it, by treating it as 
wilderness study. Potentially we will have this decision before us when 
it is sought for withdrawal under the Engle Act as required, over 5,000 
acres, and/or we would have it before us at such time as potential 
consideration of wilderness or nonwilderness.
  We are really keeping it in a holding pattern at this time based on 
the Vento amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I guess the chairman understands the reason for my question. I 
am very, very concerned that even the current military who may be 
operating the facility do not have a full recognition of its long-term 
potential in terms of the training and retraining that we are going to 
need.

  To the east of Fort Irwin is a sizable piece of territory that, as I 
understand it, is within the part designation. It was territory where 
we had the training and retraining of troops that were involved in 
World War II.
  Is there a significant number of acres just to the east of Fort Irwin 
that would be available for expansion under this provision?
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, yes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Could the gentleman give me an indication of 
the number of those acres?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. I would suggest to the gentleman, I do not have the exact 
acreage number before me, but it is more than 170,000 acres. We 
responded to the Defense Department's requests concerning lands 
available for wilderness by leaving these areas in wilderness study 
area or undesignated lands and it is adequate to what the request is of 
the Department of Defense as to the amount.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional question 
for the gentleman.
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman for one additional question.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is apparent to the membership that this 
vast area has huge potential in terms of activity that involves flight 
and overflight, very important to the military. This is territory where 
the stealth airplanes fly, for example.
  What kinds of provisions does the gentleman have in this bill 
limiting overflight in terms of military activity?

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, there are no provisions in the current 
bill. The plan is with regards to adding another title that deals with 
the military withdrawal, which would, of course, provide for continual 
operation and ensure a compatibility with the designations made in the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this particular language and these 
designations would not restrict the military flights. I would point out 
to the gentleman though that the gentleman from Minnesota and others 
have introduced legislation dealing with the overflights issue.
  As a matter of fact, it is a very significant outstanding issue, and 
I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], of 
the Armed Services subcommittee, is interested in it, was planning a 
hearing next week, but had to postpone it. But the subcommittee on 
Natural Resources, Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, will have a 
hearing next Friday. So there is a continuing focus on the overflights 
issue over public lands with regards to all sorts of aircraft in BLM 
and Forest Service lands.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the chairman's response. If I 
could just comment further. This is important for the membership to 
understand.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Lewis of California and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is very important the membership 
understand, but especially the membership of the Committee on Armed 
Services and the appropriate Appropriations subcommittees, there is 
little doubt that there is serious potential impact to our ability to 
prepare for the national defense in this bill. It is my view this bill 
should have been designed in a fashion to deal with those questions 
straightforward, that is, in the bill, so it would have gone to the 
Committee on Armed Services. There is no question it was designed to 
bypass that committee in terms of this debate. It is very important 
that the membership know that we need to look at this very carefully.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, we have worked very closely with them. 
We have passed separate bills on these withdrawals. We have passed 
separate bills in the previous instance and worked with the committee. 
We have received a letter of correspondence which I will place at this 
point in the Record from the chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums]. There has been an absolute close working relationship 
here.
  The prerogatives and the powers and the needs of the military, the 
Department of Defense, are dealt with, will be dealt with in this bill 
in a way that is noncontroversial and completely supportive of the U.S. 
military capability and training.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed Mr. Vento's proposed 
     amendment to H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act. 
     This amendment addresses all of the matters that are the 
     subject of H.R. 880, a bill which was jointly referred to the 
     Committees on Armed Services and Natural Resources. Although 
     Mr. Vento's amendment does involve matters within the 
     legislative jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed 
     Services committee will interpose no objection to Mr. Vento's 
     amendment if it is offered on the House floor, assuming that 
     you will not object to a perfecting amendment that Mr. Farr 
     will offer regarding military overflights.
       Thank you for your cooperation on this matter, and if I may 
     be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                      Ronald V. Dellums, Chairman.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. McCandless and by unanimous consent, Mr. Vento 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I do not want to belabor the issue, but we talked about the posture 
of the Defense Department.
  Although this is not directly in my territory, it is aligned to my 
territory, meaning my constituency, and the problem we have here over 
the last couple of years in discussing this corridor is that those in 
the defense family at the management levels in the area have said in so 
many words, ``We need to incorporate something like this into the plan 
that you fellows are discussing at the Congress,'' but because of what 
one fellow described, and this is nothing to do with the gentleman in 
question, but because of the buzz saw complexity of the way that 
discussion is taking place and has taken place over the years, ``I 
cannot necessarily get some of my superiors to get involved because of 
the complexity of what has taken place in the way of a desert plan.''
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and that is the explanation that 
I got from the Defense Department not getting involved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. hunter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: Page 34, after line 25, 
     insert the following:


                         law enforcement access

       Sec. 112. Nothing in this Act, including the wilderness 
     designations made by this Act, may be construed to preclude 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies from 
     conducting law enforcement and border operations as permitted 
     before the enactment of this Act, including the use of motor 
     vehicles and aircraft, on any lands designated as wilderness 
     by this Act.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we have a complication with 
respect to the border that is manifest in the Desert Protection Act.
  Let me tell you what it is: A number of the smugglers' routes that 
cocaine smugglers, marijuana smugglers, and alien smugglers use to come 
into California across the international boarder abut and are adjacent 
to these proposed desert wilderness areas that come right down to and 
touch the international border.
  As the bill was being developed, we solicited comments from the 
Border Patrol agencies, and let me tell you what they said to us. They 
said we have to maintain vehicularized access and aircraft access to 
these smugglers' routes, even though they now will overlay wilderness 
areas, because we regularly go in with four-wheel-drives, off-road 
vehicles, aircraft, to not only pursue smugglers that are going through 
the wilderness areas, coming back up into the United States, but also 
``to check our sensors which, out in the boondocks, out in the country, 
are necessary. These are sensors that allow us to know when large 
numbers of people, either illegal aliens or narcotics smugglers, are 
moving north,'' so it is very, very important that we maintain the 
right for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials to pursue 
smugglers of illegal aliens and narcotics, even though they are coming 
across now into what will be called wilderness areas which heretofore 
were not wilderness areas.
  Let me just tell you what has happened with respect to the narcotics 
smuggling industry immediately to the south of San Diego, CA. We have 
built a steel fence, and the gentleman from San Diego, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham], has been a partner in building this 
fence. We have built a steel fence now that covers 14 miles from the 
Pacific Ocean to the coastal hills. That steel fence has stopped all 
the drivethrough drug traffic. We had some 300 drug trucks a month that 
were coming through roaring across the international border with 
cocaine, going up and hitting the major freeway arteries at highway 5 
and 805, going north to Los Angeles, going north to Sacramento, going 
to Portland, OR, going to every major city in this country, with a 
cargo that kills our children: cocaine.
  Now we have built this steel fence made out of Desert Storm landing 
mat that is now 15 miles long, and the smugglers initially were 
interdicted in massive numbers. We increased cocaine interdiction by 
1,000 percent when we built the fence, because there were still a few 
gaps in the fence, and we were able to concentrate our Boarder Patrol 
and drug enforcement agents at this fence. We were able to catch 10 
times as smugglers the year after we built the fence than we had the 
year before.
  However, the smugglers got smart. They moved out into the desert area 
to flank the fence. Because of that, in Imperial County where these 
proposed desert areas lay, the narcotics interdiction went from about 
$113 million worth of narcotics 2 years ago to almost $600 million 
worth of narcotics last year. That means they have gone up fourfold 
because the smugglers are now exploiting the desert area.
  Now, I have on this map some of the smuggling routes that they are 
using right now to bring cocaine to our children. One of these 
smuggling routes that we got from the Border Patrol goes right through 
the Jacumba Wilderness Area. Another one comes straight up the Imperial 
Valley and comes up into the Chuckwalla Wilderness Area. Another one 
comes up right along the Colorado River Valley right into the Pacacho 
Peak Wilderness Area, the Indian Pass and Julian Wash proposed 
wilderness areas. Now, I want to read to you just for a second the 
statement from Manuel Cazares, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent in Imperial 
Valley with respect to the desperate need to maintain vehiclularized 
access by law enforcement officials.
  He said that for a successful interdiction program:

       We must have total and unlimited access to these areas. We 
     have gone on record stating that we will assist any law 
     enforcement agency in enforcing whatever restrictions are 
     finally arrived at in these areas. Since 1985, there have 
     been 31 deaths in these desert areas. Our officers have 
     rescued 81 people that would have died had our officers not 
     rescued them when they did.

                              {time}  1230

  These people were already dehydrated and in bad shape. So in many 
cases you have illegal aliens coming across the border, getting 
dehydrated in the desert and it is only because our border patrol is 
able to come in and save them, either by coming in with helicopters and 
landing and giving them emergency service before the mobile units or 
the 4-wheel-drives arrive, and by working the area and finding them 
they were able to save 31 a year. In addition, though, about 31 a year 
die in the desert.
  So we are going to have a lot of bodies out in this desert if we do 
not allow the Border Patrol to have continued access.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Agent Carreras says further,

       We are in the Jacumba and also Fish Creek areas almost 
     daily with either 4x4 vehicles or aircraft. The purpose being 
     to detect the illegal entry of aliens and drug smugglers. We 
     do this by looking for tracks of both people and vehicles and 
     by utilizing electronic detection devices, which have to be 
     checked and serviced on a regular basis.

  My friends, it is desperately important that we not, in putting this 
desert bill together, which is well intentioned, that we do not open up 
drug havens, safe havens for drug smugglers, because they are very 
flexible. They will exploit any safe alley created by this act. Unless 
we maintain the status quo, which is vehicular access, we are going to 
see people dying in the desert, we are going to have massive doses of 
narcotics come across this line that destroy our American children.
  I would be happy to yield first to my colleague from San Diego, [Mr. 
Cunningham], and second to my colleague from California, Mr. 
McCandless, who has been very concerned about this matter.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important in pointing out as in Florida when the 
antidrug efforts put a lot of pressure on the dealers, they moved. With 
the 300 drug trucks coming through just the San Diego area, we are 
putting pressure, the gentlemen from California and myself and several 
others, we supported 6,000 border patrol in the crime bill and we got 
600 border patrol last year working with Janet Reno. That will help.
  What we are going to do is see them move away from the population 
areas to the desert. There has also been news in the San Diego press 
about illegal attempts, because we are shutting them off at those drug 
corridors and they are attempting to come through the desert. That flow 
will increase if we do not allow access to the border patrol and law 
enforcement agents.
  The second thing is that aircraft will make low-level flights there 
if there is no one there protecting it. This is why it is important, 
and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, generally I think that first of all wilderness permits 
emergency and lifesaving and so forth and does permit the use of 
motorized vehicles in those instances. There is a unique problem here, 
a dilemma, apparently, in essence.
  I just want to ask a question of the sponsor. On page 6 of his 
amendment his talks about ``before the enactment of this act.'' In 
other words, he is talking about a date immediately before the 
enactment of the act. Is that the concern here? In other words, the 
standard here is what are the activities immediately, the activities 
that have gone on for 50 years? I think there is some misinterpretation 
here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman understands my 
question: The language, ``before the enactment of this act,'' we are 
talking about the immediacy, the status quo which is taking place now.
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes. In other words, we are talking about the fact that 
in asking law enforcement agents to tell us what they are doing, they 
have come back and told us that they are in the wilderness areas daily 
with 4-wheel-drive vehicles, and with aircraft, I might add. But that 
is the status quo. That is what we are referring to, that we continue 
to have the access.
  Let me just say to my friend that as the drug smugglers flank the 
efforts being made to stop them in the coastal area and they come into 
the desert in increasing numbers, with increasing sophistication, we 
may need more of these thousands of new border patrol agents that 
Democrats and Republicans agree we need, and perhaps more vehicles, 
more 4x4 vehicles.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield further, I appreciate his 
clarification. I understand that nobody wants to create a safe haven 
here for anymore by virtue of limiting ourselves in terms of the tools 
that law enforcement officers need to challenge the illegal aliens and, 
tragically, those who find themselves in a life-threatening situation 
because of an action of an illegal entry into the country in this area.
  So the issue is a tough one, but I just want to be certain as to what 
the gentleman precisely means. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
thank him for his clarification.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from San Diego once again.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One quick point: There is emergency language, emergencies to allow 
these vehicles to get in, but if you take those border patrol law 
enforcement agents out of there, you are not going to have as many 
people in the field to find those people, and deaths would result.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman's amendment does not set any precedent here. It deals 
with a unique situation that we have in this desert area. It allows for 
those activities to continue, at least not be restricted, that are 
being engaged in today. It makes sure that nothing in the bill will 
hamper or restrict or hinder law enforcement in that area.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think he 
has an excellent way of dealing with the problem here.
  I point out this is different than the Senate solution, which would 
restrict the language to just the three wilderness study areas on the 
border. This would apply to the entire region as well.
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes; I think it is important to read the Border Patrol's 
answer where they say, ``We must have access to all areas because the 
smugglers would quickly identify which areas are areas in which 
vehicular access might be restricted.'' They also find meth labs in 
this area.
  I thank the gentleman for his support and the efforts he has made in 
putting together this idea that we need to maintain law enforcement 
capability in the wilderness areas.
  I yield to the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
the gentleman for offering the amendment. We have had a chance to 
review the amendment, and we would accept the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority also accepts the amendment and feels it is 
an excellent amendment as an addition to the bill.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a little confusion here on the part of the 
issue, as I see it, and that is why I wish to comment on it.
  First and foremost, we have to clarify the separate issue. We are 
concerned here with existing activities in the desert on the part of 
narcotics, smugglers, and other types of illegal activities, not the 
least of which are meth laboratories and a number of other facilities 
which are stationary but temporary, until they are caught.
  Now, if there are meth laboratories established and operating in what 
is currently a proposed wilderness area, to be made into wilderness 
under this bill, then without this amendment, law enforcement is 
hampered by the fact that it cannot move into the wilderness area for 
enforcement purposes. Therein lies a problem that I have.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to insure that local 
enforcement agencies will be able to continue their diligent work in 
these areas. To quote the sheriff of Riverside County, it is 
``absolutely critical'' that they retain unrestricted access to all 
wilderness areas that are to be created by this bill.
  In the desert, it is a well-documented fact that the bad guys are not 
going to conduct their illegal activities according to the land uses in 
this bill. Under this bill, Congress will designate 8 million acres of 
California desert as protected wilderness. How long do you think it 
will take for drug makers to figure out where to set up their meth 
labs, or illegal alien smugglers to figure where to hide their human 
contraband? That certainly is not rocket science. Without regular 
access by law enforcement, there areas will be congressionally 
designated ``safe havens'' for criminal activity.

                              {time}  1240

  It is, therefore, essential that law enforcement be provided 
unrestricted access to all wilderness, all wilderness which will be 
created by this bill, including the use of motorized vehicles. Let me 
read for my colleagues two quotes from law enforcement agencies which 
provide some detail as to the nature of criminal activity in just one 
part of the desert:

       The Riverside County Sheriff's department, in conjunction 
     with federal authorities, recently conducted Operation Range 
     Rover. This was a coordinated effort to stem the flow of 
     narcotics through the Riverside County Desert Area. The scope 
     of the project was from the Mexican border, north to 
     Interstate Highway 10, between Blythe and Indio. As a result 
     of this operation, we confirmed intelligence indicating that 
     this area is a major thoroughfare for illegal narcotics, 
     including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. This path is chosen 
     by smugglers to avoid detection by law enforcement 
     authorities. There is also the problem of illegal immigration 
     through the area.--Cois Byrd, Sheriff.

  I would point out that two of the wilderness areas to be designated 
in Riverside County, the Orocopias and the Chuckwallas, are part of the 
area in which we are now discovering criminal activity taking place, 
and would be convenient passages north from the border in Imperial 
County. Therein lies the reason I am standing here.
  I wish to do another quote here:

       I can tell you that smugglers of both aliens and narcotics 
     often attempt to circumvent our traffic check operation 
     located on Highway 111, north of Niland, California. They do 
     this by walking and driving vehicles through the Chocolate 
     Mountains Naval bombing range utilizing existing roads that 
     cut through the Chuckwalla Mountains and eventually intersect 
     with Interstate 10, which carries them into the Los Angeles 
     area and points outward. On July 11, 1993, we seized 899 
     pounds of cocaine worth $28 million attempting to traverse 
     this area.--(Johnny Williams, Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border 
     Patrol)

  These are wide open and rugged areas, interlaced with designated 
wilderness areas in this bill. To patrol them effectively, we need to 
maintain a constant enforcement presence. In order to bust heavily 
armed drug traffickers, our law enforcement people cannot hike into a 
wilderness area on foot, nor can they charge up on horseback. Regular 
motorized access is essential to interdiction and enforcement 
operations in this kind of terrain.
  It should be clear by now that these deserts are a major conduit for 
the narcotic garbage that is polluting the youth of our country. Much 
of these drugs go on to the big cities, but I can tell my colleagues 
that far too much of it stays in my district. I have seen the effects 
of these drugs in what used to be sleepy rural communities, and most of 
my colleagues can tell similar stories. So, I cannot be convinced that 
we can get by with less than this amendment. Do not tell me that, ``We 
are serious about stopping the flow of drugs, but we have to tie the 
hands of the law enforcement personnel who are on the front lines.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. ``Absolutely critical.'' Those are the words that 
best define this amendment. Without unrestricted access into wilderness 
areas, local law enforcement officers can't do their jobs right. The 
Hunter-McCandless amendment will send two strong messages. The first is 
one of unqualified support to the men and women in the field on our 
behalf. The second will signal that it is now open season on those who 
would commit crimes in the California desert. Help us send this 
message. Nothing else measures up.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend my colleagues, the 
gentlemen from California [Mr. Hunter and Mr. McCandless] for their 
fine work on what I consider to be a very excellent amendment. Each 
and, I think, every Member of this body has heard from local law 
enforcement officials about their struggles in the ongoing war against 
crime and drugs. This amendment cuts right to the heart of their 
concerns.
  As the law is currently interpreted, Mr. Chairman, local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement agencies are severely hampered in their efforts 
to prevent the manufacturing of illicit drugs in wilderness areas--not 
just near the border but throughout the California desert. As if the 
job of the desert rangers, Border Patrol agents, and county sheriffs is 
not tough enough already, the bill that relates to the desert, as it 
was produced by this committee, and actually as it is designed in the 
other body, the bill ensures that one of the most notorious drug and 
alien smuggling corridors in the United States remains just the way it 
has been.

  It is very important that the Members recognize that this amendment 
not only should pass, but it should pass substantially, and we should 
insist upon this language in the conference. This amendment is 
different from the bill as it passed the other body in the sense that 
all 71 safe havens for these drug producers is affected. The 71 
wilderness areas, minus the three along the Mexican border, in the 
Senate bill is a drug lord's dream in my judgment. I say, ``If you can 
only patrol the area on foot or horseback in much of the desert, then 
certainly you can't expect the law enforcement will be able to 
effectively enforce the law as it currently stands.''
  Keep in mind that this desert terrain is extremely rugged.
  Recently, Mr. Chairman, I had occasion to travel to an area in the 
boondocks in my own district, to visit a facility of the kind that we 
are talking about not too long, not too far distant, from Needles, CA. 
I was taken to what would appear to be an out-in-the-country wilderness 
home. It turned out to be a 5,000-square-foot home that literally had 
not been used for family living. I wondered why we were visiting this 
facility, and we went downstairs, and there was 10,000 square feet of 
basement, a very, very elaborate electrical and watering system. The 
place had been designed in little squares, and they grew various stages 
of marijuana within this facility because it is in the countryside. It 
was designed perfectly for this kind of drug producer as well as being 
a smuggler haven.
  So, I say to my colleagues, ``It's very important that all of these 
wilderness areas be addressed as this bill goes forward. Instead of our 
just paying lip service to the hard-working men and women of the Border 
Patrol and other law enforcement agencies, it's very important that we 
address directly the serious drug problems.''
  Mr. Chairman, drug manufacturing, drug smuggling and illegal alien 
smuggling need a tourniquet. These problems are out of control in the 
desert.
  Those of us who represent the areas are very, very concerned about 
making sure we do not send a message that just is lip service to law 
enforcement.
  The message that they want us to pass along to our colleagues is to 
give them the authority to do the job and do it well. They need access 
to the wilderness areas. This problem does not just affect communities 
like Barstow, Needles, Twentynine Palms. and Lone Pine. The drugs that 
are manufactured in these safe havens in wilderness areas are sold in 
the inner cities. So, Mr. Chairman, it is all of our problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to enter into the Record the two very 
specific letters that I have received from Sheriffs in my own 
territory, Dick Williams of San Bernardino County and Allan George of 
Inyo County, who very strongly feel we need to maintain this kind of 
language reflected in this amendment throughout the process.
  San Bernardino County sheriff, Dick Williams, says:

       * * * The illegal drug trade has used our desert areas as 
     aircraft landing sites and as the location for illegal drug 
     manufacturing laboratories. It could literally take days for 
     our officers to hike into some of these isolated locations 
     where drug laboratories have been found and suspects have 
     been arrested * * *

  Inyo County sheriff, Allan George, says:

       Our department is asking you to seek an amendment to allow 
     local law enforcement access the areas covered in S. 21 and 
     H.R. 518 by using motorized vehicles to preserve the area, 
     and better serve the citizens which use these lands.

  Sheriff George goes on to say:

       Without being allowed to access to immediately respond to 
     these calls, we will not be able to provide protection and 
     will limit our duty to carry out the protection of life and 
     property.

                              {time}  1250

  Whether or not it is the intent of the other body in their 
legislation, they have severely restricted law enforcement in 
connection with dealing with safe havens, and it certainly should go 
through the entire process. I hope the Members of the House will insist 
that this amendment go through the entire process. It should not be 
tinkered with in conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lewis, along with my other colleagues from California, Mr. McCandless, 
Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Calvert, who are very concerned about this 
issue and who cosponsored this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman 
for all the attention and effort he has given this problem, because so 
often we move ahead with legislation that seemingly solves one problem 
and we find out shortly thereafter that we have massive bureaucratic 
problems in another area.
  Let me say that the drug war is one place where we cannot afford to 
make mistakes. The guys on the other side who are shipping this stuff 
are very smart, and they will take advantage of any loopholes that can 
be exploited. The gentleman is absolutely right when he says that 
wilderness areas, should they be considered to be off limits for 
motorized vehicles, will instantly be exploited as havens not only for 
the transport of drugs but, I think, also for manufacturing. We are 
finding the meth-labs now in wilderness areas.
  I want to thank the gentleman for rounding up the experts in his area 
who know what is happening and getting their comments on record.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the 
comments of my colleague, and I will not take any additional time 
except to say that the public out there that is worried about drugs and 
manufacturing and the illicit use of territories like this should be 
aware of the fact that we are not talking about a small territory. My 
desert alone in San Bernardino County is large enough to hold four 
eastern States. We have to give law enforcement the kind of tools they 
need, and I am very concerned that we will end up finally in conference 
having language like the other body has produced instead of this very 
fine amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for printing with my remarks the following 
letters from law enforcement officials addressed to me:

                                                      May 5, 1994.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Subject: S. 21 (Desert Protection Act).
       Dear Congressman Lewis: Throughout the process of Senate 
     Bill 21 moving from the House of Origin to the House of 
     Representatives, I and my staff have continued to raise the 
     issue of law enforcement access to the areas being designated 
     as wilderness area for the purposes of performing legitimate 
     law enforcement functions.
       I have attempted on many occasions to educate other members 
     of the congress about the unique nature of San Bernardino 
     County which contains a large portion of the area to be 
     designated as a wilderness area.
       San Bernardino County is the largest county in the 
     continental United States with over 20,000 square miles of 
     land mass. A major portion of that area will be effected by 
     Senate Bill 21. Each year the San Bernardino County Sheriff's 
     Department responds to hundreds of calls for search and 
     rescue of lost hikers, and mine explorers. In a desert 
     environment, time is critical in the mortality rate of the 
     victims.
       Over the years, modern motorized equipment (i.e., modified 
     motorcycles, trucks with wenches and helicopters with heat-
     seeking devices) have sped up our response to these emergency 
     situations. This measure, as currently proposed, would 
     prevent the use of this modern equipment in the saving of 
     lives of individuals who find themselves injured or lost in 
     this wilderness area.
       An additional concern of ours is that the illegal drug 
     trade has used our desert areas as aircraft landing sites and 
     as the location for illegal drug manufacturing laboratories. 
     It could take literally days for our officers to hike into 
     some of these isolated locations where drug laboratories have 
     been found and suspects arrested. Our experiences have found 
     that many of these drug manufacturers will be heavily armed. 
     The chemicals and solutions they use in the manufacture of 
     narcotics are considered hazardous waste which would make the 
     cleanup almost impossible, by preventing motorized vehicles 
     to enter into the site to remove these dangerous substances 
     from this wilderness area.
       I am asking you to seek an amendment to allow an exemption 
     for local law enforcement to enter these areas utilizing 
     motorized vehicles in order to preserve the area for the law 
     abiding public to utilize. It is important to note that 
     currently in several national forests, especially in the 
     Northern California area, drug dealers have taken over large 
     tracts of property to grow illegal crops. The federal 
     government is unable to respond to this problem and must rely 
     on local law enforcement to conduct the investigations and 
     eradication of these illegal crops.
       The argument has been put forth that local law enforcement 
     can operate in these areas if they are working in conjunction 
     with federal officers. There is simply not enough federal 
     officers available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to provide 
     protection to the citizens from both illegal activities and 
     life-threatening emergencies in the area proposed in the 
     desert protection act. Local law enforcement will be 
     receiving the first calls for service and accordingly, should 
     respond appropriately. Without this exemption, we will not be 
     able to provide safety to the public.
       We urge you to make our concerns known and for you to 
     request of your colleagues that they not tie our hands in the 
     enforcement of drug trafficking laws by providing a safe zone 
     for drug manufacturers to set up in isolated areas.
       I have assigned my legislative liaison, Sgt. Paul Curry to 
     assist you or your staff in resolving these concerns. Please 
     feel free to contact Sgt. Curry at (909) 387-0632.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dick Williams,
                                                          Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                                   County of Inyo,


                                         Sheriff's Department,

                                    Independence, CA, May 9, 1994.
     Congressman Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Lewis: This letter is to express our 
     concern with Senate Bill 21 and the issue of law enforcement 
     assess to the areas being designated as wilderness for the 
     purpose of performing legitimate law enforcement functions.
       Inyo County is one of the largest counties in the 
     Continental United States with over 10,000 square miles. Our 
     primary industry is tourism and our department responds to 
     hundreds of calls for search and rescues of lost hikers and 
     mine explorers.
       Our department is dependent on motorized vehicles, 4x4 
     vehicles, motorcycles, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft 
     to locate victims where time is of the essence to their 
     survival in a desert type terrain.
       Another concern is the use of our lands in Inyo County for 
     illegal drug activities such as labs and landing sites. We 
     feel that in closing the access to these areas by law 
     enforcement vehicles will open the door for illegal Drug 
     Manufacturers and traffickers to use federal lands for this 
     purpose. It would take hours and in most cases days to access 
     these areas by foot and expose our personnel to risks' of 
     being detected by these normally heavily armed suspects. 
     Also, the chemicals used by drug manufacturers are very 
     hazardous and would limit the clean-up activities if 
     motorized vehicles into remote areas were eliminated.
       Our department is asking you to seek an amendment to allow 
     local law enforcement to access the areas covered in Senate 
     Bill 21 by using motorized vehicles in order to preserve the 
     area, and better serve the citizens which use these lands.
       This bill will affect a large portion of our country and 
     currently much of our county is BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and 
     Death Valley monument property. Our experience working with 
     the Federal Law Enforcement has been a positive one, however 
     they are unable to provide the services 24 hours a day 7 days 
     a week. Our department is usually the first notified and 
     responding agency to any calls for service in these remote 
     area's. Without being allowed access to immediately respond 
     to these calls for service we will not be able to provide 
     protection and will limit our duty to carry out the 
     protection of life and property.
       We urge you to make our concerns known and to inform your 
     colleagues of our concerns. This situation will effect each 
     and every citizen visiting the proposed area.
           Sincerely,
     Allan B. George,
       Sheriff,
     William R. Lutze,
       Undersheriff.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as I speak, southern California is being invaded. 
Invaded by drug dealers--and invaded by illegal aliens--tens of 
thousands each and every year.
  We cannot afford to lose any weapons in the arsenal we use to keep 
dangerous drugs and illegal aliens out of our country.
  But, that is exactly the effect the California Desert Protection Act 
would have. It would prevent the U.S. Border Patrol and other law 
enforcement officials from using motorized vehicles within the Coyote 
Mountains, Fish Creek Mountains, and Jacumba wilderness areas.
  I strongly oppose this legislation, but I would plead with my 
colleagues to support the Hunter amendment to make sure--if this bill 
passes--that law enforcement officials will be able to patrol these 
areas and use motorized vehicles if necessary.
  The U.S. Border Patrol has identified five popular smuggling 
corridors running through the proposed Jacumba wilderness area alone.
  Please do not make our border more of a sieve than it already is. I 
plead with you to help our law enforcement personnel by supporting the 
Hunter amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert] for his work on this particular amendment and 
his cosponsorship of this amendment.
  I am reminded that the gentleman's district is very close to these 
wilderness areas where narcotics are coming through on a daily basis. 
The young children and all the gentleman's constituents in Riverside 
are very much affected, and there is a very large cocaine and marijuana 
market in Riverside, in the gentleman's district, that is fed and 
supplied by these narcotics dealers and the drug lords that are moving 
this train of narcotics across the international border in these 
wilderness areas, ultimately up through the roads past Palm Springs and 
the Palm Springs district, up through the Banning area and ultimately 
into the gentleman's district. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
hard work on this issue, and I hope we can continue to work together on 
it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is better crafted than the Senate 
amendment, but I think the Senate amendment also represents very strong 
language on this matter. But I am sure that if this amendment is 
adopted, the conferees on the part of the House will do their best to 
uphold the House position on the better crafted amendment. But both 
amendments will have been offered, and that subject is necessary to be 
addressed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 389, 
noes 0, not voting 50, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--389

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--50

     Bacchus (FL)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cooper
     Dicks
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Meek
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Orton
     Packard
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Solomon
     Sundquist
     Thompson
     Tucker
     Washington
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1315

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                    amendments offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Pombo:
     --Page 34, after line 25, add the following:


                              access roads

       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     there are hereby designated access routes on existing roads, 
     trails, and ways, as mapped by the United States Geological 
     Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and the Automobile Club of 
     Southern California, as follows:
       Argus Range, WSA 132B, Attached Map #7, Desert Map #3-5 & 
     D12 (now Argus Range and Death Valley National Park 
     Proposed--12):
       Bendire Canyon Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Bruce Canyon Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       Knight Canyon road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Kopper King Springs Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       Stone Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Corridor 4 Miles;
       Water Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (74,890) 82,400-105=82,395--18 Miles.
       Bighorn Mountains, WSA 217, Attached Map #8, Desert Map #8:
       Rattlesnake Canyon Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (39,200) 39,200-36=39,164--6 Miles.
       Big Maria Mountains, WSA 321, Attached Map #9, Desert Map 
     #9:
       Move north boundary to Quien Safe Road, Loss of appx. 4,480 
     acres):
       Maria Mountain Road, 12 Acres, Corridor 2 Miles;
       Quien Sabe Road, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (47,570) 49,700-42=49,658--7 Miles; Or 
     49,700-4,480=45,220-12=45,676--2 Miles.
       Bright Star, WSA 160B, Attached Map #11, Desert Map #12:
       Cortez Springs Road, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (9,520 10,800-30=10,770--5 Miles.
       Cady Mountains, WSA 251, Attached Map #12, Desert Map #14:
       Afton/Basin Loop, 54 Acres, Boundary 9 Miles;
       Canyon Crest Road, 66 Acres, Cherrystem 11 Miles;
       Hector Road, 36 Acres, Boundary 6 Miles;
       North Canyon Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystone 5 Miles;
       South Canyon Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       Valley Center Road, 102 Acres, Corridor 17 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (85,970) 122,000-324=121,676--54 Miles.
       Chemehuevi Mountains, WSA 310, Attached Map #14, Desert Map 
     #16:
       Blue Boy Mine Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       Picture Rock Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       Red Rock Falls Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem 5 Miles;
       Studio Spring Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem 5 Miles;
       Trampas Canyon Road, 66 Acres, Cherrystem 11 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (64,640) 95,820-162=95,668--27 Miles.
       Chuckwalla Mountains, WSA 348, Attached Map #16, Desert Map 
     #19-21:
       Lost Pony Mine Road, 12 Acres, Corridor 2 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (80,770) 86,400-12=86,399--2 Miles.
       Cleghorn Lakes, WSA 304, Attached Map #19, Desert Map #22:
       Bullion Mountains Road, 24 Acres, Boundary 4 Miles;
       Copper World Mine Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (34,380) 42,020-36=41,984--6 Miles.
       Coso Range, WSA 131, Attached Map #20, Desert Map #24:
       Joshua Flats Road, 54 Acres, Cherrystem 9 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (50,520) 53,940-54=53,886--9 Miles.
       Dead Mountains, WSA 276, Attached Map #21, Desert Map #27:
       Ibis Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem 5 Miles;
       Picture Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Boundary 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (48,850) 57,200-54=57,146--9 Miles.
       Funeral Mountains, WSA 143, Attached Map #25, Desert Map 
     #33 & D18 (now Funeral Mountains & Death Valley National Park 
     Proposed--18):
       Funeral Mountain Pass, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (28,110) 28,100-30=28,070--5 Miles; Originally 
     65,000, 36,890 went to DVNP.
       Golden Valley, WSA 170, Attached Map #26, Desert Map #34:
       Golden Valley Pass, 54 Acres, Corridor 9 Miles;
       Steam Well Road, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (37,700) 37,700-84=37,616--14 Miles.
       Granite Mountains, WSA 256, Attached Map #27, Desert Map 
     #35, 36 & M7 (now Bristol Mountains & Mojave National Park 
     Proposed--7):
       Heritage Trail, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       Onyx Mine Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 84,980-78=84,902--13 Miles; Originally 
     134,900, 49,920 went to MNP.
       Grass Valley, WSA 173A, Attached Map #28, Desert Map #37:
       Bird Spring Road, 54 Acres, Corridor 9 Miles;
       Grass Valley Road, 24 Acres, Corridor 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (31,720) 33,000-78=32,922 13 Miles.
       Ibex, WSA 149, Attached Map #31, Desert Map #40 & D21 (now 
     Death Valley National Park Proposed--21):
       American Mine Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Confidence Road, 18 Acres, Boundary 3 Miles;
       Gladstone Mine Road, 48 Acres, Cherrystem 8 Miles;
       Rusty Pick Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       Sheephead Pass Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (26,460) 26,460-156=26,304--26 Miles; 
     Originally 53,500 27,040 went to DVNP.
       Indian Pass, WSA 355, Attached Map #32, Desert Map #41:
       Julian Wash Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (35,015) 40,400-60=40,340--10 Miles.
       Inyo Mountains, WSA 120/122, Attached Map #33, Desert Map 
     #42-44, D6 & 7 (now Inyo Mountains and Death Valley National 
     Park Proposed--6 & 7):
       Blackrock Well Road, 48 Acres, Cherrystem 8 Miles;
       Blue Monster Mine Road, 66 Acres, Cherrystem 11 Miles;
       Bunker Hill Mine Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Burgess Well Road, 42 Acres, Cherrystem 7 Miles;
       Pat Keyes Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       Seep Hole Spring Road, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       Side Hill Spring Road, 48 Acres, Corridor 8 Miles;
       Squaw Spring Road, 18 Acres, Corridor 3 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (205,020) 205,020-294=204,726--49 Miles; 
     Originally 266,300 61,290 went to DVNP.
       Jacumba Mountains, WSA 368, Attached Map #34, Desert Map 
     #45:
       Easy Pickins Mine Loop Road, 78 Acres, Corridor 13 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (34,550) 37,000-78=36,922--13 Miles.
       Kelso Dunes, WSA 250, Attached Map #35, Desert Map #46-48 & 
     MB (now Kelso Dunes and Mojave National Park Proposed--7):
       Bristol Mine Road, 42 Acres, Cherrystem 7 Miles;
       Hytem Spring Pass Road, 96 Acres, Corridor 16 Miles;
       Hytem Spring Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Natural Arch Road, 48 Acres, Cherrystem 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (129,580) 129,580-204=129,376--34 Miles; 
     Originally 215,100 85,520 went to DVNP.
       Kiavah, WSA 159, Attached Map #37, Desert Map #49 & 50:
       McIvers Spring Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       Cholla Canyon Road, 42 Acres, Corridor 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (88,290) 90,200-78=90,122--13 Miles.
       Kingston Mountains, WSA 222, Attached Map #38, Desert Map 
     #51-54:
       Eastern Star Mine Road, 42 Acres, Cherrystem 7 Miles;
       Kingston Wash Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       Old Salt Lake Trail Road, 84 Acres, Corridor 14 Miles;
       Shadow Valley Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (249,368) 269,500-246=269,254--41 Miles.
       Little Chuckwalla Mountains, WSA 350, Attached Map #40, 
     Desert Map #55:
       Little Chuckwalla Pass Road, 18 Acres, Corridor 3 Miles;
       Teague Well Road, 48 Acres, Corridor 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (46,460) 53,000-66=52,934--11 Miles.
       Little Pichacho, WSA 356, Attached Map #41, Desert Map #56:
       Copper Basin Road, 6 Acres, Corridor 1 Mile;
       Hess Mine Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       Marcus Wash Road, 24 Acres, Corridor 4 Miles;
       Senator Pass Road, 48 Acres, Corridor 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (36,440) 41,940-90=41,850--13 Miles.
       Mecca Hills, WSA 343, Attached Map #43, Desert Map #59:
       Hidden Spring Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (24,280) 25,360-24=25,336--4 Miles; Originally 
     35,280 9,920 was deleted on map.
       Mesquite, WSA 225, Attached May #44, Desert Map #60:
       Mesquite Pass Road, 42 Acres, Corridor 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (47,330) 57,800-42=57,758--7 Miles.
       Nopah Range, WSA 150, Attached Map #46, Desert Map #63:
       Chicago Valley Road, 48 Acres, Boundary 8 Miles;
       Old Traction Road, 90 Acres, Boundary 15 Miles;
       Pahrump Peak Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       Shaw Mine Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (110,880). 116,000- 174=115.826--27 Miles
       North Mesquite Mountains, WSA 223, Attached Map #48, Desert 
     Map #66:
       Cub Lee Road, 6 Acres, Corridor 1 Mile;
       Old Salt Lake Trail Road, 12 Acres, Boundary 2 miles;
       WSA Acreage (25,540) 27,800-18=27,782--3 Miles.
       Old Women Mountains, WSA 299, Attached Mad #50, Desert Map 
     #67 & 68:
       Delete from Wilderness Consideration -146,070=0 (entire 
     area); or
       Black Metal Mine Pass Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles.
       Enterprise Mine Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles.
       Heritage Trail Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 6 miles.
       Mercury Mountain Road, 18 Acres, Boundary 3 Miles.
       Old Woman Loop Road, 66 Acres, Corridor 11 Miles.
       Painted Rock Loop Road, 18 Acres, Corridor 3 Miles.
       Sweetwater/Paramount Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 6 Miles.
       Willow Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem 2 Miles.
       WSA Acreage (146,070) 191,000-270=190,830--45 Miles.
       Orocopia Mountains, WSA 344, Attached Map #51, Desert Map 
     #69:
       Orocopia Pass, 54 Acres, Corridor 9 Miles;
       Red Canyon, 42 Acres, Boundary 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (40,770) 56,140-96=56,044--16 Miles; originally 
     77,900 21,760 deleted on map.
       Owens Peak, WSA 158, Attached Map #52, Desert Map #70-72:
       Cow Canyon Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Sand Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       Three Pines Canyon Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Walker Well Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (74,640) 78,200-84=78,116--14 Miles.
       Pahrump Valley, WSA 154, Attached Map #54, Desert Map #73;
       Blackwater Well Pass, 72 Acres, Corridor 12 Miles;
       Old Traction Road, 78 Acres, Boundary 13 Miles;
       Pahrump Valley Road, 54 Acres, Boundary 9 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (74,800) 79,000-204=78,796--34 Miles.
       Palen/McCoy, WSA 325, Attached Map #55, Desert Map #74 & 
     75:
       Sand Draw Road, 24 Acres, Corridor 4 Miles;
       Tank Spring Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (214,149) 225,300-60=225,240--10 Miles.
       Palo Verde Mountains, WSA 352, Attached Map #56, Desert Map 
     #76:
       Clapp Spring Loop Road, 18 Acres, Boundary 3 Miles;
       Flat Top Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (32,320) 32,320-36=32,284--6 Miles.
       Picacho Peak, WSA 355a, Attached Map #57, Desert Map #77:
       Bear Canyon Road, 18 Acres, Corridor 3 Miles;
       Carrizo Falls Road, 18 Acres, Boundary 3 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (7,700) 10,499-36=10,364--6 Miles.
       Piper Mountain, WSA 155, Attached Map #58, Desert Map #79:
       Horse Thief Canyon Road, 48 Acres, Boundary 8 Miles;
       Lime Hill Pass Road, 48 Acres, Boundary 8 Miles;
       Mount Nunn Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       Piper Pass, 42 Acres, Corridor 7 Miles;
       Soldier Pass Road, 30 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (72,600) 86,200-204=85,996--34 Miles.
       Piute Mountain, WSA 288, Attached Map #59, Desert Map #80;
       Fenner Pass Road, 48 Acres, Corridor 8 Miles;
       Piute Mine Loop Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (37,800) 52,800-84=52,716--14 Miles.
       Resting Spring Range, WSA 145, Attached Map #61, Desert Map 
     #81:
       Old Traction Road, 36 Acres, Boundary 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (78,868) 84,000-36=83,964--6 Miles.
       Rice Valley, WSA 322, Attached Map #62, Desert Map #82:
       Eagle Nest Mine Loop, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles.
       Riverside Mountains, WSA 321A, Attached Map #63, Desert Map 
     #83:
       Gold Rice Mine Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 6 miles;
       Old Blythe/Vidal Road (Big Wash), 24 Acres, Corridor 4 
     Miles;
       WSA Acreage (22,380) 25,300-60=25,240--10 Miles.
       Sacatar, WSA 157, Attached Map #64.5, Desert Map #85 & 86:
       Sacatar Trail, 42 Acres, Corridor 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (51,900) 52,600-42=52,558--7 Miles.
       Santa Rosa Wilderness, WSA 341, Attached Map #66, Desert 
     Map #89:
       Pinyon Alta Flat Road, 42 Acres, Cherrystem 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (53,240) 78,200-42=78,158--7 Miles.
       Sawtooth Mountains, WSA 060, Attached Map #67, Desert Map 
     #90:
       Canebrake Road, 18 Acres, Corridor 3 Miles;
       Potrero Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (35,400) 35,610-42=35,568--7 Miles.
       Sheep Hole Valley, WSA 305, Attached Map #69, Desert Map 
     #91 & 92:
       Delete from Wilderness Consideration -174,800=0 (Entire 
     Area); or
       Make Sheep Hole Valley Road northeast Boundary =51,200; or
       Sheep Hole Valley Road, 86 Acres, Corridor 16 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (174,800) 208,900-96=208,804--16 Miles.
       Stepladder Mountains, WSA 294, Attached Map #75, Desert Map 
     #100:
       Chemehuevi Valley Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       East Stepladder Mountain Road, 60 Acres, Corridor 10 Miles;
       North Pass Road, 36 Acres, Corridor 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (81,600) 85,300-156=85,144--26 Miles.
       Turtle Mountains, WSA 307, Attached Map #78, Desert Map 
     #104 & 105:
       Castle Rock Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       Heritage Trail Road, 90 Acres, Corridor 15 Miles;
       Virginia May Mine Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem 3 Miles;
       Horn Peak Well Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (144,500) 189,300-180=189,120--30 Miles.
       Whipple Mountains, WSA 312, Attached Map #79, Desert Map 
     #106:
       Whipple Well Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem 5 Miles.
     --Page 39, after line 4, add the following:


                              access roads

       Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     there are hereby designated access routes on existing roads, 
     trails, and ways, as mapped by the United States Geological 
     Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and the Automobile Club of 
     Southern California, as follows:
       Greenwater Range, WSA 147, Attached Map #29, Desert Map 
     #D19 & D20 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--19 & 
     20):
       Greenwater Pass Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 163,900-48=163,852, 8 Miles.
       Greenwater Valley, WSA 148, Attached Map #30, Desert Map 
     #D24 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--1):
       Virgin Spring Road, 48 Acres, Cherrystem, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 54,600-48=54,552, 8 Miles.
       Hunter Mountain, WSA 123, Attached Map #30.5, Desert Map 
     #D25 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--2):
       Dodd Springs Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 26,400-48=26,352, 8 Miles.
       Ibex, WSA 149, Attached Map #31, Desert Map #40 & D21 (now 
     Death Valley National Park Proposed--21):
       American Mine Road, 18 Acres, Cherrystem, 3 Miles;
       Confidence Road, 18 Acres, Boundary, 3 Miles;
       Rusty Pick Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Sheephead Pass Road, 60 Acres, Corridor, 10 Miles.
       Inyo Mountains, WSA 120/122, Attached Map #33, Desert Map 
     #42-44, D6 & 7 (now Inyo Mountains and Death Valley National 
     Park Proposed--6 & 7):
       Blue Monster Mine Road, 66 Acres, Cherrystem 11 Miles;
       Pat Keyes Canyon road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem 4 Miles.
       Last Chance Range, WSA 112, Attached Map #39, Desert Map 
     #D4:
       Cottonwood Creek Road, 24 Acres, Boundary, 4 Miles;
       Last Chance Road, 42 Acres, Boundary, 7 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 44,900-66=4,834, 11.
       Manly Peak, WSA 124, Attached Map #42, Desert Map #D16, 
     (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--16):
       Redlands Canyon Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem, 3 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (16,105), 20700-24=20,676, 3 Miles;, Originally 
     27,100, 4,595 went to DVNP and 6,400 deleted on map.
       North Death Valley, WSA 118/119, Attached Map #47, Desert 
     Map #D5 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--5):
       Oriental Road, 24 Acres, Boundary, 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 50,200-24=50,176, 4 Miles.
       Owlshead Mountains, WSA 156, Attached Map #53, Desert Map 
     #D17 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--17):
       Lost Lake Road, 48 Acres, Cherrystem, 8 Miles;
       Owl Lake Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem, 5 Miles;
       Owlshead Mountain Road, 78 Acres, Corridor, 13 Miles;
       Quail Spring Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem, 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 136,100-192=135,908, 32 Miles.
       Saline Valley, WSA 117/117A, Attached Map #65, Desert Map 
     #D8-10 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--8):
       Eureka Dunes to Saline Valley via Marble Bath, 180 Acres, 
     Corridor, 30 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 486,300-180=486,120, 30 Miles.
       Surprise Canyon, WSA 136, Attached Map #76, Desert Map #101 
     & D15 (now Surprise Canyon and Death Valley National Park 
     Proposed--15):
       Hall/Jail Canyon High Road, 36 Acres, Cherrystem 6 Miles;
       Tuber Canyon Road, 30 Acres, Cherrystem 5 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (29,180), 29,180-66=29,114, 11 Miles; 
     Originally 66,200, 37,020 now in DVNP.
       Slate Range/So. Panamint, WSA 137/142, Attached Map #71, 
     Desert Map #D16 (now Death Valley National Park Proposed--
     16):
       North Windgate Pass Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na), 86,420-48=86,372, 8 Miles; Originally 
     106,900, 20,480 deleted on map.
     --Page 43, after line 12, add the following:


                              access roads

       Sec. 308. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     there are hereby designated access routes on existing roads, 
     trails, and ways, as mapped by the United States Geological 
     Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and the Automobile Club of 
     Southern California, as follows:
       Eagle Mountain, WSA 334, Attached Map #22, Desert Map #J3, 
     (now Joshua Tree National Park Proposed--2):
       Big Wash Road, 72 Acres, Corridor, 12 Miles;
       Storm Jade Mine Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 67,500-120=67,380--20 Miles.
     --Page 54, after line 4, add the following:


                              access roads

       Sec. 416. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     there are hereby designated access routes on existing roads, 
     trails, and ways, as mapped by the United States Geological 
     Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and the Automobile Club of 
     Southern California, as follows:
       Castle Peaks, WSA 266, Attached Map #13, Desert Map #M2, 
     (now Mojave National Park Proposed--1):
       Coats Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Crescent Peak Road, 36 Acres, Boundary, 6 Miles;
       Dove Spring Road, 90 Acres, Corridor, 15 Miles;
       Indian Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Juniper Spring Loop, 48 Acres, Cherrystem, 8 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 49,700-186=49,514--31 Miles.
       Cima Dome, WSA 237/238, Attached Map #17, Desert Map #M3, 
     (now Mojave National Park Proposed--2):
       Deer Spring Loop, 48, Corridor, 8;
       WSA Acreage (na) 28,600-48=28,552--8 Miles.
       Cinder Cones, WSA 239, Attached Map #18, Desert Map #M4, 
     now MNP--3):
       Cane Spring Road, 24 Acres, Corridor, 4 Miles;
       Club Peak Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       Granite Spring Road, 78 Acres, Corridor, 13 Miles;
       Indian Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 63,300-162=63,138--27 Miles.
       Fort Piute, WSA 267, Attached Map #23, Desert Map #M6, (now 
     Mojave National Park proposed--5):
       Piute Mountains Road, 36 Acres, Boundary, 6 Miles, (Use 
     road as Boundary, loss of 2,480 acres):
       WSA Acreage (na) 72,400-36=72,364--6 Miles, Or 
     72,400-2,480=69,920-0=69,920--0 Miles.
       Kelso Mountains, WSA 249, Attached Map #36, Desert Map #M9, 
     (now Mojave National Park Proposed--8):
       Kelso Mine Road, 24 Acres, Cherrystem, 4 Miles;
       Old Baker to Kelso, Road, 72 Acres, Corridor, 12 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 80,500-96=80,404--16 Miles.
       Granite Mountains, WSA 256, Attached Map #27, Desert Map 
     #35, 36 & M7, (now Bristol Mountains & Mojave National Park 
     Proposed-7):
       Heritage Trail, 60 Acres, Corridor--10 Miles;
       Midhills, WSA 264, Attached Map #45, Desert Map #M13, (now 
     Mojave National Park Proposed--2):
       Wildcat Springs Road, 36 Acres, Corridor--6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 22,900-36=22,864--6 Miles.
       Old Dad Mountains, WSA 243, Attached Map #49, Desert Map 
     #M10, (now Mojave National Park Proposed--9):
       Mojave Road Wet Weather Loop Road, 54 Acres, Corridor--9 
     Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 100,560-54=100,506--9 Miles.
       Providence Mountains: WSA 263, Attached Map #60, Desert Map 
     #M15:
       Barber Well Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Beecher Canyon Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Summit Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       Tough Nut Spring Road, 36 Acres, Corridor, 6 Miles;
       Whiskey Spring Road, 12 Acres, Cherrystem, 2 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 64,400-84=64,316, 14 Miles.
       South Providence:
       Mountains, WSA 262, Attached Map #74, Desert Map #M8, (now 
     Mojave National Park Proposed--7)
       Quail Spring Road, 36 Acres, Corridor, 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 25,700-36=25,664--6 Miles.
       Table Mountain, WSA 270, Attached Map #77, Desert Map #M17, 
     (now Mojave National Park Proposed--6):
       Woods Wash Road, 24 Acres, Corridor 4 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 10,000-24=9,976, 4 Miles.
       Woods Mountain, WSA 271, Attached Map #81, Desert Map #M18, 
     (now Mojave National Park proposed--7):
       Black Canyon Connection Road, 18 Acres, Corridor, 3 Miles;
       Hackberry Mountain Loop Road, 48 Acres, Corridor, 8 Miles;
       Watson Wash Road, 24 Acres, Corridor, 4 Miles;
       Woods Wash Road, 36 Acres, Corridor, 6 Miles;
       WSA Acreage (na) 79,400-126=79,274--21 Miles.

  Mr. POMBO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I want to take some time to correct some of 
the misinformation circulating around about this amendment. This is not 
an off-road vehicle amendment. We are not trying to open up the desert 
to people who want to abuse the land. On the contrary, we are merely 
trying to maintain the rights of everyday people to use the roads that 
have been in existence for decades.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my friends who have never 
visited the California desert that this is a magnificent country, but 
nothing like the mountains of the East. We are not talking about a 
wilderness area with a scenic trail running along a mountain stream.

                              {time}  1320

  The desert is unforgiving and can be deadly without adequate water 
and transportation.
  Without this amendment, rock collecting, hiking, picnicking, camping, 
and exploring are all activities that would be much more difficult if 
not impossible to enjoy in the desert.
  Mr. Chairman, let me cite some examples. As the bill now stands, 
prime rock collecting areas usually in the mountains will be miles form 
the nearest roads.
  Furthermore, many rock collectors are older Americans who will be 
unable to walk great distances to pursue their hobby. This is also true 
for the most scenic hiking, camping, and picnicking areas. The Cady 
Mountains, a very popular place for day hikers, will no longer be 
accessible without this amendment. The interior is 6 miles from the 
nearest road, 6 in and 6 out, an impossible distance without a reliable 
source of water and vehicle transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, another popular pastime, exploring historic trails and 
ghost towns, will no longer be possible in many wilderness areas. For 
example, the old Spanish trail through the Kingston Mountains, the main 
route from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles during the last century, will 
be closed. The bottom line is common sense. In the desert, when access 
is cut off, the real losers are the people. The desert is hot and dry 
and not a good place unless one is in excellent physical condition. 
Closing roads that have been in use for years is bad policy.

  Mr. Chairman, the bill's sponsors say that the valid existing rights 
and privileges are protected in H.R. 518. While this is true, access to 
the existing claims and permitted allotments will be denied. For 
example, Russ Sparrow has a valid existing mining claim in an active 
mine over 100 years old. Under this bill, the Porter Mine Road which 
leads to the mine will be off limits. The Pombo amendment simply would 
permit Mr. Sparrow to drive to his existing claim.
  Another example is that on the Onyx Mine Road which leads to a 
privately owned, valid mining claim in the Bristol Mountains, it would 
be off limits under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to guarantee that ordinary citizens 
will be able to reach their valid, existing mining claims.
  This bill would also negate existing privileges, specifically 
existing grazing allotments. For example, the bill closes Steamwell 
Road and Golden Valley Road. These routes provide the only access to 
the region. Without access to his federally permitted grazing 
allotment, Billy Mitchell will not be able to maintain the land upon 
which his cattle graze.
  Similarly, Dave Fisher's grazing allotment in the Rodman and Newbury 
Mountains will be useless unless he is able to maintain and develop the 
water resources there.
  Mr. Chairman, there are examples too numerous to mention of access to 
mining and grazing claims which would not be permitted under the 
current use of this bill. Desert wildlife, especially the larger 
mammals such as deer and bighorn sheep are supported by watering 
developments placed in remote areas over the years by volunteers. 
Maintenance to these wildlife guzzlers will be impossible without this 
amendment.
  The roads left open by this amendment are not new. The vast majority 
have been used for most of this century. They just do not meet the 
strict definition of a road used in the wilderness inventory. Desert 
roads are not regularly scraped or otherwise maintained because they 
become more prone to washout during a rainstorm. All of the roads are 
clearly marked, all of the roads that I am proposing to leave open are 
clearly marked in USGS topographical maps and many appear in the Auto 
Club of Southern California's maps.

  Mr. Chairman, now to one of the most important reasons why I feel 
that we should leave these roads open, and, that is, private property. 
Property owners are likely to see their land values decrease as a 
result of being designated within this protected area. To add insult to 
injury, many private property owners will not be able to reach their 
property because under H.R. 518, the existing roads will be closed to 
vehicle traffic. Wilderness areas designated by the bill are 
approximately 50 percent private property. For example, the townships 
of Nipton and Goffs, both made up of 100 percent privately owned 
property, will fall within the boundaries of a national park.
  Simply put, many people who own private property in the desert will 
not be able to reach it under this bill. The weekend cabin of many will 
be unreachable by car. Property owners who had planned to build a 
retirement home will lose their chance to do so without vehicle access. 
There just will not be a way to get to the property located in the 
wilderness area.
  June Southcot will not be able to drive to her property in the Table 
mountain wilderness. She has been building a cabin there. While the 
owners of Panamint Springs Store will still be able to reach their 
property, access to the store's water supply will be cut off. The store 
will have to close. Even if the property owner wants his property to be 
included in the national park designation, he should be guaranteed 
access to it. This amendment will provide that guarantee. Without it, 
this bill will prohibit many desert property owners access to that 
property.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have here on a map the Cady mountain 
wilderness area, the proposed area. If Members will see where the 
bright spots are, they represent 640 acres of privately owned property. 
In between these borders, there are no roads currently existing within 
the bill. What my amendment would propose to do is leave open these 
existing roads through the middle of this proposed wilderness area so 
that these private property owners will have access to their property. 
It does no good to tell the property owners that they are going to be 
able to maintain their private property and maintain ownership, 
continue to pay taxes, continue to pay their mortgage if we do not 
allow them to have access to it.

  Mr. Chairman, this is the same thing that we have seen over and over 
again in many bills that have been put before this House and before 
these committees, is that they put up the false hope that someone is 
going to be able to maintain ownership of their private property but in 
reality it is a taking by the Federal Government of the private 
property rights of these owners, because we are, No. 1, diminishing the 
value without just compensation of their property, and, No. 2, we are 
refusing to allow them to have access to property that in many 
instances has been in a family for generations just in an effort to 
lock off this property from the valid private property owners who exist 
there.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield 
only because the map the gentleman has before us is so important and 
makes such an important point.
  Members can see if they will look at existing roadways through a 
very, very significantly and vast territory of open land that deserves 
access, in this case along with the roads, and in many areas just like 
this, it will be put in park and wilderness. For goodness sakes, there 
are power lines and high lines that go through it. In this bill they 
are proposing designations like this that has no sense in terms of what 
we traditionally think of as park or wilderness.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. If Members will look at these valid private property areas 
that are included in this one map, and I have many others if anybody 
would like to see the others, they will see that without this 
guaranteed access, without leaving these roads out of the wilderness 
area and the road only out of the wilderness area, these property 
owners would have no access to those properties.
  As an example, this person right here would be 6 miles from the 
nearest road in order to reach his private property. How would that 
person possibly have access to what he pays taxes on, to what he pays 
the mortgage on without leaving open just these roads? To put it in 
perspective, each one of these dots on the map represents a square 
mile. We are not talking about lots in the city. We are not talking 
about a subdivision here.

                              {time}  1330

  We are talking about every one of these represents a square mile, and 
you can see that in this region here where many people, many older 
Americans from my district, go to gather rocks for their hobby of rock 
collecting and mineral shows, they would have to walk several miles in 
the desert in order to maintain their private property and maintain 
their habit of collection.
  The other thing that I would like to point out on this map, since I 
have it up, is these two white dots here represent wildlife guzzlers 
that were manufactured and are maintained by volunteers in order to 
supply water in the desert for the abundant wildlife which currently 
exists and will continue to exist in this area. Without access to 
carrying supplies and equipment to maintain these guzzlers for the 
wildlife in this region, those will fall into disrepair and no longer 
exist, because the volunteers who currently maintain those, without 
access to these roads, would not be able to maintain that.
  So I think that that is another extremely important reason for us to 
maintain the current and existing roads, not all of them, just the ones 
that I have outlined in my amendment, so that we can have reasonable 
access to private property, to valid mining claims, to valid grazing 
permits that exist in the area, as well as allowing the amount of 
recreation that currently exists in the California desert to continue 
and flourish.
  Because it makes no sense to set aside this area as a park, as a 
wildlife preserve, and try to tell people that you are going to 
increase recreational opportunities in the area at the same time that 
you are limiting their access to the area. Because if the people who 
are interested in recreating in the California desert do not have 
access, you are cutting them off from that opportunity.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to tell a friend that he has got an 
ugly kid, but many of us have had to do that, and I am not telling any 
of my friends across the way that they have ugly kids, but this mother 
of all ugly bills is ugly, and the kids of it are ugly, and this is a 
chance to make one of those kids not quite so ugly.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
does just that. First of all, not all off-roaders' vehicles, and this 
is not an off-road-vehicle amendment, but I would like to correct my 
friend at least by perception that all off-road-vehicle drivers are not 
destructive to the desert.
  As a matter of fact, many of those fees and registration fees go to 
protect the deserts, and many individual groups actually repair a lot 
of the desert that has been damaged from natural causes as well.
  But 85 percent of the roads in the amendment offered by my friend, 
the gentleman from California, 85 percent of those roads access private 
property, and most of us are concerned about private-property rights. 
That affects every single State of the Union, not just California, as 
well.
  One classic example: In this bill there is one Member, not in my 
district, but it was brought to my attention by a phone call from the 
gentleman, who owns a salt lake that he harvests the salt out of that 
lake. Of course, there is a road that accesses that lake, and under 
this bill, that gentleman still has the rights to keep his lake, he can 
still harvest the salt, but, ``Oh, by the way, he cannot use the road 
to get it out.''
  This is a private-property matter. And we need to address this. 
Eighty-five percent of these roads access private property.
  Most of the time that bills come on the House floor we take a look 
and say, ``Well, does this really affect my constituents, or does it 
not?'' In many cases, bills like this, other Members will say, ``Well, 
it is a green vote. I will vote for it, because it does not affect 
me.'' Let me clarify some of these issues. First of all, private-
property rights affect every single American, I do not care what State 
you are from. The cost-shifting and managing of nearly 8 million acres 
will affect every park in every State, and when your constituents come 
forward and find that their property and their parks have depreciated 
because of the cost-shifting required to maintain nearly 8 million 
acres, which is recommended by this, or given the Interior Department, 
nearly $6 billion to do that, those costs are going to be taken out of 
your parks and your recreation and your State.
  In addition, the purchase of 336,000 acres of private land, which by 
the way the gentlewoman from the other body worked a sweetheart deal 
with one of her big supporters to exclude that group, and under a 
private and separate authorization will pay for that land, but yet when 
we have already millions of acres that have been authorized but we 
cannot purchase today because there are budgetary shortfalls, these 
additional acres will be added to that.
  And guess who pays for it? The taxpayers in all of the States of this 
country.
  Do weant to lock people out of the parks when they are forced to shut 
down because they do not have the dollars? Just think of what the 
billions of dollars of adding 8 million acres which, by the way, 
covers, if you would add many of the Eastern States together, they do 
not encompass 8 million acres.
  California today, Mr. Chairman, over 48 percent of all of California 
is owned by the Federal Government, and now they want to add 8 million 
acres to that 48 percent.
  And then who has to take care of it? Again, the Federal Government.
  But I do not guess that is any problem for this body, because we 
write blank checks, and quite often those checks bounce.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the discussion surrounding this amendment is an 
incredible mischaracterization of the bill, the suggestion that somehow 
the bill would deny access to private-property owners when, in fact, 
the law demands that they be given access to their property would 
continue.
  The notion here is the suggestion that somehow that if we provide a 
road to private property for their access that somehow that has got to 
become a public road. We can provide access to private property and not 
make that a public road for everyone to use.
  The fact is in this legislation, is it currently stands before us, 
there are over some 33,000 roads that can be used. This goes far beyond 
what the off-road-vehicle users have asked for. It opens up areas the 
previous administration, the Bush administration, had recommended be 
closed. There is no prohibition on hiking, as the gentlemen would lead 
you to believe. There is no prohibition on access to grazing permits, 
as the gentlemen would lead you to believe. There is no prohibition, in 
fact, the law denies a prohibition on access to private property within 
these inholdings.
  We have all experienced that in wilderness areas throughout the 
country.
  Se they are trying to mix apples and oranges here, when in fact what 
they want to do is open a whole series of roads that the BLM has 
recommended because of management, because of habitat, because of 
endangered species, because there are other roads that provide parallel 
access or access to the same areas, that those roads be closed, and 
people use those other ones.
  So we have opened up hundreds of thousands of acres to continue to be 
used for motorcyclists, for off-the-road vehicles, for Jeeps, based 
upon historical use in this area. And I think the Pombo amendment goes 
far beyond what the Senate agreed to do, what the agreements over there 
were about the access for public use of these roads, recognizing that 
there are serious management and habitat problems within this area for 
various wildlife that has to do with endangered species.
  This bill in no way, in no way denies dramatic access to roads for 
those individuals who enjoy using the desert with off-the-road vehicles 
or motorcycles or, in some cases, their family car, that people come 
out and enjoy this, too.
  One of the things we did in the committee was to open up the 
Algodones area that was originally in the bill that was restricted for 
use, but was actually between two areas where usage was allowed. It 
just looked like a management headache. People had historically used 
that area, and I think in some cases they are mainly for motorcycles, 
and we opened that up also.
  So I think that this amendment was rejected in the committee, and far 
exceeds what anybody has suggested would be necessary or even desired 
in terms of public access to some of these roads that simply must be 
closed for the sake of management, and where they are redundant to 
other roads in that area.

                              {time}  1340

  I would hope we would reject the amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, in my statement I did not say that we were not allowing 
the grazing, the mining, the private property owners, the hiking, the 
rock collecting and such to continue, because the bill does 
specifically allow those activities to continue. But what I was trying 
to point out in my statement is that it is a false promise to tell 
people that these activities are going to continue if the access to 
those activities to no longer allowed. That is the reason for my 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, at one point the 
gentleman suggested you could not get to your grazing permit, and the 
fact is that the bill and the law allow you and do provide for access 
to that. That was my point. The notion--and obviously what we are doing 
here and what the Senate did was to create a wilderness area, is not 
the exact experience that you have in your city park where you can 
simply drive, get out of the car and do something alongside of the 
road. That is the purpose of designating this area.
  But the suggestion here is that somehow or other hikers, rock 
collectors will not be able to collect rocks because they will not have 
access. They are going to have access to millions of acres of land as 
the bill is currently proposed. They can do that from roads, and as I 
said, in excess of 33,000 miles of road that continue to remain open 
for the pursuit of those activities.
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will further yield, the gentleman is 
probably more aware than anybody on this floor that 33,000 miles of 
road are predominantly in agricultural regions, not the urban areas 
surrounding the area.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is not correct. In fact, it runs 
through many of these areas.
  Mr. POMBO. There are those that do run through the area.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask the sponsor of the 
legislation, the gentleman from California: These red shiny dots here 
are all privately held lands?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, they are. All of the shiny dots currently represent a section of 
property which is privately owned; a section of property being 640 
acres, or 1 square mile.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The areas that look like roads it allows those 
roads to continue to be used without----
  Mr. POMBO. Yes. Those are current roads, currently being used for 
access by those property owners. This bill would prohibit the use of 
those roads.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman's amendment allows that.
  Mr. POMBO. That is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Now if I may ask the chairman, the gentleman 
from California, is he telling this body that this bill closes these 
roads off?
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, it may close 
those roads off for public use, but not necessarily for access to go to 
those lands.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The question is: What is necessary? Well, why do 
you not accept an amendment that says these roads, which are 
identifiable, already mapped, shall remain open for those private 
landholders?
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is what the law provides, that access.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That law means nothing, because the Park Service 
does not do as they have been told to do. I know of which I speak 
because the gentleman from Minnesota told me, as Mr. Seiberling told 
me, that there would be no problem with access to mining claims in the 
McKinley Park or Denali Park. There would be no problems in Glacier 
Park with the existing mining claims that are there, that you would 
have access. And that is not true. You can no longer go to those areas 
without getting permission from the Park Service, and they do not issue 
that permission.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem here is principally with regard to BLM 
wilderness lands.
  Mr. YOUNG. of Alaska. Well, wait a minute. It is under the Department 
of the Interior, is it not? I am saying if you want to solve this 
problem where we have existing valid rights here, where people own 
their lands, retirement homes, mining claims and grazing areas, they 
have existing roads--we are not talking about building any new roads to 
accommodate the gentleman from California. These people, who happen to 
be American citizens, they want to say in the bill that these roads 
shall be available for those who have valid existing rights in this 
area. Now, what is wrong with that?
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield further, I would point out 
some of the concerns with regard to Glacier Bay, I am informed that the 
claims are under the glacier.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It makes no difference. You have no access to 
it. You cannot mine. You know that, Mr. Sloss, they cannot start in the 
mining area.
  Now, wait a minute, it's my time, my time.
  They denied the right to that area. We were told in committee, 
``Don't worry about it, your claims will be protected.'' But the Park 
Service says, ``No, no,'' they have a huge deposit, and it cannot be 
used, and they lost the value of that. I was on this floor when they 
did it. You talk about this great California wilderness bill; try 147 
million acres in one fell swoop. Try that for size.
  Then we go to Denali Park or Glacier Park, if you wish to call it 
that, we have miners in there. Now the solution is, may I remind my 
good friend, the solution is we are going to take tax dollars from the 
American citizens and buy those claims out not because they want to 
sell them but because they have to because they cannot operate in there 
with the Park's restrictions. They are no longer compatible. But we 
were told, ``Don't worry about it, existing rights shall remain with 
those that have them. Don't worry about it. We will take care of you.'' 
The check is in the mail.
  Now, I am just asking one little simple amendment to have Mr. Pombo's 
amendment accepted or say any roads in this area shall be available, 
shall be available for those private landholders. Now, what is wrong 
with that? I listened to this debate over in my office, I watched what 
was going on here, and it is absolutely true. We have too many acres 
today in parks that are not being taken care of. This is not a 
wilderness, by the way. We have power lines, roads, and access here, 
and we are making a wilderness out of it. As the gentleman from 
Missouri said, the Irish wilderness was not a wilderness until they 
found lead. It was an area that had roads and farms and everything in 
it, but when they found lead, it became a wilderness.
  It is the same case with this so-called California wilderness bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG. of Alaska. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and the 
gentleman who is in the well who is the ranking Member and has had to 
deal with this committee and the issue for many years----
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Twenty-two years.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. We have similar frustrations, that which we 
have experienced. I must say in this discussion the question the 
gentleman is asking about individual property owners, a section of 
land, access to their land. Why not a bill that says, ``You shall have 
access''? I wonder if you could ask that question not of the chairman 
of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee but the author of 
the bill, Mr. Lehman, who has yet to speak to this issue. I would like 
to know what he thinks about individual property owners having access.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, he will have his own time.
  I want to suggest the key to this body has been representing the 
private landholder, and I said----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 
2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The private landholder, I am not asking to 
change the definition of the bill here. I am saying let us give them 
some consideration. What right does this body have to impose our will 
on those people who have done no wrong, that have this land under 
present law? For some reason we have forgotten what the Constitution 
says and what our role in Congress is.
  Yes, we want to protect the environment, but do we want to lose the 
rights of individuals to protect the environment? We are not asking 
much. I am just asking Mr. Pombo's amendment be accepted, giving access 
over existing roads, no new roads, no new trails, existing roads to be 
left intact. That is all he is asking. If we take that away, this body 
has lost sight of the American way. Regardless of what you may say and 
all these interest groups--the Sierra Clubs, the friends of yours, all 
57 of these leeches around this area of Washington, DC, dictating to 
the Members of this body as to what they should do with their lands, 
and not the people in the area. That is what upsets me about all this 
legislation. This is not driven by the people at home, it is driven by 
the people out of L.A., San Francisco, it is driven by the people 
belonging to these organizations.
  If you are doing this right, make this a recreational area and 
protect those people who have those rights given to them under law. 
Protect them. Don't say protect them and then not do it. That is wrong. 
That is what we have been doing in the past, time after time.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman knows what the Wilderness 
Act, under which this is a proposal for wilderness, provides for that 
access. Section 5(a) in fact does. What it does not provide is what Mr. 
Pombo wants, which is general public access on those roads. That is not 
necessary to protect those individual's rights to their property. In 
fact, what the gentleman----
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows, Mr. 
Chairman, as I do, never has that right been used by the agency--it has 
not, it has not, it has not--I am saying, accept Mr. Pombo's amendment 
that they shall have that right, no question. Not at the discretion of 
BLM, not at the discretion of the Park Service or a Secretary of 
Interior. No Government agency should have that right over the private 
landholder. That is a simple way to go. Let those people have their 
rights under our Constitution. Do not say to the agency that we have a 
law that protects them. Sure, you can go to court, some agencies can 
file suit and say you cannot do it. Some interest groups will file suit 
that say you cannot do it. There will be some who say you can do it.
  I am saying let us protect these little people. That is what America 
is about, the little people. It is not these huge organizations.
  I hear people condemn the mining interests and the timber industry. 
But the biggest organization in the United States today is the so-
called elite environmental community that is driving this Congress to 
taking land out of the productive role.

                              {time}  1350

  That is the group we should be fighting. Let us think about the 
American worker and the little person, not the large group of 
environmental groups.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], and let me first make very clear 
that this amendment really does not have anything to do with private 
property rights. Those rights are protected. Those rights are protected 
for the people who own their property, and access to the property is 
protected. It is protected under common law, and it is protected under 
the various aspects of this bill.
  What is attempting to be done here is, first of all, exactly as the 
chairman described, an attempt to open these roads up for general 
public use. But what concerns me more here is the eleventh hour attempt 
to undo the lengthy, careful and deliberative process I and others have 
undergone for 4 years now to try to make incremental, piece-by-piece, 
road-by-road determinations as to what ought to be left totally open 
for all use, what ought to be left simply for the use for which the 
road was probably created in the first place, and what is needed to 
ensure access to property. It does not make any sense to have certain 
roads out there, because many cause nuisances, because many are counter 
to the provisions of this act, or because in many cases, there are 
other ways of getting to the same place, and we do not need to police 
that many areas at the same time.
  I would point out that the amendment that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] will offer as a substitute, contained 62 
wilderness areas in it, and will close many roads off to public use 
itself. So, the issue here is not pro-private property rights versus 
anti-private property rights. What we are talking about with the 
substitute of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and with the 
proposal before the House is how many wilderness areas there are going 
to be. These bills treat those areas the same way with respect to the 
same wilderness areas.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. When I finish, Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the 
gentleman. I have not interrupted anyone here today.
  We have in this bill probably the most permissive language regarding 
grazing in a national park ever to come before the House. It allows 
grazing in perpetuity under this law and, indeed, is opposed by some 
members of the Natural Resources Committee, and they may try to take 
that out later in this bill but the language in this bill totally 
allows everyone with a grazing right today to maintain that right in 
perpetuity into the future.
  We have looked at every one of these areas time and time again and 
will continue to look at them from now through the conference. As 
recently as the full committee meeting, Mr. Chairman, this Member 
authorized a successful amendment that took 59,000 acres of private 
land out of the bill. At my request, and at the request of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] over here, the chairman took 
language into the bill that took 62,000 acres of high quality 
recreation area in the South Algodones Dunes out of the bill. Two years 
ago, when this bill was on the floor, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] in fighting for that language at that time said that a 
hundred thousand people would be closed out unless we deleted it.
  Well, in the bill that is before the House today, Mr. Chairman, we 
have made that adjustment. We have been making adjustments as the bill 
goes on where the case is substantial and where we are certain about 
what we were doing, and we will continue to do so.
  I lost on one amendment in the committee myself. Talk about an open 
process. I offered an amendment that I thought made a reasonable 
extension of some roads going to about a third of what is in the 
proposal of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] here that I 
thought was reasonable. I lost that in committee. The sponsors asked me 
not to bring that amendment back up on the floor today, thinking, we 
will discuss it in conference, which we will. But to go about it in 
this fashion today, to indiscriminately open these wilderness areas up 
without knowing what we are doing is not smart, when the fact is, which 
was pointed out in a recent McClatchy newspaper editorial, we have 
500,000 miles of these roads in California. So this is certainly not 
going to destroy any industry or anybody's recreation.
  If the case can be made that this is necessary, Mr. Chairman, then 
let us look at it on a case-by-case basis, and I would be happy to work 
with the gentleman to try to do it, just as there are additions other 
than this that I would like to see made in the bill as well.
  The industry with the most stake in this issue frankly is the 
utilities in California because they have rights-of-way all over the 
State. They have gas lines; they have electricity transmission lines. 
Where are they on this bill? None of them are opposed to this bill. In 
fact, Mr. Chairman, most of them are actively supporting the bill that 
is on the floor before us today because they are certain that their 
access to those areas is already guaranteed under the provisions of 
this act. And believe me, they have got the lawyers to tell them 
otherwise if that were the case.
  We have gone about this deliberatively, carefully, cautiously, and 
where we thought there was a doubt, frankly we tried to err on the side 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] is coming from. But the 
bill, as it is written, now makes sense. Yes, it can probably go 
somewhat further in my opinion, but this is not a private property 
issue.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to just point out that we have 
private inholdings on the wilderness on a regular basis. I mean it is 
not very common in this area as almost all of it is public land, but 
somebody has some claim or maybe even a patented area. But the point is 
that in terms of national consistency should we treat the question here 
as from a national wilderness system? Are we going to have a national 
wilderness system? Are we going to treat the California desert in a 
different way, in a way that is absolutely unique? That is really what 
the question is here with regard before the body. If we are going to 
treat this in a way that is completely different, it is not the case 
today, and I thank the gentleman for having yielded to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lehman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] makes an important point.
  First of all, I just visited a wilderness area where people had 
access in those inholdings by airplane, by boat, by motor vehicle, to 
mining claims, to hunting lodges, to resorts, to private residences all 
throughout one of the largest wilderness areas in this country, in 
Idaho, in the Frank Church. And the fact is that all over the country 
we have wilderness in national parks with inholdings that have access 
to those private properties because the Congress has never had the 
desire to deny those individuals access to that.
  That is not what the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] is about. The Pombo amendment is about a lot of 
people who would not agree with the American Motorcycle Association, 
would not agree with the bipartisan agreement on the Senate side on the 
roads that they thought were necessary to continue that and wanted just 
to open up all of the existing roads for whatever purposes available, 
and that simply is incompatible with the purposes of this bill, and the 
intent and the support the Californians have for this bill. So, as my 
colleagues know, to suggest that somehow this is to change the scale 
and people are not going to get access is simply to deny history and to 
deny the law that says, ``You shall be.'' ``You shall be,'' section 
5(a), ``You shall be given access.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lehman was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to have 
the author of the bill have as much time as he would like. I appreciate 
my colleague yielding.
  My colleague is, I believe, very sensitive to the problems of 
grazers, et cetera. I know he comes from a farming district. I do know 
he also knows that these environmental groups from the urban centers, 
often go to excess, and I gather from the gentleman's statement that it 
is his intent this grazing be provided in perpetuity in his bill.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. LEHMAN. That is what the bill before the House does.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I beg to differ with the author, for I would 
refer to page 46 in the bill under section 409 that deals with grazing. 
The language specifically says the privilege of raising domestic 
livestock on lands within the park shall continue to be exercised at no 
more than the current levels subject to applicable laws and National 
Park Service regulations.
  The gentleman knows full well the Park Service does everything it can 
to cut the throat of the grazers who might want to use that land. 
Clearly the grazing community is unhappy with the language that is 
involved here.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Well, I object to the gentleman's characterization of the 
Park Service, and this land is in the park. Previous language in the 
bill originally did not allow any grazing. We amended that in the bill 
3 years ago to make it 25 years that they could graze. Now we have 
taken the further step of permitting it, at my request I would point 
out, in perpetuity in the park area.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
further?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If that is the gentleman's intent, it would 
not be difficult to simply design a minor amendment that would allow 
for grazing in perpetuity in this territory. Would the gentleman be 
willing to accept such an amendment?
  Mr. LEHMAN. This is what is in the bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I would just say that the gentleman is 
quite correct. That is what the legislation allows. Those people who 
have those permits will be allowed to continue them, as they currently 
do under existing law, and the designations of these areas will not 
impair that, and they will have to comply with the laws of the United 
States of American like every other citizen.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. VENTO. I would just point out that existing permittees today, 
people permitted to graze, only have assurances from 5 to 10 years for 
the option for a permittee under present law. The issue here, of 
course, is one I disagree with in terms of the ``in perpetuity.''
  In essence, what you are saying is that the Park Service would not 
have the discretion that the BLM has today. Your zeal to help and 
satisfy some of these sort of questions that are being raised, which I 
think are really off the wall, I think we have gone too far. I intend 
to address that.
  The truth is, of course, that these are hot desert areas, they are 
sensitive areas. These cows get more miles than your old Chevrolet. 
They are running around competing with the desert tortoise, and so 
forth. I want to assure my friend from California, you are going to 
have a debate on grazing in the parks here today. But the issue of that 
in perpetuity is not long enough, that 25 years is too short. The truth 
of the matter is you are taking away the power and discretion that the 
BLM and Park Service would have today under the normal course of 
things. These are just per my test. There is no intransigent right to 
graze.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
chairman has indicated his purpose is to eliminate grazing from this 
language.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this particular amendment. 
I have been on that committee for 14 years now and I have passed a 
wilderness bill in my home State of Utah. I still remember the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, making some comments 
on how certain roads would be. Unfortunately, that has not come about.
  I am always astounded as we stand here upon this particular floor and 
talk about wilderness bills, because we fly in the face of the 1964 
Wilderness Act. I took it upon myself to go back and read all of the 
information that happened in the Wilderness Act. Like a court would 
say, the dicta. What was said on the floor, what was said in committee.
  It came down to when it said untrammeled by man, pristine, as if man 
had never been there, we talked about cattle ponds, we talked about 
roads, we talked about power lines. And even one person said that roads 
meant two tracks. I do not know if that is correct, but that is what 
some people said.
  Now, we come in with bills like this, and the Pombo amendment goes 
right to the heart of it, flies in the face of the 1964 Wilderness Act. 
The question Members should be asking is why are we even looking at an 
area that has homes in it, that has roads in it, that has cattle ponds, 
that has all of these things in it. It should not be in wilderness to 
started with.
  The gentleman is trying his very best to do what he can to take care 
of a situation. I do not know which chairman, said that this is already 
taken care of in existing law. Let us read the existing law and see if 
it is taken care of.
  Here is what the existing law says regarding this issue. In any case 
where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by 
national forest lands--let me repeat, national forest lands--within 
areas designated by the act as wilderness, such State or private owner 
shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate 
access to such State-owned or privately owned land.
  But it does not say BLM, it does not say park. The law is silent on 
that point. Because the law is silent on that point, it is necessary, 
and I think it was very intelligent for the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo] to take it upon himself to say we are lacking somewhere in 
this bill. We have not covered our bases, in order to take care of 
access for these people who have a perfect right to go to their ground. 
We have to come up with some way to do it.
  So the gentleman has done this by putting that in there.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not want 
to interrupt the gentleman's presentation, but if he looks at page 28 
of the bill, I realize I was saying the bill was 200 pages long, it is 
only 69 pages long, but nevertheless, page 68, section 103, the general 
powers of the Secretary of Agriculture requirements are also deemed to 
be exercised by the Secretary of Interior for the purpose of 
administration of wilderness areas.
  So the gentleman is correct in terms of his observation with regards 
to national forest lands and the Secretary of Agriculture. But the same 
rules apply. This is apparently a general instruction that is used and 
has been used in wilderness bills. As far as I know, they have the 
discretion in those circumstances.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment. Let 
me respectfully say, I remember the days that James Watt walked in as 
the Secretary of Interior and the gas position that some of our 
colleagues had regarding that. Some folks did not think he lived up to 
it.
  I remember when our current Secretary of Interior came in. Frankly, I 
am having a very difficult time feeling comfortable with our current 
Secretary of Interior when it comes up to leaving it up to the 
discretion he may have. I do not want to put that kind of power in any 
secretary that comes along, because the difference between these two 
individuals is as night and day. If we have to wait for a personality 
clash with the Secretary of Interior, to me it would be much more 
intelligent to have it in the law and lay it to rest at this particular 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just 
would point out this is not a discretion. It says it shall be 
administered in the same manner as the secretary. So it is a mandated 
requirement on page 28 of the bill, section 103.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that 
comment. I also have those reservations because of practically seeing 
how it happened in the States of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. 
I think we can put it in the law.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my friend from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has been mentioned several times that the South 
Algodones has been removed from the area. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the chairman, for doing that, 
because a lot of people came. There are still a lot of folks upset. I 
think to provide access to these things, you know, even the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lehman] mentioned that he had in the bill, though 
the process was not served, of only about one-third of the roads. So 
there evidently is a problem that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lehman] wants to clarify one third of the roads. Then we need to 
support the gentleman amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is 
important for us to realize one fact the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo] made earlier. There are a lot of folks that cannot put a 
backpack on their backs and walk 10 miles out to enjoy the paloverde 
tree or the ironwood tree or campsite they have been going to for 20 to 
30 years. In my district you have people who have visited the same 
campsite for two or three generations.
  You have to have vehicles to enjoy the desert. The point is we are 
not taking vehicles off road. The Pombo amendment allows people to 
access the same roads they have been using. So we have got roads in 
strategic places where a person like Ida Little can conduct the wild 
flower tours she has been conducting for the last 20 years or so. She 
cannot put a backpack on at over 70 years of age and stride off into 
the sands to do that.
  The desert is a great resource, not just for the young, strong people 
who have subscriptions to Backpacker magazine, but also senior citizens 
and people that have been going there for generations. If you take away 
their right to those roads and their vehicles, then you have taken them 
out of the desert.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], the roads he has put in 
there, 1,000 miles of this is designated on AAA maps. Golly, that is 
just like putting I-15 or Route 66 on it. To say we are going to close 
these roads that have been used for years, I personally think this is 
ludicrous. We are taking away access for so many people. Southern 
California, southern Nevada, all of those people have used these roads.
  I think the gentleman has come up with an excellent amendment. I 
would hope the Members listening to this in their offices would take 
into consideration, this may be California, but it may be your State 
next. I would hate to see you throttle down this access.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to these 
definitions of roads. I would like to share with my colleagues a little 
truth and fact relative to access to private property. The Santa Rosa 
Mountains are the backdrop for the valleys and areas of the Cahuilla 
Valley and the cities therein.

                              {time}  1410

  The BLM, ever since I can remember, has denied access to private 
property, access to private property, in those areas.
  Let us get back to the desert bill. If this desert bill goes through 
in its present form, there are a number of popular destinations for 
family or community activities between the communities of Indio and 
Blythe, south of I-10, that would no longer be available or accessible 
because of the wilderness designation. The fact is that these people 
will no longer be able to go through roads they can now, to get to in-
holdings where people actually own property.
  For example, in the district that I represent, we have a number of 
clubs, and let me give you one in particular, the El Jamel four-wheel-
drive club, a family and community-based organization. They do not have 
enough money to go out fly fishing in New Zealand. They use the desert 
for recreational purposes.
  They collectively over the years, and it has been so long I cannot 
even remember, purchased 40 acres of land, which under this bill will 
no longer be accessible to them. I repeat that, it will no longer be 
accessible to them, because they have to get to where they are going 
through what we are designating as a wilderness area.
  The BLM has not let people in the same area, up in the Orocopias, go 
to their private property, so I must take exception with the analysis 
given, unless there is something here that I have missed.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point about these people. They are 
fine, community people. They are not a bunch of wild, beer-drinking 
bikers, tearing the desert apart. They take a great deal of pride in 
their activities, and actually clean up the desert in many of the 
projects.
  These people are going to be denied, by the definitions that we have 
looked at specific to this property, to their 40 acres, and the large 
number of people within the community of Indio who belong to this one 
club, will be denied access to their desert by the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  How much more can we talk about, that disputes what it is that the 
gentleman is bringing forward as being an idea that, well, if we have a 
piece of property, the Federal Government must give us access? What 
about these sections of property in the Orocopias that people have not 
been able to get to by vehicle?
  One fellow says, ``I will build a road on BLM property, on the 
alignment of the section. I will not go across it.'' He is told: 
``Sorry, you cannot build on the line of property there or anywhere 
else.''
  This is the problem we are having. This is why, without the Pombo 
amendment, we are going to deprive people such as I have referred to, 
who look at the desert as a recreational outlet for their families, who 
do not have the money to do other things, access to the property they 
and their parents and their grandparents have had for years.
  Let me give the kicker here. There were two main routes east and west 
into California during the 1800's. There was the Butterfield Stage 
Route that connected Yuma and went through the Imperial Valley and 
ultimately ended up on the coast. You had the Bradshaw Trail, which 
parallels I-10 south of Blythe and goes into the Salton Sea area. In 
both cases, those roads have been there since the 1800's, and in both 
cases, we will no longer be able to traverse those roads as a 
recreational activity.
  Herein lies the problem, and this is why the Pombo amendment to me is 
an answer to this. We are not going to build a freeway through pristine 
areas. We are trying to give people an opportunity to enjoy what they 
have enjoyed for years, and those that follow.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, might I make an inquiry as to 
how many Members want to speak? We are getting questions on both sides 
of the aisle as to intent on time.
  My understanding is that the intent was originally that the committee 
would rise by 3 o'clock. I know the gentleman has Mr. Lewis, and Mr. 
Vento has not spoken, and Mr. Doolittle has not spoken.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Doolittle.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is fine, and we can go to a vote and 
they can have their 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, without this amendment, will cut off long-
established access routes. This is the old Spanish Trail, this route 
that goes up along here from west to east. That has been available for 
use for over 100 years.
  Under this bill, without this amendment, the people will not have 
access to that any longer. This is just one example, of how detrimental 
this piece of legislation is going to be, cutting off something that 
has been in continuous use for over 100 years.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, the reality is that the bill is going to cut off 
access basically to these publicly owned lands, and the response is no, 
if you are within 3 miles, which the bill guarantees, we deem that to 
be adequate access.
  Mr. Chairman, if we stop and think about it, when is the last time we 
took our family, say, up to a piece of undeveloped property, and it 
does not have water so you have to carry water. If I remember correctly 
that is about six pounds a gallon or more, and you have to have or you 
usually want to bring a cooler with food and so forth in it which 
weighs a certain amount.
  If there are very small children, they are not going to be able to 
walk themselves the 3 miles, so, of course, sure, you can strap them on 
your back if you can find room alongside the water and alongside the 
food and stuff you have in your pack to maybe take them along, but 3 
miles out in the desert sun at about 110 degrees in the sand is not 
going to be too appealing. It might tend to suggest that you will in 
effect restrict access, even while proclaiming to guarantee access.
  Yes, there is a type of people that have been mentioned; Duncan 
Hunter mentioned one lady in her seventies who conducts a wildflower 
tour. Older people are going to have difficulty going in those 
conditions for 3 miles in order to have what this bill claims will be 
adequate access.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just represent that this is really an effective 
denial of access. That is what the Pombo amendment is intended to 
address, so that we can really enjoy the land our tax money is paying 
for, instead of having it roped off to us, and cutting off established 
public access routes, like the old Spanish Trail, which have been in 
effect for over 100 years.
  Talk about an extreme piece of legislation, this is it. This Pombo 
amendment is a very reasonable remedy to make these provisions work so 
we protect what is desired to be protected, and we continue to ensure 
the public the use.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard about access to private lands. That is 
guaranteed by language in here. Let me ask, how many of the Members 
would like to go hat in hand to the Park Service or the BLM begging for 
access to your own land? How many of the Members would like to hire an 
attorney at x number of thousands of dollars and x number of months or 
years, in order to secure that right? Oh, yes, there is language in 
here that supposedly allows it, but the reality is it is going to cost 
thousands of dollars for the private property owner and months if not 
years in order to lay claim to that right. So it is not right at all.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we should all vote to support the 
Pombo amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo amendment. What this 
amendment is all about is whether or not we are going to have a 
national wilderness system or not, and whether or not it is going to 
apply to these lands in California, these substantial lands that are 
being designated both as wilderness and nonwilderness in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly the Federal Government in this case stands in 
the place of the American public. They, in fact, represent the public 
ownership and the rights of the public in general to stewardship and to 
a legacy of natural heritage that exists in this Mojave Desert and 
other areas in this vast California desert area.
  The fact is that there apparently is a school of thought here that 
one cannot trust the Federal Government, one cannot trust the land 
managers; that the Federal Government cannot do anything right, and 
therefore, we are not satisfied with what rights a private individual 
may have with regard to the Constitution, we are satisfied with the 
rights that exist with the Wilderness Act that apply to all the other 
49 States, and obviously there are differences.
  The question is, it is going to be the lowest common denominator. if 
someone does not agree with what a land manager is doing, whether it is 
the Department of Agriculture, Park Service, BLM, or some other 
wilderness area, the Fish and Wildlife Service, therefore we are going 
to come in here with a bulldozer type of attitude with regard to public 
policy, not one that is rooted in the Constitution, other than by the 
definition of those that are trying to define that, because if that 
were the case, that would be established and that would be a court case 
and they would win.

                              {time}  1420

  They cannot apparently prevail in that particular instance. No, we 
are going to come in here with this amendment that provides another 
thousand miles of roads in this area to these sites over public land. 
The issue here, of course, is what the type of access is gong to be. 
Under the aegis of private property rights, of course, we are not just 
going to have the individual access, we are going to have the off-road 
vehicles that are going to be in there, that are going to be going down 
those roads, the various motorcycles, a whole host of various things 
that are going to obviously cause a significant impact in these 
sensitive desert areas that we are trying to preserve as wilderness. 
The wilderness, I might say, which is the legacy of not just the people 
in California but of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, these laws and rules apply, the Constitution and the 
rules of wilderness apply in all the other States and in some cases, 
apparently unhappily, it is not the type of fit that Members want, it 
is not the lowest common denominator. They cannot always take their 
four-wheel drive vehicle down there, they cannot pave it, they cannot 
do a variety of other things they would like to do. The fact is that 
this bill provides access to almost any private property and there is 
no more than 3 miles away from a road.
  Mr. Chairman, there are in this bill in this desert area, vast area, 
some 35,000 miles of road, not 33,000 as we are reporting, there is at 
least 35,000. Plus, through the work of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lehman], the work of Senator Feinstein, the work of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], in making agreements, they have expanded 
that area even more in the committee, so there has been a conscientious 
effort here to be sensitive to this, to deal with it. But we are not 
going to, and I would ask to reject the issue here, provide access to 
all of these irrespective and to make it a public access so it will not 
just be used by the private landowner but by all these recreation 
vehicles. That will really cause the demise and the degradation of 
these wilderness areas that are trying to be protected.
  I ask the Members of this House to vote no on Pombo and to stand up 
for these areas and to stand up to keep the California wilderness in as 
good a condition as we can, as the other areas in this country, to vote 
no on the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly I was a little disconcerted there a moment ago, 
for throughout this debate I have been wanting to mention the name of 
California's senior Senator, Mrs. Feinstein from California, but I did 
not think our rules allowed it, but since our chairman used it, the 
senior Senator has been very much involved in this catastrophe we are 
talking about today, and I wanted to make sure the House was aware of 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it very clear to Members of the 
House that none of the four Members who were elected to represent the 
desert communities of California are opposed to desert wilderness or to 
desert planning or to adequate park availability or to supporting our 
monuments. Indeed, we have been involved in that very work for our 
careers.
  Mr. Chairman, I was the author of the first legislation in California 
to attempt to do something about people who abused the land and the 
vegetation of the desert. We increased law enforcement access to many 
an area that prevented people from across State lines coming in to 
steal much of the flora and fauna of the desert. I was the chairman of 
a standing environmental quality committee that dealt with air quality 
in the region as well as southern California while in the legislature. 
I have carried amendments here to increase the numbers of employees 
available to protect the desert lands.
  Mr. Chairman, the four Members who represent the desert are 
complaining today only because this bill does not reflect appropriate 
public policy process. It is an arbitrary action on the part of this 
committee that overrode the public process. It is very important for 
the membership to know that this House some years ago created a public 
commission that held almost endless hearings, years of hearings, some 
40,000 individual comments, to make sure that the grazers were listened 
to, the environmentalists were listened to, that miners were listened 
to, that people who had recreational interests had an adequate voice, 
and that entire process led to a plan that indeed we have introduced on 
more than one occasion and strongly support.
  That legislation itself will involve over 2.3 million acres of land 
with some 62 areas that are wilderness.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to protecting the desert. But excess 
action on the part of a few members of the committee who represent what 
I describe as the urban leaches in the environmental movement, who do 
not understand the desert, are what we are opposed to, and they have no 
explanation as to how we are going to pay for this.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, we all know that our National Park System is 
in desperate shape. Yellowstone, for example, cannot even begin to 
service the needs that are there. My constituents during the last 
recess, yours, too, complained and complained about lack of access to 
parks because of inadequate funding. We are not able to take care of 
the parks that are absolutely unnecessary with no funding mechanism 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, remember that this bill has gone forward with no 
consultation of any nature, of any significance with the Members who 
are elected to represent the desert and that is where we begin and our 
fundamental complaint. The desert is our territory, we care about it 
and our people understand it and love it the most.
  I think before going any further regarding the general debate, Mr. 
Chairman, it is important that we address for a moment in a little 
different way the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo], before us, for while the gentleman does not specifically 
represent the desert territory, the gentleman is clearly a man of the 
West and understands the importance of access. The significance of his 
amendment in terms of improving this bill should not be underestimated. 
I would hope it would receive overwhelming support in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just discuss with Members why access is 
important. If one is an outdoor enthusiast who enjoys hiking, camping 
and taking in wilderness experience, access is important. If one is a 
rock hound who enjoys climbing up into the hills and mountains of our 
desert, they need access.
  There are territories that are bigger than an eastern State, and we 
cannot walk there, so we need access.
  If one's job is to maintain guzzlers and ample water sources for 
bighorn sheep or other animals in the desert, access is important to 
maintaining those species.
  The list, my friends, goes on and on. Access is critical to 
maintaining and preserving the desert.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take Members for a walk in the desert 
for just a moment. It is largely my territory. If one has never visited 
the California desert, he will find that it is nothing like the 
wilderness experience one would have in the Appalachians or in the 
Rockies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the outdoor experience in the 
desert is a far cry from taking a walk through a wilderness area along 
a scenic trail or a mountain stream. The desert environment is often 
very unforgiving. Indeed, it can be deadly without an adequate water 
source and transportation. It is very important for the Members to know 
that those involved in the desert will find their access almost 
entirely cut off unless this amendment is adopted.
  Just take rock collecting, for example. H.R. 518 as it now stands, 
the best rock collecting areas that are usually in the mountains will 
be miles from the nearest road. Many rock collectors, including older 
Americans, constituents of mine who live in the desert, will be unable 
to have access they need if they need to walk additional distances to 
pursue that hobby. This also holds true for the most scenic hiking, 
camping and picnicking areas in the desert.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most popular hiking areas known as the Cady 
Mountains will be off limits without the passage of this amendment.
  The interior of this wilderness area is 6 miles from the nearest road 
each way. Is the average senior citizen or disabled person going to be 
able to traverse some way those 6 miles?
  Exploring many of California's historic trails and ghost towns will 
be no longer possible without this amendment.
  The old Spanish trail has been mentioned, which brought pioneers from 
Salt Lake City to Los Angeles in the 19th century, would be lost 
forever, and perhaps forgotten to those who live in the urban center.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct for my colleagues some of the 
misinformation that is being fed by the opponents of the Pombo 
amendment. This is not in any way an off-road vehicle amendment. I 
repeat, this is not in any way an off-road vehicle amendment. Frankly, 
I have had problems with motorcycles between Barstow and Las Vegas and 
they would suggest that is what this bill is about. It is not what this 
bill is about. The Pombo amendment does not open up areas of the desert 
to be misused or abused. On the contrary, this amendment is to maintain 
the rights of average citizens to use 1,037 miles of roads, largely in 
my district, that have been in existence for decades.

                              {time}  1430

  These roads are spread over five counties in an area the size of the 
State of Virginia. In my own district, you can put four Eastern States, 
as I have said, in easily. In fact, many of the roads included within 
this amendment, as has been suggested by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo], are on all of the AAA maps. Craziness is involved in this 
legislation.
  While it is true access to the existing claims and allotments would 
be denied by H.R. 518, it is important for us to know that foremost in 
our mind's eye are the rights and privileges of individual citizens to 
travel over roads whether they own land there or not that they traveled 
over for years.
  Hundreds of individuals with small mining claims would be prohibited 
access to their claims. One such constituent of mine who currently uses 
the Porter Mine Road, which leads to a 100-year-old active mine, would 
be denied use of the road he has used for years. Likewise, without this 
amendment, access to federally permitted zigzag allotments would be 
eliminated.
  David Fisher, whose family has raised cattle on the desert range for 
five generations, would be essentially out of business without access 
to maintain water sources for his livestock and other desert species.
  California's senior Senator, Mrs. Feinstein, promised Mr. Fisher he 
would be able to continue cattle ranching into perpetuity. However, as 
this bill is presently written without access, he will be regulated out 
of business.
  The proponents of this legislation have claimed that no location in 
wilderness under H.R. 518 is more than 3 miles from a road. That is 
simply not the case. Mr. Chairman, for instance, the Saline-Eureka 
Valley area in the proposed Death Valley National Park is at least 24 
miles across. Only the most elite endurance athlete could survive this 
type of hiking wilderness experience, on horseback, or while carrying 
any significant amount of water.
  One of the most disturbing elements of H.R. 518, as presently 
written, is that it will restrict private-property owners' access to 
their own property. This dramatically impacts, Mr. Chairman and 
Members, hundreds of families of my own constituents.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The small landowners, the small miners, Mr. 
and Mrs. America of the West would be most dramatically affected by 
this bill without this amendment. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo] points to many existing roads used by those average citizens, 
and full well he makes clear they will be closed to those citizens in 
terms of their use to access.
  Property owners like June Southcaught, who has been building a cabin 
in the Table Mountain Wilderness, will not be able to complete her 
home. Others who had planned to build a retirement home will lose the 
chance to do so without access. Citizens would be guaranteed access to 
their private property if it is to be included in a national park. We 
owe them that much at least.
  My colleagues, we certainly owe them that much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I am only asking, because we are getting besieged by Members 
who claim they have planes at 3 o'clock or whatever. Can the gentleman 
give us some indication?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, I am asking for 
3 additional minutes, and I am going to take 30 seconds and yield the 
balance to the gentleman so he may close.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis]?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say to you that I only 
take this extra time because there is a tendency for Members to easily 
vote for what is considered to be an environmental vote for urban city 
Members when it does not affect their district. This dramatically 
affects four Members' districts who have not been consulted about this 
matter.
  It is important for you to know that essentially this legislation 
overwhelmingly impacts their ability to deal effectively with their 
district without that consultation.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] is simply attempting to 
make sure many of my citizens have adequate access to their property.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, on closing, bring the debate back 
to where I started quite some time ago.
  What we are talking about here is guaranteeing access for a number of 
recreational activities as well as access to private property. That is 
what my amendment is guaranteeing, now, regardless, whether or not off-
road vehicles, whether they be four-wheel-drives or motorcycles or 
what, they are included in the ability to access.
  What we are talking about on this map in specifics is about 15 to 20 
miles across where the off-road vehicles would be allowed is on the 
part that is white. That is an existing road that is currently being 
used. That is where they would be allowed. They would not be allowed to 
enter into the wilderness area. They would be restricted to the areas 
which I am requesting be removed from the wilderness area which are the 
existing roads.
  Going back to this map which shows a number of private-property 
owners which are included, it was mentioned in the debate that this 
does not directly affect my district. Well, it does directly affect my 
district, and I will tell you why, because what is happening to these 
private-property owners in my district and in your district.
  The Federal Government comes in and puts restrictions like this on 
top of the property, and in effect is taking the private property away 
from those owners without just compensation. They are not being allowed 
to have the full use of their property because of legislation like this 
and other legislation which has been effected by this Congress this 
year and in past years. It does affect my district and it affects your 
district, whether you think it does or not.
  There are four Members here today whom this directly affects now, 
because it is their district, because every one of you who sits on this 
floor and who will be coming down here to cast a vote on this motion 
know that this affects your districts directly, because these are the 
private-property rights that need to be protected.
  Please, support the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's 
contribution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 191, not voting 79, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--169

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Rowland
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Stark
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--79

     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Clay
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Deal
     Dickey
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Grams
     Grandy
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Laughlin
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Obey
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Penny
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Sundquist
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Tucker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1457

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Orton for, with Miss Collins of Mississippi against.
       Mr. Tanner for, with Mr. Deal against.
       Mr. Baker of California for, with Mr. Jefferson against.
       Mr. Barton for, with Mrs. Meek against.
       Mr. Bilirakis for, with Mr. Rangel against.
       Mr. Taylor of North Carolina for, with Mr. Slattery 
     against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Mr. FARR, Ms. WATERS, and Messrs, FIELDS of Louisiana, NADLER, and 
MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. OXLEY and Mr. TORRES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 518, 
the California Desert Protection Act. I want to commend Representative 
Lehman, Chairman Vento and Chairman Miller for all their hard work on 
this issue.
  The California Desert is one of this Nation's most spectacular, and 
fragile, natural resources. I believe it is also among one of our most 
threatened due to its close proximity to millions of people in southern 
California. The desert provides valuable habitat to more than 600 
species of animals and nearly 2,000 species of plants. Some species, 
including the bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise, are protected 
under the Endangered Species Act. The desert, especially the area which 
will be designated as the East Mojave National Park, contains a special 
combination of high and low altitude areas, lava beds and an incredible 
sand dune system. In the Mojave area alone, three desert ecosystems--
the Sonoran, Mojave and Great Basin--converge creating a unique 
habitat.
  H.R. 518 would designate approximately 3.9 million acres currently 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] as wilderness. It would 
expand the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments and make 
them national parks. It would create the East Mojave National Park on 
approximately 1.5 million acres. Furthermore, the legislation 
designates about 4 million acres within the new parks as wilderness, 
which will ensure their pristine character will be protected for 
generations to come.
  Rep. Lehman and Chairman Miller have gone the extra mile to ensure 
this is a balanced bill. Grazing at current levels will be protected in 
Death Valley and Joshua Tree and valid, existing mining claims will be 
honored. Hundreds of miles of roads are exempt from the bill and nearly 
400,000 acres were carved out to provide a free play area for offroad 
vehicle enthusiasts. Numerous acres were also exempt to accommodate 
several companies. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, will offer 
an amendment which will provide the military with a 15-year extension 
for land withdrawals for China Lake Naval Weapons Center and Chocolate 
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. Mr. Vento's amendment will also make it 
clear that nothing in this bill in any way affects or restricts low-
level military flights over the parks and wilderness areas established 
by this bill. Furthermore, Mr. Lehman will offer amendments which will 
make it clear that Federal law enforcement and State wildlife officials 
have broad access to the wilderness areas to carry out their official 
duties. I believe this amendment goes above and beyond the call of duty 
because the Wilderness Act in no way precludes these activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on one amendment which I 
strongly believe would undermine the entire bill if accepted by the 
House. The amendment I am concerned about will be offered by 
Representative LaRocco and would designate the East Mojave as a 
National Preserve rather than a national park. While I have great 
respect for Representative LaRocco, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. As Chairman Miller, Chairman Vento and Representative Lehman 
made clear during markup in the Natural Resources Committee, the entire 
purpose of this bill would be undermined if the East Mojave was 
designated as a preserve because it would not be afforded the degree of 
protection it deserves. As I mentioned above, the East Mojave contains 
a special mix of resources which definitely make it eligible for 
national park status. National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy and 
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt have expressed their strong support 
for an East Mojave Park. Nearly every major environmental group 
supports park designation. More importantly, polls show that a majority 
of residents in the desert area support make East Mojave a national 
park.
  One of the reasons for designating East Mojave as a preserve is to 
allow hunting to continue in the area. I do not believe hunters will be 
adversely affected by the bill as reported by the Natural Resources 
Committee. Hunting in the area has been sparse at best for the last 
several years with hunters taking an average of 20 to 30 deer and 5 
sheep in the region each year. Moreover, about 10 million acres of 
desert will remain open to hunting. In addition, hunting is 
incompatible with units of the park system due to heavy use by the 
public. While hunting is allowed in several preserves, the majority are 
in Alaska where I do not believe the number of visitors can compare 
with those in southern California. According to NPS Director Kennedy, 
it would cost $500,000 more to administer the East Mojave as a preserve 
than as a park due to law enforcement concerns. Furthermore, a poll 
conducted by the Field Institute in early 1993 found that 66 percent of 
households with hunters supported making East Mojave a national park 
even though hunting would not be allowed there. This amendment would 
defeat the purpose of this legislation and should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing H.R. 518 the House can join the Senate in 
protecting some of our country's most impressive and varied natural 
resources. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and 
oppose any weakening amendments.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the California Desert legislation, before 
us today, has come to fruition after years of debate and negotiation 
spanning the life of several Congresses. This final product will bring 
millions of acres of desert land into the protection of wilderness and 
national park designation, ensuring that these areas will continue to 
exist as they do today for the enjoyment of generations to come.
  It is a tribute to Senator Feinstein that this measure has now been 
transported on its long journey through the Senate and to the House. 
Representatives Miller, Vento, and Lehman are to be commended for their 
successful efforts in bringing H.R. 518 before us today. Their work on 
this initiative will long be remembered by the many who will find 
beauty and refuge in the open lands that will be preserved forever 
through this legislation.
  The California Desert possesses a unique and varied ecosystem that 
spans over 25 million acres. H.R. 518 will guarantee the protection of 
endangered species and other rare plant and animal habitats in the key 
areas of this acreage while also allowing livestock grazing and 
multiple-use recreation.
  The Mojave meets all the important criteria for a national park and 
deserves this greater level of protection. National park status would 
also provide greater protection for the Mojave's visitors through the 
prohibition on hunting in national parks. Seventy-five percent of the 
people in California support protection of the Mojave as a national 
park without hunting.
  This landmark legislation is the greatest effort to preserve our 
public domain in almost 15 years since the celebrated Alaska lands bill 
in 1980. It will protect almost 4 million acres as wilderness as well 
as designating over 3 million acres as national park land. H.R. 518 is 
an essential investment in the future that will preserve these 
exceptional lands for all time, for all people.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________