[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 73 (Monday, June 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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}  1606


                     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.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, June 
10, 1994, the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] had been disposed of, and title I was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


                    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 18, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 112. FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.

       As provided in section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act, 
     nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting the 
     jurisdiction of the State of California with respect to fish 
     and wildlife on the public lands located in that State. 
     Management activities to maintain or restore fish and 
     wildlife populations and the habitats to support such 
     populations may be carried out within wilderness areas 
     designated by this title and shall include the use of 
     motorized vehicles by the appropriate State agencies, 
     particularly where such agencies deem vehicular access is 
     necessary to maintain water sources constructed to preserve 
     desert bighorn sheep and other wildlife.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is offered by 
myself and by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] who represents the desert area just to the north of my 
district, and my district and the affected area that brought about this 
amendment is a desert area. It has about 1 inch of rainfall a year, and 
large portions of this desert, this southern California desert, are 
actually below sea level. It is extremely arid, and it is the area that 
is to the east of the coastal range of mountains that are immediately 
adjacent to Riverside and San Diego Counties, and most of the area in 
my district that is affected by this issue is Imperial County, and of 
course the area of the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] just 
to the north is in Riverside County, and what we are asking to do here 
is to maintain a very important status quo, and that status quo is 
this:
  We discovered, when we developed Imperial County, which is a farming 
area located in the bottom of the desert, again south of Palm Springs, 
that in bringing in waters from the Colorado River in the canal system, 
in the great canals, the All-American canal system in the Coachella 
canal system, we essentially changed the environment of that entire 
desert in that we cut off with these massive canals, we cut off the 
free flow of animals, the desert bighorn sheep, and mule deer and other 
species from water sources that were in the Imperial Valley that are 
now being farmed.

                              {time}  1610

  We made it more difficult for them to get water. To provide water for 
big game species and other species, the State of California developed a 
real expertise in building water holes. A great group of volunteers in 
my district, Desert Wildlife, Unlimited, which also has members from 
Mr. McCandless' district, with other conservation organizations, like 
the society for the Preservation of Bighorn Sheep, went out in 120 
degree weather and built over 50 water holes in the California desert.
  Now, in building these water holes, they discovered a couple of 
things. I have a couple of pictures I would like to show to my 
colleagues to illustrate what we are doing here.
  First, if you look at this picture and you look at the bottom, you 
will see the desert bighorn sheep, which are the primary focus of this 
desert water hole program. If you look just in the middle here of my 
chart, you will see a dead sheep that is lying in the bottom of a 
natural water hole that is called a tinaga. That is a deep crevice in 
the rocks where the sheep work their way down through this crevice and 
may find water at the very bottom of the crevice.
  The reason that bighorn sheep is dead and floating in that water hole 
is because it was such a vertical fall going down that tinaga, that 
crevice in the earth, that once the sheep got down, it lost its footing 
and ground and was unable to escape from the water hole.
  Desert Wildlife, Unlimited, along with the California Department of 
Fish and Game, realized they had to do some things to make our water 
holes more available to bighorn sheep, and also to create some water 
holes in some good habitat areas where the sheep population could 
increase, and also desert mule deer and quail and all of the other 
populations that need water. so they used motorized entry into this 
desert country, that will now be wilderness if this bill passes. They 
took jeeps and pickups and trucks and they took in equipment, like 
jackhammers, to jackhammer stairs, literally, that go down these 
tinagas, out of the hard rock, so that the sheep can now walk down the 
tinaga, and a bighorn sheep can walk into this crevice, to the water 
hole, get a drink of water, and walk back out. That keeps our sheep 
from drowning in the water holes.
  The other aspect of the program is this: Before we drilled or made 
these 55-plus water holes, the game would move to the Coachella canal, 
which is an irrigation canal that separates the desert part of Imperial 
County from the agriculture part. So the sheep, in order to get water, 
might travel 30 or 40 miles a day to try to get water. When they got to 
the canal, it was cement-lined. They would slide down the canal banks, 
they would try to drink, to slake their thirst, and then they would try 
to escape. And they could not escape, and they would literally wear out 
their hooves trying to climb back up the canal banks.
  I have here a picture of a deer trapped in one of these death traps 
in the Coachella canal. If you look at this, the blue line marks is the 
Coachella canal. The small object in the middle is a deer that cannot 
get back out of that canal. At the bottom you seek one of the wildlife 
volunteers holding the leg of a dead bighorn sheep that has obviously 
worn out its hooves trying to climb back up these very steep concrete 
embankments.
  We found that if we did not dig and maintain water holes in the 
desert, the wildlife would go to the All-American canal, the Coachella 
canal, slide down the slide, and be unable to escape, and hundreds and 
hundreds of them were lost.
  Well, over the years we developed an expertise with our State fish 
and game department working with these great volunteer organizations 
like Desert Wildlife, Unlimited, founded by Leon Lethica, a volunteer 
in Imperial County, and a number of other wonderful people.
  Let me tell you, the people who belong to Desert Wildlife, Unlimited, 
give of their time, and they do not ask for a dime for what they do. 
All they want to do is maintain our wildlife populations.
  What we are asking for in my amendment is the right for the State of 
California, which provides the motorized access that Desert Wildlife, 
Unlimited, operates under, to continue to have motorized access to 
these 55 water holes so that they can continue to save the lives of 
desert bighorn sheep and our mule deer populations.


   amendment offered by mr. vento as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. hunter

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: Revise Hunter amendment to 
     read as follows:
       Page 34 after line 25, insert the following:


                          wildlife management

       Sec. --. In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 
     Act, management activities to maintain or restore fish and 
     wildlife populations may be carried out within wilderness 
     areas designed by this title, where consistent with relevant 
     wilderness management plans and in accordance with 
     appropriate policies and guidelines (including policies and 
     guidelines related to use of motorized equipment) such as 
     those cited in section 101(h) of Public Law 101-628.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the substitute amendment be 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.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the suggestions of our 
colleague from California [Mr. Hunter] concerning the amendment for 
maintenance of the guzzlers in the California desert. Today, of course, 
with the concurrence of BLM and with the concurrence of the public land 
management agencies, these water facilities have been maintained.
  Even with that concurrence, even with all the wisdom apparently of 
the BLM and the State of California and the voluntary organizations, 
which I commend for their efforts with regards to the bighorn sheep, 
although some of them may have ulterior motives, in essence they may 
also want to maintain them as a game species. But in any case, I 
commend them for their efforts.
  The fact is, though, the BLM today and the Federal land manager has a 
voice in terms of the wildlife policies that occur on Federal land. 
These are Federal lands.
  The question here, I think, is one of general agreement. That is to 
say, the State of California has a role, that the volunteer 
organizations have a role. But so does the BLM. This is Federal land.
  What we are doing in this legislation, of course, is designating some 
of this area as wilderness. That means that there could be a change 
with regard to how the guzzlers, how the water holes are basically 
maintained.
  I think that we all concur that there is a need for some motorized, 
some mechanized type of utilization. The language I am offering, that 
is being presented here to revise the Hunter amendment, is to conform 
to the Senate bill that passed and to the Arizona Desert Wilderness 
Act. The effect would be to make clear that wildlife management 
activities can continue in wilderness areas under relevant policies and 
guidelines that were referenced in the Arizona legislation that is now 
law.
  That would be referenced as well in this bill. These policies and 
guidelines were developed through cooperation with the Federal and land 
management agencies and the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife agencies, which is the group representing the various State 
fish and wildlife agencies, including California.
  So indirectly, although not specifically, California has, of course, 
through its fish and wildlife agencies, agreed to this particular 
sharing of responsibilities, the power to make such decisions. In 1986, 
the guidelines were adopted by the international association, as well 
as by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service.
  We agree completely with the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
that wildlife management activities by State agencies are important and 
should continue in these areas. The question is whether we should 
continue to provide for a cooperative relationship between the State 
agency and the Federal land managers, or whether the State agencies 
should be given more leeway in the wilderness areas than we have in 
nonwilderness areas.
  In terms of the State being able to unilaterally decide only the 
means of carrying out various wildlife management activities, such 
policy would unacceptably undercut the ability of the Federal land 
managers to do their job. As revised by the Vento substitute amendment, 
however, the proper balance between the Federal and State 
responsibilities would be maintained.
  I might say, of course, that in listening to the presentation of my 
colleague from California [Mr. Hunter], one wonders what the bighorn 
sheep did prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine and 
some of the other power mechanisms. As a matter of fact, of course, 
they got along a lot better because we did not have the canals and some 
of the other manmade obstacles and traps.
  I concede we probably will need to use motorized and other types of 
power equipment to maintain these 50 guzzlers or so, and frankly, that 
is acceptable. All we are trying to do under the provisions of the 
Wilderness Act and the amendment is to keep the BLM on an equal 
footing, keep a Federal BLM role with regard to wilderness. When we 
designate wilderness, we should not reduce the voice of the BLM. If 
anything, it probably is more important than ever that the BLM be 
involved.
  The California wilderness should be a first-class wilderness. We have 
a national wilderness system, not a different policy for Arizona than 
we have for California or for Minnesota, my home State. We have the 
same policies apply to wilderness in each of these instances. I think 
because of the special problems here, this language similar to Arizona, 
which is working in Arizona, although they obviously have had their 
disagreements, as scientists will disagree, they have been able to work 
it out.

                              {time}  1620

  I think that we see the mistakes that may have been made in 
California with regards to some loss of wildlife when policies changed. 
The same can occur if the State of California and others are doing it 
unilaterally. We do not always have a precise and perfect record of 
dealing with wildlife species because of our limited knowledge in some 
instances.
  I am certain that this amendment will accomplish the goal but will 
keep the BLM in a role of responsibility that is appropriate for 
Federal lands, which, incidentally, are being proposed to be wilderness 
in this measure.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment to the 
Hunter amendment. It is a perfecting amendment to the Hunter amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment pending to the Hunter 
amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has an amendment which is 
in the form of a substitute. Therefore, a perfecting amendment to the 
Hunter amendment is still in order.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for the explanation.


Perfecting Amendment Offered by Mr. McCandless to the Amendment Offered 
                             by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. McCandless. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. McCandless to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: strike out all after line 
     one and insert:

     SEC. 112. FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.

       As provided in section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act, 
     nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting the 
     jurisdiction of the State of California with respect to fish 
     and wildlife on the public lands located in that State. 
     Management activities to maintain or restore fish and 
     wildlife populations and the habitats to support such 
     populations may be carried out within wilderness areas 
     designated by this title and shall include the use of 
     motorized vehicles by the appropriate State agencies.

  Mr. McCANDLESS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the perfecting 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. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, the need for the Hunter-McCandless 
amendment is made even clearer by the precedent which has been set in 
Arizona, California's neighbor to the east. When the Arizona Wilderness 
Act was enacted, there was an understanding to the effect that the 
State would retain its authority for maintenance and management of 
wildlife and related functions. Assurances were given in this regard.
  Since that time, however, in practice, conflicts have arisen between 
the Federal agencies which administer the wilderness areas, and the 
Arizona Department of Fish and Game, which is more oriented toward 
wildlife conservation and management.
  Much of the conflict has centered around the creation of new water 
sources for bighorn sheep and other animals, including bats, deer, and 
wild turkeys. Again, the issue was and is one of access. In order to 
service these much needed water sources, motorized transport is 
occasionally necessary. However, the State has, in the words of one 
Fish and Game official, ``had to fight tooth and nail,'' in order to 
access these areas and carry out its mission. In one wilderness area, 
the Fish and Game Department had to rent a haywagon--a nonmotorized 
vehicle pulled by horses--in order to transport the heavy equipment and 
tools needed to construct or improve water sources in that area.
  On another occasion in the late 1980's, a disease broke out among one 
population of bighorn sheep, which inhabited a particularly rugged and 
remote area of the Arizona desert. It was thought that the disease had 
been contracted by contact with Mexican cattle, but the cause is still 
unclear. Attempts by fish and game personnel to access the region to 
determine mortality levels and collect tissue samples were stymied by 
Federal officials. The reason? Again, resistance to allowing motorized 
access, even in what was clearly a health crisis situation.

  My intent here is not to point fingers or assign blame; my intent is 
to point out that we should not create a situation in California by 
which these kinds of conflicts will repeat themselves. We should learn 
from past experience, and benefit from past mistakes. Without the 
Hunter-McCandless amendment, California will surely flounder through 
these same kind of situations which Arizona has experienced. The result 
will be that much of the fine conservation work which has been done in 
the desert, and the wildlife which benefits from it, will suffer 
irreparable damage.
  A common theme among the fish and game personnel who provided my 
office with this information was one that we have already mentioned 
today--the fact that man has, like it or not, forced these animals from 
their natural habitat, or otherwise permanently altered it. In light of 
this, in order to sustain their populations, water sources must be 
developed and maintained. Given the harsh climate and rugged conditions 
of the desert, motorized access is necessary to carry out these 
functions.
  It is not enough to merely declare that the State of California will 
retain authority over fish and wildlife management, but without the 
tool of motorized access. It is not enough to say that the State can 
continue its management practices, provided that ``these activities are 
consistent with applicable wilderness management plans or other 
management plans.'' These are blueprints for bureaucratic squabbling 
and interagency infighting. While the agencies argue, the wildlife 
suffers.
  If we are serious about preserving wildlife in these desert areas, 
then it only makes sense that the California Department of Fish and 
Game, whose job it is to do so, is not restricted from doing that job 
properly. Again, we are talking about careful, responsible vehicle use, 
when necessary, to benefit wild animals. Plain and simple. If you want 
wildlife to continue to thrive in the desert areas affected by this 
bill, then please support our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote a letter than I have here written 
on June 13, 1994, signed by Duane L. Shroufe, director of the Game and 
Fish Department of the State of Arizona, in which, quoting him,

       In order to avoid conflicts with federal management 
     guidelines in wilderness areas, our operations efforts have 
     become very creative. In most instances how we access 
     wilderness areas and the tools we propose to use are the main 
     points of contention. For instance, to deliver materials over 
     an existing road for a maintenance project, we are forced to 
     rent horses and wagons to avoid the use of motorized 
     equipment.

  The director has included in this letter a Western Association Fish 
and Wildlife Agency resolution relative to the California Desert 
Protection Act in which he addresses this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record this letter from the Game & 
Fish Department.

                                       Game & Fish Department,

                                       Phoenix, AZ, June 13, 1994.
     Representative Alfred A. McCandless,
     Rayburn Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Re California Desert Protection Act.
       Dear Representative McCandless: In response to your request 
     for information pertaining to our experiences with regard to 
     balancing objectives for wilderness values, established by 
     federal land management agencies, and our Department's 
     wildlife management objectives, the following is provided.
       Although Congressional direction has been very clear, land 
     managers at various levels in the federal government continue 
     to attempt to usurp the State's authority to manage resident 
     wildlife populations in Wilderness Areas. Recent examples 
     include the following:
       Existing wildlife habitat improvements, such as water 
     catchments for desert bighorn sheep and mule deer, continue 
     to be considered ``non-conforming structures'' in wilderness 
     areas. In addition, the opportunities for development of new 
     habitat features have been restricted due to access and 
     minimum tool guidelines.
       Draft Wilderness Management Plans have attempted to 
     restrict population transplants of desert bighorn sheep by 
     establishing artificial criteria for population levels that 
     reduce transplant opportunities.
       Draft wilderness plans, currently in preparation, have 
     indicated that habitat enhancement actions intended to 
     increase population levels in order to provide additional 
     hunting opportunities are not compatible with wilderness 
     objectives.
       In order to avoid conflicts with federal management 
     guidelines in wilderness areas, our operations efforts have 
     become very creative. In most instances how we access 
     wilderness areas and the tools we propose to use are the main 
     points of contention. For instance, to deliver materials over 
     an existing road for a maintenance project, we were forced to 
     rent horses and wagons to avoid the use of motorized 
     equipment.
       In closing, please find attached a copy of a recent 
     resolution adopted by the Western Association of Fish and 
     Wildlife Agencies. The position adopted the Western 
     Association recommends establishing a National Recreation 
     Area or Preserve, rather than a National Park in order to 
     allow land management flexibility and preserve traditional 
     public uses on federal lands in the California Desert.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Duane L. Shroufe,
                                                         Director.
       Attachment.

           Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

   Resolution: California Desert Protection Act, Adopted May 18, 1994

       Whereas, the proposed Desert Protection Act will have major 
     impacts on land management, wildlife and habitat enhancement 
     and public use in a large area of the Mojave Desert in 
     California by creating an East Mojave National Park and 
     wilderness area; and
       Whereas, such designation will prohibit traditional 
     wildlife management practices, including habitat enhancement 
     and public uses, such as regulated hunting; and
       Whereas, the California Department of Fish and Game has a 
     substantial investment in wildlife habitat enhancement, and 
     the people of the United States benefit from the ability of 
     the department to actively manage wildlife, including the 
     most productive bighorn sheep population in the state which 
     is the source of relocation stock for establishing new 
     populations in historic range; and
       Whereas, alternative designations, including National 
     Recreation Area and National Preserve would allow land 
     management flexibility and traditional public uses on federal 
     lands in the California desert: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved that the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 
     Agencies supports the recommendation of designating lands in 
     the proposed East Mojave National Park as a National 
     Recreation Area or a National Preserve in which wildlife 
     management and habitat enhancement activities can continue, 
     and where public uses, including regulated hunting, trapping 
     and fishing may continue;
       Be it further resolved that the Western Association of Fish 
     and Wildlife Agencies support the amendment to HR 518 
     proposed by Mr. LaRocco of Idaho to designate the proposed 
     East Mojave National Park as the East Mojave National 
     Preserve.

  (On request of Mr. Hunter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McCANDLESS] for his work in this area, because he 
understands what the problem is. The objective here is to save several 
species. The first species is the desert bighorn sheep in California, 
which is very important to us. Other species are the desert mule deer 
and the quail and all the other wild game in the desert and protected 
game in the desert that desperately needs water.
  We should not care if a turf battle is resolved in the wrong way and, 
God forbid, the State Department of Fish and Game is allowed to 
maintain access to these desert lands where they have done such a 
superb job of keeping our desert bighorn sheep alive. We want to keep 
the animals alive.
  Let me tell my colleagues, the Hunter - McCandless - Cunningham - 
Lewis amendment is supported by Desert Wildlife Unlimited. It is 
supported by the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep. Those 
are not a bunch of sheep hunters. Let me say to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], who is my good friend, there is no open season 
on desert bighorn sheep in the Imperial Valley Desert.
  My constituents, these people that we see scrambling around in the 
rocks in the 120-degree weather building these water holes for desert 
bighorn sheep are not getting a big hunt out of this, as was the 
implication. They are our there doing that because they are 
conservationists. They want to preserve the species.
  I do not think we can argue with the fact that there is, under 
present law, where it has been applied in places like Arizona, there is 
a squabble.

                              {time}  1630

  In one place where we had a serious disease breaking out in Arizona 
with our bighorn sheep, killing a lot of the sheep, what happens? What 
happens in government?
  The State wanted to go in immediately and start getting some tissue 
samples so they can stop the disease. The doggoned Feds came in and 
said you cannot do that because you cannot have motorized vehicles in 
the wilderness area.
  The State guy says, ``It looks to us like you can.'' The Federal guy, 
analyzing the regs, says, ``It does not look to me like you can, and I 
am the boss, and you are not going in.'' We had dozens of bighorn sheep 
die. We could not do anything about it.
  Mr. Chairman, in the North Algodones dunes we have already had a 
sample of that in California. I am told by State Fish and Game that 
over 250 deer died in an area where the Feds took over the maintenance 
of that particular area. They let the waterholes go to pot, and because 
of that, 250 head of desert deer died.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, we had windmills operating in that 
area, pulling water from the ground, putting it in tanks for these mule 
deer. Because it was a wilderness area, the Federal Government ordered 
us to pull those windmills out and do away with that source of water.
  Therefore, what my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter], is talking about is, no longer were those mule deer area 
supplied with artificial water through windmills, because it was 
designated a wilderness area. This is not right. This is not something 
any of us are trying to accomplish here. That is what we are looking 
at.
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to determine what the difference 
is between the perfecting amendment and the Hunter amendment. The only 
difference I note, I might suggest to the gentlemen from California, is 
the deletion of the last sentence. That is to say, there is still no 
authority in here, in other words, that would permit the State of 
California to basically manage the wildlife on public lands and Federal 
lands without any concurrence from the Federal Government.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (On request for Mr. Hunter of California and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. McCandless was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to discover the difference. 
I understand that the gentleman wants the State of California to be 
able to move in without agreement from the BLM or any other agency with 
wilderness that happens to be where they are doing a maintenance, but 
the intent remains the same; in other words, there is no concurrence 
here, there is no cooperation.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. As I had pointed out earlier in my written remarks, 
in order for these watering holes, and there are all types, dealing 
with little float valves, with underground tanks, that supply the 
water, and then the tanks are filled when it does rain, there are all 
kinds of ingenious types of things out in the middle of nowhere that 
have been developed, but they need to be maintained. They are too far 
from any king of a location.
  What we are saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that all we want is for the 
Fish and Game of California, along with the various other agencies and 
volunteer agencies, such as Quail Unlimited, we have talked about the 
Desert Wildlife Association, the California Wildlife Federation, the 
Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, all of these people who 
devote time to these projects, and at no cost to any Government agency, 
they would not be permitted under your law if the Federal Government 
said you cannot use motorized vehicles.
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield to me further?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that you would have basically 
two policies. You would have one on regular BLM lands and a different 
one on wilderness. The concern is that motorized use would not be 
allowed on wilderness, but we concede that would be allowed under the 
Vento amendment to the Hunter amendment or under the McCandless 
amendment.
  The question here is not whether motorized use would be used; the 
question is how it would be used. The question is, if you are going to 
have motorized use on regular BLM land and the Federal Government has 
to concur, you ought to have the same on wilderness, and the same from 
one State to the other. Of course, it is always easier to decide on 
your own without having the two parties involved. That is what the hub 
of the issue is here.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me answer my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Of course, both Federal agencies right now under the 1964 Wilderness 
Act arguably have the right to take motorized vehicles into wilderness 
areas. Theoretically they can do that, but they have not given that 
right historically in places like Arizona, where they decided the right 
of the Arizona Fish and Game to go in and save a bighorn sheep 
population. They did not allow them to go in, and in another case they 
forced them to rent hay wagons to carry in equipment to keep these 
waterholes open.
  The gentleman and I want to keep the waterholes open, so we are not 
preventing the Federal Government from coming in, but we certainly do 
not want to have, in this 120 degree heat during the summer time, we do 
not want our desert bighorn sheep dying.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield further to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we do not want to have our animals dying 
while you have a turf war between the Federal Government and its 
interpretation and the State government. The State government obviously 
is doing a great job. They have quadrupled the desert bighorn sheep 
population in these desert areas with their waterholes, so we all 
applaud them. I am sure Mr. Vento applauds them.
  What we want is a guarantee they will be able to continue to have 
motorized access, and that is all that this amendment says. This 
amendment does not take the Federal Government out of wilderness areas. 
They are already there by virtue of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield to me further?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's patience. I did 
not mean to imply that everyone who was trying to promote the bighorn 
establishment and health were all hunters. They certainly are not. 
There may be some that perhaps do have that interest as well, which is 
just fine.
  The point that I was trying to get across here, of course, is that 
the Federal Government should have a voice in this particular process, 
and indeed, in the case of Arizona I have numerous examples here where 
there have been differences between the different names for all the 
right reasons.
  I do not think we want to completely preempt them. This is not just 
the bighorn sheep; this applies to all the nongame and game species in 
these wilderness areas. You are going to treat them completely 
differently.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for the life of me, 
when two people are trying to accomplish the same objective, the State 
Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal agencies involved, 
we are all trying to create an ecological system, we are all trying to 
create and save what we have in the way of natural resources. It is not 
like a bunch of bandits going in from the State without conferencing 
with the Federal authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, these are reasonable people who have a goal and 
objective who have been kept out of this by Federal authorities in the 
State of Arizona. When the gentleman talks about hoof and mouth disease 
in Mexico, and the possibility that that was a reason for the demise of 
this bighorn sheep, you are talking about a major threat to the cattle 
industry which, if this happened to be the case, needed to be put down 
immediately and steps taken. The hoof and mouth disease can be 
devastating if it comes through wild animals into domestic animals.
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the concern here is that any time you have 
domestic sheep coming in contact with bighorn you have a problem. They 
have to be completely separated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I will finish my 
statement.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there has to be a separation in 
terms of those types of overlap, but the point I would make is we are 
giving the Federal land manager a job here in terms of wilderness. We 
have to permit him to have the tools and have the voice to be part of 
the process.
  I wish everyone always got along. It probably is not even the case 
with regard to the California State Fish and Wildlife Service, that 
everyone there does not always get along. The concern is that anyone 
can make a mistake, and heaven forbid California can make a mistake, 
private groups can make a mistake. Maybe in the case of Arizona, the 
Federal Government made a mistake.
  I note that in the example with one, that there was. The truth is, 
however, we are giving them a job and classifying this land. You may 
disagree with the classifications, but here we should agree that they 
ought to have a voice in managing the lands under their jurisdiction 
and the species, not a primacy voice, but one which is collaboratively 
working. That is why they have endorsed this amendment.
  In 1986 all the States got together, the Fish and Wildlife management 
on an international basis, really, and they agreed with the BLM and 
Forest Service on the language I am presenting. That is why I am 
pushing that language.
  The amendment the gentleman has takes us back and sets California off 
by itself. No other State has, as far as I know, that type of control 
over its wilderness areas, national wilderness areas.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the problem I have 
has been demonstrated by the fact that we had to take down the 
windmills in the mule deer territory as a result of a Federal agency 
pact which severely hampered and caused a lot of death of mule deer. 
There was no reason in the world in my mind why the Federal agency had 
the right, the moral right, to take those windmills down and do away 
with that water source that was the very life blood of the mule deer 
that perished.
  Therein lies one of my problems.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my 
understanding that while it was controversial, that there was 
concurrence on the removal of those windmills with the Federal and with 
other responsible entities. Therefore, really placing it, I expect, or 
pointing the finger at only the Federal Government or the BLM in that 
instance may not be appropriate.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a valuable discussion we are having here. Let me just point 
out the problem with the argument of my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  What the gentleman wants in his amendment basically retains the right 
of the Federal Government to veto State access by motorized vehicle. 
That means that if those waterholes are going down and the gentleman 
gets the wrong guy in the wrong place in the Federal Government, he can 
tell the State, which has painstakingly put in 55 waterholes to keep 
these desert bighorn sheep alive, that they cannot come in with 
motorized vehicles and maintain those waterholes. The time you need the 
waterholes is in the summer time when it is 120 degrees in the shade.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to 
yield.
  The time that we need these watering holes according to Desert 
Wildlife Unlimited, Leon Leseka, Joe Brauna with the State Fish and 
Game has done a marvelous job. It is needed in the summertime and one 
cannot get into that desert on foot in the summertime. One cannot carry 
enough water on his back, much less the jackhammers that one has to 
have to maintain the steps going down these tinagas to keep desert 
bighorn sheep like this one from drowning.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the gentleman has this problem. This 
is basically a turf problem. I want the gentleman to analyze at least 
what we are saying. We listened to him very carefully.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment I would like to make 
which I think is relevant to this discussion and as my colleague said, 
the discussion is a good one.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I agree.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Let me propose what it is you are saying here: That 
in the case of Arizona, it is all right to take cement and other heavy 
equipment by horse and hay wagon into an area, but we cannot use a 4-
wheel drive or other vehicle to do the same thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a little trouble with that, so as I yield I 
would be happy to have the gentleman explain that to me.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, it includes policy guidelines relating 
to the use of motorized equipment.
  I specified that we fully expect in the guidelines, in the law and in 
the policy to provide for the use of motorized equipment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, is that by the State agencies?
  Mr. VENTO. By the BLM, the State agencies and others that are 
authorized to maintain the wildlife.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman a question. Is the 
interpretation of the gentleman's language that if the State determines 
they have to go in with a 4-wheel drive to maintain water holes to keep 
the bighorn sheep from dying of thirst in a given area they can go even 
if a Federal manager says, ``I do not like any motorized vehicles''? 
Could the gentleman answer that question? It is an important one.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue, of course, is we expect the Federal 
Government, the BLM, the manager of that land, would concur with that 
for that particular purpose.
  Mr. HUNTER. What if he did not concur?
  Mr. VENTO. If he did not concur, there is a disagreement that has to 
be resolved, which is generally what happens when someone has a public 
property right.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think the other hand is if that was 
necessary, the State of California disagreed with that particular 
route, the BLM manager could do it as well. The point is, either the 
BLM or the State can be wrong about the diagnosis that they have in 
terms of what the proper treatment and care of such species are. It is 
not just a one-way street. It is a two-edged sword.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the gentleman has described 
a system in which the Federal managers can veto a 4-wheel drive vehicle 
going in to open a water hole that is literally life or death for the 
bighorn sheep. I guess my question would be, if we have two entities 
that are capable of delivering a lifesaving capability, that is, 
opening up water holes for desert species, why is either agency 
interested in cutting and having the power to cut the other one off?
  What happened in Arizona was we did have a Federal manager who did 
disagree that the Wilderness Act gave the right in this case to have 
motorized transport go in and we had a lot of animals die. In the North 
Algodones Dunes, we had a Federal manager who thought all the 
lifesaving windmills had to be taken down and a lot of animals died. We 
are doing things right in California. We have quadrupled the herd of 
desert bighorn sheep and the Federal Government should be anxious to 
have volunteers that want to go out in 120 degree heat at no pay and 
maintain these watering holes. That is all we are asking.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one of the 
cornerstones of this position is that the courts have established that 
in the management of wildlife, in the case Kleppe versus New Mexico, 
that the States predominate over Federal in the management of wildlife. 
The gentleman is probably quite familiar with that.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a role here that States 
have. I do not think there is any question but the States have a very 
important role, recognized by that court case.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, we have 
been listening to this debate now for 45 minutes and the fact is there 
is no disagreement among the parties. What the Hunter amendment would 
do without the Vento amendment is simply cede all of the decisions on 
Federal lands, in this case a Federal wilderness area, to the State 
Fish and Game Department, and that simply is inconsistent with the 
management of those Federal lands as they would be designated under 
this legislation. The gentleman may disagree with that and I understand 
that, but the point is what we have done is joined the notion here with 
the Vento amendment that we do not believe the use of motorized 
vehicles in this case for the preservation of wildlife in this area is 
inconsistent with the purposes of this legislation and/or the 
Wilderness Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the working out of how that is to be done between the 
State and Federal Government is the consultative process that takes 
place. The Federal Government, if anybody reads the Congressional 
Record, is clearly on notice that there is bipartisan support within 
our delegation, within this committee, across the aisle here that this 
project and the restoration and the preservation of this wildlife is to 
go forward. This is a fairly strong mandate.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would pose to the 
gentleman a question.
  For purposes of the terrain, what is the difference between a wagon 
pulled by horses to an area for purposes of maintaining a guzzler and a 
4-wheel drive vehicle?
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the difference is that the Wilderness Act specifically discusses 
motorized equipment of any kind out and the desire to keep those 
motorized equipments of any kind out of those wilderness areas. The 
fact is as we have created wilderness, and in many areas there is 
really very little inconsistent with that. As we move to create 
wilderness now in 1994, we find these kinds of problems in those areas 
because of preexisting uses. That is why we have got to recognize that. 
I do not think we should nor can we go back to suggesting that that is 
pristine in that sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I can just continue that, 
or that it is in fact untrampled, because it is not. There are these 
activities that are there as we create this wilderness area. This is an 
effort to strike a medium, recognizing that this activity should in 
fact go forward.
  I think what the Vento amendment does is allow us to go ahead and to 
do that, and if it does not work out, clearly that is going to be 
unacceptable, I think almost to all of us in the California delegation, 
it is going to be unacceptable to a wide array of people around this 
area who are aligned with similar causes or, in fact, this particular 
cause in wildlife preservation and conservation. We then have to deal 
with it.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is suggesting we simply cede all of this 
decisions to the State. We cannot and are not going to do that on 
Federal lands.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is your 
interpretation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take one second. I know my 
colleague, the gentleman from San Diego, California wants to discuss 
this, also.
  Let me just say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], that our wildlife managers in California, and I am reading 
from the game and fish department, the director of game and fish, Duane 
L. Shroufe has said:
  ``Although congressional direction has been very clear,'' and that is 
what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is trying to establish 
about vehicular access to these water hole areas, ``land managers at 
various levels in the Federal Government continue to attempt to usurp 
the State's authority to manage resident wildlife populations in 
wilderness areas.''
  Mr. Shroufe goes through a series of examples. The facts are people 
are not perfect, we have turf wars. The problem is when we have a turf 
war in 120 degree heat and these animals have 20, 30 miles to go to 
alternate water sources, they die. We cannot afford to have a turf war 
in the California desert after game and fish has painstakingly brought 
back the population.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] 
has a few things to say.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to 
quote from the letter of the director of the game and fish department 
of the State of Arizona:

       Existing wildlife habitat improvements, such as water 
     catchments for desert bighorn sheep and mule deer continue to 
     be considered nonconforming structures in wilderness areas. 
     In addition, the opportunities for development of new habitat 
     features have been restricted due to access and minimum tool 
     guidelines. Draft wilderness management plans have attempted 
     to restrict population transplants of desert bighorn sheep by 
     establishing artificial criteria for population levels that 
     reduce transplant opportunities. Draft wilderness plans 
     currently in preparation have indicated that habitat 
     enhancement actions intended to increase population levels in 
     order to provide additional hunting opportunities are not 
     compatible with wilderness objectives.

                              {time}  1650

  We are not interested in wilderness hunting. We are interested in 
maintaining the guzzlers and the source of water to maintain the basic 
structure of what has been developed over a period of time in 
maintaining the natural habitat.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and I, we have 
worked on a lot of issues together, and I think we have the same intent 
in what we are trying to do with this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCANDLESS was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, personally I do not really care who 
provides the water for game and nongame animals as long as it gets 
done, but I love to hunt and fish, and I also know that I believe there 
should be areas where only foot should touch and not motorized vehicles 
and those kinds of things, but in the event that we are trying to get 
specifically to a spot to provide water, to me that is what is proper 
care and treatment of a species.
  You know, in California, 48 percent of all of California is owned by 
the Federal Government. With this 8 million acres, it is going to boost 
it up to 52 percent. I would think the State has the right to provide 
for the ecosystems and for game animals, and I know that it is not just 
bighorn sheep.
  We have got gnatcatchers out there that prove a big problem for 
California as well, and I imagine they like a little drink of water. So 
I would ask the gentlemen, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], help us with this 
amendment. Because, you know, the intentions on both sides of this are 
very, very good.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the perfecting 
amendment that is before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my colleagues if they want 
to continue on the dialog.
  I just think it is necessary to put in perspective that we are all 
talking about cooperation and collaboration, but then the amendment 
here really puts the State of California in a position where it does 
not have to receive permission to do these activities on Federal lands 
with regard to maintenance of these guzzlers.
  The amendment goes really in a sense further than that. I do not 
think it is limited at all to simply the guzzlers. It talks about the 
entire maintenance and restoring fish and wildlife population and 
habitat, support population. So it is not specific to game, to nongame 
species. It simply means the State of California can go onto the BLM 
land and do appropriately what they think is responsible.
  I am certain in 99 percent of the time there would not be any 
disagreement. But the fact is, because there have been some agreements, 
some spectacular problems that have occurred where a lot of people have 
put in work with desert bighorn and apparently with mule deer, the 
concern is that these mistakes are apparently visited all upon the BLM.
  As an example, in the discussion in terms of the BLM from California 
sent me information talking about the windmills and pumping of water to 
provide and to feed the guzzlers that we are talking about, and that 
issue was raised by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McCandless].
  But the information I have from BLM is that both groups, both the 
wildlife, and local wildlife officials--and I assume that means the 
State--and the BLM agreed to remove the windmills because they were 
expensive to operate, there were some objections to them in terms of 
being prone to break down, and that apparently there was some complaint 
about the windmills. So that is the information that I have here, you 
know.
  So, I mean, it is not a question, but there was generally agreement 
here.
  Now, I just want to point out that the amendment that I am offering 
was agreed to. This is the international wildlife groups, all the 
States got together to have this organization; they have agreed to this 
type of language for each State. It is in place in Arizona, and, as my 
colleagues have pointed out, there have been some disagreements, but a 
lot of success in Arizona. They have transplanted bighorn desert sheep 
in Arizona. They have had a lot of success.
  You pointed out the one problem. Even in a case where there was a 
bighorn problem in terms of monitoring the health of them, and they 
wanted to do, and most of this, incidentally, was done by, or 
monitoring by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft trying to monitor 
bighorn, because, of course, the range of the bighorn sheep is very 
great. After some initial problems that occurred, they did relent and 
did do the monitoring by fixed-wing aircraft.
  There are all sorts of studies they have done in terms of mountain 
lion studies, feeding habitats, and there is just a lot of success that 
has gone on here as well as some disagreements.
  I want to point out that the Vento amendment to this does provide for 
use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport as required. It does 
require, of course, approval of the BLM when you go on public lands, 
when you go onto wilderness areas.
  There is no disagreement. You end up establishing two different 
policies, one for BLM wilderness, and a different policy for BLM lands. 
You would have a different policy for California, a different policy 
within California.
  I just do not think there is any excuse for these two agencies not to 
get together and to do their job without necessarily disregarding in 
essence what the Federal land manager might have, the responsibility 
for basically hundreds of thousands of acres. The State properly would 
insist on giving permission for others to carry on such activities on 
State lands. We are not suggesting that the Federal Government be able 
to go in and dictate to the States what the wildlife policies are on 
State lands.
  We hope this relationship would be cooperative and collaborative. 
That is fully what we expect in the case of wilderness.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem is this: The problem is that this land 
right now that we are speaking of that will transform into wilderness 
under this bill is presently the land where these species live, and it 
is land where their populations were brought back by a combination of 
volunteers and State fish and game management, and this is a very 
fragile population, these desert bighorn sheep and the desert mule 
deer. The water is very precious to them. They cannot stand 2 weeks in 
the summertime of bureaucratic wrangling over whether or not the 1964 
Wilderness Act provides for motorized access.
  The facts are what we are trying to do is just maintain the status 
quo. The game has got water right now. We want to keep them in water. 
One thing the gentleman does concede is you are presenting some danger, 
because you are giving a veto power to the Federal Government, and if 
you get the wrong guy in that position----
  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. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me finish the last sentence. And I 
would like the gentleman to respond to this.
  You are giving a Federal bureaucracy, as you did in Arizona, the 
opportunity to veto vehicular access by a State fish and game person 
who thinks that these populations may be in extreme danger. Is that not 
true?
  Mr. VENTO. But I would just suggest to the gentleman that is the 
status quo. The fact that they have been successful in transplanting 
and initiating populations of desert bighorn sheep here is that they 
have done so in conjunction and in agreement with the BLM who is the 
land manager in this particular area. So what the gentleman's amendment 
would do it is to say no, we are going to throw that out, because you 
are designating this wilderness. We will no longer permit the BLM to 
have a voice in what we are doing in managing these populations. I am 
trying to maintain the status quo.
  The difference in the equation, the difference that there is an 
uneasiness on the part of the gentleman and others is because they have 
this Wilderness Act which suggests we do not have motorized use.
  The gentleman should take great comfort in the fact that the 
gentleman from Minnesota is saying motorized use will be permissible in 
this particular instance. So you could have the same problem you have 
today. You could have the BLM go off the deep end and not agree to do 
something. On the other hand, I could have the same problem with the 
State of California and other principals involved.
  Mr. HUNTER. Does the gentleman have motorized vehicle use in his 
amendment?
  Mr. VENTO. The amendment speaks to the motorized use. It talks about 
such policies, and I appreciate the gentleman, including policies and 
guidelines relating to the use of motorized equipment. I fully 
specified to the point that that means motorized equipment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me respond to the gentleman. To some Federal 
managers, the policies regarding motorized equipment, at least in 
Arizona cases, have been you cannot use them, and you have to use hay 
wagons.

                              {time}  1700

  So by referring to the status quo or the existing dispute between 
State and Federal people, the gentleman does not clear those up.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, it is clear that could happen today 
within the study areas and within other areas. What we mean, of course, 
is that motorized use where it is necessary will be provided.
  Mr. HUNTER. So things will be different from now on.
  Mr. VENTO. It is a wilderness designation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. We intend for that to occur. It is occurring today in 
Grand Wash Cliffs wilderness.
  Again, we provide an opportunity for motorized use, extensive use of 
EA drafts, public involvement in use of choppers to bring in and to 
drop off and to transplant. So it is not just motorized use for 4-wheel 
vehicles, it is a lot of different tools that are used and have been 
used to maintain these populations under the Arizona law, under the 
agreement that the State of California and others, State wildlife 
management agencies have agree to.
  So we can accomplish that without necessarily writing off the BLM or 
ceding powers to the State.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. On that point, again, the current land 
managers are the same land managers you will be dealing with under the 
designation of this as wilderness, allowing this practice to go forward 
on Federal lands. Also, the Joshua Tree National Monument, you have 
extensive preservation and servicing of these guzzlers by helicopters, 
which they have chosen to use rather than 4-wheel-drive vehicles 
because they have less impact on the land, open up lesser land to the 
general public access by motorized vehicles. So the history is long in 
these areas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has again 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. I would just point out that I think the problem that we 
have here is that we are trying to basically write the rules on the 
floor as to whether the State of California is going to be able to do 
what it wants to do, whether BLM is going to be able to do what it 
wants to do; there is no effort here in terms of trying to overcome 
that. The Vento amendment as proposed leaves that status to be worked 
out; the present status is what it is today. In terms of an agreement 
recognizing that we are reclassifying and designating these lands.
  I for the life of me do not understand why you would want to take the 
professional BLM manager out of the picture in terms of having a voice 
with regard to lands that are all Federal lands in terms of the BLM. I 
believe they should have a voice. We understand the State has an 
important role in fish and wildlife with regard to management. We just 
are simply talking about how this is accomplished here. Where there 
have been problems in the past, there could be problems in the future, 
but that is not the basis to completely eliminate the Federal land 
management.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Going back to the gentleman's amendment, this is the problem area: 
Where you speak of management plans and in accordance with appropriate 
policies and guidelines, there is a parenthesis, ``(including policies 
and guidelines relating to the use of motorized equipment).'' Then the 
parenthesis closes, ``such as those cited in section 101(h) of Public 
Law 101-628,'' which I understand to be the Arizona Act, which then we 
go back to guidelines related to the use of motorized equipment, which 
then further presents the problem which this is all about.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, that is what we are talking about. It 
means they can use it where it is necessary. The concerns here do not 
just relate to what is appropriate for the desert bighorn, it is what 
is appropriate if you have burros or you have cattle. As we know, we 
have grazing in wilderness areas. So what they are tying to do is avoid 
the conflicts where they are going to have those conflicts meeting the 
needs of the desert bighorn without creating more problems.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I think we all need to listen to what the gentleman from California 
said that these species, animal and bird species, have been brought 
back from near extinction by private groups and by the State. Now, the 
Federal Government is coming in under this bill and adding 8 million 
new acres, basically taking State land. In California, over 50 percent 
of the land in the State of California. Also, in ruling out the State's 
rights to go in. They are operating now with motorized vehicles in this 
area.
  Under this bill, when you talk about you want to change the law, you 
are changing the law by the bill itself by restricting current use of 
the land to motorized vehicles to supply these water areas.
  That is what they are doing right now. If anybody is changing the 
rules and doing things different, it is this bill itself. We would like 
to set and allow currently the way people are providing for these 
species. The Government comes in and says, ``Look, you cannot do that, 
State. We are going to take 50 percent of your land, but you do not 
have any control over it when you want to do it.'' That is what we are 
doing right now, we are currently using motorized vehicles in this 
area. Your bill changes that.
  All we are trying to do is say that we will continue to protect these 
species by using motorized vehicles to go in.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reading from the gentleman's language substitute 
to my amendment. It does not give the weight of the argument in favor 
of encouraging the State to use motorized vehicles to save the lives of 
desert sheep there. It does not do that. What it says is that 
activities to maintain these populations may be carried out ``where 
consistent with relevant wilderness management plans (including 
policies and guidelines relating to the use of motorized equipment).'' 
That could be interpreted by the same people, the same manager who 
forced people to use hay wagons in Arizona and kept State people from 
going in and saving the population.
  That same section can be cited by him to keep the State out of those 
waterholes with their motorized equipment. This is not a concession the 
gentleman is offering; this is what can be interpreted by a certain 
Federal manger as an objection to the State coming in.
  I think my friend stated it best: We preserve the species; the key is 
to preserve the species; the goal is to preserve the species. The 
status quo is those people going in when it was not wilderness, 
presently, going in with these volunteers, spending a lot of difficult 
hours creating waterholes for these populations. We are afraid of what 
has happened in other parts of the country where areas have been made 
wilderness and Federal managers have come in and said, ``You can't do 
that any longer.''
  While we have letters going back and forth in Washington, DC, trying 
to get Mr. Vento on the phone to assure everybody that the colloquy 
allowed motorized vehicles, we are going to have desert species like 
the bighorn sheep floating dead in the waterhole, die. Do you know what 
that sheep dead in the waterhole represents? It represents gridlock the 
State and Federal Governments not being able to try to figure our who 
gets what. that is what those 250 dead deer represent in the North 
Algodones Dunes, where the Feds came and knocked out all the watering 
holes. We want to keep these species alive, and they cannot tolerate 2 
weeks of gridlock between Federal and State governments.
  Right now the Federal Government has a right, if you can scare up 
some Federal managers who want to go in and build waterholes, fine; I 
have not seen them doing that in many years out there. The people who 
build them have the expertise, they volunteer, are Californians. The 
great groups, like Desert Wildlife Unlimited, the Society for the 
Preservation of the Bighorn Sheep, Quail Unlimited, and others. We want 
to maintain that status quo, and that means life for our game species. 
What the gentleman is offering here is fine words; they are great 
words, but they are going to result in the death of our species as soon 
as we have gridlock between the Feds and the State. We have already had 
that in other States. We know it is going to happen. Why do we not just 
cut it off by preserving in the States their right to go in with 
volunteers--it does not cost the taxpayer any dollars--and maintain 
those waterholes?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, I would like to make a quick 
statement. As it was stated, private volunteers and State agencies have 
maintained these species by providing water. That is important to the 
host species.
  We are coming in and changing the rules. What the Hunter amendment 
attempts to do is to maintain the status quo so that we can still 
protect those species by using motorized vehicles, which we are doing 
today. But this bill changes that. So we are attempting under the 
Hunter amendment to support that position. We would like the support of 
the other side of the aisle on this. To me it is not something that we 
are trying to change. We are trying to keep it just the way it is so 
that we can provide the water.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The concern is that you are not keeping it like it is. That is the 
concern. I will not object to the McCandless amendment. I know it 
basically attempts to perfect the Hunter amendment, but it has the same 
basic flaw in that it excludes the Federal land managers from having a 
voice in what happens to Federal lands. In this case we are saying----
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would not want the Federal Government not to have a 
say in it; I just do not want them to be able to override it.
  Mr. VENTO. That is what the amendment does. It eliminates the----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has again expired.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 2 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, we have been on this amendment an hour and 10 minutes now. In 
spite of all the debate, there is an agreement of the minds but 
apparently not an agreement on the resolution. Can we have some 
indication of how much longer? Otherwise I am going to have to start 
objecting.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the time would go on because a number 
of questions and my own commentary to this amendment relate to the 
author of the bill itself, who has yet to arrive on the floor. I really 
want to see if we can extend it long enough so that we can see what his 
intent is regarding these questions that are before us.
  Frankly, I am not sure how we get back to that, but it is unusual for 
an important bill like this to be before us and the author not be on 
the floor.

                              {time}  1710

  That really complicates what I might want to do with this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I understand that. I still need to know how 
much time.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I have one short part that I would like 
to use here in a comparison nature between the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and my amendment, and then I will 
be finished.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this 
time. I just want to inform the chairman and others that in the future 
I think that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, 
unfortunately, is going to have to start objecting after extended, 
extended unanimous consent requests because we are just simply never 
going to get through the list of amendments.
  Perhaps that is the intention of some of our colleagues.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. This is important to the gentleman from Minneapolis.
  My amendment, I think, addresses an issue here by a simple word that 
is included in the amendment.
  Management activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife 
populations and habitats to support such populations may, may, be 
carried out within wilderness areas designated by this title and shall 
include the use of motorized vehicles by the appropriate State 
agencies, particularly where such agencies deem vehicular access is 
necessary to maintain water sources constructed to preserve desert 
bighorn sheep and other wildlife.
  My point of bringing this to my colleague's attention is we have a 
``may'' there in the beginning which the Federal Government has control 
over. Once the Federal Government says, ``Yes, you may go in there,'' 
then we are saying we are entitled to use motor vehicles rather than 
hay wagons.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] for yielding to me, and let me just say to my friend, the 
gentleman has used the word ``consult'' over and over again. It wasn't 
consultation that killed the bighorn sheep in Arizona. It wasn't 
consultation with the Feds that killed the 250 deer in the North 
Algodones Dunes. It was a veto by the Federal Government, and we don't 
want to have to see that veto arising here.
  And to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], my friend, who is 
concerned about the time, I just want to tell my friend, I've got a lot 
of friends in Imperial County who have put hundreds of hours of their 
lives into building this watering system. This is important to them. My 
amendment, and I think Mr. McCandless' amendment, didn't arise out of 
us trying to figure out how we could scuttle this bill. It arose from 
letters and meetings with our constituents in Imperial County who 
looked over into what's happening in Arizona and said, ``Don't let that 
happen in our area. We don't want to see our wildlife killed.''
  Mr. Chairman, these dead sheep floating in these watering holes 
because of poor management on the Feds' part are real.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] for having 
yielded to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. First the Chair will put this to a voice vote.
  Those in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will say ``aye''; those opposed, 
``no''.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit lost here on the 
protocol. I asked for a recorded vote on my amendment, and the Chair 
went on to the next amendment. I wanted a vote on my amendment even 
though it passed by voice vote. That was where I was at.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not understand that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McCandless] was standing for that purpose.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I rose to request a recorded vote, and 
then the Chair went on to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] 
make a unanimous consent request for a recorded vote?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, could the Chair explain to me where we are right now? I 
thought we already had a vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McCandless]. Then the question was put on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and then 
at that point the gentleman stood and asked for a vote.
  I ask, does this request for a recorded vote not come too late?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I was standing 
and asking for the vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point, the gentleman must gain unanimous 
consent to get a recorded vote on his amendment to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a recorded 
vote on my amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears an objection.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Under parliamentary procedure, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman had an amendment. He was standing, and, as the Chair was 
going through the deliberations, he asked for a vote prior to you ever 
talking about the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento]. Now, under parliamentary procedure, is he not granted the 
right for a vote on his own amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman for a 
recorded vote because the gentleman was not seeking recognition at that 
point.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, that is the Chair's problem of not 
recognizing the gentleman. The gentleman was standing, and I would 
point out that could be done every time, and the Chair would just not 
identify someone who is asking for a vote on their amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the Chair's problem and not the gentleman's. He 
was following procedure by standing and asking for a vote.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection so 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] can have a vote on 
his amendment.
  Mr. MCCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I renew my demand for a recorded vote 
on my amendment.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce 
to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for the electronic votes, if 
ordered, without intervening debate, on the substitute amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and on the original 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360, 
noes 0, not voting 79, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--360

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     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
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--79

     Andrews (TX)
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Danner
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Engel
     English
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gingrich
     Grams
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hochbrueckner
     Inhofe
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennedy
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     Neal (NC)
     Owens
     Packard
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Serrano
     Slattery
     Snowe
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wise
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1741

  So the perfecting amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, we certainly do appreciate the attention of the House. 
Mr. Chairman, with this number of Members present, it seems to me that 
as I rise to address an amendment proposed by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], it would be most appropriate to 
say to the House that this is an issue before us, that is, the entire 
bill before us is an issue of critical importance to four Members of 
the House who happen to be Members who are elected in the State of 
California, to represent the citizens who live in the California 
desert.
  The reality is that often when we have environmental issues before 
the House, Members tend to look to see if that environmental issue 
touches their district at all, and when they find it does not 
oftentimes one just casts a vote, what is called a green vote around 
here, to make sure their environmental record looks good to those 
people who might view it from outside.
  However, Mr. Chairman, this issue before us, the issue of the 
California desert, is fundamental to the constituencies represented by 
those four Members elected from the California desert.
  Mr. Chairman, I have said on an earlier occasion that this Member is 
outraged by the way this bill has been handled by the committee, and 
indeed, by the House. It is a fact of life that those of us who 
represent the four districts in the desert all happen to be on the 
minority side of the aisle, but our constituencies make up some 3 
million Californians, Democrats and Republicans, independents, the 
entire mix of the California population. Those people do not view the 
issues that relate to their territory in partisan terms, but indeed, in 
this process in the House, particularly in the committee, their voice 
has been all but stifled.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted the Members to know that I am not just lightly 
outraged by the process that has gone on before us. I think the Members 
know, I believe the Members know, that this Member of the House does 
not rise with any frequency by way of extreme voice. I abhor the 
extremes that often dominate the debate on the floor.
  However, in this case, Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that the kind 
of excess of the committee that has been demonstrated in this case is 
one of the reasons why Members feel they must come to the well and 
often carry the debate to the extreme. Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
American people are sick and tired of those shrill voices. In this 
instance, the people of California have had their voice essentially cut 
off by the committee process.
  Mr. Chairman, while I rise essentially to express my own support for 
the amendment that just passed, that is, the Hunter-McCandless 
amendment dealing with wildlife preservation, at the same time I rise 
in opposition to the Vento amendment, which essentially contrasts an 
amendment that reflects a States rights kinds of focus upon the 
individual citizens' concerns about the desert who live and work in 
that desert.
  Mr. Chairman, essentially I am rising to oppose the amendment offered 
by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], which 
essentially is a ``trust me'' amendment. It is our concern that while 
people suggest that there will be no change essentially in the way this 
territory is being managed, that the reality is that there is plenty of 
history that would indicate major problems between the way various 
practical agencies deal with such territory.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could ask my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], to assist me, the Members may not be able to 
see it, but in the middle of that water channel there, if the House 
would focus on my colleague, Mr. Hunter, in the well, a man of no 
extreme, Mr. Hunter would point to a deer in the middle of that water 
channel.
  That deer is treading water there as it is awaiting more than one 
Federal agency, as a result of the Vento amendment, to make up its mind 
which way it should go, whether it should allow the State to be 
involved or not to be involved. Mr. Chairman, I fear for the life of 
that deer, but indeed, we fear more for those people who would choose 
to live in the desert.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for those Members who have come in just a few moments 
ago, this is the essence of this debate. The State of California and a 
lot of volunteers have motorized access to the watering holes they have 
developed in the California desert. It saved a lot of wildlife. The 
Federal Government in some States has cut off motorized access that 
would be used to maintain watering holes.
  We have now a large number of bighorn sheep and deer that have had 
their populations expanded in these proposed desert wilderness areas 
because of volunteers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California, at the request of Mr. Hunter, was allowed 
to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the volunteers in Desert Wildlife Unlimited 
and the Society for the Preservation of Bighorn Sheep, Quail Unlimited, 
many groups throughout California have gone out in 120 degree heat and 
built watering holes for these desert animals. We want to maintain the 
motorized access that allows them to go out and keep these waterholes 
open.
  This deer has had to come to the Coachella Canal because the 
waterholes have been destroyed in parts of the desert, they slide down 
the steep banks and they literally wear their hooves out trying to 
climb back up those banks and they drown.
  For that reason, this is an unusual amendment. The Hunter-McCandless-
Lewis position is supported by Desert Wildlife Unlimited, a 
conservation group, The Society for the Preservation of Bighorn Sheep, 
Quail Unlimited, a conservation group, and these groups feel that the 
Vento amendment which gives veto power to the Federal Government for 
motorized access will result in the death of many wildlife species.
  The conservation vote here is against the Vento amendment and for the 
McCandless-Hunter amendment that just passed. If Members voted yes on 
the amendment that just passed, they should vote no on Vento because 
Vento guts what Members of the House just did.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his 
comments. I think it is very important that the Members understand what 
my colleague just said. We have just passed by unanimous vote an 
amendment that would essentially clarify our purpose here, that is, to 
make certain that the California State Government, the agency of Fish 
and Game that for years has managed these territories along with any 
number of volunteer groups, will continue to be able to operate in the 
way they have in recent years.
  It is very important for us to know that there is a significant 
difference between the way volunteer preservation groups, the State 
Fish and Game Department and other agencies would treat this territory 
versus what we can expect from the Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, let me illustrate that point by the following:
  In 1978, when the Oregon Pipe National Monument in Arizona was 
designated as wilderness, there were a number of wildlife guzzlers in 
the wilderness very, very important to the preservation of the life of 
many a species in the desert. Since then, all guzzlers have been phased 
out in accordance with Park Service policy. The National Park Service 
could be expected to carry out the same policy in East Mojave National 
Park, the Death Valley National Park, as well as the Joshua Tree. It is 
our concern about that pattern of policy of the Park Service that 
causes us to oppose the Vento amendment.
  In a straightforward fashion, we have just passed an amendment that 
assures the State's involvement as well as volunteer private sector 
involvement in maintaining the various resources that are very 
important for the preservation of species that live in the desert.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
as again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the most important 
components of the mission of the State Park and Wildlife Service is the 
maintenance of wildlife guzzlers. Those Members not familiar 
with guzzlers, they provide an artificial water supply in areas where 
much of the traditional water supply has disappeared. Water in this 
area has always been a scarce commodity. The result of this lack of 
water has been the steady decline of wildlife populations. That is, 
until the conservation efforts of those who build and continue to 
maintain the guzzlers.

  These guzzlers have been the central reason for the reinvigoration of 
the bighorn sheep. However, it is very apparent that gamble quail, 
chucker, partridge, jack rabbits and lizards are all beneficiaries of 
guzzlers, as well. Without the extensive guzzler system that exists 
throughout the California desert, the majority of these animals would 
cease to exist in this region. I am uncertain as to whether or not that 
is the goal of the two gentlewomen from California and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lehman], the chairman, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the authors of this bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I do know that the Members have a tendency as the hours 
grow late to become impatient with extended debate. I hope this will 
not be extended, but I would say to my colleagues, it is relatively 
rare for me to rise on this floor and discuss extensively any subject, 
but in this case we are talking about a subject that is fundamental to 
those who live in and love the desert. We do appreciate your assistance 
as well as your attention.
  To maintain existing guzzlers or build new ones, motorized access to 
the desert regions involved is essential. We are talking about 
construction materials ranging from water storage tanks to heavy-duty 
piping. This material, simply put, cannot be carried on foot or 
horseback to the areas that are involved. Motorized access is essential 
if we are serious about maintaining or even expanding existing wildlife 
populations. At the very least, 4-wheel drive vehicles are necessary to 
access these remote areas. In many instances, helicopters are necessary 
to move bulky and cumbersome equipment into the areas concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make here is that currently 
the State of California serves as the lead agency in the maintenance 
and expansion of these wildlife populations. It is a fact that the Park 
Service has a different charge and mandate under Federal law. If the 
Park Service is able to veto access to these areas on the part of State 
agencies or voluntary groups, we are very concerned that the 
preservation of species involved could indeed be cut off and 
undermined.
  I will repeat to the Members, it was in 1978 when the Oregon Pipe 
National Monument in Arizona was designated as a wilderness. There were 
a number of wild guzzlers in the wilderness. Since then, all those 
guzzlers have been phased out in accordance with park policy. We are 
trying to make absolutely certain that such arbitrary action does not 
take place and undermine the conservation and preservation of these 
endangered species. I think it is important for Members to know that 
conservation groups such as Quail Unlimited, the Desert Wildlife 
Association, the Wildlife Federation, the Society for the Conservation 
of Bighorn Sheep as well as others support our position.
  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 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the following preservation and 
conservation groups support essentially our position; that is, to make 
sure that these lands are managed in the future as they have been in 
recent years.
  Those groups include the following: Conservation groups such as Quail 
Unlimited and the Desert Wildlife Association.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
has constantly referred to the Park Service management, but this 
amendment has nothing to do with the National Park Service. It has to 
do with the Hunter amendment, the slightly perfected Hunter amendment 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless], and the amendment 
that I have to deal with the Bureau of Land Management and its 
management of Federal lands for which it is responsible.
  The real issue here is not one of whether or not we are going to have 
mechanized use. And it would permit the wildlife management activities 
within BLM wilderness.
  In fact, the illustrations that our colleague showed us here is, in 
fact, the existing circumstances where BLM has a voice. The fact is, if 
you want to do something about that canal, you had better fence it in, 
because it is going to happen again. You are going to see more deer 
floating in there, no matter what language you put in these amendments.
  In accordance with the policies we all agree there is going to be 
mechanized use. We are talking about a policy that works in Arizona. We 
are not talking about a National Park Service unit.
  But what the essence of this amendment is, it takes the Federal 
Government out of the loop. Here we have Federal lands, BLM wilderness 
lands, and you are just taking them out so you have the State of 
California that would not have to consult. It would not have to occur 
with the Federal land management. That is the essence of what this 
amendment is about. Therefore, the Vento amendment ought to be adopted, 
which keeps the status quo rather than creating a separate standard for 
California as we have with the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, let me say 
that there are four Members of Congress who represent these 
territories. Those Members have been essentially kept out of the loop 
here in the whole process whereby the committee worked its will.
  It is very apparent to us the Park Service policies have not worked 
in Arizona in terms of concerns that we have about preserving these 
wildlife. We want to make certain that as these lands are managed by a 
combination of Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service, and 
hopefully some involvement of the State Department of Fish and Game, 
that it will be different than the story that has developed in Arizona.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], why do we want to fix something that is not 
broken? The State of California, with the wildlife groups, maintains 
this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to continue to yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this system that these volunteers in 
California, with the wildlife, the Fish and Game Commission, have 
developed, works. Now, the doggone system the Feds have put in place in 
Arizona does not work where they have hay wagons bringing equipment 
out. The system that we have in place in California works. We have 
quadrupled the bighorn sheep herd on these areas that now are going to 
become wilderness. As they become wilderness, the same Federal managers 
who have vetoed vehicular access to these watering-hole sites will be 
on the job. They will be, I think we can anticipate, vetoing the State 
going in in certain areas with motorized vehicles to keep these water 
holes open. That is what results in game coming down to the Coachella 
Canal and dying, wearing their hooves out trying to get out of the 
canal.
  This sense in Washington that we have that nobody knows anything 
except the Federal managers is wrong. We have people doing this work 
for free in California, not costing any Federal taxpayer dollars, and 
the amendment that I offered with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] that was passed by, I believe, 380 to 0, allows our people 
to have continued access.
  Vote against Vento.
  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 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding so I can 
respond.
  First of all, the policies which have been developed which developed 
these guzzlers were done with the concurrence of the BLM, with the 
concurrence of the Federal land managers.
  What happens in the status quo is the Hunter amendment, as slightly 
modified by McCandless, has the same basic law in terms of excluding 
consultation with the Federal Government. They are going to go ahead 
without approval, and the fact is that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] says four of you represent the desert.
  Well, all of us represent the public lands in this body. Four hundred 
thirty-five of us represent the BLM. So I appreciate the concern of the 
gentleman for his constituents that live close to those public lands.
  We want to do what is right. But the question is: Excluding the 
National Government from having a voice on lands that are under its 
control is a formula for a problem. It is a formula for a problem.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time if I might, I understand 
the gentleman's point. But I would suggest that in no way, shape, or 
form have we even begun to make a dent in arbitrary way in which this 
bill was handled in your committee.
  I mean, clearly it is apparent that Minnesota knows a lot more about 
the desert than people who come from California.
  But in turn, it is very important that people realize that in terms 
of this amendment which has just been unanimously passed by the House, 
and in fact the gentleman, I believe, voted for it. The gentleman voted 
for the amendment, I believe.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Yes. I have no objection to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] having his amendment put in the shape he wanted. The 
amendment was marginally better with the addition, but it still has the 
same basic flaw.
  As far as the gentleman knowing something about the desert, I make no 
apologies for that. The fact of the matter is each of us in this body 
specializes in land use and other types of issues, just as the 
gentleman does in other areas of expertise. While I want to listen to 
the gentleman and I have sat here and listened for quite some time, I 
also think we ought to be talking about what this amendment does. This 
amendment takes the BLM out of the loop in terms of being involved in 
making decisions on the Federal lands.
  You cannot classify lands, you cannot put the BLM in charge, and then 
withdraw them from the decisionmaking process. That is what the 
gentleman's amendment does.
  The Vento amendment goes for a proven policy, one that we are using 
in Arizona in which we have transplanted an increase in bighorn sheep 
population. The gentleman's amendment defeats that.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to the attention 
of the subcommittee chairman my amendment which was passed.
  We are not taking anybody out of the loop. My amendment said that 
populations and habitats to support such populations may be carried out 
within wilderness areas designated by this title, may be. What we are 
saying here is if they are carried out, then we shall be able to use 
motorized vehicles by the appropriate agencies for that purpose.
  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. Mr. Chairman, any my colleagues, I did have 
originally about a 5-minute statement, and with a combination of the 
order of the House and otherwise, I have not quite completed that 
statement.
  Mr. Chairman, if any of you in your districts have been treated by 
way of your constituency as we have been treated by the committee of 
the House that handled this bill, you would be outraged.
  The fact is that none of the four Members who represent the desert 
territories have been consulted in this process. It is very, very 
apparent that the committee has a preconceived notion as to the way the 
desert world ought to work, and the people who represent the desert 
essentially be damned. If you were treated in this fashion in the 
majority, there would be a revolution going on around here.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, and Members, while you have been more than 
courteous with your time, what we are attempting to do in this 
amendment is essentially to undermine current policies that are working 
very well on behalf of those animals that are currently threatened in 
the desert environment.
  The presence of water sources created by man, the use of voluntary 
groups and the State agencies that have been so effective will 
essentially over time by excluded if the Vento amendment is passed.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to do this quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fundamental to the Federal 
stewardship of Federal wilderness lands. The purpose of this bill is to 
convert lands that are currently under BLM jurisdiction to BLM 
wilderness lands.
  What are colleagues on the other side of the aisle would do is to 
have you throw the Federal Government off the very lands over which it 
has title and jurisdiction. They would do so, and to make the 
wilderness in California essentially a second-class wilderness.
  This is not done in Idaho wilderness, this is not done in Montana 
wilderness, this is not done in Colorado wilderness, Arizona 
wilderness, Utah wilderness, or any of the other wildernesses created 
in this country.

                              {time}  1810

  The fact is that this amendment, the Vento amendment, is needed to 
provide for stewardship and management of those lands, of the habitat, 
and of the wildlife of those lands. The fact is that this amendment was 
never offered in committee. The fact is the author of this amendment 
never discussed it with the chairman of this committee or any other 
Member representing this area has ever discussed this with this member 
of the committee. I would hope that you would understand how important 
this is.
  Mr. Vento's amendment, Mr. Vento's amendment preserves the right of 
the State of California with respect to its being the lead agency with 
respect to fish and wildlife, and it allows motorized vehicles, 
whatever is necessary to preserve those guzzlers. Everybody agrees on a 
bipartisan basis that these guzzlers would be preserved. I would hope 
you would vote for the Vento substitute.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I will just take a minute. My friends, we are passing a desert act, 
that is fairly clear; but it is also clear we should proceed with 
common sense. Last week when we had an amendment offered to allow the 
border patrol and drug enforcement agencies to take motorized vehicles 
into the wilderness area, we did not say, ``Stop, the wilderness is 
pristine, so we are going to allow drug dealers to use these as safe 
havens to move cocaine.'' We said we allowed Federal, State, and local 
agencies to go into these wilderness areas. By the same token, we are 
allowing here State agencies to go in and save the desert bighorn sheep 
population just like we have been doing for the last 20 years. As the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] said, you have got this deer that 
is treading water in the Coachella Canal and that represents what will 
happen when you get a turf war between the Federal agency and the State 
agencies as to ``can you take vehicles in?'' And the State boys who 
say, ``We want to take them in to save the wildlife populations.''
  Vote for common sense. Let me say if you just voted ``yes'' on the 
Hunter-McCandless amendment, and everybody voted ``yes'' on that 
amendment, including Mr. Vento, the Vento amendment guts what you just 
voted ``yes'' on. If you just voted ``yes,'' you need to vote ``no'' on 
the Vento amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] says this system does not 
exist in any other State. But the Federal Government is taking under 
this bill 8 million acres. You could put 5 Eastern States in those 
acres.
  Mr. MILLER of California. These are already Federal lands.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are not----
  Mr. MILLER of California. They are not taking it from anybody. These 
belong to the taxpayers.
  The CHAIRMAN. All debate will be handled through the Chair.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, there are existing systems in which State agencies--we 
are not asking for mass populations to invade the desert, we are asking 
for State agencies, fish and game, which are today now servicing those 
water areas, to continue to be allowed to use motor vehicles to those. 
That is all this amendment does.
  Mr. Vento's amendment guts that and allows the Federal Government to 
override what the State is already doing.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I disagree. The Federal amendment maintains the status 
quo. Just like we did last week with respect to law enforcement, it 
does not make sense to designate these lands wilderness and then take 
the BLM out of having any voice in what happens and hand it over to the 
State. No one knows what the Federal Government, you know, will do; I 
think they are going to make prudent judgments in this case as they 
have in the past when you put guzzlers in.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to the four Members from California on the 
other side of the aisle that they have made a rather compelling and 
convincing argument and many of us on this side of the aisle would like 
to vote with them. However, as the argument goes on and because of its 
unending nature, that momentum is shifting the other way.
  So, I would advise Members on that side that perhaps they would want 
to call for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 189, not voting 67, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--189

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rowland
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--67

     Andrews (TX)
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Blackwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Danner
     DeLay
     Dingell
     English
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hochbrueckner
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Lowey
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Neal (NC)
     Owens
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Slattery
     Snowe
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wise
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1833

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Ms. English for, with Mr. Barton of Texas against.
       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Roth against.

  Mr. SANGMEISTER and Mr. TORRES changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                  TITLE II--DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK


                                findings

       Sec. 201. The Congress hereby finds that--
       (1) proclamations by Presidents Herbert Hoover in 1933 and 
     Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 established and expanded the Death 
     Valley National Monument for the preservation of the unusual 
     features of scenic, scientific, and educational interest 
     therein contained;
       (2) Death Valley National Monument is today recognized as a 
     major unit of the National Park System, having extraordinary 
     values enjoyed by millions of visitors;
       (3) the Monument boundaries established in the 1930's 
     exclude and thereby expose to incompatible development and 
     inconsistent management, contiguous Federal lands of 
     essential and superlative natural, ecological, geological, 
     archeological, paleontological, cultural, historical and 
     wilderness values;
       (4) Death Valley National Monument should be substantially 
     enlarged by the addition of all contiguous Federal lands of 
     national park caliber and afforded full recognition and 
     statutory protection as a national park; and
       (5) the wilderness within Death Valley should receive 
     maximum statutory protection by designation pursuant to the 
     Wilderness Act.


              establishment of death valley national park

       Sec. 202. There is hereby established the Death Valley 
     National Park, as generally depicted on 23 maps entitled 
     ``Death Valley National Park Boundary and Wilderness--
     Proposed'', numbered in the title one through twenty-three, 
     and dated May 1994 or prior, which shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     Superintendent of the Park and the Director of the National 
     Park Service, Department of the Interior. The Death Valley 
     National Monument is hereby abolished as such, the lands and 
     interests therein are hereby incorporated within and made 
     part of the new Death Valley National Park, and any funds 
     available for purposes of the monument shall be available for 
     purposes of the park.


                  transfer and administration of lands

       Sec. 203. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary shall 
     transfer the lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management depicted on the maps described in section 202 
     of this title, without consideration, to the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Director of the National Park Service for 
     administration as part of the National Park System. The 
     boundaries of the public lands and the national parks shall 
     be adjusted accordingly. The Secretary shall ad- minister the 
     areas added to the National Park System by this title in 
     accordance with the provisions of law generally applicable 
     to units of the National Park System, including the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park Service, 
     and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 (39 
     Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4).


                       maps and legal description

       Sec. 204. Within six months after the enactment of this 
     title, the Secretary shall file maps and a legal description 
     of the park designated under this title with the Energy and 
     Natural Resources Committee of the Senate and the Natural 
     Resources Committee of the House of Representatives. Such 
     maps and legal 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 
     such legal description and in the maps referred to in section 
     202. The maps and legal description shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     Superintendent of the Park and the Director of the National 
     Park Service, Department of the Interior.


                               withdrawal

       Sec. 205. Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal 
     lands and interests therein added to the National Park System 
     by this title are withdrawn from disposition under the public 
     land laws and from entry or appropriation under the mining 
     laws of the United States, from the operation of the mineral 
     leasing laws of the United States, and from operation of the 
     Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.


                 study as to validity of mining claims

       Sec. 206. The Secretary 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 the additions to the park 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.


                                grazing

       Sec. 207. (a) The privilege of grazing domestic livestock 
     on lands within the park shall continue to be exercised at no 
     more than the current level, subject to applicable laws and 
     National Park Service regulations.
       (b) If a person holding a grazing permit referred to in 
     subsection (a) informs the Secretary that such permittee is 
     willing to convey to the United States any base property with 
     respect to which such permit was issued and to which such 
     permittee holds title, the Secretary shall make the 
     acquisition of such base property a priority as compared with 
     the acquisition of other lands within the park, provided 
     agreement can be reached concerning the terms and conditions 
     of such acquisition. Any such base property which is located 
     outside the park and acquired as a priority pursuant to this 
     section shall be managed by the Federal agency responsible 
     for the majority of the adjacent lands in accordance with the 
     laws applicable to such adjacent lands.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about 
a particular aspect of H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act. 
As you know, this legislation will designate nearly 8 million acres of 
desert wilderness throughout California. My comments here involve only 
a small portion of the legislation--a few tiny acres.
  One of my Colorado constituents, Luther Eggertsen, owns the mineral 
rights to the Lucky Mine, located within the proposed Mojave National 
Park. As I understand it, access to this mine was included in the 
Senate-passed California desert bill, S. 21, through the inclusion of a 
cherrystem of the current access roads to nonwilderness property. This 
would ensure that access to the area is not in any way impeded by the 
new wilderness designation. I am including a copy of the correspondence 
I have received from Mr. Eggertsen in this regard.


                                          Luther E. Eggertsen,

                                      Englewood, CO, May 11, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Schaefer,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 518. Lucky Mine and Old Dad Mine, WSA [CDCA-243] Unit 
         of Mojave National Park Boundary and Wilderness-Proposed. 
         M-10.
       Dear Representative Schaefer: Reference is made to my 
     correspondence and enclosures of September 30, 1993 and 
     February 9, 1994, all with regard to the ``cherry-stemming'' 
     of the Lucky Mine and its access roads out of the proposed 
     National Park/Wilderness as the subject items appear in HR 
     518 and S21. We have proposed that in consideration of the 
     ``cherrystemming'' of the Lucky Mine and its access roads out 
     of the Park and Wilderness, the mining claims covering the 
     Old Dad Mine would be quitclaimed to the United States and 
     the 2\1/2\ mile east-west access road to that mine could be 
     closed. Our proposal has passed the Senate with S21.
       It is my understanding that HR 518 will make it to the 
     floor of the House this next week. It is of vital importance 
     that this matter be given immediate consideration such that 
     if HR 518 is passed it will include our proposal. Your 
     assistance is earnestly solicited.
       The following statement of facts will, perhaps, shed 
     additional light on my client's (Idora Silver Mines, Inc.) 
     proposal:


              lucky mine (gold/silver quartz vein deposit)

       1. The Lucky Mine is a ``major gold mine'' according to the 
     U.S. Bureau of Mines.
       2. Significant production of gold and silver ore has 
     occurred since its discovery in 1937 according to published 
     U.S. Government reports.
       3. The Lucky Mine has not produced for several years 
     because of the low price of gold and inadequate financing of 
     the mining operations.
       4. Present gold prices provide justification for beginning 
     operations. Sampling and assaying provide additional 
     motivation. Mining operations will commence only if 
     sufficient reserves are found.
       5. Access roads have been used since operations began in 
     1938.
       6. Both the Lucky Mine and the Old Dad Mine used the 4 mile 
     NW-SE access road which remains in use today.


                          Old Dad Mine/(Iron)

       1. The Old Dad Mine has been classified by the U.S. Bureau 
     of Mines as a ``principle ore body'' with estimated reserves 
     of 500,000 tons having a value in 1956 of $17,000,000.
       2. At the present time, because of the depressed iron ore 
     market, it is not economically feasible to start operations 
     at the Old Dad Mine. This could change at any time, however,
       3. There is no question but what operations, if started, 
     would be ``open-pit''.
       4. The Old Dad Mine and its access roads of 6\1/2\ miles 
     have been ``cherrystemmed'' out of the Park/Wilderness.


                                proposal

       We propose that the Lucky Mine and its access roads be 
     ``cherrystemmed'' out of the Park/Wilderness (see attached 
     plat), and in consideration therefore the FE lode mining 
     claims covering the Old Dad Mine would be quitclaimed to the 
     United States. This will foreclose any future development of 
     the Old Dad Mine and permit the closing or removal of the 
     short easterly 2\1/2\ mile access road to that mine.
       The net effect of this proposal is:
       1. To remove a potential major open-pit mining operation 
     from the proposed Park/Wilderness and provide for the 
     ``cherrystemming'' out of the Park/Wilderness and underground 
     quartz vien gold/silver mine and its access roads;
       2. To remove from Park/Wilderness a potentially expensive 
     acquisition. If The U.S. Government should decide to acquire 
     the Old Dad Mine it would be faced with a cost that might run 
     as high as $50,000,000 in 1994 dollars. It could go even 
     higher if ongoing inflation and the development of new 
     reserves are taken into consideration; and
       3. To provide the Park/Wilderness with a substantially 
     better long-term management situation.
       There is no question but what the Lucky Mine and the Old 
     Dad Mine mining claims will withstand a ``validity'' 
     examination. Accordingly, absent approval of our proposal we 
     would have to consider filing applications for patent which 
     will in the long run frustrate the Wilderness/Park objectives 
     and purposes as well as ours.
  The House measure does not include a similar cherrystem. In my 
opinion, this is a severe shortcoming. Having been heavily involved 
with the development of Colorado's recent wilderness legislation, I am 
quite familiar with the problems associated with not taking into 
account the real difficulties created by wilderness inholdings. Not 
incorporating access to the Lucky Mine and similar property inholdings 
will lead to an endless grind of paperwork, litigation, and public 
relations nightmares for the National Park Service employees tasked 
with managing the area.
  This is not an idle speculation on my part. One need look no further 
than my State of Colorado for examples of the additional costs involved 
with not ensuring access. On numerous occasions, inholders have 
threatened development of their properties, even using helicopters to 
ferry in building materials. Such behavior is much more distressing to 
the community than if the inholding were recognized at the front end of 
the process and access incorporated into the legislative package.
  I am hopeful that my California colleagues will take a lesson from 
our past experience in Colorado. In this specific case, it means the 
simple addition of a cherrystem on a map to ensure continued access to 
the Lucky Mine. If this step is not taken now, with a minimum of 
effort, the cost of ensuring this legal access may take its toll on 
both the mine owners and the Federal Government.
  A poor result can be easily avoided at this point. As the California 
Desert Protection Act moves to a conference committee, I urge my 
colleagues to keep this in mind.
  Mr. de LUGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 518, the 
California Desert Protection Act and in opposition to any amendments 
that would weaken it. I want to also commend my colleagues on the 
Natural Resources Committee, in particular the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Miller, as well as the chairman of the Parks and Public 
Lands, Mr. Vento, and the chief sponsor of H.R. 518, Mr. Lehman, for 
their tireless efforts and leadership in bringing this important bill 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 518 was reported out of the Natural Resources 
Committee, on which I serve, on May 4. It is similar to bills which 
have been under consideration by the Congress since 1985. During the 
101st Congress, the Natural Resources Committee held numerous public 
hearings on this issue, including three field hearings in California, 
where we heard from no less than 600 witnesses. On the bill before us 
today, our committee held six hearings.
  If enacted, H.R. 518 would formally protect nearly 8 million acres of 
desert wilderness in the southeastern quarter of California. The bill 
designates 71 wilderness areas on Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 
lands, establishes three new national parks, and designates wilderness 
areas within these parks. Over 6 million acres of BLM lands in the 
California desert are already being managed as wilderness study pending 
formal authorization by the Congress.
  The California desert area, Mr. Chairman, spans some 25 million 
acres. it is a home to some 760 diverse species of wildlife including 
the endangered desert tortoise and the bighorn sheep. It also boasts 
the oldest known living organism, as well as the world's largest Joshua 
tree forest and over 700 species of flowering plants.
  During the last Congress, our committee reported similar legislation 
which would have designated over 8 million acres of wilderness in the 
California desert. That bill passed the House by an overwhelming 
margin, but unfortunately, did not become law. This year, for the first 
time, the Senate through the efforts of Senator Feinstein, approved 
legislation to protect the California desert.
  I urge my colleagues not to let this opportunity, to finally achieve 
protection of this sensitive and magnificent area, pass us by. H.R. 518 
represents a very balanced compromise between preservation of the 
California desert and continued private use. It is a good bill and 
worthy of our support. I ask my fellow Members to join me in supporting 
its passage and to reject any amendments that would seek to weaken it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Unsoeld) 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.

                          ____________________