[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 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}  1335


                     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. Taylor of Mississippi (chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Monday, June 13, 1994, title II had been designated and is now open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that is printed in the 
Record dealing with grazing in Death Valley.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: p. 38, strike lines 14 
     through 17 and in lieu thereof insert the following:
       ``Sec. 207 (a) The Secretary shall permit continuation of 
     the privilege of grazing domestic livestock on lands within 
     the park, at no more than the current level, pursuant to 
     grazing permits or leases in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act and subject to all applicable laws and 
     National Park Service regulations, but shall not renew any 
     such permit or lease after its expiration, and shall not 
     approve any transfer of any such permit or lease to any party 
     other than the party entitled to exercise such privilege as 
     of such date of enactment.''

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was printed in the Record 
under the rule relating to grazing deals with Death Valley. This 
amendment addresses grazing in the expanded Death Valley National Park. 
It would allow the current permittees to continue to graze livestock 
there until the current permits expire, but would prohibit any renewal 
of those permits.
  As a general rule, Mr. Chairman, grazing is not permitted in national 
park units. That is a sound rule, since grazing disrupts the natural 
ecological process that would be allowed to operate in the parks. 
However, the bill as it stands now would depart from that rule by 
allowing the grazing to continue in Death Valley and the Mojave 
National Park as if those areas did not have national park status.
  Mr. Chairman, while I voted favorably to report this bill, as 
amended, I made clear in the committee debate that I did not support 
the provision regarding grazing in Death Valley and the Mojave National 
Park. Hence, today I am offering an amendment to permit the phaseout of 
this, to honor the contracts, to honor the permits that are out there 
for their length, for their duration, and then to in fact fold in or to 
stop the grazing that is occurring there.
  During the committee's consideration of this matter in the 102d 
Congress there was considerable discussion as to how best to deal with 
the fragile nature of the desert ecosystems of these areas, which 
include habitat for threatened and other types of endangered species, 
such as the desert tortoise, while not creating an inordinate 
disruption in livestock operations that had been in these areas for 
some time.
  At that time, Mr. Chairman, the committee decided the optimal way to 
balance these interests was to phase out the grazing of livestock in 
these areas over a period of 25 years, or the lifetime of the 
permittees, so as to include the incentive of possible land purchase or 
based property by the Federal Government. This year, however, the 
committee has dropped the concept of a phaseout of grazing and has 
adopted an open-ended continuation of grazing, as was introduced in the 
Senate measure, S. 21, and passed by the Senate. I think this is a 
mistake, Mr. Chairman. I do not support it.
  I accepted the decision of the committee in 1991 to allow grazing to 
continue in these national park units for even up to 25 years, even 
though I thought it was at the outer edge of acceptable compromise. I 
do not think that allowing grazing to continue indefinitely in these 
areas is sound policy nor an acceptable compromise. The lands involved 
are not highly productive of forage. Indeed, much of the forage 
involved is ephemeral. A continuation of domestic livestock grazing 
would merely mean continued competition with other species, including 
the threatened desert tortoise, that must look to the forage for 
sustenance.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, there are so few grazing allotments 
that are involved that continuation of grazing on them would make no 
real contribution even to the economy of California, let alone to that 
of the United States.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow an orderly termination of 
grazing at the national park.
  Furthermore, the GAO has done work on these hot desert areas. We find 
in some cases in hot desert areas it is impossible to separate some of 
the allotments from lands outside the park areas or the proposed park 
areas. But we find that very often the number of acres per AUM, per 
calf-cow combination, is as high as 2,000 acres per animal. These are 
hot desert areas. It is ridiculous when we look at these types of 
estimates to then say we are going to designate it as park and we are 
going to continue this type of activity.
  As I have said often on this floor, Mr. Chairman, these cows have 
more miles on them than my old Chevrolet. I would suggest that we 
really ought to make this a real park, or we ought to try to eliminate 
it.
  Furthermore, if we look at the beneficiaries, who has these 
permittees in this case, Anheuser-Busch, the company in St. Louis, MO, 
that makes one of our favorite beverages, has about half the allotments 
in Death Valley. In other words, they are one of three allottees in 
Death Valley. There is no basis for this. I think we have been through 
it. We know as an example that it costs more for the BLM or for the 
Park Service or whoever it be regulating this grazing activity, it 
costs them more to manage this land with the grazing than it would cost 
if there was no grazing on it.
  In other words, there are incursions, they are going to be into other 
parts of the park. Here we are going to have a park; in part of the 
park one can graze, in part of the park one cannot graze. It does not 
make any sense. I think Anheuser-Busch is probably going to make it 
whether or not this is there.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just asking for an orderly phaseout of this 
particular process. It is an ephemeral forage area; they are competing 
with threatened endangered species. Let us make it a real park. 
Obviously there are those that do not favor the park designation. I 
think that ought to be taken on directly. But if we are going to have a 
park, then I think we can phase out and provide for some predictability 
and certainly for the people in California. They favor in essence 
eliminating this duality, Mr. Chairman.
  I urge the Members to adopt this reasonable amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the age-old battles we go through in the 
West. Years ago, dating back all the way to 1880, one of these 
individuals, a fellow by the name of Hunter, came into this area and he 
has water rights that were upheld by the courts before Skull Valley was 
even a national monument. I mean, he was there, he was grazing cows, he 
was taking care of his problems.
  I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, why is it that nobody speaks for that 
poor one guy in California? We all can envision a great and wonderful 
park in that particular area as this bill would make it, but on the 
other hand when we say that there is not grazing in national parks, 
there is grazing in national parks, and I will give Members an example.
  It is called Capital Reef National Park. When it was first designated 
by one of our Senators from Utah who said he was going to put it there, 
it was a rather small park. Then came along the President of the United 
States and a little work came about, and it turned into a huge park. 
However, when we look at it, just an infinitesimal part of it is seen 
by the people. No one goes off into these other areas. So it was 
determined by the Park Service that maybe in our wisdom we should allow 
some grazing of stock in the Capital Reef. If that is a good precedent, 
which I think it is, what is wrong with Mr. Hunter and of the three 
people we are talking about here; I am given to understand only one has 
a concern and this is Mr. Roy Hunter.

  The courts held for Mr. Hunter in Hunter versus the United States 
that he had a right to be there, that he had a right for the park.
  We have got the court system saying Hunter can stay there; he can 
take care of his cows; he can live; he can exist; and he is a third 
generation person. Maybe his son and his grandson want to do the same 
thing. Who are we to say let us kick this guy out and not allow him the 
opportunity to exist and do what he thinks is right in his own heart 
and mind?
  Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that in this particular instance, 
this is another case of the big bad Federal Government coming in and 
some poor little guy sitting down there in the Skull Valley area, 
excuse me, in the Death Valley area. We have a Skull Valley in Utah 
which is comparable to it and I did not want to bring that up because I 
was afraid somebody would make a park out of it, so I ask Members to 
strike that from their minds.
  Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the other area and say in that 
particular area, we have one man trying to eke out a living, pay his 
taxes, send his kids to school, take care of the problems that we all 
encounter, but, no, sir, boy, we are going to do it by congressional 
mandate. We are going to kick that guy out, even though the courts say 
he has a right to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel and I know the intentions of the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] are pure and honorable and I have great 
appreciation for him and the gentleman from California, Chairman 
Miller, but I really think we should oppose this amendment and let Mr. 
Hunter have a right to exist.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Vento amendment to 
H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act. This amendment would 
allow current holders of grazing permits in Mojave National Park to 
continue grazing until their permits expire, but no longer. It replaces 
language in H.R. 518, which would permit grazing to continue in 
perpetuity in the national parks affected by the bill.
  What is this amendment all about? Continuing subsidized grazing--
forever--on highly fragile lands. First, the amendment affects just 
three permitees. There are another 8 permitees who among them control 
just 11 grazing allotments in Mojave. These are not small operators. No 
way. In fact, the eight permitees in the Mojave control 35,503 AUM's, 
defined as a cow and a calf or five sheep, which graze on 1,255,343 
acres of land in the east Mojave.
  Second, the last time we voted on a California desert bill, in the 
102d Congress, grazing on these allotments was limited to 25 years. So 
why do we need to extend grazing forever?
  Third, few national parks currently allow grazing and the Park 
Service is trying to phase it out where it occurs.
  Fourth, even worse, grazing in the California desert is particularly 
harmful. The lands are very arid and intensive grazing in the spring 
can leave a path of devastation for the rest of the year.
  And fifth, then there is the issue of cost. It's no secret that it 
costs a lot more to administer a livestock grazing program in this kind 
of area than the Federal Government could ever receive in permit fees. 
Scarce Federal funds could better be spent in managing these lands for 
park values and that is what we should do here.
  Finally, it is important to remember that livestock operators have a 
privilege and not a right to graze on public lands. They don't own 
these lands. We all do. Let us make sure grazing ends in the California 
desert in a reasonable time. Support the Vento amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SYNAR. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for pointing out the 
problems with the East Mojave. We are trying to deal with the Death 
Valley issue. I wanted to suggest to the gentleman that I did not offer 
the amendment en bloc, I am offering it only for Death Valley, then on 
East Mojave.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that in Death Valley 
we have the three allotees. I would be happy to share that information 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. SYNAR. I appreciate the gentleman correcting me.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, they have 135,130 acres for those three 
operators on which they get something less than 3,000 AUM's.
  The point here, I think, is that there are just three, one of which, 
of course, is not a local person--Anheuser-Busch, it is a company, one 
of the phenomenon I think the gentleman from Oklahoma has been a leader 
in pointing out the corporate interests and others that really have 
these permits. I think in this instance the gentleman is doing a great 
job. I want to commend him and associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SYNAR. I thank the gentleman for that correction.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Vento amendment. It 
is an amendment that many have suggested is a reflection of the 
committee's work on this bill which involves essentially a war on the 
West.
  It has been suggested only three grazing operators will be within the 
extended boundaries of the Death Valley National Monument. My colleague 
has suggested that Anheuser-Busch somehow is a very big factor among 
those three. The Anheuser-Bush involvement, I gather, is something like 
1 percent of the grazing areas in Death Valley. A very fractional piece 
of the Death Valley area is impacted by their grazing activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we focus upon those people who are 
seriously involved in grazing and have been involved in grazing for 
generations.
  Aside from helping the local economy and protecting the area's 
cultural heritage, the ranchers involved help the wildlife populations 
that we are all so concerned about. The water sources they developed 
for their livestock also benefit wildlife, which could perish without 
their activity.
  When these ranchers are forced to leave the area as their permits 
expire, who will maintain these important wildlife sources? It 
certainly will not be the National Park Service, which already has 
massive backlogs to operate existing parks through the country.
  Now the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] wants to expand the park 
system and kick the ranchers out with absolutely no plan whatsoever for 
paying for the expanded costs of this new addition to the park.

                              {time}  1350

  It is very important to remember that the ranchers involved here have 
worked in the area for generations. One of these operators whom the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] would put out of business is a man 
by the name of Roy Hunter.
  Mr. Hunter's family has been in the Death Valley area since 1860. 
That is over 130 years of heritage down the tubes if this amendment by 
my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], passes.
  I ask my colleagues: How can this House, the people's House, force 
someone to give up a tradition that has been in their family for over 
130 years?
  I know the bill's author cannot support the elimination of 
traditional ranching in this area.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], has a 
number of ranchers in his own district, and I would ask the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lehman]: What would ranchers like Steve McDonald, 
Will Gill, Clay Dalton, Dan Ford, and Gregg and Floyd Harlan think if 
our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], attempted to 
eliminate ranching in his district? I know that the Harlans are 
multigeneration ranchers. Surely, I say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lehman], you cannot support this kind of proposal in 
your district.
  Then why support this kind of proposal in mine?
  Make no mistake that the debate swirling around this amendment has 
nothing to do with grazing fees either. It is simply about the 
elimination of a way of life for ranchers who have operated in this 
area for decades. These ranchers are not abusing the area's terrain. 
These folks are the best conservationists around. Livestock grazing 
within National Park Service units is not a new activity, as my 
colleague, the gentleman from Utah, indicated. It is currently 
occurring in such diverse places as Alaska's Land Bridge National 
Preserve, Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park, Utah's Capital Reef 
National Park, and California's Channel Islands National Park, to name 
just a few.
  Why must we phase it out in Death Valley when it occurs in a well-
managed way in these other parks?
  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 to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his advocacy for the people 
who have grazed cattle for so long in our desert areas.
  I want to make clear early on this fine gentleman, Roy Hunter, is not 
a relation to myself. But I am in complete sympathy with his avocation, 
which is a pretty tough avocation right now, trying to make a few 
dollars in the livestock industry.
  One other aspect of this, having cattlemen in the desert area as the 
gentleman mentioned, is the beneficial effect it has on wildlife. If 
Fish and Game goes out now and builds a guzzler in the desert, and I 
have looked at some of the costs, they generally have to spend between 
$30,000 and $50,000 dollars of the taxpayers' money to develop the 
water source. When I say guzzler, that is a term for building a water 
source in the desert that desert quail, bighorn sheep, and other 
wildlife can utilize. When a rancher goes in and develops a water 
source for his cattle, and all of them have to be within a fairly close 
distance of water, he uses his own private dollars, builds basically a 
resource that is used by all the desert wildlife, by the quail, by the 
sheep, by the desert mule deer, and he is providing for the taxpayers a 
benefit that otherwise they would have to pay for.
  In reading my friend's amendment, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], first it starts out saying the 
Secretary shall permit continuation of the privilege of grazing, but 
then it goes on to say, however, when these permits have expired, no 
more permits will be renewed.
  I guess my point is if the grazing is not detrimental to the desert 
right now, I do not understand why it is important in 1998, or 1999 to 
cut off another westerner from being able to use public lands.
  As I see things like this happening throughout the gamut of Federal 
intervention in the West, whether it is timber or mining or off-road 
people trying to use part of their land, or now the Forest Service 
eliminating shooting on national forests in southern California, it 
appears to me this administration is conducting what I would call a war 
on the West, and I think at some point westerners are going to band 
together, and even though there are only a couple of ranchers here, I 
think this administration is going to be hearing from them.
  I thank the gentleman for his fight to save their grazing rights for 
just a couple of western families. If we do not stand up for them, a 
couple weeks from now we will be defending some other westerners, some 
other aspect of desert use or national forest use that is being taken 
by the Federal Government.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much my colleague 
for his contribution.
  As my colleague has indicated, in this case we are talking about the 
Death Valley National Monument and only a couple of grazing families 
involved in grazing. We will be talking later in another section about 
grazing in another portion of this proposed expansion of the Park 
System.
  I think it is important to follow up on your basic comments, I say to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], to point out the fact the 
Bureau of Land Management, in its study entitled ``Biological 
Evaluation of Cattle Grazing in the Mojave Desert of California,'' that 
that study stated that cattle grazing can be beneficial in improving 
the resources utilized by desert tortoises, among others.
  The BLM states, and I quote, ``Cattle foraging on these perennials 
may make the perennial grass forage more available for foraging 
tortoise by promoting tillering and reducing the amount of dead 
standing material.'' The report goes on to say the removal of these 
cattle may actually harm these tortoise populations.
  So, in effect, if the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] passes, it not only eliminates the generational 
ranchers, admittedly only a couple of families affected. But after all, 
who cares about a couple of families? All of us should certainly.
  It is also harmful to endangered wildlife populations.
  This amendment just reconfirms the worst suspicions of many that park 
and wilderness designation is merely a means to drive public land users 
off the land.
  You referred to it as the war on the West, get people off the land. 
What other purpose is served by this amendment than to do precisely 
that?
  Continued traditional ranching has maintained open space and 
prevented urban encroachment. Desert ranchers have served as an 
additional set of eyes and ears for the land and wildlife management 
agencies by reporting poaching and other abuse of the wildlife.
  Let us allow multiple use to continue in this case, and in this case 
allow wildlife to benefit from the manmade water sources maintained by 
these ranchers that my colleague referred to.
  This is a win-win situation for all concerned and should be allowed 
to continue. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which merely 
advances that war on the West that my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], referred to.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, let me state that this amendment is really contrary to 
the purposes of the bill and to the entire function of putting this 
legislation together over the past few years.
  What we have attempted to do with this legislation in virtually every 
instance is to identify activities on the desert that are not 
detrimental to the principles of the act and to try to allow those 
activities to occur. We have done that in a number of instances.
  We did that with respect to utility lines in the legislation. When 
this legislation was first drafted in the Senate several years ago, 
almost every utility in California was opposed to the bill. We looked 
at those problems. We dealt with them, we resolved them, and we left 
most of their interests intact.
  We then did the same thing with many other interests in the bill, one 
of the most recent of which was the Algodones Dunes in the district of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] where there was an asset use 
in that area by about 60,000 people a year for off-road vehicles. We 
allowed that use to continue, because after careful examination, we 
determined it was compatible.
  It is not the purpose of this bill to drive people off the land. It 
is not the purpose of this bill to eliminate legitimate uses in the 
desert.
  The exemption made in this bill for the existing cattle activities in 
the desert is merely an extension of that philosophy.
  There are only a few ranching operations on the desert. My number is 
six, and I think that may have gone up or down one or two in the last 
few years. These are family operations. For the most part they have 
been there for generations. Some of the people whom we are talking 
about here settled this land in the 1860's before anybody else came 
west, or their families did, and they have continued that activity 
since then. They are part of the landscape just as much as anything 
else there is, and they certainly ought not to be run off the property 
here by this legislation.
  I would also like to say that many of these operations own private 
property within the desert. They homesteaded it. They own 160 acres or 
320 acres. Those lands are viable ranching operations only when put 
together with grazing permits from the Federal Government.
  So what we effectively do here if we say we are not going to allow 
any grazing in the future in we destroy the value of the private 
property that those people did not invest in in speculation in the last 
few years knowing that this law might come about, but has in fact been 
in their families for generations.

                              {time}  1400

  But it has in fact been in their family for generations.
  So we destroy the value of the private land by making those holdings 
no longer viable because they depend for their viability, to a large 
extent, on the longstanding relationship with the Federal Government 
and the lease of those properties.
  This amendment in fact goes beyond what passed in the House last year 
when we had a 25-year limit on existing leases in the bill. This would, 
as I understand it, say that all leases would be no longer renegotiable 
when the term of the lease is up. This is not a restatement of anything 
that has been on the floor in the past. It goes far beyond that.
  The language in the bill is identical to the language placed in the 
bill by the Senate. So if we defeat this amendment today, we will have 
permanently resolved this issue as far as the legislation is concerned; 
we will have resolved it, in effect, by letting these existing entities 
stay in operation as they have been; let them maintain their property 
rights as they have, and certainly there has not been any credible 
argument made that this activity has been detrimental to the desert and 
to the activities there. In fact, BLM studies show the opposite.
  What we are still doing with this legislation is putting them under 
Park Service authority as far as the grazing permits are concerned.
  So I think we will do well to continue that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman chose to join us in the 
well regarding this very important amendment. Frankly, I am not 
surprised at all by the position he is taking on this amendment. My 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], once told me 
about a trip he took out to east Mojave, and he spent some time with 
one of those leathered, sunworn ranchers. It may have been a part of 
the Blair family. At any rate, the gentleman described to me just how 
big an impact that individual had upon him and the reflection that he 
was of the rancher kind of style that is the Old West. Indeed, they are 
there in numbers.
  I was certain of his empathy for not just the individual but for his 
life's work.
  So I appreciate my colleague's position on the amendment.
  Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggests there is no evidence in terms of 
the impact of grazing as being adverse in these hot desert areas. I 
would refer him to the 1991 GAO report, on page 39 of that report.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lehman was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, on this page it says:

       Perhaps the most comprehensive assessments of the effects 
     of discontinuing livestock grazing throughout the hot deserts 
     are contained in EIS's prepared by BLM between 1978 and 1989.

  That is over a period of 13 years. It goes on further:

       These statements indicate that if livestock grazing were 
     discontinued, recovery would begin. They agree that less soil 
     erosion would occur, water infiltration would increase, and 
     soils would generally improve. Vegetation would gain health 
     and vigor, and cover would increase, benefitting both soil 
     and wildlife. Wildlife habitat would improve for numerous 
     species, including desert tortoises, pronghorn antelope, 
     bighorn sheep, mule deer, and quail, as well as rabbits, 
     amphibians, and rodents.

  Mr. LEHMAN. Reclaiming my time, I understand where the gentleman is 
headed here. I would like to make two points. One, I have been on the 
desert as have certainly the gentleman from California and, once in a 
while, the gentleman from Minnesota, and have observed the effects of 
cattle firsthand on the desert. I have not seen any detrimental 
effects. Also, I have pointed out there is a lot of scientific evidence 
to the effect that much of the vegetation that is on the desert today 
that we are trying to protect, is there because of cattle grazing. 
Certainly there have been choices necessitated by cattle grazing over 
the years, but they are part of the flora and fauna there at the 
present time.
  I also point out to the gentlemen and to the public that in its 1990 
report on grazing land conditions in the desert, the BLM classified 99 
percent of grazing acres as being in either good or fair condition. And 
it also stated:

       If properly managed, grazing can increase vegetative 
     diversity, plant vigor, and nutrient cycling and range 
     improvements, such as water development, benefit a number of 
     varieties of wildlife.

  But I think here the gentleman from Minnesota is really arguing on 
the margins in terms of impact. The real impact here is going to be 
that an important part of the Old West that is being grazed now is 
exercised by only a few remaining families on a relatively small 
portion of the landscape is going to be wiped out by this bill. I see 
no reason to do so.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  My colleagues voiced some concern about the amendment and mentioned 
the Bureau of Land Management's biological evaluation of grazing, 
cattle grazing on the Mojave Desert of California. A personal note, if 
I may: Because there is a feeling, I am sure, among my colleagues, 
``Well, how in the world can grazing cattle help such things as 
tortoises and other types of animals?'' I would respond that my 
grandfather used to graze cattle in the desert. What happened is the 
cattle eat off the top of the grass, which permits the smaller animals 
to get to that part that is most desirable to them.
  Eating off the top of the grass, it strengthens the roots of the 
grass, which normally spreads then the availability of the grass to the 
other animals. The cattle, with their sharp hooves, dig around as they 
are eating the grass--and I am mimicking the cattle now--and break the 
surface soil which permits then grass seed to fall into the soft earth 
and then the next hoof comes along and tamps it into the ground. So 
what you have here is compatibility this grazing cow has in increasing 
the grass for the benefit of the desert tortoise, rabbits, other 
animals of the desert, including deer, which would not necessarily take 
place; in fact, it would not take place, if we had no cattle at all 
because this environmental process that the grazing cattle develops is 
a natural enhancement to the grazing areas by the means which I have 
explained.
  It is beneficial to the tortoises, it is beneficial to all the other 
wild animals in the area and it increases the grazing amount of grass 
for all of those, including the cattle that are grazing on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I took the time of the full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], to go over this because there 
are many things that people just do not understand about the desert 
when we talk about certain aspects of it. From my personal experience, 
I wanted to share these thoughts with the members of the committee, Mr. 
Miller and Mr. Vento.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 207, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--207

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Blackwell
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coppersmith
     DeFazio
     Engel
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Hochbrueckner
     Huffington
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Laughlin
     Machtley
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Obey
     Oxley
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Scott
     Slattery
     Stokes
     Swett
     Tauzin
     Washington
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McCloskey for, with Mr. Mica against.
       Mr. Sanders for, with Mr. McInnis against.

  Messrs. DICKS, MINGE, WISE, and SAXTON changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  Mr. BROOKS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             amendments offered by mr. lewis of california

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

       Amendments offered by Mr. Lewis of California: Page 38, 
     after line 21, add the following:


             death valley national park advisory commission

       Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary shall establish a Death Valley 
     National Park Advisory Commission, which shall have oversight 
     and advisory responsibilities regarding the existing and 
     expansion areas of the park and which shall advise on the 
     development and implementation of the management plan 
     required by section 209.
       (b) The advisory commission shall--
       (1) be operated under the procedures of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act;
       (2) be composed of representatives from major disciplines 
     and uses within the Death Valley National Park;
       (3) include an elected official of local government for the 
     jurisdiction within which the park lies; and
       (4) have membership from ranching, mining, and inholders 
     groups.
       (c) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.


                        general management plan

       Sec. 209. Within three years of the date of enactment of 
     this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, a 
     detailed and comprehensive management plan for the park.
       Page 43, after line 2, add the following:


             joshua tree national park advisory commission

       Sec. 308. (a) The Secretary shall establish a Joshua Tree 
     National Park Advisory Commission, which shall have oversight 
     and advisory responsibilities regarding the existing and 
     expansion areas of the park and which shall advise on the 
     development and implementation of the management plan 
     required by section 309.
       (b) The advisory commission shall--
       (1) be operated under the procedures of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act;
       (2) be composed of representatives from major disciplines 
     and uses within the Joshua Tree National Park;
       (3) include an elected official of local government for the 
     jurisdiction within which the park lies; and
       (4) have membership from the ranching, mining, and 
     inholders groups.
       (c) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.


                        general management plan

       Sec. 309. Within three years of the date of enactment of 
     this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, a 
     detailed and comprehensive management plan for the park.
       Page 53, after line 24, add the following:


                Mojave national park advisory commission

       Sec. 416. (a) The Secretary shall establish a Mojave 
     National Park Advisory Commission, which shall have oversight 
     and advisory responsibilities regarding the existing and 
     expansion areas of the park and which shall advise on the 
     development and implementation of the management plan 
     required by section 411.
       (b) The advisory commission shall--
       (1) be operated under the procedures of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act;
       (2) be composed of representatives from major disciplines 
     and uses within the Mojave National Park;
       (3) include an elected official of local government for the 
     jurisdiction within which the park lies; and
       (4) have membership from the ranching, mining, and 
     inholders groups.
       (c) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward 
amendment which creates local advisory commissions for the proposed new 
national parks in Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Mojave. I had 
originally planned to offer identical amendments to titles three and 
four of this bill establishing local advisory commissions at the 
proposed Joshua Tree and Mojave National Parks in addition to Death 
Valley. However, working cooperatively with the majority, I have 
decided to offer these amendments en bloc, in order to accommodate the 
Majority's desire to move this bill along more quickly.
  As I previously stated, this en bloc amendment establishes the Death 
Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave Advisory Commissions with oversight and 
advisory responsibilities in existing and expanded areas of the new 
park areas. These Commissions shall advise the National Park Service on 
the development and implementation of the management plan required by 
section 209 of this bill.
  The Advisory Commissions will be operated under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. It will be composed of representatives from major 
disciplines and uses within or adjacent each new national park. These 
Commissions will include an elected official of each area's local 
government. The Commission's membership will also include ranchers, 
miners, and inholders--those who own property within the boundaries of 
the national park. These Commissions would cease to exist 10 years 
after the date of their establishment.
  S. 21 was amended in the Senate to establish an Advisory Commission 
for the proposed new Mojave National Park. However, Senator Feinstein's 
language does not specify membership or make reference to the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. Representative Lehman's bill makes no reference 
to these Commissions whatsoever.
  The Federal Advisory Committee Act, among other requirements, 
specifies ``balance in points of view,'' as well as specifying 
operating procedures. I have decided to offer these amendments in order 
to assure that local governments have an effective voice in managing 
the proposed park.
  If the Advisory Commission is a good idea for the proposed Mojave 
National Park, and is used for the adjacent administered lands, its 
concepts should be extended to other National Park Service units within 
the California desert.
  Currently, planning for units of the National Park System is 
performed by a planning staff housed in the service's Denver center, 
and is not done by the local staff and managers who know the area best. 
National Park Service procedure does not provide for the empowerment of 
local citizens and interests with a role in the planning process. The 
Advisory Commission should have a role in the development of management 
for the region.
  This bill adds over 1 million acres to the Death Valley National 
Monument, yet, it does not provide for any general management plan for 
the area.

                              {time}  1440

  It also adds over 200,000 acres to Joshua Tree--yet--it does not 
allow local participation. Finally, it creates a new 1.5-million-acre 
national park in the east Mojave without affording local government 
officials or affected citizens an opportunity to participate.
  Supervisors from both Inyo and San Bernardino Counties strongly 
support the establishment of advisory commissions. I will, under leave 
to include extraneous matter, submit their letters supporting these 
commissions into the Record.
  San Bernardino County supervisor, Marsha Turoci, states,

       BLM management is by law and practice constantly open to 
     public participation and influence. Conventional Park Service 
     management is not; it is basically a back-room decision-
     making process, inaccessible to the public. This transition 
     in management technique will be very frustrating to a 
     southern California public that has been involved with the 
     management of the California desert for over twenty years.

  Supervisor Turoci goes on to say,

       HR 518 must create a publicly involved decision-making 
     forum, allowing both national and local input. An important 
     part of that process must include an advisory council.

  Supervisor Bob Gracey of Inyo County is also a strong supporter of 
this amendment. Because Inyo County is already over 95 percent 
federally owned--yes, over 95 percent federally owned--these local 
officials do want a say when the Federal Government grabs more of their 
land.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, can anyone object to 
empowering local officials and interests to having a stake in matters 
that affect them so directly? The National Park Service has shown that 
it is often not a good neighbor, particularly with adjacent cities and 
towns.
  Can anyone object to the inclusion of persons and disciplines being 
represented which are nontraditional within the National Park System? 
The inclusion of ranchers, miners, local officials, and inholders will 
assure that these views are directly considered in the deliberations of 
these commissions.
  The National Park System lacks any field advisory groups in these 
areas and has no history of working with them. This amendment would 
direct them to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act regarding 
appointments, balance, open meeting, agendas, and records.
  My amendment specifically mentions local officials, miners, ranchers, 
and inholders because I want to ensure a balance in points of view as 
spelled out in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Federal Advisory 
Commission Act is fair. All points of view are equally represented.
  The advisory commission idea is good. It should be extended to the 
proposed three new national park units created under this bill. Let us 
give local government a say in this process. This is an amendment they 
asked for. Let us give it to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

                                          County of San Bernardino


                                         Board of Supervisors,

                                San Bernardino, CA, June 10, 1994.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jerry: The County of San Bernardino strongly supports 
     your amendment to the California Desert Protection Act (HR 
     518), which would establish a permanent Advisory Council (or 
     councils) for the East Mojave, Joshua Tree, and Death Valley, 
     with membership representing local elected officials, 
     grazing, mining, recreation resources, and scientific and 
     academic expertise.
       Thank you for your tireless efforts on behalf of our desert 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Marsha Turoci,
                              Vice Chairman, Board of Supervisors.
                                  ____

                                                    County of Inyo


                                         Board of Supervisors,

                                  Independence, CA, June 10, 1994.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jerry: The County of Inyo resolutely supports your 
     amendment to the California Desert Protection Act (HR 518), 
     which would establish a permanent Advisory Council (or 
     councils) for Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and the East Mojave, 
     with membership representing local elected officials, 
     grazing, mining, recreation resources, and scientific and 
     academic expertise.
       Your continued support of Inyo County is greatly 
     appreciated, and we are committed to assisting you in your 
     efforts on behalf of our desert communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert W. Gracey,
                                                         Chairman.


   amendments offered by mr. vento as substitutes for the amendments 
                   offered by mr. lewis of california

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

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Vento as substitutes for 
     the amendments en bloc offered buy Mr. Lewis of California: 
     In lieu of the matter proposed to be added to the bill by the 
     amendment, add the following:


             death valley national park advisory commission

       Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary shall establish an Advisory 
     Commission of no more than 15 Members, to advise the 
     Secretary concerning the development and implementation of a 
     new or revised comprehensive management plan for Death Valley 
     National Park.
       (b)(1) The advisory commission shall include an elected 
     official for each County within which any part of the park is 
     located, a representative of the owners of private properties 
     located within or immediately adjacent to the park, and other 
     members representing persons actively engaged in grazing and 
     range management, mineral exploration and development, and 
     persons with expertise in relevant fields, including geology, 
     biology, ecology, law enforcement, and the protection and 
     management of National Park resources and values.
       (2) Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by the 
     Secretary so as to maintain the full diversity of views 
     required to be represented on the Commission.
       (c) The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the 
     procedures and activities of the advisory commission.
       (d) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.

     SEC. 210. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       In preparing the maps and legal descriptions required by 
     sections 204 and 502, the Secretary shall adjust the 
     boundaries of the Death Valley National Park and Death Valley 
     National Park Wilderness so as to exclude from such National 
     Park and Wilderness the lands generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Porter Mine (Panamint Range) Exclusion Area'' 
     dated June 1994.
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added to the bill by 
     the amendment, add the following:


             joshua tree national park advisory commission

       Sec.   . (a) The Secretary shall establish an Advisory 
     Commission of no more than 15 Members, to advise the 
     Secretary concerning the development and implementation of a 
     new or revised comprehensive management plan for Death Valley 
     National Park.
       (b)(1) The advisory commission shall include an elected 
     official for each County within which any part of the park is 
     located, a representative of the owners of private properties 
     located within or immediately adjacent to the park, and other 
     members representing persons actively engaged in grazing and 
     range management, mineral exploration and development, and 
     persons with expertise in relevant fields, including geology, 
     biology, ecology, law enforcement, and the protection and 
     management of National Park resources and values.
       (2) Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by the 
     Secretary so as to maintain the full diversity of views 
     required to be represented on the Commission.
       (c) The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the 
     procedures and activities of the advisory commission.
       (d) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be added to the bill by 
     the amendment, add the following:


                mojave national park advisory commission

       Sec.   . (a) The Secretary shall establish an Advisory 
     Commission of no more than 15 Members, to advise the 
     Secretary concerning the development and implementation of a 
     new or revised comprehensive management plan for Death Valley 
     National Park.
       (b)(1) The advisory commission shall include an elected 
     official for each County within which any part of the park is 
     located, a representative of the owners of private properties 
     located within or immediately adjacent to the park, and other 
     members representing persons actively engaged in grazing and 
     range management, mineral exploration and development, and 
     persons with expertise in relevant fields, including geology, 
     biology, ecology, law enforcement, and the protection and 
     management of National Park resources and values.
       (2) Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by the 
     Secretary so as to maintain the full diversity of views 
     required to be represented on the Commission.
       (c) The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the 
     procedures and activities of the advisory commission.
       (d) The advisory commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the date of its establishment.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, these amendments to the Lewis amendments 
have been worked out through consultations with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis]. The National Park Service usually establishes 
informal advisory committees and there is understandably interest 
because of the expansion and new designation of these new national 
parks for a formal recognition of the local and expert concerns. My 
amendment would revise somewhat the provisions of the Lewis amendments, 
in essence to build upon the Lewis amendments, to make clear that these 
advisory commissions will be broad based so that the National Park 
Service will have the benefit of the full variety of views and 
expertise relevant to the development of new or revised comprehensive 
management plans for the Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National 
Parks. Cooperation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is 
noted on this matter, and I am pleased that we have been able to reach 
agreement on these amendments to his amendments. It is my understanding 
that their adoption will remove most controversy concerning this 
advisory committee establishment, and I urge their adoption and the 
adoption of the Lewis amendments as so modified.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman indicated, we 
have been consulting on this matter. I have no objection to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in favor of the amendment.
  Having not been privileged to the previous agreement, I am very 
pleased that it came forward. My concern, Mr. Chairman, was that the 
National Park System Center in Denver had the total responsibility for 
land use planning management, and that at the local level they had no 
field service groups or resources that would share with the them 
regional concerns, be they from the staff of the National Park Service 
or local members of government.
  Denver is a long way from the Colorado and the Mojave Deserts, and I 
am very pleased that our subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
were able to get together on this.
  It is an important step forward and, as a former county supervisor in 
Riverside, I must say, in all candidness, land use planning is 
essential. If there is anyone who doubts this, there is an item called 
the California Environmental Quality Act which mandates land use 
planning for everything but Federal lands. This would be in conjunction 
with this.
  I am pleased to see that this amendment is coming forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] as substitutes for the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  The amendments offered as substitutes for the amendments were agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] as amended.
  The amendments en bloc, as amended, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The test of title III is as follows:

                  TITLE III--JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK


                                findings

       Sec. 301. The Congress hereby finds that--
       (1) a proclamation by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 
     established Joshua Tree National Monument to protect various 
     objects of historical and scientific interest;
       (2) Joshua Tree National Monument today is recognized as a 
     major unit of the National Park System, having extraordinary 
     values enjoyed by millions of visitors;
       (3) the Monument boundaries as modified in 1950 and 1961 
     exclude and thereby expose to incompatible development and 
     inconsistent management, contiguous Federal lands of 
     essential and superlative natural, ecological, archeological, 
     paleontological, cultural, historical and wilderness values;
       (4) Joshua Tree National Monument should be enlarged by the 
     addition of contiguous Federal lands of national park 
     caliber, and afforded full recognition and statutory 
     protection as a national park; and
       (5) the nondesignated wilderness within Joshua Tree should 
     receive statutory protection by designation pursuant to the 
     Wilderness Act.


               establishment of joshua tree national park

       Sec. 302. There is hereby established the Joshua Tree 
     National Park, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Joshua Tree National Park Boundary--Proposed'', dated May 
     1991, and four maps entitled ``Joshua Tree National Park 
     Boundary and Wilderness'', numbered in the title one through 
     four, and dated October 1991 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 Joshua Tree 
     National Monument is hereby abolished as such, the lands and 
     interests therein are hereby incorporated within and made 
     part of the new Joshua Tree 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. 303. 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 302 
     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 administer 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. 304. Within six months after the enactment of this 
     title, the Secretary shall file maps and legal description of 
     the park designated by 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 302. 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. 305. Subject to valid existing rights, Federal lands 
     and interests therein added to the National Park System by 
     this title are withdrawn from disposition under the public 
     lands 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 the 
     operation of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.


                         utility rights-of-way

       Sec. 306. Nothing in this title shall have the effect of 
     terminating any validly issued right-of-way or customary 
     operation maintenance, repair, and replacement activities in 
     such right-of-way, issued, granted, or permitted to the 
     Metropolitan Water District pursuant to the Boulder Canyon 
     Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617-619b), which is located on lands 
     included in the Joshua Tree National Park, but outside lands 
     designated as wilderness under section 501(2). Such 
     activities shall be conducted in a manner which will minimize 
     the impact on park resources. Nothing in this title shall 
     have the effect of terminating the fee title to lands or 
     customary operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement 
     activities on or under such lands granted to the Metropolitan 
     Water District pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1932 (47 Stat. 
     324), which are located on lands included in the Joshua Tree 
     National Park, but outside lands designated as wilderness 
     under section 501(2). Such activities shall be conducted in a 
     manner which will minimize the impact on park resources. The 
     Secretary shall prepare within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in consultation with the Metropolitan 
     Water District, plans for emergency access by the 
     Metropolitan Water District to its lands and rights-of-way.


                 study as to validity of mining claims

       Sec. 307. 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 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?
  If not, the clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                     TITLE IV--MOJAVE NATIONAL PARK


                                findings

       Sec. 401. The Congress hereby finds that--
       (1) Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks, as 
     established by this Act, protect unique and superlative 
     desert resources, but do not embrace the particular 
     ecosystems and transitional desert type found in the Mojave 
     Desert area lying between them on public lands now afforded 
     only impermanent administrative designation as a national 
     scenic area;
       (2) the Mojave Desert area possesses outstanding natural, 
     cultural, historical, and recreational values meriting 
     statutory designation and recognition as a unit of the 
     National Park System;
       (3) the Mojave Desert area should be afforded full 
     recognition and statutory protection as a national park;
       (4) the wilderness within the Mojave Desert should receive 
     maximum statutory protection by designation pursuant to the 
     Wilderness Act; and
       (5) the Mojave Desert area provides an outstanding 
     opportunity to develop services, programs, accommodations and 
     facilities to ensure the use and enjoyment of the area by 
     individuals with disabilities, consistent with section 504 of 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 101-336, the 
     Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101), 
     and other appropriate laws and regulations.


               establishment of the mojave national park

       Sec. 402. There is hereby established the Mojave National 
     Park, comprising approximately one million four hundred and 
     forty-eight thousand acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Mojave National Park Boundary--Proposed'', dated 
     May 1994, which shall be on file and available for inspection 
     in the appropriate offices of the Director of the National 
     Park Service, Department of the Interior.


                           transfer of lands

       Sec. 403. 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 
     402 of this title, without consideration, to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Director of the 
     National Park Service. The boundaries of the public lands 
     shall be adjusted accordingly.


                       maps and legal description

       Sec. 404. 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 
     402. The maps and legal description shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     National Park Service, Department of the Interior.


                       abolishment of scenic area

       Sec. 405. The East Mojave National Scenic Area, designated 
     on January 13, 1981 (46 FR 3994), and modified on August 9, 
     1983 (48 FR 36210), is hereby abolished.


                        administration of lands

       Sec. 406. The Secretary shall administer the park in 
     accordance with this title and 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).


                               withdrawal

       Sec. 407. Subject to valid existing rights, Federal lands 
     within the park, and interests therein, 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. 408. 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 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. 409. (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.


                         utility rights of way

       Sec. 410. (a)(1) Nothing in this title shall have the 
     effect of terminating any validly issued right-of-way or 
     customary operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement 
     activities in such right-of-way, issued, granted, or 
     permitted to Southern California Edison Company, which is 
     located on lands included in the Mojave National Park, but 
     outside lands designated as wilderness under section 501(3). 
     Such activities shall be conducted in a manner which will 
     minimize the impact on park resources.
       (2) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of 
     prohibiting the upgrading of an existing electrical 
     transmission line for the purpose of increasing the capacity 
     of such transmission line in the Southern California Edison 
     Company validly issued Eldorado-Lugo Transmission Line right-
     of-way and Mojave-Lugo Transmission Line right-of-way, or in 
     a right-of-way if issued, granted, or permitted by the 
     Secretary adjacent to the existing Mojave-Lugo Transmission 
     Line right-of-way (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     ``adjacent right-of-way''), including construction of a 
     replacement transmission line: Provided, That--
       (A) in the Eldorado-Lugo Transmission Line rights-of-way 
     (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Eldorado 
     rights-of-way'') at no time shall there be more than three 
     electrical transmission lines,
       (B) in the Mojave-Lugo Transmission Line right-of-way 
     (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Mojave right-
     of-way'') and adjacent right-of-way, removal of the existing 
     electrical transmission line and reclamation of the site 
     shall be completed no later than three years after the date 
     on which construction of the upgraded transmission line 
     begins, after which time there may be only one electrical 
     transmission line in the lands encompassed by Mojave right-
     of-way and adjacent right-of-way,
       (C) if there are no more than two electrical transmission 
     lines in the Eldorado rights-of-way, two electrical 
     transmission lines in the lands encompassed by the Mojave 
     right-of-way and adjacent right-of-way may be allowed,
       (D) in the Eldorado rights-of-way and Mojave right-of-way 
     no additional land shall be issued, granted, or permitted for 
     such upgrade unless an addition would reduce the impacts to 
     park resources,
       (E) no more than 350 feet of additional land shall be 
     issued, granted, or permitted for an adjacent right-of-way to 
     the south of the Mojave right-of-way unless a greater 
     addition would reduce the impacts to park resources, and
       (F) such upgrade activities, including helicopter aided 
     construction, shall be conducted in a manner which will 
     minimize the impact on park resources.
       (3) The Secretary shall prepare within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, in consultation with the 
     Southern California Edison Company, plans for emergency 
     access by the Southern California Edison Company to its 
     rights-of-way.
       (b)(1) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of 
     terminating any validly issued right-of-way, or customary 
     operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities in 
     such right-of-way; prohibiting the upgrading of and 
     construction on existing facilities in such right-of-way for 
     the purpose of increasing the capacity of the existing 
     pipeline; or prohibiting the renewal of such right-of-way 
     issued, granted, or permitted to the Southern California 
     Gas Company, its successors or assigns, which is located 
     on lands included in the Mojave National Park, but outside 
     lands designated as wilderness under section 501(3). Such 
     activities shall be conducted in a manner which will 
     minimize the impact on park resources.
       (2) The Secretary shall prepare within one hundred and 
     eighty days after the date of enactment of this title, in 
     consultation with the Southern California Gas Company, plans 
     for emergency access by the Southern California Gas Company 
     to its rights-of-way.
       (c) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of 
     terminating any validly issued right-of-way or customary 
     operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities of 
     existing facilities issued, granted, or permitted for 
     communications cables or lines, which are located on lands 
     included in the Mojave National Park, but outside lands 
     designated as wilderness under section 501(3). Such 
     activities shall be conducted in a manner which will minimize 
     the impact on park resources.
       (d) Nothing in this title shall have the effect of 
     terminating any validly issued right-of-way or customary 
     operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities of 
     existing facilities issued, granted, or permitted to 
     Molybdenum Corporation of America; Molycorp, Incorporated; or 
     Union Oil Company of California (d/b/a Unocal 
     Corporation); or its successors or assigns, or prohibiting 
     renewal of such right-of-way, which is located on lands 
     included in the Mojave National Park, but outside lands 
     designated as wilderness under section 501(3). Such 
     activities shall be conducted in a manner which will minimize 
     the impact on park resources.


                     preparation of management plan

       Sec. 411. Within three years after the date of enactment of 
     this title, the Secretary shall submit to the Energy and 
     Natural Resources Committee of the Senate and the Natural 
     Resources Committee of the House of Representatives a 
     detailed and comprehensive management plan for the park. Such 
     plan shall place emphasis on historical and cultural sites 
     and ecological and wilderness values within the boundaries of 
     the park. Any development, including road improvements, 
     proposed by such plan shall be strictly limited to that which 
     is essential and appropriate for the administration of the 
     park and shall be designed and located so as to maintain the 
     primitive nature of the area and to minimize the impairment 
     of park resources or ecological values. To the extent 
     practicable, administrative facilities, employee housing, 
     commercial visitor services, accommodations, and other park-
     related development shall be located or provided for outside 
     of the boundaries of the park. Such plan shall evaluate the 
     feasibility of using the Kelso Depot and existing railroad 
     corridor to provide public access to and a facility for 
     special interpretive, educational, and scientific programs 
     within the park. Such plan shall specifically address the 
     needs of individuals with disabilities in the design of 
     services, programs, accommodations and facilities consistent 
     with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public 
     Law 101-336, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101), and other appropriate laws and regulations.


                   granite mountains natural reserve

       Sec. 412. (a) There is hereby designated the Granite 
     Mountains Natural Reserve within the park comprising 
     approximately nine thousand acres as generally depicted on a 
     map entitled ``Mojave National Park Boundary and Wilderness--
     Proposed 6'', dated May 1991.
       (b) Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall enter into a cooperative management agreement 
     with the University of California for the purposes of 
     managing the lands within the Granite Mountains Natural 
     Reserve. Such cooperative agreement shall ensure continuation 
     of arid lands research and educational activities of the 
     University of California, consistent with the provisions of 
     law generally applicable to units of the National Park 
     System.


                     construction of visitor center

       Sec. 413. The Secretary is authorized to construct a 
     visitor center in the park for the purpose of providing 
     information through appropriate displays, printed material, 
     and other interpretive programs, about the resources of the 
     park.


                          acquisition of lands

       Sec. 414. The Secretary is authorized to acquire all lands 
     and interest in lands within the boundary of the park by 
     donation, purchase, or exchange, except that--
       (1) any lands or interests therein within the boundary of 
     the park which are owned by the State of California, or any 
     political subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by 
     donation or exchange except for lands managed by the 
     California State Lands Commission; and
       (2) lands or interests therein within the boundary of the 
     park which are not owned by the State of California or any 
     political subdivision thereof may be acquired only with the 
     consent of the owner thereof unless the Secretary determines, 
     after written notice to the owner and after opportunity for 
     comment, that the property is being developed, or proposed to 
     be developed, in a manner which is detrimental to the 
     integrity of the park or which is otherwise incompatible with 
     the purposes of this title.


          acquired lands be made part of mojave national park

       Sec. 415. Any land acquired by the Secretary under this 
     title shall become part of the Mojave National Park.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IV?


                    amendment offered by mr. lehman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lehman: On Page 47, line 19, 
     Section 410(a)(1), after ``Southern California Edison 
     Company,'' add ``its successors or assigns,''

  Mr. LEHMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 518 
that would make a technical and conforming amendment to the 
legislation. The technical and conforming amendment ensures that if the 
Southern California Edison Co. were sold to another company, the 
agreement reached with Southern California Edison and included in this 
bill will continue to be respected. The same consideration has been 
provided for other utilities included in this bill, and it is also 
included in the Senate version called S. 21.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment. There is no objection 
to it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the 
amendment. We accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?


                   amendments offered by mr. larocco

  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc, since all but one are 
technical in nature.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. LaRocco:
     --Page 43, line 43, strike ``PARK'' and insert ``PRESERVE''.
     --Page 44, line 3, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 44, line 15, strike ``PARK'' and insert ``PRESERVE''.
     --Page 44, line 17, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 45, line 9, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 45, line 24, strike ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 406.''.
     --Page 45, line 24, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 46, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(b) The Secretary shall permit hunting, fishing, and 
     trapping on lands and waters within the preserve designated 
     by this Act in accordance with applicable Federal and State 
     laws except that the Secretary may designate areas where, and 
     establish periods when, no hunting, fishing, or trapping will 
     be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or 
     compliance with provisions of applicable law. Except in 
     emergencies, regulations closing areas to hunting, fishing, 
     or trapping pursuant to this subsection shall be put into 
     effect only after consultation with the appropriate State 
     agency having responsibility for fish and wildlife. 
     Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the 
     jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States with 
     respect to fish and wildlife on Federal lands and waters 
     covered by this title nor shall anything in this Act be 
     construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to 
     require a Federal permit to hunt, fish, or trap on Federal 
     lands and waters covered by this title.''.
     --Page 46, line 6, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 46, line 16, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 46, line 24, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 47, line 7, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 47, line 10, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 47, line 20, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 47, line 23, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 49, line 6, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 49, line 11, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 49, line 14, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 50, line 4, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 50, line 7, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 50, line 18, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 50, line 21, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 5, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 8, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 15, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 17, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 20, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 22, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 51, line 25, strike ``park-related'' and insert 
     ``preserve-related''.
     --Page 51, line 26, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 52, line 4, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 52, line 13, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 3, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 6, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 9, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 12, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 18, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 53, line 25, strike ``park'' and insert ``preserve''.
     --Page 54, line 2, strike ``PARK'' and insert ``PRESERVE''.
     --Page 54, line 4, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 55, line 8, strike ``Park'' and insert ``Preserve''.
     --Page 59, line 5, strike ``wilderness or parks'' and insert 
     ``wilderness, parks, or preserve''.
     --Page 59, line 8, strike ``wilderness or parks'' and insert 
     ``wilderness, parks, or preserve''.
     --Page 59, beginning on line 22, strike ``parks and 
     wilderness'' and insert ``parks, wilderness, and preserve''.
     --Page 59, line 25, strike ``parks and wilderness'' and 
     insert ``parks, wilderness, or preserve''.
     --Page 60, beginning on line 4, strike ``parks and 
     wilderness'' and insert ``park, wilderness, or preserve''.

  Mr. LaROCCO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, basically my amendments pertain to 1.5 
million acres known as the east Mojave, approximately 15 percent of the 
land mass covered by this bill.
  In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, and in the opinion of many Members of 
this House, there is no defensible policy reason to close this area to 
hunting, as called for in this bill. My amendment does three things: It 
permits hunting now taking place in the east Mojave to continue, it 
allows the California Department of Fish and Game to stay involved and 
continue its extremely successful wildlife management program in the 
area, and it protects the east Mojave as a national preserve within the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, we passed a very similar amendment in 1991. We passed 
an amendment on the floor of the House, 235 to 193, and then the House 
went on to pass the amended bill, 297 to 136, so I think that this 
amendment should have a great deal of support here on the floor of the 
House today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense compromise to preserve hunting as 
a traditional use in the east Mojave while enhancing its status to 
ensure the protection of the resources of the area in a responsible 
way.
  This area, Mr. Chairman, is currently a national scenic area managed 
by the BLM. Under my amendment this would be managed by the Park 
Service as a preserve. Mr. Chairman, hunting has always been permitted 
there in season, and in keeping with wildlife management policies. 
Under may amendments, the California Fish and Game Department is to 
stay involved in the management of wildlife, just as in every other 
State. This is a States' rights issue as well.
  Mr. Chairman, the east Mojave is a significant hunting area, quail, 
chukar, dove, and rabbit hunting in particular, and there is also deer 
and sheep hunting.
  Mr. Chairman, the California Fish and Game Department shows 
approximately 178,000 hunter days in 1992, and that does not include 
hunting for deer and sheep. We all know that in Dear Colleague letters 
and in comments back and forth, that these figures have been attacked, 
but I just want to tell my colleagues that these hunting days that have 
been documented back in 1992 at 178,000 are predominantly in the east 
Mojave area that would be protected under my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, these estimates on the hunter days are based on the 
same accepted standards used by Federal and State agencies throughout 
the United States. The permits for the limited sheep hunting are 
auctioned and have brought in approximately $500,000 over 7 years to a 
dedicated account. Under the active management of the California 
Department of Fish and Game, this herd is actually growing.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go through the days of hunting that are 
attributable to various species: For example, dove, it is 23,000 hunter 
days; quail, 37,000; chukar, 5,000; jackrabbit, 11,000; for coyotes, 
3,000; and for deer, 19,000 hunter days.
  Mr. Chairman, a very significant and important part of my amendment 
that is in the bill or in the amendment says, and I am reading from the 
bill here, ``The Secretary may designate areas where, and establish 
periods when, no hunting, fishing, or trapping will be permitted for 
reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance with provisions 
of applicable law.''
  So really, Mr. Chairman, what we are giving the Secretary is the 
ability to suspend hunting in that area when he feels that in 
emergencies there should be a closure, and this would be pursuant to a 
subsection that could be put into effect only after consultation with 
the appropriate State agency having responsibility for fish and 
wildlife in that area.

  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that there are many groups 
that support this amendment: The California Department of Fish and 
Game; the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America; the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; the North American 
Foundation for Wild Sheep; the California Outdoor Sportsmen's 
Coalition; the United Conservation Alliance; the Isaac Walton League, 
in California and other chapters around the country; and the California 
Wildlife Federation; the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, and that is made up of all State fish and game agencies of 
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the designation as a preserve 
points out that this is a 20-year-old tool. Somebody may ask, my 
colleagues may ask, ``Who came up with this idea?'' The answer is that 
we did. We in Congress came up with this preserve hunting in certain 
areas where there were conflicts, where we wanted to provide for the 
traditional uses in these areas, and it works. The national preserve 
designation was created by Congress in the 1970's. The fundamentals are 
identical, whether it is a park or a preserve.
  Mr. Chairman, many people will attack this amendment today and say we 
have degraded the status from a park to a preserve, but really, Mr. 
Chairman, it is not degraded, and the Park Service protects this area 
and manages the area very much in the same manner as they would in a 
park.
  Mr. Chairman, we have provided for preserves in the creation of the 
Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas and the Big Cypress National 
Preserve in Florida. Since that time, we have authorized 12 additional 
preserves in 3 additional States.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, at his own request, Mr. LaRocco was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. LaRocco. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the 
point that there have been 12 additional preserves in 3 additional 
States, most notably, Alaska. Everyone in the body, all of our 
colleagues, have gotten this list. There has been no suggestion that 
these preserves have compromised the management of the area.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should move along and accept this 
amendment. I think it is a common sense amendment. Where I come from in 
Idaho, we want to preserve hunting out in the West. I think we should 
move this bill forward and do it, but protect those resources and 
protect our rights, and the hunting availability that is there now, 
remembering all along that the California Department of Fish and game 
is going to establish those bag limits and those seasons in those 
areas, and it protects the resources and allows hunting to continue.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this stands the whole concept of designation of this 
national park in California, in the Mojave, on its head. Quite 
candidly, for a long time our Nation has been struggling to designate 
the different great desert types in North America as areas of parks. We 
have the Chihuahuan, the Sonoran, the Great Basin, and finally now a 
proposal before us to make a real park out of the Mojave National 
Desert, the Mojave National Park. The fact is that hunting basically 
will significantly modify the reasons for which we might set aside this 
national park. It impacts on the life forms, the fauna and flora that 
are in that park, if we hunt.
  It is interesting to recognize, Mr. Chairman, that certain species 
tend to dominate a vegetative type. In fact, their selection and 
consumption sets really one of the patterns on the landscape. It is one 
of the balances that creates the type of desert community that might 
exist here. This area right now today, because it is hunted in, is not 
significantly like it would be.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is this preserve designation degrades the 
proposed park designation. Where it has been used, it has not been used 
to always provide for hunting. Sometimes it is like in the Big Cypress, 
because of oil drilling that goes on there. I think we ought to look at 
the reason for such designation--not all relate to sport hunting.
  We have instances in the Grand Tetons where, because of an elk 
population situation, that there is a permit and an opportunity to do 
some hunting, or in a flyway, or the Hagerman Fossil Beds, but these 
are special and unusual instances. Here in the California desert we are 
talking about a vast area of 1.5 million acres that we are trying to 
keep in as natural a condition as we can.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at the types of game species that are of 
most interest to sports hunters, that is, the desert bighorn, there are 
only about four or five harvested a year, depending on who bids for the 
permits and how they are given out, and there are less than 30 deer 
that are harvested in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, it is true that there are a lot of birds and rabbits 
hunted in the desert. There is also, I think because of the nature of 
the season, an open period where we can go into any of these areas 
where there is hunting and, sadly, find a lot of things shot up which 
should not be, not the least of which are, of course, many of the signs 
that identify various sites.
  It is the nature of people without supervision when the National Park 
Service is not always there to manage, but when we give someone a 
semiautomatic .22, too often they do not conduct themselves in a 
commendable and proper manner. It happens. I am certain all of us can 
visualize circumstances in our own areas where we, and I know myself, 
as an active hunter, have seen that type of phenomenon occur of 
plinking at many available inappropriate targets.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the issue is not whether we support or 
oppose hunting. That is not the case here. It is a question of whether 
or not we ought to have a true full fledged park. The issue is how 
Federal lands should be managed in a unique area of the eastern Mojave 
where the three desert ecosystems meet, a special desert area not 
protected in the National Park System today.
  It is true that several areas managed by the Park Service, as I said, 
have been designated as preserves and are open to sport hunting; but 
why is that? If we are talking about Alaska, we are often talking about 
subsistence hunting by Native Americans and by others who generally 
have no other easy access to food supply. But none of the existing 
preserves include vast desert lands, none include such marginal hunting 
opportunities, and none present such potential safety problems because 
of the conflicts between sport hunting and other uses.
  California in this region specifically will have one of the highest 
uses of any national park. Outside of Alaska, as I said, preserves also 
have extensive inholdings. There are no inholdings in this or 
essentially very few. Preexisting uses like oil drilling do not exist 
in the Mojave. The Mojave has many fewer such conflicts which would 
justify some preserve status.
  Mr. Chairman, life in the desert and the Mojave Desert is life on the 
edge. Desert species, including nongame species like the endangered 
desert tortoise, exist under severe conditions already. The stress of 
increased human use of the desert is already placing them in increased 
danger. It is ironic that many desert tortoise that are found as 
morbidity on the desert have bullet holes in them; not just a small 
number, but a significant number. I do not know if it came before or 
after the desert tortoise was dead, but the fact is I think it tells us 
something about the activities that take place in desert areas like the 
Mojave.
  Sport hunting increases the pressure on all species, not just game 
species, while placing the east Mojave National Park off-limits to 
sport hunting will assist their eventual survival. The LaRocco-Lewis 
amendment will undercut this sound policy.
  The nongame species may be varmints to some, but are a vital part of 
the complex web of desert life. A recent study showed that 30 percent 
of dead desert tortoise, an endangered species, had bullet holes in 
them.

  The desert is big, but animal populations are small.
  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. Mr. Chairman, this is not prime hunting country. BLM 
records indicate that fewer than 30 deer and 5 bighorn sheep a year are 
taken.
  Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that tens of millions of acres of 
adjacent BLM area will remain open for sport hunting. A Mojave National 
Park will not reduce significantly California hunting opportunities.
  Any benefits of sport hunting in the east Mojave are outweighed by 
its costs, in real dollars and real dangers. National Park Service 
experience with preserves open to hunting shows that sport hunting 
causes serious safety issues. The fact of the matter is it costs the 
Park Service more to try to manage a park when they have this mixed 
type of use. The fact is in terms of dollars spent, in terms of safety 
and visitor experience, in terms of benefit for the nongame and game 
species, hunting simply should not be permitted. We should create a 
real park here. We ought to do the job and do it right and make the 
Mojave a national park.
  The Senate in its wisdom, I think, kept the Mojave off-limits to 
hunting in the national park, in the Mojave, by nearly a 2-to-1 vote.
  It is misleading to argue for hunting in the park and to maintain the 
preservation of the desert species. Some say that they do not want to 
lose another acre to hunting, but the fact of the matter is we have to 
be mature enough to react to new information and the facts which 
recognize what the needs and values of this great Mojave Desert species 
and reject the amendment of the gentlemen, Mr. LaRocco and Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaRocco 
amendments.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
from my friend and neighbor from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco]. The LaRocco 
amendment merely allows hunting to continue on 1.5 million acres of 
public lands--an area twice the size of the State of Rhode Island.
  As ranking member of the National Parks Subcommittee, I questioned 
Mr. Aaron Medlock of the Fund for Animals at last June's hearing. He 
was the principal witness testifying against the LaRocco amendment.
  I am intrigued why amendment opponents chose to be represented by a 
group that actively opposes hunting on all lands--public and private. 
When I asked Mr. Medlock if there were any exceptions to his group's 
opposition to hunting he replied, ``I will just say that we haven't 
seen the exception yet.''
  I mention this to remind Members of the type of group they will be 
aligning themselves with if they oppose this amendment.
  This amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association, the 
California Wildlife Federation, Quail Unlimited, California Isaak 
Walton League, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Congressional 
Sportsmens Caucus. Rarely do we have a diverse coalition of prominent 
groups supporting a contested amendment before this committee.
  The major point made against this amendment at the subcommittee 
hearing dealt with interpreting the California Department of Fish and 
Games's 1991 summary of wildlife management data for the east Mojave. 
The allegation was that since this survey was for all of San Bernadino 
County, only 12 percent of the data applied to the East Mojave Park.
  In an April 29 letter that I received from California Department of 
Fish and Game Director Boyd Gibbons, he stated,

       The majority of the hunter use data we provided applies to 
     the area of the east Mojave defined by the Desert Protection 
     Act.

  As a result, in 1991 there were at least 85,000 hunter days in the 
proposed East Mojave Park. These hunters harvested approximately 27,000 
quail, 16,000 coyotes, 15,000 jackrabbits, 12,000 cottontail, and 
10,000 doves. Those are certainly significant numbers in my opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason we have all this nitpicking on statistics 
and surveying techniques is because amendment opponents are without any 
sound arguments.
  By designating this area a national preserve, we are following a long 
tradition established by this committee. One of the last major 
additions to the National Park System was the Little River National 
Preserve in Alabama in 1992 where hunting is permitted. Last year we 
expanded the boundaries of the Big Thicket Preserve in Texas where 
hunting is permitted. There are over 22 million acres of national 
preserves in this country, all of which allow hunting. Mr. LaRocco's 
amendment is merely continuing this committee's tradition.
  I urge my colleagues to support the right of America's 16 million 
licensed hunters to hunt on their public lands--lands owned by all 
Americans. Let us not allow a small, well-funded assortment of animal 
rights activists to lock out American hunters from their lands. Support 
the LaRocco amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the documents referred to in my statement are as 
follows:

                                              State of California,


                                  Department of Fish and Game,

                                   Sacramento, CA, April 29, 1994.
     Hon. Jim Hansen,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hansen: As I understand you will soon be 
     considering action on S.B. 21, the Desert Protection Act, I 
     am writing to reaffirm the California Department of Fish and 
     Game's position on this bill. Our concerns are addressed in 
     the attached letter to The Honorable Rick Lehman.
        I would also like to clarify some of the information I 
     previously provided. The majority of the hunter use data we 
     provided applies to the area of the East Mojave defined by 
     the Desert Protection Act. The estimates of hunger days come 
     from two sources, big game tags and a hunter survey. Tags for 
     deer and bighorn sheep tags are site specific and do not 
     include data from the Colorado River or the San Bernardino 
     National Forest. The hunter survey is based on information 
     gathered on a county basis. Our field biologists have sorted 
     through the data to eliminate any irrelevant data.
       The number of hunter days was estimated using the same 
     standards as used by the Federal and State agencies 
     throughout the United States, thus allowing data to be freely 
     exchanged between agencies. If a hunter hunts for both deer 
     and quail on a given day, two hunter days would be tallied: 
     one for deer and one for quail.
       I will be pleased to work with you in any way I can to 
     assist in protecting wildlife and their habitats in this 
     extremely important legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Boyd Gibbons,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____

                                              State of California,


                                  Department of Fish and Game,

                                    Sacramento, CA, June 11, 1993.
     Hon. Rick Lehman,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Lehman, the California Department of Fish 
     and Game is vitally interested in the protection of the 
     southern California desert. For many years, our staff has 
     worked with the public, land owners, and other State and 
     Federal agencies to manage and protect the fish, wildlife, 
     and native plants that live there, while increasing our 
     scientific knowledge of the living desert.
       I believe that your bill H.R. 518 offers a means to further 
     safeguard the California desert, but I am concerned that 
     neither our Department's important efforts at scientific 
     research and managing wildlife be foreclosed nor the hunting 
     public be shut out of this region we have historically used. 
     This is particularly critical in the East Mojave and 
     expansions of Death Valley.
       Maintaining healthy wildlife populations in this desert 
     environment requires active, not passive, management, and 
     hunting is integral to that management. Protection for the 
     desert should more adequately provide for compatible 
     recreation and the management of wildlife. For these reasons 
     we urge that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) retain 
     jurisdiction over the East Mojave and the Hunter Mountain/
     Last Chance Range expansions of Death Valley, or at a minimum 
     you consider ``National Preserve'' status for these areas.
       We have to gain access into the desert to benefit its 
     habitat. Some natural springs have been damaged by 
     concentrations of wild burros and invaded by salt cedar, a 
     nonnative plant that consumes considerable water. Our 
     Department has cooperated with the BLM and private 
     organizations, such as off-highway vehicle clubs, 
     environmental groups, private landowners, and hunting clubs, 
     to restore and improve these springs and to build numerous 
     rain catchment basins, or ``guzzlers.'' These water sources 
     are vital to all wildlife in the desert, to the game species 
     that are hunted--deer, bighorn sheep, quail, and chukar 
     partridge, for example--and to those that are not, such as 
     neotropical birds, reptiles, and raptors. There are now 771 
     such water sites for wildlife in San Bernardino County, and 
     their periodic repair requires heavy cement bags and 
     equipment that cannot be carried in on foot. Much of this 
     effort has come from volunteers and private donations that 
     from 1969 to 1992 totaled more than 22,000 days of labor and 
     materials worth nearly $1.5 million.
       Because of our active management in the desert, the bighorn 
     sheep has come back from its low levels of the early 1900s to 
     the viable population that Californians enjoy today. For the 
     past twenty years, we have worked with the BLM, the military, 
     and many private conservation and hunting organizations to 
     build catchment basins to replace degraded springs and to 
     capture bighorn sheep to reestablish populations in 
     historical habitats from which they had long been gone.
       The bighorn sheep population in the Old Dad Mountains of 
     the East Mojave is our source stock for reestablishing sheep 
     populations elsewhere in their historic range. From this 
     productive herd we have captured and relocated more than 200 
     bighorn sheep safely, efficiently, and with minimum 
     disturbance to the desert, because we have been able to use 
     vehicles and helicopters. I am concerned that National Park 
     wilderness status for the East Mojave could severely curtail 
     what has been a real success story in bighorn sheep 
     management.
       I am also deeply concerned with preserving hunting in the 
     East Mojave and elsewhere. Hunters in California may appear 
     to have huge territories in which to hunt, but the reality of 
     population growth and recreation demands in this State makes 
     it increasingly more difficult for the hunting public to 
     enjoy a day in the field. In the East Mojave and the Death 
     Valley expansions into Hunter Mountain and Last Chance Range, 
     where the imprint of hunters has been hardly noticeable and 
     their contributions to wildlife considerable, hunters could 
     be sealed off from a vast region in which hunting is 
     compatible with desert preservation. The spirit of 
     conservation must not be dampened by closing off these areas 
     to hunting.
       For decades this rugged country has provided the public 
     with some fine upland game hunting--particularly quail, 
     chukar, dove, and rabbit--as well as deer and, in recent 
     years, bighorn sheep. The hunters, in turn, give a boost to 
     local restaurants, motels, and gas stations. In the East 
     Mojave, for example, upland game hunters have spent more than 
     110,000 recreation days annually. Because our management has 
     helped bring back bighorn sheep, we have been able to offer 
     some limited sheep hunting, the permits for which have 
     produced more than $500,000--all used to expand populations 
     of bighorn sheep.
       I want to assure you that the Department and the California 
     Fish and Game Commission closely regulate hunting. Through 
     hunting seasons, bag limits, big game permits, and the 
     vigorous enforcement of all hunting laws and regulations, we 
     help insure conservation of both wildlife and the privileges 
     of the hunting public.
       Certainly the more difficult hurdle both for hunting and 
     our Department's ability to continue scientific study and 
     manage wildlife there is the placing of the East Mojave and 
     the Hunter Mountain/Last Chance Range expansion of Death 
     Valley under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service 
     (NPS) rather than the Bureau of Land Management. Through 
     tradition and law, the NPS has excluded hunting in the 
     National Parks and not looked favorably upon active State 
     wildlife management of lands under its jurisdiction.
       It is my understanding that Congress has made exceptions to 
     this, however, in the NPS category of ``National Preserves.'' 
     While we would prefer that jurisdiction of the East Mojave 
     wilderness and of the Hunter Mountain/Last Chance Range 
     expansions of Death Valley remain in the BLM, I would urge 
     that you consider ``National Preserve'' status as a possible 
     alternative, with explicit language that preserves hunting 
     and our continued access for carrying out our 
     responsibilities for scientific research and wildlife 
     management. In all BLM wilderness areas, we need similar 
     language to guarantee our access to conduct research and 
     manage wildlife.
       I do want to reassure you that this Department is dedicated 
     to protection of the desert ecosystem. Continued hunting in, 
     and this Department's access to, this region is in harmony 
     with that important goal.
       I will be pleased to work further with you and your staff 
     to ensure the best ways to further wildlife conservation 
     through this landmark legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Boyd Gibbons,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____



 summary of wildlife management related date for the east mojave desert

       It should be noted that largely because of the effects of 
     the ongoing drought in this area, the following hunter 
     numbers and effort are currently well below long term 
     averages. With the recent rains, we should expect a stable, 
     if not increased, number of hunters and days.

        HUNTER NUMBERS AND EFFORT FOR 1991 IN EAST MOJAVE DESERT        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Hunter               
           Game animal             Hunter Nos.     effort        Bag    
                                                   (days)               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dove.............................        5,000       20,000       73,000
Quail............................        7,000       54,000       87,000
Chuckar..........................        2,000        9,000        6,000
Jackrabbit.......................        3,000       30,000       24,000
Cottontail.......................        3,000       24,000       19,000
Coyotes..........................        1,300       32,000        4,000
Bobcat...........................          130          300            ?
                                  --------------------------------------
Total............................       21,430      169,300      213,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           DEER HUNTING IN ZONE D-17 (ALL WITHIN EAST MOJAVE)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of                  Percent  
               Year                  permits      Harvest      success  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987.............................       \1\500           15            3
1988.............................       \1\500           29            6
1989.............................       \1\500           29            6
1990.............................       \1\500           26            5
1991.............................          500           31            6
1992.............................          500           45            9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Inyo Mountains were included in Zone D-17 prior to the 1991      
  season. It was estimated that approximately half of the total 1,000   
  permits hunted in the current boundaries.                             


     BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING IN THE EAST MOJAVE (MARBLE AND KINGSTON)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of                  Percent  
               Year                  permits      Harvest      success  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987.............................            5            5          100
1988.............................            5            5          100
1989.............................            6            6          100
1990.............................            4            4          100
1991.............................            5            5          100
1992.............................            7            7          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Permits are required for the pursuit of deer, bighorn sheep 
     and bobcats. The money generated from the $5 non-refundable 
     application fee and the tag auctioned each year ($70K, $59K, 
     $40K, $37K, $42K, $61K respectively and $100K for next year) 
     is placed in a dedicated account to be used exclusively for 
     the research and management of bighorn sheep in California.
       Designation of the East Mojave area as a park would 
     eliminate all the hunter use of this area. In addition, it 
     would prevent maintenance of critical wildlife water 
     developments (guzzlers) that currently number more than 300.
       Wilderness designation will not necessarily eliminate 
     hunting, but due to the physiogeographical nature of the 
     area, it would effectively restrict hunting to a very small 
     part of the area. Current wildlife management efforts in this 
     general area total approximately 35,000 man-hours annually. 
     The bulk of this effort is provided by volunteers in 
     coordination with the Department. This management work 
     comprises largely habitat maintenance/improvement and 
     wildlife inventory projects. Because of vehicle restrictions 
     associated with wilderness designation, these efforts would 
     for the most park cease.
       Both wilderness and park designation would effectively (if 
     not directly) eliminate efforts to restore wildlife 
     populations.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if we might get 
some indication about the length of time in debate, whether or not it 
is possible to have all debate on this amendment end in 40 minutes.
  Is there any objection to that?
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and I certainly do not want to drag this process out, but this is one 
of the most important amendments dealing with this whole subject area. 
I would be very hesitant on this one.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand that. That is 
why several Members have spoken.
  I have looked around at who is on the floor and I think 40 minutes 
actually gives everybody the time they would be entitled to under the 
5-minute rule. If the gentleman has an alternative suggestion, that 
would be fine.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if we might, 
that we see how this goes under the 5-minute rule and if we find 
ourselves extending beyond the point of reason, than I would be happy 
to reconsider.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
withdraw his request?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, actually I was making an 
inquiry. I was not making a formal request. But the gentleman would 
object, so we will push on here.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the LaRocco-Lewis 
amendment to the California Desert Protection Act. Today, I speak as 
the Democratic cochairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. The 
Sportsmen's Caucus is comprised of over 190 Members of the House with 
common beliefs such as:
  Preserving and promoting the traditional rights of American citizens 
to hunt, fish, and pursue other outdoor activities;
  Ensuring that America's sportsmen have reasonable access to federally 
managed public lands to enjoy these outdoor pursuits; and,
  Supporting efforts to enhance multiple use wildlife and habitat 
management.
  The LaRocco-Lewis amendment reflects these beliefs. Allowing hunting 
to continue to occur on the east Mojave Desert will have unending 
positive effects on the preservation of several species native to this 
area. The east Mojave is home to an overwhelming majority of 
California's desert bighorn sheep.
  The desert bighorn population is growing today thanks to a 
cooperative program between the California Department of Fish and Game 
and wildlife groups such as Safari Club International.
  Through the efforts of these programs, millions of dollars have 
poured into the conservation of this and other game species. These 
efforts also benefit nongame species and the habitat in which they 
live.
  These programs existed and these dollars were spent on the promise 
that once the bighorn population has reached a sustainable level, 
sport-hunting will be allowed to occur. These efforts have paid off. 
Desert big horn hunting is currently occurring in this area as managed 
by California Department of Fish and Game.
  The absence of hunting on the east Mojave means the absence of 
millions of dollars from the coffers of the California Fish and Game 
Department.
  The absence of hunting means the absence of thousands of hours of 
volunteer work building water guzzlers and food plots.
  The absence of hunting means the loss of over two-thirds of the 
bighorn permits offered by the State of California.
  The loss of hunting on the east Mojave means the loss of 80-plus 
thousands dollars from the sale of each of California's auctioned 
permits.
  The loss of hunting means the loss of value for every single animal 
found within the east Mojave.
  Hunting gives an animal actual economic value--with that value comes 
protection. A hunter protects the livelihood of a species, just as a 
banker protects the livelihood of his assets.
  The main reason wildlife is thriving in the desert area proposed for 
protection is because sportsmen have restored the habitat to support 
wildlife. The development of the Los Angeles area has tremendously 
hindered the migration of wildlife from the desert to natural watering 
holes.
  Without the sportsmen's dollars to develop and maintain artificial 
watering devices, wildlife populations would be nowhere near the 
numbers they represent today. For example, 60 years ago, Congress gave 
Anza Borrgo State Park and the Death Valley Monument areas full 
protection from hunting.
  Consequently, the sheep population in these areas have declined by 70 
percent. On the other hand, bighorn populations in the east Mojave 
doubled during the first 10 years of intensive management by the 
California Fish and Game Department in conjunction with the efforts of 
such conservation groups mentioned previously.
  I urge my colleagues to support sound, scientific based wildlife 
management principles.
  I urge my colleagues to support the wildlife and habitat of the east 
Mojave Desert.
  I urge my colleagues to support the views and efforts of the 
California Fish and Game Department.
  I urge my colleagues to support the LaRocco-Lewis amendment. I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BREWSTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the leadership he has 
shown over the last many months as the chairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus.
  I think the point that he has made, especially with respect to the 
relationship between hunters and conservation in the desert, is a 
critical relationship, and he has brought a number of organizations 
along with my great friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], to 
our Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  We have had the Wildlife, Unlimited group, Elk, Unlimited, the Wild 
Turkey Federation, which has helped to restore wild turkeys to almost 
every one of the States in which they originally existed.
  We have brought back, because of hunters, the elk herds, which were 
to just a low of a few thousand animals at the turn of the century, to 
hundreds of thousands. We have brought back antelope to populations in 
excess of 500,000. We now have more white-tailed deer in America than 
when Lewis and Clark made their famous adventure.
  That has been due to sportsmen, and I want to commend the gentleman 
for making that point. I know he comes from a family that hunts and 
fishes.
  I think that is the last point: We need time for dads and sons and 
mothers and daughters in California, families spending time together; 
everybody cannot go off to New Zealand to go on a fly-fishing trip when 
they get a little spare time. It is true some of the antihunting groups 
have said, well, you do not have many deer in the east Mojave anyway; 
you just have a few doves and rabbits and things like that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Brewster 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield further, I say to my friend, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma, who has a hunting heritage in his own 
family, that small game a father and a son can pursue together, if you 
are a working person in southern California, just like if you are a 
working person in Oklahoma, the ability to drive 20, 30, 40 miles from 
your home and take your son or your daughter out and spend some quality 
time with them, teaching them the tradition of hunting, is a very 
valuable thing for American families.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Absolutely.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for all the work he has put into 
this particular debate.
  Mr. BREWSTER. The gentleman from California is quite right. I think 
the slogan is, ``Hunt with them today, not for them tomorrow.''
  But I think also all of us realize the millions of dollars that go to 
protect wildlife come from licenses that sportsmen buy for hunting. 
Without those millions of dollars, there would be no protection for 
wildlife, and we would not have the wildlife we have in America today.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  In spite of all the squawkings of the Chicken Littles we have heard, 
the creation of a national preserve in the east Mojave would set no 
precedent whatsoever.
  The preserve designation, as we have heard previously, we established 
by Congress in 1970 to facilitate hunting and to provide for the 
conservation of wildlife under the jurisdiction of the National Park 
Service. The National Park Service currently manages over 22 million 
acres, not 2 million, Mr. Chairman, 22 million acres of preserves in 
Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and Louisiana.
  I would remind my colleagues that this body passed a similar 
amendment, as we have heard earlier, back in 1991 on H.R. 2929. It has 
been, or it will be, said that the east Mojave is of little 
significance as a hunting area, since just a few deer are taken there 
annually. However, the east Mojave, as we have also heard, is rich in 
quail, doves, and chukar, which translates into thousands of hunter 
days in the area in question every year.
  It will also be said that hunting cannot possibly be permitted in the 
east Mojava due to the abundance of threatened or endangered species 
which exist there. I would respond that hunting has taken place in the 
Mojave Desert as long as man has been present there.
  Clearly the two are not incompatible since such species continue to 
be so prevalent in the region. Besides, we already have the laws on the 
books which deal with such matters. It is called the Endangered Species 
Act. I think most of my colleagues may be familiar with that.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by responding to a comment of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] about holes in signs shot by 
people, and desert tortoises shot in the shell.
  One cannot excuse this kind of action. However, we have a human 
society, and that human society has its own mores and standards and 
values irrespective of whether traveling on a freeway or hunting in the 
desert.
  I would comment that up to a certain age the desert tortoise's shell 
is very soft and vulnerable to crows and other types of animals with 
sharp beaks, and that those beaks can penetrate that soft shell of the 
younger desert tortoise. I am not saying that there have not been 
desert tortoises shot. I have seen them myself. But they are rare and 
far between.
  For every one of those that a human shoots, there are probably 50, 60 
or 75 that animals and other preys either dig out the shell with their 
claws or pierce the shell of a young desert tortoise by their beak 
which then terminates the life of that individual.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that we support this. It is a good 
way by which we can control and expand and manage the population of 
these areas as has been shown in the areas of Alaska, Florida, Alabama, 
Texas, and Louisiana, under the National Park Service program.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongest opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho. I am proud to be one of 
the 112 cosponsors of the California Desert Protection Act. Designation 
of the Mojave National Park--which this amendment seeks to block--is a 
centerpiece of this legislation.
  The LaRocco-Lewis amendment, Mr. Chairman, denies Americans their 53d 
national park. The lands of the Mojave deserve nothing less than the 
protection that national park status provides. The Mojave offers us all 
a wealth of natural beauty--spectacular vistas, mountain ranges, cinder 
cones, and the second highest sand dunes in the United States.
  The Mojave also has a wealth of cultural resources. Remnants of our 
prehistoric ancestry are etched on its rocks--and even on the desert 
floor--in petroglyphs and pictographs. I am not speaking of a few 
artifacts. In the Mojave, there are 12,000 archeological sites.
  Three administrations have gone on record in support of a Mojave 
National Park. We in California very much want the Mojave as a national 
park. Sixteen California counties and 36 cities have endorsed this bill 
and the establishment of the Mojave National Park.
  The establishment of this park will be an economic boon to our desert 
communities as well, bringing as many as 2,000 new jobs and tourist 
spending estimated at $55 million or more.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose hunting where it is appropriate. But it 
is not appropriate here.
  Last month, Interior Secretary Babbitt sent a letter to Chairman 
Miller in which he delineated his strong opposition to the LaRocco-
Lewis amendment. He wrote, and I quote,

       The Department of the Interior wholeheartedly supports the 
     establishment of the Mojave National Park as part of the 
     California Desert Protection Act * * * only management as a 
     national park by the National Park Service will protect this 
     area's resources for all time.

  Specifically addressing this amendment, Secretary Babbitt wrote,

       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose such an amendment. 
     Hunting is not compatible with a national park. NPS [National 
     Park Service] responsibilities for protection of wildlife 
     would enable the proposed park to function as a refuge for 
     desert bighorn sheep and other wildlife species that would 
     continue to be hunted on adjacent BLM or State lands.

  But if Secretary Babbitt's position on this amendment might be 
considered predictable, let me point out that the establishment of the 
Mojave National Park is supported by 75 percent of Californians. In 
fact my hometown newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune, not known for 
its support for the present administration, has editorialized in favor 
of the Mojave National Park and in opposition to the LaRocco amendment. 
In the Tribune's words, hunting in the Mojave:

       Is incompatible with a national park and would probably 
     scare away visitors. Besides, there's very little hunting in 
     that area, anyway. And millions of acres of nearby land in 
     the desert remain open to hunting; there's no need to hunt in 
     a national park.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible way to 
vote no on the LaRocco amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lewis-LaRocco 
amendment.
  Hunting has always been an important part of the east Mojave area. 
Hunters and trappers perform a vital service by managing game 
populations throughout this region.
  I find it interesting that the opponents of this amendment claim that 
hunting will endanger a number of species in this area. Hunting has 
been allowed in the area for many years and the wildlife population is 
healthy, including the most productive bighorn sheep population in 
California.
  Make no mistake about it, the opponents of this amendment want to 
limit hunters' access. They want to fire another shot in the ``War on 
West.'' They want to fundamentally change the way public lands are 
managed in the West and continue to limit multiple use on Federal lands 
throughout the region.
  This amendment is very simple. It is a commonsense approach that will 
protect the rights of sportsmen across the Nation.
  Contrary to what the opponents say, this amendment would not expand 
hunting into areas where it is currently prohibited. It would not 
destroy the scenic beauty of this region or the wildlife living in the 
area.
  In fact, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies passed 
a resolution on May 18, 1994, supporting this amendment. These are 
professional land managers who have great respect for the land and work 
to protect wildlife across the West.
  Mr. Chairman, I am tired of this Congress and the bureaucrats in 
Washington telling the people of the West how to live their lives. 
Hunting is an integral part of life in the West and plays an important 
role throughout the region.
  It is time to stop the Federal Government from intruding into every 
part of our lives. The Lewis-LaRocco amendment is sensible and 
reasonable. It is an important vote for everyone who believes in 
limiting the power of the Federal Government to regulate our lives and 
interfere in our personal activities.
  Support the Lewis-LaRocco amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of hunting, a strong 
supporter of the second amendment, and I come from a State that has a 
strong hunting tradition. But I think there is a place to hunt and 
there is a place to preserve national parks.
  Mr. Chairman, let us establish a real park for the people--not a 
hunting preserve.
  Hunting opportunities will still be available under H.R. 518--10 
million acres of adjacent BLM lands would remain open to sport hunting.
  Hunting creates serious safety issues--visitation to the Mojave 
National Park will be highest during the spring and fall hunting 
seasons.
  Save the taxpayer half a million dollars a year: Law enforcement and 
other management costs are higher where hunting is permitted.
  Conservation groups oppose this amendment: The Senate has already 
rejected hunting in the park. I do not oppose hunting. I oppose hunting 
only in an area such as the east Mojave that deserves protection as a 
national park.

  H.R. 518 is the product of years of compromise on dozens of issues 
relating to the designation of several different areas of the 
California desert as national park and wilderness protection lands. I 
cannot support a further compromise such as the one my colleagues Mr. 
LaRocco and Mr. Lewis have proposed. Their proposal would gut a central 
provision of the bill by weakening the status of an environmentally 
sensitive area that is truly deserving of the highest status of 
protection.
  Additionally, our colleagues who have sponsored this bill in the 
Senate, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, have pointed out that the cost of 
maintaining a preserve is higher than that of maintaining a park. A 
national preserve designation for the east Mojave would add $500,000 
per year to the cost of maintaining the area.
  In debating the merits of this proposal, Mr. LaRocco has said that 
hunting is an important right which must be preserved in the east 
Mojave. Hunting is not allowed in the National Park System, so Mr. 
LaRocco has decided to downgrade the area to national preserve status, 
a condition he says is equal in protection although it allows hunting. 
I have always supported hunting in appropriate areas, but I question 
the sense of this attempt to demote environmental protection simply for 
the right of hunting in an area in which only minimal hunting has taken 
place. In fact, the amount of hunting on lands in the east Mojave is so 
minimal that the National Park Service has estimated that more deer are 
killed by motorists on the George Washington Parkway in urban northern 
Virginia every year than are taken by hunting in east Mojave.
  For those individuals who desire to undertake hunting in the general 
area of the east Mojave, there are 10 million other acres in the 
California desert where hunting is already allowed. I think this fact 
alone precludes any need for the LaRocco-Lewis amendment.
  The people of California have said in opinion polls that they want 
the east Mojave to be preserve as a national park even though that 
means hunting will not be allowed. And let me remind my colleagues that 
the administration opposes this amendment. Interior Secretary Babbitt 
opposes this amendment. The majority of the newspapers in California, 
both on the coast and in the desert region have editorialized against 
this amendment. No one with a stake in the future of the California 
desert supports this amendment. I urge ``no'' vote on the LaRocco-Lewis 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will be gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement of recognition. 
You know, the fact is any of us who do hunt knows that a week before 
deer season opens you see the deer all around and then after, a week 
after, you cannot find them anywhere. So the point I want to make is 
that the reason that it is of concern is because wildlife species act 
differently when they are hunted and when they are not. And since the 
1916 Organic Act, the Park Service was designated to provide some place 
where there would be a refuge, where you would have animals that would 
act in a natural way, that is, when they are not being hunted by 
people. And I think you have a whole different experience here in terms 
of people going into this Mojave area, one of the great desert areas, 
and preserving the species that are present here.
  I thank the gentleman for this statement.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the LaRocco-Lewis amendment 
being offered to the California Desert Protection Act. I am speaking in 
favor of this amendment because this proposed legislation is not just a 
California issue it is a national wildlife conservation issue. There is 
absolutely no scientific justification or logical argument for 
preventing hunting as part of the wildlife management program in the 
east Mojave Desert. In fact, it could do more harm than good. All one 
has to do is look around--there are plenty of instances where the 
antihunting/antigun crowd has kept hunting out of certain areas. What 
we have seen in many cases is an explosion of certain wildlife 
populations that has led to the detriment of the area and other 
wildlife populations. The antihunting/antigun crowd has used the age-
old argument that hunting is an artificial means of population control 
that upsets the natural balance. This argument is simply not true and 
the exact opposite can be scientifically documented. Allowing hunters 
and sportsmen in the east Mojave would help the environment, and allow 
the continuation of the important work done by sportsmen for wildlife 
enhancement in this area, as well as continue to add to the economy 
through the purchase of permits, licenses and equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, we would be setting a terrible precedent here if we 
lock up and deny hunting on this land. The radical left-wing 
preservationists continue to push their land management schemes through 
the Department of Interior and Secretary Babbitt's sympathetic ear. 
This is another attempt at their goal to lock up the West. Support 
LaRocco-Lewis and allow responsible, multiple-use policies on our 
public lands, which are owned by all of the people.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I rise in strong support of the 
LaRocco-Lewis amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate, we have heard a great 
deal about conservation. We have also heard that somehow, passage of 
the LaRocco-Lewis amendment is not consistent with protection of our 
environment.
  The fact is that sportsmen were and remain the first conservationist 
in this Nation. Sportsmen and women all around our Nation contribute 
billions of dollars and millions of hours of service to protect the 
environment that they love.
  Specifically, in the area affected by this amendment, sportsmen have 
contributed over $1 million and thousands of hours of volunteer work to 
develop water catchments to promote wildlife and enhance the habitat. 
Making the area a national park will destroy this cooperative working 
relationship between sportsmen and the State and place both game and 
nongame species at risk. Making the area a preserve as proposed by this 
amendment provides the protection from commercial development--like a 
park, but allows sportsmen to continue to participate in their 
conservation efforts. Additionally, making the east Mojave a national 
park will be costly and taxpayers will be asked to contribute $1.23 
billion to make up for the lost contributions of sportsmen's time and 
money.
  We have also heard quite a bit about the desert bighorn sheep. 
Because of the efforts of sportsmen, the wild sheep herd in the east 
Mojave is the most productive sheep population in the State. The 
relocation of stock from this herd has resulted in six new sheep 
populations around the State. Furthermore, an organization of 
sportsmen, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, has returned 
over $700,000 to the California Department of Fish and Game for habitat 
enhancement, research, translocation projects and management of the 
sheep populations in California.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, sportsmen were the first 
conservationists in our Nation. And each year, they continue upon this 
legacy by not only paying their own way, but actively taking steps to 
improve the environment where they spend much of their time. However, 
by making the east Mojave a national park, we will seriously jeopardize 
this legacy, jeopardize the wildlife in this area, and cost the 
taxpayers a great deal in the process.
  Do not let this happen; support the LaRocco-Lewis amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, hunting is undoubtedly the oldest sport in America, and 
it is a form of recreation enjoyed by millions of men and women.
  In my area of southern California, urbanization and other forces have 
steadily reduced the number of locations where hunting is permitted, 
and it is becoming more and more difficult for hunters to find 
locations where they are allowed to enjoy their sport.
  If passed in its current form, the California Desert Protection Act 
could reduce by millions of additional acres the amount of land on 
which Americans can hunt. I believe this would be a travesty.
  As I travel throughout my district, I talk to many citizens who are 
avid sportsmen, and they are very concerned about this legislation. 
They view it as their right to hunt, fish and enjoy other outdoor 
activities, as long as they don't abuse those rights. They don't 
understand why hunting should be restricted in such a large area of 
undeveloped land--and frankly, neither do I.
  America is a beautiful country--and we need to preserve that beauty. 
But, hunters are not the problem. In fact, hunters are among the 
strongest environmentalists in the country. They recognize that their 
sport, more than any other, depends on protecting the environment and 
the creatures that inhabit it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the LaRocco/Lewis amendment which 
would designate the east Mojave area as a national preserve, rather 
than a national monument or a national park. It is a commonsense 
amendment which will improve this legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the LaRocco-Lewis amendment.
  Changing designation of the Mojave National Park to the Mojave 
National Preserve to permit hunting is not necessary.
  Under H.R. 518, a least one-half of existing habitat open to hunting 
will remain open upon enactment.
  The bill provides for hunting on 10 million acres of surrounding 
Federal lands within the 25 million acre California desert area.
  In 1992, only 28 deer were killed in the proposed Mojave National 
Park--less than 1 percent of the approximately 30,000 deer taken in 
California.
  More importantly, an overwhelming majority of Californians--75 
percent--want a national park where hunting is prohibited.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give Californians what they want. Oppose the 
LaRocco-Lewis amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleagues Mr. LaRocco and Mr. Lewis of California to change the 
designation of the east Mojave Desert from a national park to a 
national preserve. Designating the east Mojave as a preserve would help 
to ease the burden of absorbing California desert lands into the 
National Park System by ensuring a role for the California Department 
of Fish and Game in managing this area. While the east Mojave would 
still be transferred to the jurisdiction of the National Park System 
under the LaRocco-Lewis amendment, hunting activities which have always 
occurred in this area would be allowed to continue. In addition, the 
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the California 
Department of Fish and Game, will still have the authority to prohibit 
hunting in particular areas and can restrict hunting to particular 
times under this amendment.
  I believe the LaRocco-Lewis proposal is a practical approach to 
reducing the increased costs and administrative requirements associated 
with managing these new lands. The east Mojave is a rugged area which 
is larger than some of our individual States, and any advocate of the 
National Park System should take time to stop and think about the 
impact that adding this vast desert area to the National Park System 
will have on the Park Service. As one of the Members in this body who 
represent the California desert, I believe that it is essential to 
support proposals which continue to allow the broad range of 
recreational uses which currently occur in this area. I urge adoption 
of the LaRocco-Lewis amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of different 
comments today, comments that hunting kills the preserves. Well, quite 
the contrary. Hunters have built up the preserves and provide for many 
of the species, including the endangered species. I have not personally 
hunted deer or bighorn sheep there, but I have hunted quail, and 
chuckers and other game bird sports.
  I had recently, and take reference, my colleagues, four Russian 
generals come into my office asking for money for the Soviet Union, and 
at the same time there was an article in the Union Tribune, my hometown 
paper, that said that these same Russians were now offering religious 
services in a factory, and I asked them why. The first general that 
spoke very good English said, ``Well, Mr. Cunningham, I'm an atheist; I 
don't believe in religion. But when we were powerful in the Government, 
we wanted people beholden to one god and only one god. That was the god 
of Government. That is where we had control over every single 
individual's life.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the direction that this Government is going in 
this country, whether it is private property rights, which will be an 
issue of an amendment later on, whether it is hunting rights, whether 
it is acquisition of lands that cost great amounts of dollars. But the 
Government wants to control. It is time that the Government keep their 
hands off of the rights of the private citizen.
  It has been said in here that individuals do not want to hurt 
hunting, they do not want to hurt those rights. Well, they do. I know 
specifically of water areas we have set up in the desert that have 
helped protect it. I heard that hunting is not compatible in this area. 
Since the time of Cro-Magnon man, Mr. Chairman, they have been hunting 
in this area, and all of a sudden bureaucrats, politicians that want to 
control lives of American citizens, are saying, ``Hey, we don't want 
you to hunt there anymore. You have been doing it for millions of 
years, but this Congress right here, we are going to stop you.''

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, because it is compatible. We have been 
hunting in that area since the beginning of time. And in my lifetime, 
my family and a lot of my friends' families have been using this area, 
in compatibility with the people that visit the Mojave Desert, without 
any risk of injury. No, I have never shot a desert tortoise or some of 
the other things. But we need to maintain the private rights and 
hunting rights for our American citizens. We need the support of this 
committee. A similar amendment was offered that was overwhelmingly 
supported by this body. I would ask my colleagues to support this.
    
    
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment sponsored by my colleague the gentleman from Boise, ID, 
who serves on the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. LaRocco.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has stated, our amendment is almost 
identical to the Marlenee amendment, which passed the House with 
overwhelming support, 235 to 193, when the 102d Congress considered 
this legislation. The LaRocco amendment creates a 1.5 million acre 
natural preserve in the east Mojave Desert which allows for hunting.
  The gentleman from California, Chairman Miller, and my colleague, the 
author of this bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], will 
argue that this amendment sets a precedent for hunting in national 
parks.
  Our amendment does not create a national park; it creates a national 
preserve. This designation was created by Congress in the 1970's to 
facilitate hunting and provide for wildlife management under the 
jurisdiction of the Park Service.
  I might mention to my colleagues that earlier it has been discussed 
that some 75 percent of the California public in a survey opposes this 
amendment. Well, I might suggest to my colleague from the San Francisco 
area that the most recent survey, taken within the region involved, the 
numbers are just reversed. Seventy-four percent of the people who live 
in, who understand, who love the desert, support this amendment and 
oppose those from the outside who want to tell people how to run their 
own desert.
  The National Park Service currently manages over 22 million acres of 
national preserve areas in Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and 
Louisiana. Obviously, this amendment does not set a precedent.
  National parks are normally reserved for areas that do not include 
roadways and utility lines, for example. The east Mojave involves 
thousands of miles of roadways and endless lines of utility corridors 
that are totally incompatible with normal park consideration.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] argues that only a small 
percentage of Californians hunt, and that hunting is on the decline. 
That is simply not the case. The amount of hunting in the east Mojave 
Desert is not on the decline.
  The California Department of Fish and Game reports that sportsmen 
annually spend 178 thousand hunter days in the east Mojave pursuing 
quail, chucker, rabbit, coyote, bobcat, bighorn sheep, and deer. 
According to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, if you look at my 
chart,

       America's 40 million anglers and hunters have been the 
     backbone of conservation in this country for nearly 60 years. 
     Their monetary contributions have made possible the proper 
     management of wildlife and its habitat and opened the way for 
     millions of Americans to enjoy the great outdoors.

  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], in a ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter, said, ``Keep bullets out of our parks.''
  First, this amendment creates a national preserve. Second, my 
friends, there are absolutely no documented cases, none, of hunting in 
the east Mojave threatening the safety of anyone. In fact, of 300,000 
recreational visits in the east Mojave, over 150,000 were hunting-
related. Under the LaRocco amendment, hunting will continue in the east 
Mojave, safely, as it has for decades.
  It is argued that a national preserve is more costly to manage than a 
national park. Once again, the opponents of this amendment have 
distorted the truth.
  The management of hunting is a State prerogative, now administered by 
the California Department of Fish and Game in the east Mojave. The 
California Department of Fish and Game would continue to regulate 
hunting and cover its costs from license fees paid by hunters. The 
National Park Service would bear no costs greater than the minimal 
costs now borne by the Bureau of Land Management.
  This amendment has broad-based support by a coalition of conservation 
and hunting groups. It is supported by the Congressional Sportsman's 
Caucus, the California Department of Fish and Game, the county of San 
Bernardino, the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, the 
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the Safari Club International, 
the National Rifle Association, Quail Unlimited, and other groups. The 
list goes on and on.
  It is argued that only a small number of deer are hunted in the east 
Mojave each year. On this point, opponents are somewhat correct. The 
desert really is not deer country, although it is legal to hunt them 
there and many hunters are successful hunting them in the east Mojave 
Desert. However, as I stated earlier, the area is rich with quail, 
chucker, jack rabbits, cottontail rabbits, dove, and bighorn sheep.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in fact, a single bighorn 
sheep permit was auctioned off at approximately $100,000. This revenue 
in turn has been used for conservation efforts in the area.
  According to the California Department of Fish and Game, during 1992 
hunters in the east Mojave bagged over 100,000 quail, 37,000 chucker, 
over 88,000 doves, 31,000 Jack rabbits, and 25,000 cottontails. This 
area is great for hunting these abundant species.
  The reason the desert bighorn sheep population is so great in the 
area is because the environmental community, the hunters, the State, 
and the Federal Government, have formed an effective partnership for 
wildlife conservation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is on a very critical 
issue here once again, and that is the fact that the conservation in 
the desert areas that has been undertaken, that has created watering 
holes for bighorn sheep, mule deer, hundreds of other species, 
including many nongame species, that conservation has been undertaken 
by hunters. And Desert Wildlife Unlimited, a group which incidentally 
supports this particular amendment, that is a group that goes out--and 
I talked to one of my constituents today on the House steps whose 
brother is out now in 114 degree weather--helping to build these 
watering holes and maintain these watering holes for desert bighorn 
sheep in the California desert.
  All those conservationists just happen to be hunters, and they go out 
and they build these watering holes, even though they know there is no 
open season for bighorn sheep. They may never have a chance to hunt 
them in their lifetime, but they believe the hunting ethic, the great 
tradition of hunting in this country--as espoused by Aldo Leopold, the 
father of American conservationism, who was a hunter--which was you 
take something from nature and the wilderness, and you give something 
back.
  What these people have given back is a great management plan and a 
great resource that has multiplied all of these wildlife populations. 
So the hunters are the conservationists, and they are the ones, as the 
gentleman said, with their dollars and their sweat and labor, who have 
turned the desert into a resource of wildlife.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution. The point the gentleman makes regarding what is really a 
public and nonprofit as well as a private partnership that has worked 
so well in the east Mojave, is endangered, indeed, by proposals within 
the bill before us.
  In spite of that effective partnership, now Senator Feinstein and 
Chairman Miller and Mr. Vento want to break up that partnership that 
has been working extremely well, all because this is a big issue to a 
small band of well-funded environmental elites, who live and work 
nowhere near the east Mojave.

                              {time}  1550

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the director of the California 
Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Boyd Gibbons, has sent letters to Mr. 
Lehman and Senator Feinstein which attest to the very issues that 
prompted this amendment.
  For example, Mr. Gibbons states, ``Maintaining healthy wildlife 
populations in this desert environment requires active not passive 
management, and hunting is integral to that management.''

  Mr. Gibbons also states, ``Because of our active management in the 
east Mojave, the desert bighorn sheep has come back from its low levels 
in the early 1900's to the viable populations that Californian's enjoy 
today.'' And ``I am * * * concerned with preserving hunting in the east 
Mojave.'' The ``Spirit of conservation must not be dampened by closing 
off the east Mojave to hunting.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that there is a severe lack of 
understanding by many in this body of the harsh terrain and type of 
activities which take place in the east Mojave.
  For example, after Chairman Miller discharged the subcommittee markup 
of this bill and went straight to a full committee markup, Mr. Vento 
argued against this amendment. When referring to desert bighorn sheep 
Mr. Vento kept calling them dall sheep. Just to set the record 
straight, dall sheep are only found in Alaska and the Northwest 
Territories in Canada. That is approximately 2,500 miles from the east 
Mojave. That is an even further distance than Mr. Vento's home State of 
Minnesota and my district in southern California. However, desert 
bighorn sheep are present and hunted in the east Mojave desert. 
Obviously, dall sheep are not.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is the gentleman's district that we are 
talking about, the east Mojave Desert area. I drive through that area 
many times a year. I have rarely seen among the hundreds of thousands 
of people that travel through on the highways of the east Mojave Desert 
area, I have rarely seen them stop and get off the road and just view 
the beautiful natural scenery. They get off the road to do recreational 
things, to hunt, to do other recreational activities in the desert.
  If we remove that use and restrict that area to where there is no 
more recreational activity, we will essentially close down the desert 
to the enjoyment of the people. I think hunting is an absolute must, if 
we are going to really make that useful to the people rather than 
simply isolate it and say they can no longer use that beautiful land.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his 
contribution.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I suppose once in awhile common names do get 
confused. Obviously, I think the intent was understood. I think the 
import of the argument that I made is still very valid, that there 
should not be either of these, in particular, the desert bighorn sheep, 
an endangered species.
  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, responding to my colleague, I 
do understand that we do make mistakes from time to time and even trip 
over what our ideas might be. I was intrigued by the fact that earlier 
in his opposition statement, he suggested that even sometimes tortoise 
are found out in the desert with bullet holes in the shells or in them. 
In a previous statement in the committee, the gentleman suggested that 
it was maybe even more than that, stating that over 30 percent of 
desert tortoise are found dead in the desert with bullet holes in them 
in this particular area. That seemed a little strange to me.
  After checking into the facts behind this, I found a 1986 Bureau of 
Land Management study titled ``Incidence of Gunshot of Desert 
Tortoise.'' This study said that gunshot mortality of desert tortoise 
in the east Mojave is between 1.5 percent and 2 percent. That is a long 
way from 30 percent.
  Indeed, the wildlife of the east Mojave has thrived as a result of 
the compact I described earlier, the partnership between public 
activity and that partnership that has worked so well with private 
sector interests, including the sportsmen of the country who live in, 
understand, and enjoy the desert. Today we are offering this amendment 
simply to allow them to continue that enjoyment and continue the 
contribution they are making to conservation.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I have enjoyed 
working with the gentleman from California on this amendment. I 
appreciate his hard work on this and the bipartisan nature of our 
teamwork on this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's closing 
statements.
  I was particularly intrigued with the last comments that the 
gentleman made on the tortoise and bringing out the many points that he 
has today during the debate. I want to thank the gentleman for his good 
work on this and his help.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to express my 
appreciation to the author of this amendment, the gentleman from Idaho 
[Mr. LaRocco], for his contribution. It has been a very, very positive 
working relationship.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the statement I was reading is actually from 
a study done by Sievers in 1984, in which of the dead tortoise found on 
BLM lands, 30 percent had bullet holes in them. Sievers is the author 
of this particular document. I would be happy to give the gentleman the 
reference in terms of this particular work that was done and the study 
that documents that particular situation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in response, I would suggest 
that maybe Mr. Sievers needs to spend a little bit of time in the 
desert because he obviously has not seen very many tortoise out there.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in strong support of the LaRocco-Lewis hunting amendment to 
the California Desert Protection Act. Many of my constituents are 
sportsmen and women who cherish the opportunity for recreational 
hunting on the public lands, including those lands proposed for 
inclusion in the east Mojave Park.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the congressional sportsmen caucus, 
which supports this amendment. Our constituents play an integral role 
in wildlife management in all 50 States. Fishing and hunting license 
fees paid the freight for fish and game conservation activities. And as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has referred to, Secretary 
Babbitt himself has recognized the importance of America's fishermen 
and hunters calling them the backbone of conservation in this country 
for nearly 60 years.
  This amendment has broad-based support by a coalition of conservation 
and hunting groups. It is supported by the congressional sportsmen 
caucus, California's Department of Fish and Game, the County of San 
Bernardino Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, Wildlife 
Legislative Fund of America, National Rifle Association, Quail 
Unlimited, Safari Club International, and others too numerous to 
mention.
  Mr. Chairman, I would refer again to the backbone of conservation in 
this country for nearly 60 years. That is what Secretary Babbitt said, 
and that quote, in my estimation, says it all. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``aye'' on the LaRocco-Lewis amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, I think we have had an excellent debate on this issue. 
I just wanted to say, before we go to a vote, that this is an issue 
that is very fundamental to the quality of life of literally hundreds 
of thousands of southern Californians.
  Those people are Westerners who have in their families a tradition of 
hunting. Not all of them who are involved here, in fact, very few of 
them are wealthy people. They like the idea of being able to take their 
families out into what used to be the great open spaces of the West and 
spend some time with their sons, spend some time with their daughters, 
teach them how to shoot, talk to them a little bit about their values, 
a little bit about their heritage in the West and have kind of an 
enjoyable time without having to spend a ton of money.
  These are people that cannot afford to go fly fishing in New Zealand 
or go whale watching down in Baja or do other things that many of the 
Members who oppose this amendment are quite capable of doing because 
they have the resources, the money to do it with.
  This is a vote that is very important to working Californians. The 
natural resources that are in the desert have been developed by 
hunters. Hunters are conservationists.
  Father of American conservationism, Aldo Leopold, was a hunter. He 
believed that one could take from the land, that is, harvest, the wild 
game species, but they also had an obligation to give something back to 
the land. And the conservation groups like Quail Unlimited, Desert 
Wildlife Unlimited, the Society for the Conservation of the Bighorn 
Sheep, and all the other groups, the Safari Club, all the other groups 
that were mentioned in this debate today give back to the land. They 
give back to the species. They go out and they build guzzlers, these 
water holes out in the desert.

                              {time}  1600

  If people do not have money, Mr. Chairman, and many of these people 
in these groups do not have money to donate, they go out, give of their 
sweat, give of their time, they give of their family, they go out, 
carry some cement in bags, they try to give something to the desert.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Washington, DC, are taking, we are taking a great 
recreational resource away from a lot of working Americans who love to 
go out and hunt in that desert with their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all of the Members of the House to 
consider those of us who have these desert districts, to put themselves 
in our shoes and to think about our constituents, those families that 
do like to hunt, do enjoy being sporting families and enjoy being 
sportsmen and sportswomen. I just want them to consider our 
constituents, give them the same consideration that they would give 
their constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the LaRocco-Lewis 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and given the 
debate that has taken place, I think what has been made clear is that 
this is not an attempt to preclude working families or anybody else 
from the desert. This is to recognize that these lands are under 
increased and additional pressure every year from multiple use of those 
lands.
  This committee has been a very strong supporter of the multiple use 
of those lands, but multiple use of the lands does not mean that every 
use can be allowed on every acre of land. The decision has been made 
because of the overwhelming support of the people of the State of 
California. As we said here earlier today, over 72 to 75 percent of the 
people in the State want this to be a national park without hunting, 
which allows 10 million acres, 10 million acres for people to continue 
to pursue hunting.
  Programs are being inaugurated already for an alternative bighorn 
sheep hunting area this year in the Chocolate Mountains, where bighorn 
sheep hunting will be allowed. Permits will be granted to individuals 
to go there.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, as more and more visitors come to this 
area, hunting at this particular time of the year is incompatible with 
the management of this as a national park. The people of California 
want a national park.
  Mr. Chairman, this committee has created many national parks and many 
wildernesses, and in the area of the author of the amendment in Idaho, 
we have struggled with wilderness; in Utah we have struggled with 
wilderness; in California and Colorado.
  One of the things we have tried to do, Mr. Chairman, is to make that 
compatible with the concerns and the needs of the people in that State. 
We have worked on water rights, we have worked on land use, we have 
worked on access, we have worked on all of those components.
  Here we have the overwhelming number of the people in this State 
saying that they want the national park, not a preserve. There is 
nothing wrong with creating a preserve. It is just that the people of 
the State here want a national park and it meets all of the standards 
of the national park system for their creation of that park.
  That is what we preserve in this bill, Mr. Chairman, and that is when 
the Senate confronted this issue and it went with the national park, 
along with the desires of Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. That is 
what most of our delegation wants. It is what most of the newspapers in 
the State want, and it is what most of the people in the State want, 
because we recognize that this is not incompatible with people's 
continuation of using this area for hunting. They will get ten times 
that. Ten times the amount of land that we are discussing here to make 
a park will be available for them to continue to hunt for the same 
wildlife that they hunt in this area.

  The question is whether or not we will preserve the status of this 
area, the east Mojave, as a national park, the intent of this bill. I 
would hope people would reject this amendment. They should reject this 
amendment, because just as people on the other side of the aisle 
continue to stand up and talk about the increased cost, this really 
does add the cost. We think we can manage this as we transfer it from 
one Federal agency to another Federal agency, from the BLM to the 
National Park System, but now the National Park System tells us to 
manage it with hunting in that same area and it is about a half a 
million dollars a year in additional cost.
  Mr. Chairman, Bruce Babbitt did not make those remarks about the East 
Mojave and about hunting, because he opposes that. He supports the 
national park. Secretary Babbitt supports that. I appreciate the quote, 
and the quote is quite accurate about the importance of hunters and 
sportsmen, but it did not pertain, it did not pertain to the east 
Mojave National Park.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues who are listening to 
this debate would understand the wishes and desires of the people of 
California. The Senate has already acted on this and chosen not to do 
this, and I would hope that we would reject this amendment and go with 
the committee bill, which creates and preserves the national park in 
the east Mojave.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the LaRocco-Lewis amendment 
making the current East Mojave Scenic Area a national preserve rather 
than a national park, as provided by the bill.
  For those of us who live in California's urban areas, the desert is 
our park. It is a place where we can get away from the fast pace of the 
city and enjoy the desert's unique tranquility and natural beauty. The 
desert is home to giant sand dunes, the world's largest Joshua tree 
forest and 750 species of wildlife, including the endangered desert 
tortoise and bighorn sheep.
  The desert is a place where all Americans can see firsthand the 
traces of ancient civilization where people carved and painted cave 
walls and scratched beautiful drawings on the desert floor.
  The Mojave deserves national park status: First, it meets all 
criteria for national park status specified in NPS management policies; 
second, Secretary Babitt has stated that ``there is absolutely no 
question * * * that all these lands are park quality * * * and that the 
proposed Mojave National Park would be a very special addition to the 
National Park System,'' and third, Californians overwhelmingly support 
a Mojave national park with no hunting. To date, 16 counties and 36 
cities representing more than 66 percent of the State's population are 
on record in support of H.R. 518. A February 1993 field institute poll 
found that nearly 70 percent of the respondents living in California's 
desert counties support the Mojave with no hunting as did 66 percent of 
the households with hunters.
  Hunting should not be allowed in the Mojave:
  First, national preserves cost more than national parks due to 
increased management and law enforcement requirements. Funding and 
staffing required to administer and patrol sport hunting and to monitor 
the impact on both wildlife and other visitors will drain resources 
away from the other important operations, such as maintenance and 
interpretation.
  Second, the number of big game animals taken annually in the area 
proposed for the park is very small--approximately 5 desert bighorn 
sheep and 26 deer. More deer are killed by cars on the George 
Washington Parkway each year than in the 1.5 million-acre Mojave.
  Third, the National Park Service has a longstanding policy of 
prohibiting hunting in the national parks. Currently 50 of 51 National 
Parks are closed to hunting--elk hunting, done by deputized park 
rangers, is permitted in Grand Teton National Park, WY--America's 
National Park System was created to protect the best and most unique 
lands America has to offer. Sport hunting has been judged to be 
incompatible with the resource preservation goals of national parks and 
with the pursuits of park visitors.
  Fourth, there will continue to be abundant hunting opportunities in 
the desert under H.R. 518 on merely 10 million acres of Federal land 
outside the mojave National Park, including the 4 million acres of 
Bureau of Land Management wilderness designated by this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By his own request and unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California 
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to 
yield to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to the 10 million acres of Federal land, 
desert land outside the Mojave National Park, the State of California 
is opening new deer and bighorn sheep hunting areas outside of proposed 
park areas later this year. These will completely replace the hunting 
opportunities found in the proposed Mojave National Park.
  H.R. 518 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental 
legislation to come before the 103d Congress, and I am proud to be a 
cosponsor. I commend my colleagues from California, Mr. Lehman and Mr. 
Miller; and Mr. Vento, for their tireless work in making this bill 
possible.
  Again, I urge Members to oppose the LaRocco-Lewis amendment and to 
support final passage of the bill.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the essence of the issue before us: 
Are we going to create a national park in the east Mojave for the 
benefit of millions of people, coincidental with the wishes of the 
people of California, or are we going to pass the LaRocco amendment and 
create a hunting preserve?
  Mr. Chairman, we did not bring this bill all the way to the floor 
today to create a hunting preserve. We brought it here to preserve the 
east Mojave as an important part of our national landscape and give it 
the protection that it deserves.
  Mr. Chairman, all of the things that are being talked about here as 
far as hunting is concerned are allowed in all the rest of the portions 
of the desert and the wilderness aspects of this legislation. In fact, 
80 percent of San Bernadino County, with this legislation, is still 
open to hunting. The fact is, we are going to have hunting over most of 
this region, with or without this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not take this step today to preserve the east 
Mojave, there is no other east Mojave. We do not have that option with 
the east Mojave.
  Mr. Chairman, we studied this issue carefully. Look at the numbers. 
The hunting that takes place in this region is very limited. Last year, 
as a matter of fact, 20 to 30 deer and 5 bighorn sheep were harvested 
out of the 1.5 million acres.

  Mr. Chairman, we have a choice to make. Are we going to choose to set 
up a hunting preserve for that limited activity here, or are we going 
to protect this land for future generations by making it a national 
park? Are we going to make a full-fledged national park, here standing 
alongside all the rest of our treasures, or are we just going to have a 
hunting preserve in the east Mojave?
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of hunting versus non-hunting. There 
will be plenty of hunting in the east Mojave in appropriate places, and 
the uses of the land in the vast majority of cases remain as they are 
today, but on this one little treasure of our American landscape we 
have decided here to elevate its status to make it a national park. Let 
us make it a full-fledged, real national park and let us not subject 
the 1 million visitors a year who are going to visit this place, 
according to the National Park Service, as opposed to the 300,000 who 
visit it now, subject them to the dangers inherent when these two types 
of activities co-exist this closely on that kind of property.
  Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of places to hunt. We are not doing 
anything to detract from that. We are trying to create a national park 
out of one of America's greatest treasures here. This bill is not about 
a hunting preserve for a few, it is about a national park for the 
American people. Let us reject the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of the 
bill for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting 
debate. Everything some people say about granting rights with 90 
percent left for hunting, 80 percent, the truth of the matter is, we 
are taking away a right from a group of people and giving it to another 
group of people.

                              {time}  1610

  All we are trying to do with the LaRocco amendment is to have the 
ability to manage fish and wildlife, not fish in the desert, no, but 
wildlife by the State.
  The State supports this.
  Mr. Chairman, it is so funny to me when I hear Members such as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], my good chairman, say 75 
percent of Californians support this bill, that the polls show that we 
should support this bill, oppose this amendment and support the desert 
wilderness bill. That is funny. I listened to 75 percent of Alaskans 
oppose this Congress when they made parks, but at that time it was in 
the national interest. I heard this body ignore the rights of people in 
Utah and Nevada and Oregon and California that lived in those areas 
because it was in the national interest. Now I am hearing the same 
thing from Californians who say 75 percent of the Californians, yes, 
from San Francisco; yes, maybe from L.A., but not the people that are 
represented by the Members on this floor, no, they are not. They are 
not. The people oppose this legislation and they support this 
amendment. They support this amendment.
  If Members really and truly believe, and I have said this so many 
times on the floor, in true representation and this form of government, 
they should be listening to those Members who represent those people in 
that area.
  In all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], he is not from that area. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller], is not from that area, the gentlewoman from L.A. and the 
gentlewoman from San Diego are not from that area.
  Yes, there are small parts of land, but the area we are talking about 
today, this amendment itself, is supported by every group in that area, 
including the State of California.
  Is that not true?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding, and I very much appreciate the point he is making, for we 
have come to the floor and bitterly complained at the lack of 
willingness on the part of this committee to be responsive to the five 
Members of Congress who are elected to represent the desert. I was 
interested in noting that my colleague, the author of this measure, 
suggested we did not bring this bill to the floor to create a hunting 
preserve in the East Mojave. Indeed we did not. We brought this bill to 
the floor for many reasons. The author of the bill failed to mention 
the fact that there is a part within this bill proposed in the Death 
Valley National Monument that involves almost 2 million acres. There is 
a park proposed in this bill in the Joshua Tree National Monument that 
involves almost 1 million acres. The east Mojave is the least likely 
location for a park in that region. Three million acres of additional 
parkland is quite a bit when we are not providing any mechanism for 
funding. But in the east Mojave, we have got thousands of miles of 
roadway and endless utility lines. It is very unlike park status. This 
bill simply allows for reasonable and sensible multiple use in the east 
Mojave area and creates a preserve that does allow, among other things, 
the continuation of hunting and positive management in the region.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The east Mojave, this amendment makes it a true 
multiple use area.
  Let us not be confused with what is being presented by the chairman 
of this committee and the vice chairman of the committee in saying the 
whole bill makes a hunting preserve. We are talking about one small 
area that has always been utilized and has been improved upon by the 
hunting efforts in that area.
  It is crucially important, my colleagues, to support the LaRocco-
Lewis amendment. If Members truly believe in representation in 
government, support this amendment. If Members believe in big 
Government, if Members believe in Big Brother, if Members believe that 
this Congress from the east coast knows what is best on the West, then 
vote against it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I gladly yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. In my 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations which is the 
Subcommittee on Interior, Secretary Bruce Babbitt when we were 
addressing the budget for the operation of the National Park System of 
this country was complaining because of the shortages of funds and the 
fact that we may have to cut back in services in our existing national 
parks. In jest, he said, ``We may have to close down the Washington 
Monument for a few days out of every month in order to pay for the 
existing services in our national parks.''
  The question that comes to my mind and that I asked him at the time, 
why, then, would we want to create three new parks in the desert of 
California when we have not the funds to operate the existing parks?
  There is no question in my mind that the operational costs of these 
three new national parks will take money away from national parks, in 
many other States throughout the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 
1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I stress again, it is the 
right, and the gentleman brings up a very valid point, the right of the 
States to manage fish and game. Every State in the Union has that 
right. That is the constitutional law, until it is created into another 
area such as a national park.
  This is not going to cost the Park Service any more money . The State 
of California which supports this amendment will, in fact, put out the 
money if there is any additional money for the management of game in 
these areas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment to preserve the area for 
hunting and for the management of fish, management of game, and I keep 
saying fish because we have that in Alaska, management of game that we 
have this LaRocco-Lewis amendment to maintain the east Mojave as an 
area that has been improved by the hunters. We must support this 
amendment. It is the correct thing to do. It does not do great damage 
to the rest of the bill as some Members may suggest.
  Again I want to stress it is no more cost to the Park Service, 
although these new parks will cost an additional amount of money and we 
do not have the money for new parks at all.
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
LaRocco] is recognized for 5 minutes..
  There was no objection.
    
    
    
    
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I will be closing the debate on this 
important amendment, but I want my colleagues to know on both sides of 
the aisle that when I drafted this amendment, I did not take that task 
lightly. What I was after in drafting this amendment was the protection 
of the resource and the protection of our traditional values and our 
traditional uses in this area.
  I looked at the actions of this House and the 102d Congress where we 
passed a similar amendment and we did the same thing, and I think we 
strengthened the bill, we brought in bipartisan support and we 
supported the bill in the final analysis and passed the bill out of 
here and sent it to the Senate with 297 aye votes. One of those was 
mine. But as I looked at the bill, I said, what we can do if we just 
try harder is that we can protect a resource and protect the 
traditional uses in the area. So when the bill came up again, I looked 
at the Marlenee amendment that passed in the 102d Congress and I said, 
``I think we can do better.''
  Mr. Chairman, we talk about preserves and parks, but what I am 
talking about is protection. In no way is this amendment intended to 
degrade the use or the protection of that area or the management of 
that area.

  If Members look at where the management is right now, the present 
status is a national scenic area. As adopted in 1991, it went up a poke 
to the national monument and it was managed by the Park Service as we 
passed it out of here. My amendment would protect it under the Park 
Service as a preserve. It is in no way intended to be a gutting 
amendment. It is intended to protect our traditional rights and uses in 
the area and also put it under the protection of the Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate what we do here with this 
amendment. It permits hunting that now takes place to continue. It 
continues traditional uses. Is there anything wrong with that? We do 
that around here all the time. The gentleman from Alaska is exactly 
correct. Why should we erode those rights and the values that people in 
California, from all over the Nation, support and experience?
  Second, it allows the Department of Fish and Game of California to 
stay involved and continue its extremely successful wildlife management 
program in the area. It is called States rights. It is called States 
rights. Who in this body would not want to get on this floor and 
support States rights, especially with the California Department of 
Fish and Game?
  It protects the area as a national preserve and puts it under the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service.
  We have talked a lot about what the resources are here and whether 
people hunt in California or whether they hunt more or they hunt less. 
Let me just read a letter, my colleagues, from the Director of the 
California Department of Fish and Game.
  He said, ``Hunters in California may appear to have huge territories 
in which to hunt, but the reality of population growth and recreation 
demands in this State makes it increasingly more difficult for the 
hunting public to enjoy a day in the field,'' with their families. ``In 
the East Mojave and the Death Valley expansions into Hunter Mountain 
and Last Chance Range, where the imprint of hunters has been hardly 
noticeable and their contributions to wildlife considerable, hunters 
could be seated off from a vast region in which hunting is compatible 
with desert preservation.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is an interesting word that starts with a ``p.'' 
It is another protection word. It says preservation, stated by the 
Director of the California Department of Fish and Game, that it 
preserves the wildlife in that critical area.

                              {time}  1620

  Let me read to my colleagues here the language that I so carefully 
put into this amendment that gives the Secretary of the Interior 
authority. My amendment states:

       The Secretary shall permit hunting, fishing and trapping on 
     lands and waters within the preserve designated by this Act 
     in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, except 
     that the Secretary may designate areas where, and establish 
     periods when, no hunting, fishing or trapping will be 
     permitted for reasons of public safety, administration or 
     compliance with provisions of applicable law.

  What is wrong with that? That makes sense. It makes common sense.
  Those of us from the West who have seen our rights eroded by our own 
actions, which is unacceptable, or by bureaucratic actions, we must 
take action today.
  The gentlewoman from Nevada stated the number of people and groups 
supporting this. I will not go through that. Let me just summarize by 
saying this: This upgrades the status of the east Mojave from a 
national scenic area and BLM management. It upgrades it. It does not 
downgrade it. It upgrades it. It protects the resource. It allows 
hunting to continue. That is the purpose here. It allows effective 
wildlife management to continue. It protects States' rights, and it 
avoids setting precedent.
  It supports the contributions of sportsmen, and it has the backing of 
many groups. It has the backing of Democrats. It has the backing of 
Republicans.
  I urge my colleagues on this vote to vote ``aye'' on the LaRocco-
Lewis amendment. Protect these traditional rights. Protect the east 
Mojave.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
LaRocco/Lewis amendment to the California Desert Protection Act.
  This amendment is a true compromise. It uses the National Park 
Service's designation of preserve to connote lands that are held within 
the Park Service, but are not national parks. By creating a preserve, 
we establish new park lands, but we do not do so at the sake of 
moderation. A preserve ensures the continuation of all recreational 
activities within the east Mojave Desert, as well as, guaranteeing that 
hunting be allowed to continue.
  The preserve designation was first created in the 1970's by the House 
Natural Resources Committee for the Big Thicket and Big Cypress 
National Preserves in Texas and Florida. Since then, the preserve 
designation has been employed numerous times. It has proved to be a 
most successful and valuable compromise for all interested parties.
  In fact, creation of a preserve, as proposed by the LaRocco/Lewis 
amendment, provides all the protection from commercial development--
just like a park, but it allows sportsmen to continue their pursuits. 
Furthermore, preserve designation allows the California Department of 
Fish and Game to stay involved within the park as they always have 
been. They support the LaRocco/Lewis compromise, but do not support a 
national park designation.
  We need to support this compromise. There are no rational reasons to 
oppose the LaRocco/Lewis amendment. In fact, the only excuse for voting 
against the amendment is disdain for hunting: A vote against this 
amendment is a vote against hunting. The only difference between the 
national park status and the preserve designation is hunting. It 
provides for everything that the NPS would desire, but goes further by 
allowing sportsmen and hunters alike to enjoy the area. Preserve status 
allows more enjoyment of the traditional uses of this land.
  I urge my colleagues to support the LaRocco/Lewis amendment today. It 
presents a compromise that we can all live with.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 183, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--239

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brown (CA)
     Carr
     DeFazio
     Flake
     Gallo
     Herger
     Huffington
     Istook
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Obey
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1642

  Messrs. PENNY, STUPAK, and JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. KIM, PICKLE, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and HILLIARD changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. bilbray

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Amend Section 402 (relating to Establishment of the Mojave 
     National Park) of bill to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 402. There is hereby established the Mojave National 
     Park, comprising approximately one million four hundred 
     nineteen thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Mojave National Park Boundary--Proposed'' 
     dated May 17, 1994, which shall be on file and available for 
     inspection in the appropriate offices of the Director of the 
     National Park Service, Department of the Interior.''

  Mr. BILBRAY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
debate time allotted on this amendment be 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each 
side, to include my amendment and any amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time for debate on this 
amendment will be limited to 10 minutes, to be allotted equally, 5 
minutes on each side.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a matter of compromise.
  It has been over 5 years in the making.
  This amendment recognizes valid mining claims that are part of the 
proposed Mojave National Park and one of the mining operations affected 
by this bill is Viceroy Gold.
  My amendment would allow for the continued operations of the most 
environmentally sensitive mining operation in the world, Viceroy Gold.
  Viceroy Gold has spent millions of dollars in developing and 
implementing its environmental remediation programs.
  Viceroy has gone to great lengths to protect a threatened species, 
the desert tortoise.
  Viceroy has purchased the 150,000 acre Walking Box Ranch and has 
created 50,000 to 60,000 acres of the best tortoise habitat in southern 
Nevada.
  Viceroy has constructed a tortoise fence around the mine site.
  Viceroy employs a certified biologist to assist with proper removal 
of this threatened specie.
  These planned actions have resulted in a no jeopardy opinion by the 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Additionally, the fully enclosed heap-leach process does not create 
ponds that might otherwise be harmful to migratory birds.
  Viceroy has developed an experimental nursery in order to facilitate 
revegetation studies on plant materials and seed propagation.
  Viceroy has also been stockpiling barrel cactus and Joshua trees for 
the revegetation program.
  The Viceroy project is also recountouring the mined areas to blend 
with the surrounding terrain.
  As a result of their efforts Viceroy has received the California 
Mining Association Technical Achievement Award that was supported by 
the Sierra Club legal defense fund.
  Finally, Viceroy has also purchased and rehabilitated mines that pre-
date their involvement.
  In conclusion, it is my hope to pass this amendment in order to bring 
this bill in concert with the Senate version.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Bilbray]. We feel it is a good 
amendment. We go along with it on our side. We do feel we should help 
the small miners as well as the large ones, and we feel this is a good 
amendment and would go along with the gentleman from Nevada.


amendment offered by mr. miller of california to the amendment offered 
                             by mr. bilbray

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Bilbray: Insert ``(a)'' after 
     ``402.'' and add at the end the following:
       (b)(1) There is hereby established the Dinosaur Trackway 
     Area of Critical Environmental Concern within the California 
     Desert Conservation Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     comprising approximately five hundred and ninety acres as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``Dinosaur Trackway Area 
     of Critical Environmental Concern'', dated July 1993. The 
     Secretary shall administer the area to preserve the 
     paleontological resources within the area.
       (2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal lands 
     within and adjacent to the Dinosaur Trackway Area of Critical 
     Environmental Concern, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Dinosaur Trackway Mineral Withdrawal Area'', dated 
     July 1993, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, 
     appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; from 
     location, entry, and patent under the United States mining 
     laws; and from disposition under all laws pertaining to 
     mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral materials, and 
     all amendments thereto.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Quickly on my amendment, Mr. Chairman, it 
is compatible with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada 
[Mr. Bilbray]. This amendment deals with the Molycorp/Unocal Corp. The 
amendment removes 890 acres from the Mojave National Park to remove 
mining claims and make park boundaries more manageable. In addition, 
Mr. Chairman, the amendment removed about 400 acres of patented lands 
from the park. My amendment also established a congressionally 
designated 2,950-acre dinosaur trackway area of critical environmental 
concern to protect the only known dinosaur tracks in California. The 
tracks are approximately 180 million years old. In exchange for the map 
boundary changes, Mr. Chairman, Unocal dropped 2,246 acres of mining 
claims, including 1,559 claims within the proposed Mojave National Park 
and 687 acres outside the proposed park.
  Mr. Chairman, Unocal operates the Mountain Pass mine, the only rare 
earth mine in the United States. Approximately 235 people are employed 
by the mine, and the annual payroll exceeds $10 million, and both 
provisions were included in the Senate bill, and I ask for the support 
of my amendment to the amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this 
conforms the House bill to the Senate version, and sets the same 
boundary lines.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I note that this amendment 
addresses itself to withdrawing lands that affect basically two 
corporations, Molycorp, as amended by Chairman Miller, and Viceroy 
Gold. While I have no opposition to withdrawing those lands, I would 
just note that throughout this bill, it seems where we made exceptions 
to certain interests, the largest exceptions have been to the very 
large. Molycorp is a very sizeable corporation. Viceroy Gold is as 
well. Catellus is given special advantage in this process relating to 
the California desert. Catellus is a land holding company for the Sante 
Fe Railroad. The Teachers Union gets special attention. I wonder why we 
do not give special attention to the small people, the small mine 
holder, the small land owner, in the Mojave. It is a point, Mr. 
Chairman, I thought I just should bring to the attention of the House.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Bilbray].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Bilbray], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?


                  amendment offered by mr. cunningham

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: On page 53, after line 
     24, insert the following:

     SEC. 416. NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON LAND UNTIL ACQUIRED.

       With the exception of lands owned by the California State 
     Lands Commission and the Catellus Development Corporation, 
     the owners of all lands acquired pursuant to this Act and the 
     Wilderness Act or their designees shall be entitled to full 
     use and enjoyment of such lands and nothing in the Act shall 
     be--
       (1) construed to impose any limitation upon any otherwise 
     lawful use of these lands by the owners thereof or their 
     designees.
       (2) construed as authority to defer the submission, review, 
     approval or implementation of any land use permit or similar 
     plan with respect to any portion of such lands, or
       (3) construed to grant a cause of action against the owner 
     thereof or their designee, except to the extent that the 
     owners thereof or their designees may, of their own accord, 
     agree to defer some or all lawful enjoyment and use of any 
     such lands for a certain period of time.

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the issue is that we understand that 
land can be taken by the Federal Government. But in the past, there are 
lands that have been tried to be condemned or taken by the Federal 
Government, and the Federal Government cannot pay for those lands. We 
are up to $3 billion in back moneys that we need to buy the lands that 
we already have.
  While that is happening, the person that owns the property goes onto 
a list, but yet they are still under the laws that prevent them from 
doing most things with their property.
  There will be an attempt to offer an amendment to the amendment, and 
what it does, and I read, ``With the exception'' and all that follows 
and insert:

       Unless and until acquired by the United States, no lands 
     within the boundaries of wilderness areas or National Park 
     System units designated or enlarged by this Act that are 
     owned by any person or entity other than the United States 
     shall be subject to any of the rules or regulations 
     applicable solely to the Federal lands within such boundaries 
     and may be used to the extent allowed by applicable law.

  What that does, any time there is a take provision for an endangered 
species or a take, it basically guts everything we are trying to do 
here.
  I am offering this amendment on private property rights on behalf of 
myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
who cannot be here with us today, who had an excuse, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], and all of us are accepting an amendment 
that protects the people that are having their lands taken away by the 
Federal Government. All we are asking for is they pay for those lands 
before those restrictions go on to them.
  In California Desert Protection Act, there are over 7 million acres 
of wilderness and new natural parks, although most of the land is 
currently public land. There are 700,000 acres of private property, 
that would become inholdings within the national parks and wilderness 
upon enactment. Most of this private land you will find is a 
checkerboard pattern throughout the proposed parks.
  There are now approximately 150,000 acres owned by small private 
owners. Just like my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
we do not want to take exception just to the large companies, but the 
small people. One hundred fifty thousand acres owned by individuals, 
ranchers, owners of private property, and, again, all we are asking is 
if the Government is going to take that land, that they pay for it. But 
right now the Government does not have the money.
  Most of this land is within the proposed Mojave National Park. 
Unfortunately, these owners who do not have well-organized political 
lobbyists and did not get special treatment from the Congress, like the 
two largest land owners, the example of the gentlewoman from California 
in the other body, have not had the opportunity to have this come up. 
As a result, it could be years before their lands are brought before 
the Federal Government. The National Park Service already has a backlog 
of two to three billion, and I say billion dollars, Mr. Chairman, not 
million dollars, or a shortfall in funds that we already have that we 
cannot pay.
  While those farmers and ranchers are waiting, they are subject to 
rules which keep them from doing anything with their property. For 
example, if they want to apply for a permit to put a new dwelling on 
it, they cannot do it. What this amendment does is it protects those 
private property rights so that when the Federal Government says we 
want your land, that is okay. But pay for it, and then those rules and 
regulations will be applicable, not during the long period in between.
  It is a private property issue. Because of this massive land 
acquisition backlog and the fact that Congress typically underfunds the 
National Park Service, with the President wanting to reduce the 
deficit, there is no way we are going to be able in the future to pay 
for these lands. So, again, these landholders are going to be sitting 
in limbo and not able to use their land.
  History shows these property owners' land is actually purchased by 
the Park Service. It just does not work.
  Mr. Chairman, in the community of Foresta, CA, as an example, located 
within Yosemite National Park, was a scene when we had a terrible fire. 
When my dad was alive, we used to go up there every summer. But because 
of the fire, the National Park said to local landowners that had their 
property burn down, and they tried to rebuild, they were opposed every 
step of the way by the Park Service, which said that the development 
was not compatible with the purposes of the park.

  The Park Service even fought the county, the zoning officials, which 
supported the rebuilding effort. I have a lot of examples, Mr. 
Chairman, but in the interests of time, we will not go through them. 
But time after time after time, it has prevented property rights and 
people that own their property from doing anything with that land.
  I submit this with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] is in the best interests of 
the American people for property rights.
  Let me share some important facts about the California program with 
you. California has over 1,000 candidates for listing of endangered 
species. This is also in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment with my colleagues, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor].


amendment offered by mr. miller of california to the amendment offered 
                           by mr. cunningham

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: In the matter proposed 
     to be inserted by the amendment, strike ``With the 
     exception'' and all that follows and insert: ``Unless and 
     until acquired by the United States, no lands within the 
     boundaries of wilderness areas or National Park System units 
     designated or enlarged by this Act that are owned by any 
     person or entity other than the United States shall be 
     subject to any of the rules or regulations applicable solely 
     to the Federal lands within such boundaries and may be used 
     to the extent allowed by applicable law.''

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the House 
would accept this amendment to the second degree, because I think in 
fact it carries out the intent that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has, and many of us share, and that is as we change land 
classifications and land policies of Federal land, people who have 
private property, the inholders in those areas, sometimes are adversely 
affected.

                              {time}  1700

  We have either chosen not to buy their lands or if we want to buy the 
lands, we do not have the money to buy their lands. Then we start 
muscling in on them with the bureaucracy to make the lands easier to 
acquire in the future, and that simply is unfair and should not be 
allowed.
  I think that is what the gentleman from California is seeking to take 
care of. The problem with his amendment is it goes beyond that so that 
it eviscerates any laws on this impact.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. One is dealing with mining in 
the park. We allow people to go forward and mine in the park under the 
mining-in-the-park regulations. Many of the mining operations that we 
have exempted will in fact go forward under mining in the park, new 
claims, if they are perfected, will go forward under mining in the 
park. This throws that out. There should be different rules for mining 
in the park.
  The other one is, this also says where we have a generic law that 
does not allow you to bring hazardous waste, toxic waste on your 
property is as an end holder. This overrules that.
  So what my amendment, and I say this is absolute good faith and 
agreement with the gentleman, says is that your will not be subject to 
the rules and regulations extended to those Federal lands. They cannot 
be extended to you as a private property landowner and you can continue 
to use your land according to the applicable laws which may be of the 
County Planning Commission or the local ordinances that you want to 
preserve. That is what this amendment says.
  I see the staff scuttling around so if somebody has a different 
version, let me know. The fact is, that is what this amendment does. 
That is the intent, is to preserve that right of that individual, but 
not to far exceed.
  The gentleman referred to the situation in Yosemite. Yosemite, 
because of its status as a first park and when it was done and so 
forth, they had exclusive right over all of the lands. That was granted 
to them by the Congress. If overrode the local jurisdictions. That is 
what happened there.
  We do not do that any longer, and we should not do that because it is 
incompatible with people who have these end holdings.
  I want to tell the gentleman, the problem is not ideological or an 
attitude. The problem is, I think the amendment goes far beyond because 
it also allows uses on that property, toxic waste is the big one, where 
we have a generic statute.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. I do not 
want to be able to put toxic waste, and I support that issue.
  I would ask the gentleman from California, can we do that by striking 
the third paragraph of my amendment. It just says, ``Construed to grant 
a clause of action against the owner thereof or their designee, except 
to the extent that the owners thereof or their designees.''
  I would say to the gentleman from California, paragraph 3, I think we 
could strike that and, with my amendment, and do the same thing.
  Let me ask the gentleman, under this amendment, if I have a piece of 
private property as a rancher, am I allowed, because I am subject to 
the laws, am I allowed to build a building or something on that 
property with a permit?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yes, that was a discussion in 
the Senate. I agree with that, and that is the intent I think the 
problem is, again, I want to make the gentleman's concerns work. Let us 
understand, we are operating here on the same wave length.
  On section 1 of your amendment, you say, ``Construed to impose my 
limitation upon otherwise lawful use.'' The gentleman overrides the 
statute. Because that is a lawful use, we prohibit it on private lands 
within these parks, specifically with toxic and hazardous waste. The 
gentleman overrides that, we are told by the solicitor's office, 
because this generically is creating, these parks are now a preserve, 
creating these areas. So the gentleman, in fact, overrides that.
  The other one, interestingly enough, comes from the objection of 
local agencies that believe that this infringes upon their local 
authority. What we try to say in my amendment to the gentleman's 
amendment is, let us make sure that we do not start bureaucratically 
creeping out and imposing these restrictions on people's private 
property, whether they have a house or a farm or they want to add on a 
bedroom, whatever they want to do. That was, again, the debate that was 
going on around here, that they have a right to do that. Let them go to 
local planning or abide by State and local laws. That is it. That is my 
amendment, and I will be glad to work with the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Cunningham, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller 
of California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I received this amendment to the 
amendment about 30 seconds before I offered the amendment. If that, in 
fact, is what it does, I have no objection to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, it is 
my very strong belief that that is what it does.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I will consult with the cosponsors of it, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor] to make sure that they understand that that is what it does. I 
thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise not a philosophical 
problem with the amendment. I raise two technical problems that have 
been raised to us, one by local jurisdictions and the other with 
respect to section 16 U.S. Civil Code 460/22, which says, followed 
waste disposal operations are prohibited. That is what we seek.
  I would just say, I think this amendment works it out and maintains 
the concerns that the gentleman has.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment.
  I wonder if the chairman of the committee would enter into a colloquy 
with me. If I may say so, if I have heard the discussion between the 
gentlemen from California, the gentleman in effect says he wants to see 
the effect of the gentleman's amendment work and he feels the amendment 
that he has added to it makes it more workable and would take nothing 
away from the intent of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, that is right. I say that 
because I think that is consistent with both the views of the 
California Senators. They have part of this debate. I have a very 
strong aversion to bureaucratically extending obligations on people 
that the Congress did not extend on.
  We are clear, people are either in the public domain here in the park 
or the preserve or they are out of it. And for private end holders, we 
ought not to be attributing to their property qualities what we 
attribute to the Federal preserve when, in fact, they are not part of 
it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman has said then, if I 
could draw a conclusion and the body can draw a conclusion, we have 
confirmed here that any Park Service rules, regulations, or whatever 
will not affect private property in any way?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, beyond what they are affected today under existing 
law as private property owners, local counties owning or Fish and 
Wildlife, whatever. But not Federal.
  Mr. HANSEN. That is my concern.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue a colloquy 
with the gentleman from California.
  Since we just received this and in consultation with the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor], maybe if the gentleman will allow us, under unanimous consent, 
to re-address this amendment, maybe we can make it the Tauzin-Miller-
Taylor-Cunningham amendment and do it bipartisan. I think we are both 
trying to do the same thing.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the tentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from California 
responds, I heard, I think, the gentleman's words that he wants to make 
sure that his amendment does what we intended, which was to make sure 
that as far as these private land holdings are concerned within these 
parks or wilderness areas, that until they are acquired by the Federal 
Government in fee title, that they are subject to no new, no different 
regulations as to uses on those properties.
  In that regard, I would like to ask several specific questions.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the two that I mentioned to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], we have a generic 
statute that does not allow you to bring a hazardous waste operation on 
to your property, if you are an end holder within a national park.
  The other one is for mining operations, that they mine under the 
generic law of mining in the park.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
specifically now, if someone who owns private property within the park 
that has not yet been acquired by the Federal Government seeks a permit 
from the Government for use of his property, such as a 404 permit or a 
right-to-incidental take under the Endangered Species Act in order to 
use his property, would the gentleman's language make it clear that 
there is no added restriction on the granting or the not granting of 
those permits?

                              {time}  1710

  For example, we are told that it may be possible for the Government 
to say, ``Wait a minute, these lands are scheduled to be acquired 
later. Therefore, we will not grant any 404 or ESA permits.''
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is exactly what happens. There are many people who support my 
views on the environment and whose views I support, who believe that is 
legitimate. I do not believe that is legitimate. Those lands, whether 
it is a 404 permit question or an Endangered Species Act question or a 
question of the local planning commission, that should not be 
prejudiced one way or another.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want that to be a part, then we have to buy that 
land. We ought to recognize that somehow the Congress made a decision 
for some period of time, or the administration has not been able to 
acquire the funds, that that is private property and that ought to be 
retained as private property.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman] and I struggled with this, 
along with Senators Feinstein and Boxer, because there have been 
unusual examples where people have said that they could not do this on 
our property, or whatever, so we do not want to do that.
  Yosemite, as I said, is unique. The Foresta situation in Yosemite is 
different because they had been granted the authority already.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, would my friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] be in concurrence with sitting down with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and I and working out the 
language and offering the amendment under unanimous consent at a later 
time?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I not only would consent to that, I think 
it is probably in the best interests of the committee. What I am 
hearing from the gentleman form California is precisely what I would 
hope would be contained in an amendment. My concern is simply that the 
words do what we all say we want them to do. If the gentleman from 
California would agree to that procedure, I would be more than happy to 
work with both Members to that end.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a brief discussion 
with my colleague, either the gentleman from California or the 
gentleman from Utah. I just read the original amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 
expired.
  (At his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was allowed 
to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEHMAN. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, listening to the discussion, I understand 
what we are trying to do. I have no problem with it. I agree with it. 
The language in the original amendment, however, states that with the 
exception of lands owned by the State Lands Commission or Catullus, the 
owners of all land acquired pursuant to this act and the Wilderness Act 
shall be entitled to full use and enjoyment of such lands.
  To me, the language ``acquired pursuant'' means it is Federal land at 
that point. Is that just an error in drafting?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
no, it is private land that the Government wants to buy. Again, the 
property, when the Federal Government does that, they do not have the 
money to pay for it, but yet the landowner, because the Federal 
Government owns it----
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
understand that. I just read the amendment as not being clear on it. It 
says ``all lands acquired.'' Hopefully, and I have not seen the text of 
the substitute here, it will clarify that to do what the gentleman 
wants done.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, in this 
agreement what we would like to do is sit down with my friends, the 
gentleman from California, and work that out, because I think we are 
all going in the right direction.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, just 
to emphasize what has been said here, with regard to Yosemite and, as a 
matter of fact, some of the early parks, the Congress granted exclusive 
jurisdiction over land within those boundaries to those parks, and no 
State and local ordinances apply. That is not the case with this act.
  Mr. Chairman, it certainly is the intent that State and local 
jurisdictions maintain primary control over private property and the 
zoning thereof, whether or not it is within the boundaries, 
technically, of the park.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the other gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham] has made the suggestion that since there 
are questions about both the amendment and the amendment thereto, that 
we would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and the 
amendment thereto, and work on it, and the rights of the gentleman from 
California and my rights will be protected to offer that. We will be 
back, of course, as soon as we can on this title.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have been advised not to do that, but 
I have worked with the gentleman from California in the past and I know 
his intent. I would agree to do that, if my colleagues would, the 
cosponsors.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
that endorsement.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about our right being 
protected to offer these sometime later in this committee?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if there is no agreement, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is certainly entitled to 
come back and offer his amendment and I will offer mine.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] be allowed to withdraw 
his amendment and that I be allowed to withdraw my amendment to his 
amendment, and that our rights be protected to offer the amendment at a 
later time during this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman, the amendment as 
printed in the Record during title IV?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title IV?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. DeLay

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: This amendment prohibits 
     the condemnation of land by deleting the portion printed in 
     italic below.
       Sec. 414. The Secretary is authorized to acquire all lands 
     and interest in lands within the boundary of the [Mojave 
     National] park by donation, purchase, or exchange, except 
     that--
       (2) lands or interests therein within the boundary of the 
     park which are not owned by the State of California or any 
     political subdivision thereof may be acquired only with the 
     consent of the owner thereof unless the Secretary determines, 
     after written notice to the owner and after opportunity for 
     comment, that the property is being developed, or proposed to 
     be developed, in a manner which is detrimental to the 
     integrity of the park or which is otherwise incompatible with 
     the purposes of this title.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, there are thousands of private landowners 
that face the threat of condemnation if their inholdings are located in 
H.R. 518's newly created Mojave National Park. Section 414 authorizes 
the Secretary to acquire all the lands within the boundaries of the 
park without the owner's consent if the Secretary determines that the 
property is being developed, or proposed to be developed, in a manner 
which is detrimental to the integrity of the park, or which is 
otherwise incompatible with the purposes of this title.
  Our laws allow the Federal Government to condemn land; that is, to 
take it without the consent of the owner for public use. This is an 
infringement on property rights and should only be allowed to occur in 
the most grave of situations.
  Mr. Chairman, the situation that is described in H.R. 518 is not a 
grave situation. In fact, the bill has been criticized by many, 
including members of the California delegation, for protecting much 
more land than necessary to preserve the California desert.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would delete the provision I just referred 
to so that land acquisition will only be allowed with the consent of 
the property owner.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of this amendment will probably drag out 
books of statistics on how rarely condemnation is used any more, and 
claim that landowners within the Mojave National Park have nothing to 
fear. However, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the Federal 
Government rarely has to resort to condemnation because it is the 
threat of condemnation that makes most landowners into willing sellers.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a perfect example to illustrate this from a 
publication called ``Willing Seller-Willing Buyer'' by Mr. Bo Thott, 
who writes, ``Private landowners ostensibly selling their properties to 
the National Park Service are in fact not bona fide sellers, but are 
giving up title to escape the legal expenses of a foredoomed 
condemnation.''
  What I am about to read is a portion of a letter from the National 
Park Service in Naples, FL, to a landowner, as well as the landowner's 
response. This is from Dolores Denning, Chief, Purchasing and 
Relocation Division, U.S. Department of the Interior:

       We have been unsuccessfully negotiating with you for the 
     purchase of the above property within the Everglades National 
     Park Expansion. Our offer is in accordance with an impartial 
     appraisal made by an appraiser well qualified to appraise 
     this type of property. The offer is representative of fair 
     market value for your interest.
       If the offer is satisfactory, please sign the original 
     offer form which was provided you.
       Our schedule does not permit us to defer or delay 
     negotiations indefinitely. Therefore, we are requesting an 
     early response relative to consummating this acquisition. In 
     the event we have no response from you within fifteen (15) 
     days of your receipt of this letter, we will assume you have 
     rejected our offer. It will then be necessary to initiate 
     acquisition by eminent domain procedures and have a Federal 
     Court determine the compensation to which you are entitled.
       We must bring this matter to a conclusion promptly, and are 
     acting in accordance with approved governmental procedures 
     for such occasions. We urge that you give serious 
     consideration to our offer.

                              {time}  1720

  If that does not sound like a threat, I do not know what does.
  The landowner responds:

       The person who called me from Florida was sympathetic but 
     firm. I did not agree to sell on the first call but talked to 
     my lawyer. It is hard to buck the Government, so I sold. I 
     had feelings for this land beyond its material worth.''

  There are numerous other quotes in this publication from landowners 
that have become willing sellers simply because of the threat of 
condemnation.
  One, and I quote, ``decided not to sell. I called the land office and 
told them my decision. They returned my call and said if I did not sell 
now, my land would be condemned and I would have to hire a lawyer and 
pay other costs. Therefore, I agreed.''
  Another writes:

       They said I didn't have much choice as they would condemn 
     it and they also said I could take it to court, but it would 
     be expensive and I would end up with less.

  Another writes:

       ``If I refuse, they will condemn the land anyway. I was 
     advised by a lawyer not to waste my money trying to get a 
     higher price than offered, because it would be eaten up in 
     legal fees.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, continuing to give the Federal Government 
the green light on taking land regardless of the wishes of the property 
owner, as this bill does, shows a fundamental disrespect for individual 
property rights protected by the Constitution. My amendment would 
prohibit the Federal Government from acquiring land for the Mojave 
National Park without the consent of the owners, so that they will not 
be bullied into giving up their land. I urge Members to vote for 
property rights and support my amendment.
  For those Members who would argue that private property owners should 
not feel threatened, I would just like to read from a statement on this 
bill by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt:

       One of the concerns raised with respect to the designation 
     of the Mojave National Monument is the amount of privately 
     owned land within the proposal. The Lanfair Valley area in 
     the eastern portion of the proposed park contains numerous 
     relatively small parcels of privately owned land in various 
     ownerships.
       The BLM has estimated that perhaps as many as 1,000 
     individual privately owned parcels are located in the Lanfair 
     Valley area. I am concerned about the impact this 
     concentration of small land holdings may have on the proposed 
     park. It is my view that the pressure to develop these 
     parcels will increase once the park is established and our 
     only options will be to permit incompatible development on 
     these properties or to purchase these properties, most likely 
     through condemnation.

  Mr. Chairman, we know what the intent of the Department of Interior 
is through the words of the Secretary. I just ask Members to support my 
amendment and protect the private property rights of the hundreds of 
landowners that will find themselves within this new Mojave National 
Park.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly this cannot be a serious amendment, because 
this amendment would not be offered in any other bill than this 
particular piece, because the gentleman would not offer this amendment 
on the highway bill to the Federal Highway Administration, he would not 
offer this amendment under this Department of Defense so that the Army, 
the Navy, the Air Force, and others could not go out and acquire lands 
that were necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman cited a number of instances, in each and 
every instance what took place.
  An unwilling seller, a perceived Federal need for that park or that 
Federal reservation as happens all the time for the construction of 
highways, the construction of the Supercollider, the construction of 
metro systems, the construction of ports, airports, for post offices. 
We always know that there are people who determine they do not want to 
sell. What was the decision made in this country 200 years ago? It was 
that we would offer them the protection of the Constitution, that we 
would offer them that their land could not be taken without 
compensation. But we also made a decision as part of our society that 
bound this country together that a lone individual could not obstruct 
totally the progress of this country. That condemnation power has been 
delegated to utilities, it has been delegated to railroads in the past, 
it has been delegated to local governments, and that is how this 
country has prospered. That is how we built the interstate highway 
system. That is how we built mass transit systems throughout the 
country. That is how we built the great military bases and the 
shipyards of this Nation. Most of those were carved out of private 
land. Not every seller was a willing seller for the willing buyer who 
perceived the need, because of the First World War, because of the 
Second World War, because of international commerce? No, that is right.
  Every now and then the government had to reach in and go for an 
authority that is explicitly granted to it under the Constitution with 
the obligation--with the obligation to provide compensation. That is 
the constitutional protection that we accord these landowners.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is good for the National Park 
Service, then we ought to fully understand it is very good for the 
Federal Highway Administration, it is very good for the Department of 
Defense, for the Post Office, for utilities and for everywhere else 
where people insist that they want.
  Should we have not built the California water system? Should we have 
not built the Central Valley Project because one landowner said that 
canal will not come across my property? Should we have not built 
Interstate 70 or Interstate 80 or I-40 or I-95 because some landowner 
said, but for me, you would have a great system up and down the east 
coast or the west coast? Of course not. Of course not.
  This amendment goes even beyond that. It takes away the historical 
right of the Secretary of the Interior to defend the parks. This means 
one can saddle up on his property and announce that he is going to open 
up and incredibly incompatible use, one that may threaten the park 
itself, threaten its resources, threaten its user days by the American 
public, and in theory we could not stop him by going through 
condemnation. We would not stand for this amendment for 5 minutes in 
the cities we represent, in the counties that we represent, in the 
States that we represent, in the utilities that we represent, because 
our communities simply could not function, could not function as we 
punch a highway through a tough urban area, an expanding suburban area. 
That is why we have the authority and the obligation in the 
Constitution of the United States.

  It is not used willy-nilly. None of us favor it being used. We try to 
work on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. But the fact is it does 
not always happen.
  What the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] would have us believe is 
that society and the protection of society should come to a grinding 
halt because 1 out of 100, 1 out of 50, 1 out of 10 would not go along? 
They have a right to obstruct these great projects.
  I do not think the gentleman would have provided this when we went 
out looking for farmland for the supercollider. The gentleman would not 
have said, ``Well, one farmer says we can't complete the doughnut.''
  I do not think the gentleman would have said this to the Dallas-Fort 
Worth Airport, we can only have a landing strip 2,000 feet long, we 
cannot have one 15,000 feet or 20,000 feet because the landowner in the 
middle wants a watering trough.
  The gentleman would not have, so let us quit playing politics with 
the Park Service, with the preservation of our park and with the 
responsible administration of those parks and let us vote down the 
DeLay amendment because none of us want to see this amendment added on 
to the other functions of the Federal Government and/or local 
government.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like some clarification here. As a 
member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on 
Appropriations, we are involved in building a lot of highway projects.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. We are involved in building a lot of highway projects, 
mass transit projects, airports, and the like.
  Do I understand the practical impact of this would be that if the 
Government moved in to expand a highway, it would somehow have to sell 
some other Government land in order to balance off the books so that 
the Government would not have an increase in ownership of land?
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is one other provision of the DeLay 
amendment that we will see later.
  If we apply what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] wants to do in 
that provision to the rest of the Government, that is what we would 
have to do. If we apply this provision, we simply could not condemn any 
property that stands in the way of the high speed train in Texas, the 
high speed train between maybe Las Vegas and Orange County or San Diego 
and Los Angeles or San Francisco and Los Angeles, because somebody 
would decide that their single interest is more important than the 
national, the State, or the local interest and, therefore, they could 
stop those projects.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, what 
the gentleman is saying is that this amendment would eliminate the 
Government's right to eminent domain, to take property for public 
purpose, for a highway, or an airport or mass transit district, if one 
private property owner would object?
  Mr. MILLER of California. The intent of this amendment is to deny the 
Secretary from exercising condemnation authority within the Mojave 
National Park or the Mojave National Preserve.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will yield further, I am in favor of 
private property rights. But there comes a time when there is a public 
good. We see it so often in transportation. I am just curious, and 
maybe the gentleman from Texas could explain how he could draw the 
distinction between what we do in transportation and what he is trying 
to do here.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I will be glad to 
explain.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman to not 
mischaracterize my amendment, as it only applies to lands within the 
Mojave National Park. In my own evaluation of this situation, I do not 
see that establishing the Mojave National Park is as grave as building 
an interstate highway or any of the other things the gentleman 
mentioned earlier.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. You know, you are required as a pubic 
official to have some consistency of thought patterns. The fact is you 
are denying the Secretary the tool that every other Secretary would 
have available to them to protect those great highway projects or 
transportation projects that have eminent domain. So if it is good for 
here, I do not know why a property owner in the way of an interstate 
would have a greater right than a property owner in the way of a park 
or a property owner in the way of a utility line would have less right 
or more right. The point is that these are decisions that this Congress 
makes about national purposes and national policy, whether it is the 
TVA or the highway system, or the park system, and we provide the tools 
to carry that out, one of which is also provided in the Constitution, 
and that is the allowing of the Government to take property as long as 
they provide just compensation. That is the purpose.
  And so you cannot say that only on this occasion, because this is 
also an important occasion. You may happen to disagree with it, but the 
Congress makes that determination, the Secretary should be able to 
protect that investment that the people have made.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that I rise with no small 
amount of mixed emotion regarding the amendment, for there is little 
doubt that the power of eminent domain has a very important history in 
our country. It has been exercised by the Government to carry forward 
many very important government activities, highways, airports et 
cetera, et cetera.
  There is no more important protection within the Constitution, 
however, relative to property questions than one's right to their 
personal property without the Government arbitrarily taking that 
property.
  I think most Americans would say that while there is many a purpose 
where you might want to have available a thing called eminent domain, 
there is also little doubt that many Americans, a significant 
percentage of Americans, are concerned about the excessive use of that 
power on the part of the Federal Government and other agencies of 
government.
  The gentleman, the chairman of the committee, suggested, you know, 
just because every once in a while somebody might have a problem with 
the Government's purpose; ``every once in a while'' is an interesting 
phrase, because I would suggest there needs to be a careful examination 
of the way the agencies, the various agencies, are operating within 
this very department. Presently there are less than 15 contested 
eminent domain cases within the Forest Service. There are less than 15 
eminent domain cases that are contested within the Bureau of Land 
Management. There are about 500 contested cases on the part of the Park 
Service. There is clear evidence of excessive use of the power with 
very little concern not only about the little guy but about the whole 
concept of private ownership.
  I would suggest in this instance there is little doubt that in a 
highway circumstance or building an airport in the east Mojave, eminent 
domain would be appropriate, but when you are talking about millions of 
acres of land and somebody having 40 acres in the middle that would end 
up in the middle of a park that has very little value in terms of 
either detracting from that park or disturbing the Government's 
purposes; but this agency has demonstrated its willingness to be 
excessive in the way it handles private property in the public domain, 
and essentially private property held by the little guy.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] has answered his own question regarding the reason for this 
amendment.
  I am being very consistent in wanting to protect property rights, and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is being very consistent 
about willy-nilly giving it away.
  According to the language of the bill--and this is important, if you 
just propose to develop your own property, the Secretary of the 
Interior can start proceedings to take you property--if you just 
propose developing. The language of the bill will stop someone from 
doing what they will with their own property; you have this Big Brother 
Secretary of the Interior coming along and deciding how you are going 
to use your land, even if you simply propose how you are going to use 
your land.
  So what I am trying to do here, as the gentleman has suggested, is 
allow the House to decide under what grave circumstances are we going 
to allow eminent domain to be used.
  I just suggest that people that own property under this proposed 
Mojave National Park ought to be able to hold onto their property and 
do with it what they deem important without the Secretary of the 
Interior coming in with a big axe and tearing up their rights. That is 
all I am saying.
  I am saying this proposal is not as grave as would be a highway or 
that airport or a Defense Department project or other things that 
really are of national interest.
  I am not sure the Mojave National Park is of national interest. I do 
not think so. But at the same time I do not think the situation is 
grave enough to impose emiment domain.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I express 
my appreciation to my colleague for his contribution.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to my colleagues debate this 
issue. It is one that comes up frequently in terms of the subcommittee 
which I chair with regard to the Park Service and the other land 
management agencies.
  The fact of the matter is the BLM today, which manages this area, has 
the power of eminent domain. Let me repeat that: The BLM, in terms of 
this area, has the power of eminent domain.
  What we are saying is we are going to designate this now a National 
Park Service unit, a national preserve. Based on the last amendment, 
maybe that will be changed, but the fact is that in giving the Park 
Service that responsibility, we are going to take away the tools that 
it needs to manage that land.
  What do I mean by that? Well, I mean that you have this 1.5 million 
acres is almost all public land, but in it, within it, there may be 
some in-holdings, and as long as there is a passive use of that 
particular land, first of all, there is the land management plan that 
has to be developed down the road with the Park Service in terms of 
what is going to happen with the areas, how they are going to be used. 
There could be passive use of that land where there may be no need. 
There may be even agreement in terms of the use of it to, in fact, have 
it acquired by the Park Service.

  But if adverse development takes place there, if someone decides they 
are going to have a condominium in the middle of it or something 
adverse to what purposes the park is being designated, for, you have an 
opportunity to give the Park Service the tools so they can manage the 
land and eliminate the problem. That really is what we are talking 
about here is that we are saying that if this is designated park, this 
is very important area, nationally significant, one of the major desert 
types, with all of the fauna, flora, the other features that 
characterize this area, that they ought to have the tools to deal with 
this.
  Suggestions have been made that, in fact, when the Park Service is 
managing land, they have had difficulties. Well, they take a very 
active role in terms of managing the land, and in some cases, in less 
than 5 percent of the cases other than in Big Cypress where they had a 
special problem, they have not had the use of eminent domain. They have 
not used that. In fact, very often when eminent domain is used, it is 
used to clear a title. It is used as a technicality or to arrive at the 
value of the land. It is not even a matter of, in other words, of 
forced sale of the land. It is simply a way of arriving at a dispute 
over value or to clear the title of the land.
  So this tool is one, I think, that has been used very carefully, very 
prudently. It is a tool that all the land managers have including the 
Forest Service, and the BLM today has that power in the Mojave Desert.

                              {time}  1740

  So we are going to designate this and say it is a special area, but 
we are not going to give you the tools to designate it, if we proceed 
to act on the DeLay amendment. Furthermore, I point out that when this 
amendment was offered 2 years ago, it failed; it failed by a margin of 
2 to 1 2 years ago. The Congress rejected this very amendment in the 
east Mojave.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of points. You know, the fact that 
this amendment is only directed at East Mojave should not persuade 
people that this is not important. The gentleman says it is only a 
national park. Yes, but the word is ``national'' park. Some people 
think, some people think the Yosemite is more beautiful than the 
Mojave, some people think that Yellowstone is more beautiful than Big 
Cypress or Big Bend. But the point is we came together as a society and 
we determined that these are certain assets that are worthy of these 
designations and protections. And we ought not to take away the tools 
to do that.
  That arrogance of power that people suggest they are against is 
protected by the Constitution of the United States. There are rules and 
regulations that must be followed. You do not just go out and willy-
nilly start condemnation, you have to follow the Uniform Acquisition 
and Relocations Act, which requires you to make a fair offer, an offer 
of fair market value, requires you to negotiate with that individual. 
You have a situation in Big Cypress where the gentleman read from, and 
the fact is we are at risk of losing the Everglades. So we think there 
is an opportunity now with the Corps, the Bureau, the State, State 
legislation, and everybody's approval that we can save the Everglades 
and the bay and the keys, but we are going to need some land to change 
the water patterns. But we have a couple of farmers who are not going 
to go along with that. Should we risk, should we overturn the 
Everglades and Big Cypress? Should we do that because of one landowner? 
Of course not. It is not only a national park, it is because it is a 
national park that we give authority to the Secretary to defend the 
park, defend the wilderness areas, defend these preserves. The same is 
true--it is like saying that, ``Well, this amendment only applies to 
Fort Benning,'' or ``This amendment only applies to Fort Ord.'' That is 
not the point; the point is the Secretary of Defense needs the 
authority to round out those military reservations and to protect them.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. VENTO. I would point out that in designating the park we are 
saying these lands are equal and that we ought to give the tools to 
them, to the Park Secretary to defend and protect the legacy for future 
generations; that is, the National Mojave preserve.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a mound of difference between the issue of 
taking of private property without compensating landowners, and the 
issue that is before the House today. The issue before the House today 
is involved with the question of whether or not in a designated park, 
wilderness area, whether the Government of the United States ought to 
have the right to acquire that property under the Constitution, under 
the protections of eminent domain, acquisitions established by law for 
the taking of fee title for public purposes, such as a park or 
wilderness area. I want to make it clear that those of us who fight so 
hard against this notion that the Government can and does, today, 
continue to take away private property rights from people, continues to 
devalue private property in terms of its use to its owners, so those of 
us who fight and struggle to get a law passed by this body implementing 
compensation for the taking of private property when it comes to 
regulatory takings, see a world of difference between that issue, which 
ought to be on this floor one day, ought to be decided by this body one 
day, see a world of difference between that issue and the issue of 
whether or not eminent domain ought to be possible in terms of 
acquiring additional lands necessary for the full protection of a 
wilderness area or a park.
  It is for that reason I think this amendment needs to be defeated.
  In our own State of Louisiana, one of the very proud moments in which 
I participated was the setting aside of royalty trust funds derived 
from the production of minerals on public lands to a fund designed to 
acquire further lands for protection within our own State; to place 
those moneys in trust for the development, in fact, of the natural 
character, the aesthetic character of those wilderness areas that we 
had already set aside. I think that is a grand public purpose, and I 
think the Constitution provides a method by which the people of this 
country acting through the Congress and the courts, in the court of 
claims, in some cases, we have established a procedure for us to in 
fact acquire for the public the necessary lands to carry out, those, 
indeed, very important public purposes.
  So I agree with my friend from California's earlier statement 
regarding the acquisition of necessary properties for the protection of 
Everglades, for the protection of ecosystems that we define as 
essential for our national purpose.
  But let me make clear that while I think this amendment overreaches, 
I think it again points out that here in this case of eminent domain 
acquisition for public purposes, we all agree somebody needs to get 
compensated. The issue yet to be debated on this floor that I hope we 
reach one day is whether or not the Government can willy-nilly sneak 
around the Constitution and acquire private property simply by 
regulating it to death and denying the owner the right to use his 
property.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank him for his remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to be condemned, but in fact when the 
condemnation process is started, the Government has to put up the 
money. The worst problem is when the Government is trying to muscle you 
without acquiring your land, without acquiring your rights, trying to 
muscle you into doing something that you really do not want to do with 
your property, or need to do with your property, or what have you, and 
they do it indirectly. It is sort of like people wanting a cable TV 
franchise found out that they have to build 10 childcare centers, or a 
person wants zoning on the north end of town and finds out he has to do 
something on the south end of town that is not related to the impact. 
That is almost a worse thing because in a condemnation the Government 
has eventually to go to court to determine a fair market value. The 
other one is worse.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the Government has to first define in 
court the public purpose for the acquisition. If a public purpose is 
not established, there is no acquisition under the eminent domain 
takings.
  Second, it has to determine a fair value and then has to compensate 
the party for that taking.
  I defend that proposition here today. I think it acknowledges, in 
fact gives sanctity to our constitutional fifth amendment protection.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] pointed out, when the 
Government comes along and says we will not issue you a permit to 
enlarge your business unless you give us a bike path, something is 
wrong. The court so found just the other week in Dolan versus City of 
Tigard; that something is wrong with that proposition. When the 
Government comes along and says, ``We think your land is wet, so you 
can't use it anymore, but we are not going to pay you for it,'' 
something is wrong with that proposition. When the Government comes 
along and says that a bird, a bug, or a rat is loose in your back yard 
and you have got to move out and we are not going to pay for your 
property, something is wrong with that proposition.
  What is right about eminent domain is a public purpose is 
established, a procedure is set forth protecting the individual's 
rights, compensation is eventually awarded, and the Government treats 
the citizen as it ought to under the Constitution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, for necessary acquisitions in parks and 
wilderness areas, I support, and we ought to all support, just as we 
support the acquisition of private lands for construction of airports, 
which I understand our Secretary of the Interior is now against, for 
any wildlife preservation purposes, for roads, bridges, everything 
else. The bottom line ought to be, however, once the public purpose is 
established, once the order is given for the taking, compensation ought 
to quickly follow and the landowner ought to be fully reimbursed by the 
taking of the Federal Government.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman surprises me because we did check with 
the Private Property Rights Coalition, and we were informed that the 
gentleman and the coalition would support this amendment. And I agree 
with almost everything the gentleman said, except his opposition to my 
amendment. Particularly, does the gentleman truly believe that it is 
important in this case, in this bill, that when a private property 
owner simply proposes to develop his property contrary to what the 
Secretary wants, to allow the Federal Government to exercise its power 
of eminent domain? Because that is what the language says. The 
gentleman supports that?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, this gentleman supports the 
acquisition for public protection in parks, wilderness, of private 
property that is fully compensated for under the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution, just as the gentleman would support the acquisition of 
private property for the necessary construction of a road, bridge, 
hospital, or a public facility such as an airport.
  What this gentleman would not support is the imposition of rules and 
regulations on private property that would take away the use of that 
property without compensation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. LEWIS of California. To the gentleman's point, and the gentleman 
is making a great contribution here, in the committee, in the other 
body, when this subject area was being discussed, Secretary Babbitt was 
before the committee addressing this question of compensation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The secretary said regarding this matter: 
With regard to private property owners and compensation for their 
property, the Department of the Interior is prepared to wait them out 
without compensation after a long pause. That is Secretary Babbitt in 
April 1993.
  I am sure the gentleman would be concerned about that and understands 
why this gentleman has that amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is for that reason 
then the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and I agreed upon 
offering an amendment which, I think, we have now worked out with the 
gentleman from California that says that that cannot happen, that so 
long as the private property owner owns that property, even though the 
Federal Government hopes one day, proposes one day, to acquire that 
property, that so long as the private property owner owns that 
property, nothing in this act operates as a bar to his legitimate use 
of his property or the issuance of the Federal permits for the use of 
his property, such as a 404 or an incidental taking under the USA. I 
think that that amendment is worked out.
  It is for that reason the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] 
and I have launched the effort for that amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will support it when we offer it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 274, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--145

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Borski
     Flake
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Obey
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Santorum
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Smith (NJ)
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1812

  Mr. RAMSTAD and Mr. BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. ORTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the committee's expectation that we will consider 
two additional amendments, both of which we believe have been worked 
out and are not controversial at this point. We will accept those, and 
we do not expect votes on those amendments.
  After that, it is the expectation that the Committee will rise. We do 
not expect any additional votes this evening before we rise.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with my friend, the gentleman from California. As I understand it, the 
language we agreed on under title IV will come back and we will present 
that at a later time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title IV?


                    amendment offered by mr. quillen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Quillen: On page 46, line 5, 
     strike ``Subject'' and insert ``Subject to section 408(a) and 
     subject''.
       Page 46, line 12, strike ``study as to Validity of''
       Page 46, after line 12 insert the following:
       Sec. 408. (a) Unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and 
     tunnel sites within the boundaries of the park for which an 
     application for a patent was filed on or before December 31, 
     1993, shall be subject to all mining laws of the United 
     States except for the Act of September 28, 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     1901-1912; commonly referred to as the ``Mining in the Parks 
     Act'').
       Page 46, strike line 13 and insert the following:
       (b) Subject to subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     approve any plan
       Page 46, line 5, strike ``Subject'' and insert ``Subject to 
     section 408(b) and subject''.
       Page 46, line 12, strike ``study as to Validity of''.
       Page 46, strike line 13 and all that follows through line 
     16 and insert the following:
       Sec. 408. (a) The Secretary shall submit to''.
       Page 46, after line 21, insert the following:
       (b) Unpatended mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites 
     within the boundaries of the park that were located before 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to all 
     mining laws of the United States except for the Act of 
     September 28, 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1901-1912; commonly referred to 
     as the ``Mining in the Parks Act'').

  Mr. QUILLEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to protect the 
mining rights of thousands of citizens who have staked a claim within 
the boundaries of the proposed Mojave National Park.
  Currently, these claims, once proven valid, may be mined under laws 
and regulations administered by the Bureau of Land Management. However, 
once these lands become a national park, any valid mining claim must 
instead follow the laws and regulations administered by the National 
Park Service under the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976. The National 
Park Service has traditionally made it extremely difficult to mine in a 
national park.
  I believe that it's only fair to offer some type of grandfather 
provision to those who are in the middle of the complicated process of 
proving their mining claims so that they can complete this process and 
proceed with mining if their claim proves to be valid. These people 
have acted in good faith based on existing law and many have invested a 
great deal of time and money. This bill pulls the rug out from under 
their feet.
  My amendment will allow unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and 
tunnel sites within the boundaries of the proposed Mojave National Park 
that were located before enactment of this act to be subject to all 
U.S. mining laws except for the Mining in the Parks Act. I think this 
is only fair.
  This bill also provides that 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 
park. This could potentially hold up actual mining for undeterminable 
lengths of time, and my amendment strikes this language.
  Mr. Chairman, it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the 
game, and my amendment will protect the rights of current claimants to 
mine under the laws and regulations that were in effect at the time 
they made the decision to invest in mining claims. It is only fair, and 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


 amendment offered by mr. miller of california as a substitute for the 
                    amendment offered by mr. quillen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Quillen: Revised 
     the amendment to read as follows:
       Page 46, line 13, after ``Sec. 408'' insert ``(a)''.
       Page 46, after line 21 insert the following:
       (b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall permit the holder or holders 
     of mining claims identified on the records of the Bureau of 
     Land Management as Volco #A CAMC 105446 and Volco #B CAMC 
     105447 to continue exploration and development activities on 
     such claims for a period of two years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, subject to the same regulations as 
     applied to such activities on such claims on the day before 
     such date of enactment.
       (2) At the end of the period specified in paragraph 91), or 
     sooner if so requested by the holder or holders of the claims 
     specified in such paragraph, the Secretary shall determine 
     whether there has been a discovery of valuable minerals on 
     such claims and whether, if such discovery had been made on 
     or before July 1, 1994, such claims would have been valid as 
     of such date under the mining laws of the United States in 
     effect on such date.
       (3) If the Secretary, pursuant to paragraph (2), makes an 
     affirmative determination concerning the claims specified in 
     paragraph (1), the holder or holders of such claims shall be 
     permitted to continue to operate such claims subject only to 
     such regulations as applied on July 1, 1994 to the exercise 
     of valid existing rights on patented mining claims within a 
     unit of the National Park System.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to take 
care of the concerns that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
has raised with us to allow for the continued exploration activities 
for a period of 2 years in order to attempt to prove up those claims. 
At the end of the period or sooner there would be a validity 
determination concerning those claims. If it is determined that the 
claims would have been deemed valid if the validity determination had 
taken place on or before July 1, 1994, the holders will be permitted to 
continue to mine as if they were in operation on that date on a 
patented claim within a National Park system unit.
  I think this is a perfecting amendment. I hope the House will accept 
it. I have talked to the gentleman from Tennessee. I think that this 
allows them to preserve the concerns that he has and we need to address 
this again in conference, but that is our understanding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed the fact 
that there are some problems with private land holdings that are 
involved in the mining business. We will discuss those details as 
things unfold.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] as a substitute from the 
amendment offered by Mr. Quillen.
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about the politics 
bogging down this bill. I was to cut through all that and get to the 
heart of what is really of lasting importance here. I want to paint a 
picture of the California desert under discussion today.
  The California desert is a land of extraordinary beauty and variety, 
evident from its miles of shimmering, crystalline salt flats, to its 
wind-warped sand dunes and spectacular mountain ranges. It is a unique 
botanical garden where innumerable wildflowers mix with junipers, 
Joshua trees, beavertail cacti, and blooming yucca. It is a land where 
golden eagles soar, white-winged doves roost, and bighorn sheep still 
range. But this timeless place is fragile. It needs protection. That is 
why this bill is important, and why we cannot afford delays.
  This bill has already been through 8 years of debate. It doesn't need 
another 8 or more hours. This is a win-win proposition for California, 
for the country, and for generations to come.
  It's the future that should be guiding us. I encourage my colleagues 
to do what I often do when deciding how to cast a particular vote: I 
ask myself whether I can tell my grandchildren, ``we passed this law 
for you.'' In this case, the answer is easy. I urge my colleagues to do 
something good today: Support a strong California Desert Protection 
Act.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, after more than 2 months of needless debate 
and delays, the House once again takes up the California Desert 
Protection Act today.
  The bill we will vote on is the culmination of years of scientific 
study and debate. Important compromises have been made to accommodate 
miners, off-road vehicle drivers, cattle ranchers, and the military.
  Despite the fact that over 75 percent of Californians support the 
bill and it's been endorsed by 37 city governments and 1,600 
scientists, a small group of Members are trying to kill it by literally 
talking it to death and offering amendments designed to chip away at 
its important provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, we must end this filibuster and once and for all 
advance this critical legislation. The Senate has passed it by a solid 
69 to 29 vote, and it is now our turn to step up to the plate.
  We need this legislation to preserve these priceless areas for our 
children and for generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues to rescue this bill from being sandbgged by its 
opponents' tactics.
  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 (Mr. 
Abercrombie) 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.

                          ____________________