[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). 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}  1059


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 518) to designate certain lands in the California Desert as 
wilderness, to establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 
Parks and the Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Peterson of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
12, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] had been disposed of, and title IV was open to amendment at 
any point.
  Are there further amendments to title IV?

                              {time}  1100


                  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 AFFECT 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, yesterday we offered this amendment, 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] offered a perfecting 
amendment. We asked to be protected under the rights of the House so we 
could work out the language, and we withdrew the amendments.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and 
I and the staffs sat back and worked out the language of the perfecting 
amendment, and the reason is this: Let me go through just briefly what 
this is about. The problem is that when the Federal Government wants to 
take land away from private citizens under eminent domain or anything 
else, quite often there is not the money to pay for the land, and in 
the meantime that rancher, homeowner, or private owner has to live 
under the restrictions and cannot improve the land. Therefore, the land 
goes down in value, and by the time the Federal Government pays that 
individual the land may be worth a nickel on the dollar.
  That is not right, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] agrees with that.
  What our amendment did not make clear is that we want in the meantime 
for the rancher or the private owner to be able to go ahead and utilize 
the land in a normal way. We do not want, as the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] suggested in his perfecting amendment, to add 
toxic waste dumps in that area, which would really deflate the value of 
the land when the Federal Government took it over, and it would cost 
billions of dollars to take it over, or to affect the Mining Act on 
parks.
  So we have worked it out, and I think the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Allard], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], and myself offer a good amendment, and I 
think we are in agreement with it. I do agree that the Clean Air Act 
would be a fine addition there.
  Mr. Chairman, let me yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that I go 
ahead and offer my amendment to the perfecting amendment first.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] will 
have to yield back his time in order for the gentleman to do that.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will do that, and I would like the 
amendment to be issued as the Miller-Allard-Tauzin-Cunningham 
amendment.


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. Neither the location 
     of such lands within such boundaries nor the possible 
     acquisition of such lands by the United States shall 
     constitute a bar to the otherwise lawful issuance of any 
     federal license or permit other than a license or permit 
     related to activities governed by 16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-22(c). 
     Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the 
     applicability of any provision of the Mining in the Parks Act 
     (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.) or regulations applicable to oil and gas 
     development as set forth in 36 CFR 9.B.''

  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. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] for his help in putting 
together this compromise which I think will clearly ensure that the 
concerns that he and others and I have about the impacts on private 
land inholdings when we change the status of Federal lands or create 
Federal lands around those private properties, that we not inhibit the 
ability of the property owner to engage in the beneficial use of that 
property as he might have before the Federal reservation was created.
  My amendment goes to two points. Since we are creating these reserves 
in this bill, we maintain that the mining operations there would be 
subject to mining in the park, which has been on the books for many 
years, and we also make sure the generic provision in the law that 
prohibits one from operating a hazardous waste site facility on an 
inholding within the parks not be overridden. But other than that, we 
make it very clear that one will not be prejudiced nor will one be 
barred from getting a permit. That person might have to go to the local 
county or the State or some other local jurisdiction to get it because 
of the fact that they are an inholding. And we also make it clear we do 
not want the bureaucracy to muscle in on inholdings, trying to extend 
to those private properties restrictions that the Congress in its 
wisdom chose not to extend to those properties.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  I was asked not to negotiate on this bill, and the reason that I 
decided to do it is that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and 
I have worked, not only on education and labor matters, but on other 
issues together, and we may disagree on issues, but not once has he 
ever said we would sit down and work out something that has not 
happened, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I really was not going to seek time, but I would like 
to have some exchange with the chairman of the committee, if I may.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in order to clarifying 
precisely the gentleman's amendment, as well as the Cunningham-
Huffington amendment, does relative to inholders, let us assume that 
the inholder goes to a local county--and it largely would be county 
authority--and has a proposed change or use of his property and the 
county signs off on it but in turn for one reason or another the 
department does not. How does that procedure work? What actually 
happens?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
I think in fact the department has no authority on whether to sign off 
or not sign off on it, unless it had to do with these two provisions.
  If you go down to the county and say, ``I want to remodel my home'' 
or ``I want to add a barn onto my farm,'' if you need those permits at 
the local level, that is between you and the county. The purpose of 
this amendment is to suggest that they do not get to sign off on that. 
If you were going to build a power plant, they could come in under 
applicable law. If there are 404 permits or endangered species or clean 
air issues, they could come in under those provisions, but they can do 
that today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
suggesting that outside of very special circumstances like a power 
company or something that is directly affected by established Federal 
law, that local planning authority would totally control that planning 
process?
  Mr. MILLER of California. The Park Service could go in. I guess the 
Park Service could go in and complain about the impact if you were 
going to put in 500 homes, for instance.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Sure.
  Mr. MILLER of California. But that is their standing. Like any other 
entity, they could come into that process, but they do not get special 
status in that process to make determinations because of the Federal 
lands around that facility. If they can make their case that this is 
incompatible or what have you, that is fine, but that in itself is not 
the basis to deny the permit. They do not have that special standing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the 
committee knows, in the other body a portion of the eastern Mojave, the 
Landfair Valley was left out of the bill, in no small part because of a 
very sizable number of private property owners, inholders, or potential 
inholders. So the gentleman is suggesting that where those people would 
be following a normal development process, that is, building a home or 
a barn or otherwise, they would be totally under the direction of and 
be able to get response from the local planning authority that is 
already well-established?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. 
Again, within the guidelines and within applicable law, the Park 
Service can participate, and if it rose to such an occasion that the 
Park Service thought it was inconsistent--
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Then they could testify?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Then they could go in and try to condemn 
the property, as we pointed out yesterday.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

                   TITLE V--NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS


                       designation of wilderness

       Sec. 501. The following lands are hereby designated as 
     wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 
     890; 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and shall be administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the applicable 
     provisions of the Wilderness Act:
       (1) Death Valley National Park Wilderness, comprising 
     approximately three million one hundred seventy-nine thousand 
     four hundred and eighteen acres, as generally depicted on 23 
     maps entitled ``Death Valley National Park Boundary and 
     Wilderness'', numbered in the title one through twenty-three, 
     and dated May 1994 or prior, and three maps entitled ``Death 
     Valley National Park Wilderness'', numbered in the title one 
     through three, and dated May 1994 or prior, and which shall 
     be known as the Death Valley Wilderness.
       (2) Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness Additions, 
     comprising approximately one hundred thirty-one thousand 
     seven hundred and eighty acres, as generally depicted on four 
     maps entitled ``Joshua Tree National Park Boundary and 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', numbered in the title one through 
     four, and dated October 1991 or prior, and which are hereby 
     incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a part of 
     the Joshua Tree Wilderness as designated by Public Law 94-
     567.
       (3) Mojave National Park Wilderness, comprising 
     approximately six hundred ninety-four thousand acres, as 
     generally depicted on ten maps entitled ``Mojave National 
     Park Boundary and Wilderness--Proposed'', numbered in the 
     title one through ten, and dated May 1994 or prior, and seven 
     maps entitled ``Mojave National Park Wilderness--Proposed'', 
     numbered in the title one through seven, and dated May 1994 
     or prior, and which shall be known as the Mojave Wilderness.
       (4) Upon cessation of all uses prohibited by the Wilderness 
     Act and publication by the Secretary in the Federal Register 
     of notice of such cessation, potential wilderness, comprising 
     approximately six thousand eight hundred and forty acres, as 
     described in ``1988 Death Valley National Monument Draft 
     General Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact 
     Statement'' (hereafter in this title referred to as ``Draft 
     Plan'') and as generally depicted on a map in the Draft Plan 
     entitled ``Wilderness Plan Death Valley National Monument'', 
     dated January 1988, shall be deemed to be a part of the Death 
     Valley Wilderness as designated in paragraph (1). Lands 
     identified in the Draft Plan as potential wilderness shall be 
     managed by the Secretary insofar as practicable as wilderness 
     until such time as said lands are designated as wilderness.


                    filing of maps and descriptions

       Sec. 502. Maps and a legal description of the boundaries of 
     the areas designated in section 501 of this title shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the Office of the 
     Director of the National Park Service, Department of the 
     Interior, and in the Office of the Superintendent of each 
     area designated in section 501. As soon as practicable after 
     this title takes effect, maps of the wilderness areas and 
     legal descriptions of their boundaries shall be filed with 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, and such maps and descriptions 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 maps and descriptions.


                   administration of wilderness areas

       Sec. 503. The areas designated by section 501 of this title 
     as wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary in 
     accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness 
     Act governing areas designated by that title as wilderness, 
     except that any reference in such provision to the effective 
     date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference 
     to the effective date of this title, and where appropriate, 
     and reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be deemed 
     to be a reference to the Secretary of the Interior.


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk reads as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 54, lines 13 and 14, 
     strike ``one hundred seventy-nine thousand four hundred and 
     eighteen acres'' and in lieu thereof insert ``one hundred 
     sixty-two thousand one hundred and thirty-eight acres''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It would reduce 
the wilderness designation within the enlarged Death Valley National 
Park by about 17,280 acres.
  The result will be to leave a nonwilderness zone along the southern 
boundary of the national park, where the park adjoins the Fort Irwin 
National Training Center.
  This change is desired by the Defense Department. They have indicated 
that they are concerned about difficulties that might arise in 
connection with policing of the Fort Irwin boundary if the adjacent 
national park lands were designated as wilderness.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not certain that the Defense Department's 
concerns are not exaggerated. However, in the interests of removing 
doubts about this point, and to make this portion of the bill more like 
the corresponding portion of the version passed by the Senate, I urge 
the House to adopt this amendment.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The minority agrees with this amendment. We think it is a good 
amendment, and we go along with it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support and 
interest.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


            transfer of lands to red rock canyon state park

       Sec. 601. Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall transfer to the State of California 
     certain lands within the California Desert Conservation Area, 
     California, of the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 
     approximately twenty thousand five hundred acres, as 
     generally depicted on two maps entitle ``Red Rock Canyon 
     State Park Additions 1'' and ``Red Rock Canyon State Park 
     Additions 2'', dated May 1991, for inclusion in the State of 
     California Park System. Should the State of California cease 
     to manage these lands as part of the State Park System, 
     ownership of the lands shall revert to the Department of the 
     Interior to be managed as part of the California Desert 
     Conservation Area to provide maximum protection for the 
     area's scenic and scientific values.


                         desert lily sanctuary

       Sec. 602. (a) There is hereby established the Desert Lily 
     Sanctuary within the California Desert Conservation Area, 
     California, of the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 
     approximately two thousand forty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Desert Lily Sanctuary'', dated February 
     1986. The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the area 
     to provide maximum protection to the desert lily.
       (b) Subject to valid existing rights, Federal lands within 
     the sanctuary, 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.


                        land tenure adjustments

       Sec. 603. In preparing land tenure adjustment decisions 
     within the California Desert Conservation Area, of the Bureau 
     of Land Management, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     consolidating Federal ownership within the national park 
     units and wilderness areas designated by this Act.


                          disposal prohibition

       Sec. 604. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     may not dispose of any lands within the boundaries of the 
     wilderness or parks designated under this Act or grant a 
     right-of-way in any lands within the boundaries of the 
     wilderness designated under this Act. Further, none of the 
     lands within the boundaries of the wilderness or parks 
     designated under this Act shall be granted to or otherwise 
     made available for use by the Metropolitan Water District and 
     any other agencies or persons pursuant to the Boulder Canyon 
     Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617-619b) or any similar acts.


                   management of newly acquired lands

       Sec. 605. Any lands within the boundaries of a wilderness 
     area designated under this Act which are acquired by the 
     Federal Government shall become part of the wilderness area 
     within which they are located and shall be managed in 
     accordance with all the provisions of this Act and other laws 
     applicable to such wilderness area.


                          native american uses

       Sec. 606. In recognition of the past use of the parks and 
     wilderness areas designed under this Act by Indian people for 
     traditional cultural and religious purposes, the Secretary 
     shall ensure access to such parks and wilderness areas by 
     Indian people for such traditional cultural and religious 
     purposes. In implementing this section, the Secretary, upon 
     the request of an Indian tribe or Indian religious community, 
     shall temporarily close to the general public use of one or 
     more specific portions of park or wilderness areas in order 
     to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious 
     activities in such areas by Indian people. Such access shall 
     be consistent with the purpose and intent of Public Law 95-
     341 (42 U.S.C. 1996) commonly referred to as the ``American 
     Indian Religious Freedom Act'', and with respect to areas 
     designated as wilderness, the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890; 
     16 U.S.C. 1131).


                              water rights

       Sec. 607. (a) With respect to each wilderness area 
     designated by this Act, Congress hereby reserves a quantity 
     of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of this Act. The 
     priority date of such reserved water rights shall be the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (b) The Secretary of the Interior and all other officers of 
     the United States shall take all steps necessary to protect 
     the rights reserved by this section, including the filing by 
     the Secretary of a claim for the quantification of such 
     rights in any present or future appropriate stream 
     adjudication in the courts of the State of California in 
     which the United States is or may be joined and which is 
     conducted in accordance with section 208 of the Act of July 
     10, 1952 (66 Stat. 560, 43 U.S.C. 666; commonly referred to 
     as the McCarran Amendment).
       (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a 
     relinquishment or reduction of any water rights reserved or 
     appropriated by the United States in the State of California 
     on or before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) The Federal water rights reserved by this Act are 
     specific to the wilderness areas located in the State of 
     California designated under this Act. Nothing in this Act 
     related to the reserved Federal water rights shall be 
     construed as establishing a precedent with regard to any 
     future designations, nor shall it constitute an 
     interpretation of any other Act or any designation made 
     thereto.


                           state school lands

       Sec. 608. (a) Upon request of the California State Lands 
     Commission (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission''), the Secretary shall enter into negotiations 
     for an agreement to exchange Federal lands or interests 
     therein on the list referred to in subsection (b)(2) for 
     California State School Lands (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as ``State School Lands'') or interests therein 
     which are located within the boundaries of one or more of the 
     wilderness areas or park units designated by this Act. The 
     Secretary shall negotiate in good faith to reach a land 
     exchange agreement consistent with the requirements of 
     section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976.
       (b) Within six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall send to the Commission and to the 
     Committees a list of the following:
       (1) The State School Lands or interests therein (including 
     mineral interests) which are located within the boundaries of 
     the wilderness areas or park units designated by this Act.
       (2) Lands under the Secretary's jurisdiction to be offered 
     for exchange, including in the following priority:
       (A) Lands with mineral interests, including geothermal, 
     which have the potential for commercial development but which 
     are not currently under mineral lease or producing Federal 
     mineral revenues.
       (B) Federal lands in California managed by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation that the Secretary determines are not needed for 
     any Bureau of Reclamation project.
       (C) Any public lands in California that the Secretary, 
     pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976, has determined to be suitable for disposal through 
     exchange.
       (c)(1) If an agreement under this section is for an 
     exchange involving five thousand acres or less of Federal 
     land or interests therein, or Federal lands valued at less 
     than $5,000,000, the Secretary may carry out the exchange in 
     accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976.
       (2) If an agreement under this section is for an exchange 
     involving more than five thousand acres of Federal lands or 
     interests therein, or Federal land valued at more than 
     $5,000,000, the agreement shall be submitted to the 
     Committees, together with a report containing--
       (A) a complete list and appraisal of the lands or interests 
     in lands proposed for exchange; and
       (B) a determination that the State School Lands proposed to 
     be acquired by the United States do not contain any hazardous 
     waste, toxic waste, or radioactive waste.
       (d) An agreement submitted under subsection (c)(2) shall 
     not take effect unless approved by a joint resolution enacted 
     by the Congress.
       (e) If exchanges of all of the State School Lands are not 
     completed by October 1, 2004, the Secretary shall adjust the 
     appraised value of any remaining inholdings consistent with 
     the provisions of section 206 of the Federal Land Management 
     Policy Act of 1976. The Secretary shall establish an account 
     in the name of the Commission in the amount of such appraised 
     value. Title to the State School Lands shall be transferred 
     to the United States at the time such account is credited.
       (f) The Commission may use the credit in its account to 
     bid, as any other bidder, for excess or surplus Federal 
     property to be sold in the State of California in accordance 
     with the applicable laws and regulations of the Federal 
     agency offering such property for sale. The account shall be 
     adjusted to reflect successful bids under this section or 
     payments or forfeited deposits, penalties, or other costs 
     assessed to the bidder in the course of such sales. In the 
     event that the balance in the account has not been reduced to 
     zero by October 1, 2009, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for payment to the California 
     State Lands Commission funds equivalent to the balance 
     remaining in the account as of October 1, 2009.
       (g) As used in this section, the term ``Committees'' means 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.


                               exchanges

       Sec. 609. (a) Upon request of the Catellus Development 
     Corporation, its subsidiaries or successors in interest 
     (hereafter in this section referred to as ``Catellus''), the 
     Secretary shall enter into negotiations for an agreement 
     or agreements to exchange Federal lands or interests 
     therein on the list referred to in subsection (b)(2) of 
     this section for lands of Catellus or interests therein 
     which are located within the boundaries of one or more of 
     the wilderness areas or park units designated by this Act.
       (b) Within six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall send to Catellus and to the 
     Committees a list of the following:
       (1) Lands of Catellus or interests therein (including 
     mineral interests) which are located within the boundaries of 
     the wilderness areas or park units designated by this Act.
       (2) Lands under the Secretary's jurisdiction to be offered 
     for exchange, in the following priority:
       (A) Lands, including lands with mineral and geothermal 
     interests, which have the potential for commercial 
     development but which are not currently under lease or 
     producing Federal revenues.
       (B) Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation that 
     the Secretary determines are not needed for any Bureau of 
     Reclamation project.
       (C) Any public lands that the Secretary, pursuant to the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, has 
     determined to be suitable for disposal through exchange.
       (c)(1) If an agreement under this section is for (A) an 
     exchange involving lands outside the State of California, (B) 
     more than 5,000 acres of Federal land or interests therein in 
     California, or (C) Federal lands in any State valued at more 
     than $5,000,000, the Secretary shall provide to the 
     Committees a detailed report of each such land exchange 
     agreement.
       (2) All land exchange agreements shall be consistent with 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
       (3) Any report submitted to the Committees under this 
     subsection shall include the following:
       (A) A complete list and appraisal of the lands or interests 
     in land proposed for exchange.
       (B) A complete list of the lands, if any, to be acquired by 
     the United States which contain any hazardous waste, toxic 
     waste, or radioactive waste which requires removal or 
     remedial action under Federal or State law, together with the 
     estimated costs of any such action.
       (4) An agreement under this subsection shall not take 
     effect unless approved by a joint resolution enacted by the 
     Congress.
       (d) The Secretary shall provide the California State Lands 
     Commission with a one hundred eighty-day right of first 
     refusal to exchange for any Federal lands or interests 
     therein, located in the State of California, on the list 
     referred to in subsection (b)(2). Any lands with respect to 
     which a right of first refusal is not noticed within such 
     period or exercised under this subsection shall be available 
     to Catellus for exchange in accordance with this section.
       (e) On January 3, 1999, the Secretary shall provide to the 
     Committees a list and appraisal consistent with the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 of all Catellus lands 
     eligible for exchange under this section for which an 
     exchange has not been completed. With respect to any of such 
     lands for which an exchange has not been completed by October 
     1, 2004 (hereafter in this section referred to as `'remaining 
     lands''), the Secretary shall establish an account in the 
     name of Catellus (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the ``exchange account''). Upon the transfer of title by 
     Catellus to all or a portion of the remaining lands to the 
     United States, the Secretary shall credit the exchange 
     account in the amount of the appraised value of the 
     transferred remaining lands at the time of such transfer.
       (f) Catellus may use the credit in its account to bid, as 
     any other bidder, for excess or surplus Federal property to 
     be sold in the State of California in accordance with the 
     applicable laws and regulations of the Federal agency 
     offering such property for sale. The account shall be 
     adjusted to reflect successful bids under this section or 
     payments or forfeited deposits, penalties, or other costs 
     assessed to the bidder in the course of such sales. Upon 
     approval by the Secretary in writing, the credits in 
     Catellus's exchange account may be transferred or sold in 
     whole or in part by Catellus to any other party, thereby 
     vesting such party with all the rights formerly held by 
     Catellus. The exchange account shall be adjusted to 
     reflect successful bids under this section or payments or 
     forfeited deposits, penalties, or other costs assessed to 
     the bidder in the course of such sales.
       (g)(1) The Secretary shall not accept title pursuant to 
     this section to any lands unless such title includes all 
     right, title, and interest in and to the fee estate.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may accept 
     title to any subsurface estate where the United States holds 
     title to the surface estate.
       (3) This subsection does not apply to easements and rights-
     of-way for utilities or roads.
       (h) In no event shall the Secretary accept title under this 
     section to lands which contain any hazardous waste, toxic 
     waste, or radioactive waste which requires removal or 
     remedial action under Federal or State law unless such 
     remedial action has been completed prior to the transfer.
       (i) For purposes of the section, any appraisal shall be 
     consistent with the provisions of section 206 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
       (j) As used in this section, the term ``Committees'' means 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.


                  amendments offered by Mr. Richardson

  Mr. RICHARDSON. 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 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Richardson:
       Page 59, line 22, insert ``(a)'' after ```606.''.
       Page 60, after line 11, insert the following: (b)(1) The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 
     and relevant Federal agencies, shall conduct a study, subject 
     to the availability of appropriations, to identify lands 
     suitable for a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 
     that are located within the Tribe's aboriginal homeland area.
       (2) Not later than two years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee 
     on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives on the results of 
     the study conducted under paragraph (1).
       Page 62, after line 25, insert the following:
       (3) Any other Federal land, or interest therein, within the 
     State of California, which is or becomes surplus to the needs 
     of the Federal Government. The Secretary may exclude, in his 
     discretion, lands located within or contiguous to, the 
     exterior boundaries of lands held in trust for a federally 
     recognized Indian tribe located in the State of California.
       Page 66, after line 2, insert the following:
       (3) Any other Federal land, or interest therein, within the 
     State of California, which is or becomes surplus to the needs 
     of the Federal Government. The Secretary may exclude, in his 
     discretion, lands located within, or contiguous to, the 
     exterior boundaries of lands held in trust for a federally 
     recognized Indian tribe located in the State of California.

  Mr. RICHARDSON (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 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, The en bloc amendments I am offering 
would be added to title VI of this bill.
  The first amendment would amend section 606 entitled ``Native 
American Uses'' to allow for a 2-year study to be completed by the 
Secretary of Interior in consultation with the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 
of lands which would be suitable for a reservation for the tribe. The 
lands to be considered are to come from aboriginal homeland areas of 
the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.
  The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe has been a federally recognized tribe 
since 1983 and has approximately 200 members. The recognition did not, 
however, convey a land base to the tribe. Without a land base the tribe 
is unable to pursue tribal self-determination or social and economic 
development for its members. The ancestral homeland of the Timbisha 
Shoshone includes lands in and surrounding the Death Valley area of 
California.
  The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe's ancestral homelands are found on lands 
within the boundaries of the Death Valley National Monument and Death 
Valley National Park as described in the California Desert Protection 
Act of 1994, and as more particularly described in the ``Death Valley 
Timbi-sha Shoshone Band of California: Final Determination for Federal 
Acknowledgment'' (Fed. Reg. vol. 47 at page 50109 (Nov. 4, 1982). These 
lands are part of the tribe's aboriginal territory, but have been held 
by the Federal Government for other uses since 1933, including lands of 
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other Federal 
departments and agencies.
  The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe is the successor and direct descendant of 
the Panamint Shoshone whose traditional ancestral homeland for 
thousands of years encompassed a vast territory of hundreds of square 
miles in the Death Valley, CA area, and extending into western Nevada. 
The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe resides at the will of the U.S. Department 
of Interior, National Park Service, on a 40-acre tract of land managed 
and administered by the National Park Service.
  My amendment does not put 1 acre of land into trust for the tribe. It 
simply authorizes, subject to the availability of appropriations, a 
study to identify lands which the tribe and the Secretary of Interior 
find to be appropriate for use as a reservation.
  The second and third amendments I am offering give the Secretary of 
Interior the discretion to exclude from the lists referred to in 
section 608 and section 609 any lands which become surplus and are 
within or contiguous to any existing Indian tribal trust lands. Under 
sections 608 and 609 the Secretary is required to compile a list of any 
lands which may be deemed surplus by the Secretary and, therefore, 
eligible for possible trade with parcels inside areas which this 
legislation intends to designate as wilderness or national park units.
  Again, these amendments would not provide any Indian tribe with 1 
acre of land. They would merely allow the Secretary of Interior the 
ability to withhold a particular surplus parcel that is within or 
contiguous to the exterior boundary of existing trust land. Currently, 
some Indian trust land in California is checker-boarded with private or 
Federal land included within the trust land. If and when, this non-
Indian land becomes available it may be more appropriate for that land 
to be conveyed to the tribe instead of to another entity which would 
increase problems related to the management of checker-boarded areas.
  The native Americans of California deserve to have a few protections 
in this legislation and I believe my amendments allow for this. I urge 
my colleagues to support my amendments.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I think it is probably appropriate to require a study to see if a 
reservation could be established for the Timbisha Shoshones. I think 
that we should be careful not to raise undue expectations about the 
likelihood that Congress will agree to take lands out of parks, out of 
forests, out of wildlife refugees or wilderness areas once designated. 
That would be a concern.
  The intent here, as I understand, and I would like the gentleman to 
respond to this, is that in order for anything to be established, we 
would have to come back and act on it. Congress would have to act on 
that particular matter.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the gentleman is 
correct, but I think what is very important to the Subcommittee on 
Native American Affairs is to look at the entire aboriginal lands and 
keep that option open.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think that if we excluded such lands in fact, as Members know, the 
gentleman, we have exchanged, maybe we should exclude parks, exclude 
wildernesses, I think that just tortures the logic of the study. In 
fact, we are better off having them included for the purpose of the 
study and learn if there are substantial claims within a park for 
example. We would hope that, for instance, for religious purposes or 
others that they would apply to the general law. But we should have the 
information and we would rather have it formally than trying to 
structure a study that would end up being incomplete.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We do want 
that.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman, and I urge 
adoption of the amendment.


   amendments offered by mr. miller of california to the amendments 
                       offered by mr. richardson

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

       Amendments offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendments offered by Mr. Richardson:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted on page 62 after line 
     25, strike ``The Secretary'' and all that follows and insert 
     after paragraph (3) as contained in such matter the 
     following:
       The Secretary may exclude, in his discretion, from such 
     list lands located within, or contiguous to, the exterior 
     boundaries of lands held in trust for a federally recognized 
     Indian tribe located in the State of California.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted on page 66 after line 
     2, strike ``The Secretary' and all that follows and insert 
     after paragraph (3) as contained in such matter the 
     following:
       The Secretary may exclude, in his discretion, from such 
     list lands located within, or contiguous to, the exterior 
     boundaries of lands held in trust for a federally recognized 
     Indian tribe located in the State of California.

  Mr. MILLER 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. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that 
the Secretary of the Interior has discretionary authority to exclude 
from the negotiated exchanges lands which may be adjacent to tribal 
trust lands. It provides an assurance to Indian tribes that their 
interests will be considered in the decisions regarding which lands 
will be included in the exchanges, but it leaves those decisions within 
the discretion of the Secretary.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is technical in nature and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I think this is a very constructive amendment. What it would do is 
give discretion to the Secretary of the Interior. Naturally, we would 
accept it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to express my appreciation to my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] for this 
amendment. He is addressing himself to a very sensitive problem that 
exists within my district, specifically dealing with the Timbisha 
Shoshone tribe.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs and has been extremely 
sensitive to these problems as we go about significant public policy 
changes within my district.
  First, let me say that the Timbisha Shoshone tribe was originally 
kicked off of its land in 1933, as the Death Valley National Monument 
was established.
  Since that time, to say the least, they have been frustrated by their 
relationship with the Federal Government.
  The chairperson, Roy Kennedy, as well as the heads of the other 
tribes in the region, is very supportive of this approach.
  Essentially what the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] are attempting to do here is 
to make certain that the Timbisha Shoshone tribe don't lose one more 
time to the Federal Government. It is my strong desire that the 
Department of Interior is sensitive to not only the history of the 
tribe but their current problem that will result from creating a 
National Park in Death Valley.
  The Timbisha Shoshone tribe has been more than patient with the 
Federal Government in connection with their relations with this 
Department. I urge the Director of the Park Service to go forward with 
this study to find the tribe a permanent land base, and I urge the 
House to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  The amendments to the amendments were agreed to.

                              {time}  1120

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], as amended.
  The amendments, as amended, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: On page 61, after line 13, 
     insert the following:
       (e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the 
     operation of federally owned dams located on the Colorado 
     River in the Lower Basin.
       (f) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend, 
     supersede, or preempt any State law, Federal law, interstate 
     compact, or international treaty pertaining to the Colorado 
     River (including its tributaries) in the Upper Basin, 
     including, but not limited to the appropriation, use, 
     development, storage, regulation, allocation, conservation, 
     exportation, or quality of those rivers.
       (g) With respect to the Havasu and Imperial wilderness 
     areas designated by section 111 of Title I of this Act, no 
     rights to water of the Colorado River are reserved, either 
     expressly, impliedly, or otherwise.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
simply clarify the intent of Congress and provide protections for the 
Upper Colorado River Basin water entitlements. It ensures that there 
would be no undesirable impact on the Colorado River and its operations 
as a consequence of this act.
  Specifically, this amendment does three things. First, it specifies 
that the federally owned dams located on the Colorado River in the 
Lower Basin would not be affected. Second, it protects State water laws 
and the interstate compacts pertaining to the Colorado River in the 
Upper Basin. Third, it ensures that no Federal rights to the Colorado 
River are reserved, expressly or impliedly, with respect to the Havasu 
and Imperial wilderness areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this language is NOT new. It 
was also included in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, passed in 
October 1990--Public Law 101-628. When this bill came before the House, 
the Members wisely included language to ensure that there would be no 
adverse impact to the Colorado River operations.
  As you know, the Havasu and Imperial wilderness areas straddle the 
Colorado River and the Arizona-California State line. When these 
refuges were established as wilderness on the Arizona side with the 
Arizona Wilderness Act, provided that no rights to the water of the 
Colorado River were reserved expressly or impliedly. This was done in 
recognition of the fact that the Havasu and Imperial designations were 
in close geographic proximity to the Colorado River and while the 
boundaries had been drawn at the high water mark and any effect on the 
Colorado River was thought by them unlikely, Arizona's Senator's 
DeConcini and McCain nonetheless, to avoid any confusion, unequivocally 
stated in the bill that no such rights were reserved.
  These provisions were put in the act and assurances were also given 
during the debates that the act was not to supersede any existing 
compacts, treaties, Federal statutes of Supreme Court decrees governing 
interstate or intrastate water allocations. The law of the river, which 
included the operations of existing and future dams in either the upper 
or lower basin, was to be protected and not affected as a consequence 
of the wilderness designations.
  Congress now has the California Desert Protection Act before it and 
this proposal also designates wilderness in the California portions of 
the Havasu and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges, on the California 
side of the Colorado River. The Senate, recognizing the desirability 
and need for treating both sides of the river in the same fashion, 
included the same protections for the Colorado River in its recently 
passed S. 21. The common treatment thus accorded both halves of the two 
refuges lying astride the Colorado River along the Arizona-California 
border is important not only from the management and administration 
aspects but in addition, as the Senate committee report observes--at p. 
32--these two refuges already have a reserved water right which is 
unaffected by the legislation. That right has already been quantified 
by the decree of the U.S. Supreme Court at the conclusion of the 
Arizona versus California litigation. 376 U.S. 340 at 346 (1964), with 
any consumptive use of water within a State to be charged to that 
State's apportionment of the waters of the Colorado River. While the 
water rights thus accorded and quantified by the Court were for the 
lands as wildlife refuges, certainly their additional designation as 
wilderness should not require any greater quantities of water. It would 
accordingly be duplicative as well as totally inconsistent with 
congressional action with respect to the Arizona lands to now place a 
Federal general reserved water right on the California side of the 
river.
  To say that the Havasu and Imperial wilderness boundaries have been 
drawn so as not to include the Colorado River is hardly determinative 
of the concerns that have been expressed throughout both the Upper and 
Lower Basins--which include significant portions of seven States--
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. 
The only significant water source in the two affected areas is the 
Colorado River itself, including its impoundments and underflow. Uses 
of waters in these two areas would necessarily be supplied from the 
Colorado River. Accordingly, the protections provided by Congress in 
both the Arizona Act as well as by the Senate in acting on the 
California Desert bill--in S. 21--should be included in any final 
action by the Congress on the California Desert legislation. The 
Allard-Thomas language would provide consistency for the treatment of 
the Colorado with respect to the Havasu and Imperial wilderness areas 
in California.

  Also noteworthy is the fact that the Allard-Thomas language is 
included in report language of H.R. 518. However, we do not believe 
report language is sufficient, as it is not legally binding. If the 
authors of this bill want to prevent the disruption of the Colorado 
River compact and they felt it was important enough to include in 
report language, then there should be no reason why this cannot be 
clarified in the bill. It is obviously a very important point for those 
of us in the West where water is our most precious commodity and this 
bill does not provide enough certainty for Members who represent States 
that supply water throughout the West. Without the Allard-Thomas 
language the bill would unravel the extremely complicated and fragile 
Colorado River Compact worked out by the States, California, Arizona, 
Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming.
  Our concerns have been heightened by the discussion of boundaries and 
what constitutes water of the Colorado River contained in the Bureau of 
Reclamation's draft regulations for administering entitlements to 
Colorado River water in the lower basin, just released May 6. The 
Bureau says they have developed a method with the U.S. Geological 
Survey to identify wells yielding water originating from the river. 
This method ``employs a presumption that all water beneath the lower 
Colorado River floodplain'' and certain areas adjacent to it are 
believed to be hydrologically connected to mainstream Colorado River 
water, which will be subject to these regulations and will have to have 
a contract for the water with the Secretary of the Interior.
  The details of these proposed regulations for simply defining the 
boundaries of the mainstream are extremely involved and comprehensive, 
not only with respect to the surface, but to the subsurface. One simply 
cannot be assured that any wilderness boundary that has been drawn 
excludes the impact of a Federal reserved right, unless any reserved 
right to the water of the Colorado is itself denied, as provided in the 
Arizona Act of 1990, and in S. 21. Even users of waters from wells in 
these areas as well as all areas upstream on the Colorado River could 
otherwise be adversely affected.
  Before Statehood in 1876 Colorado submitted its Constitution to 
Congress to be ratified. In connection with water, considered the most 
precious and scarce resource in the West, the Colorado Constitution 
provided, ``The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any 
natural stream to beneficial use shall never be denied.''
  Ever since that time Colorado has sought to protect its water 
resources from any Federal intrusion. The importance of water resource 
management on the Western way of life is not widely understood beyond 
the arid West and the technical intricacies involved in such management 
are even less understood. Any impact on the ability of Colorado and her 
sister States to maintain state control over water decisions, which a 
Federal reservation of water can entail, has been resisted because such 
reservations could prohibit Colorado and other Basin States from 
protecting their interests under the interstate compacts on the 
Colorado which are so important to them.
  Some States, Nevada for example, provide that groundwater is subject 
to appropriation in a similar manner as surface water. A broad Federal 
reservation could indeed interfere with and possibly preclude a State 
official from approving an application for groundwater in any areas 
adjacent to a wilderness holding such a reservation.
  The draft regulations of the Bureau of Reclamation call all water 
below the floodplain of the lower Colorado River and below certain 
elevations in adjacent areas to be water of the Colorado River, which 
must have contact with the Secretary of the Interior.
  In light of these proposals, the only way to assure a Federal 
reserved right cannot impact an individual water right or a State's 
Compact entitlement is to deny that a reserved right to water of the 
Colorado River and its tributaries, either expressed or implied, is 
being created.
  In summary, the protections provided by Congress in the Senate 
version of this bill, and the Arizona Act should be included in any 
final action by the Congress on the California Desert legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to look 
at the amendment. We think the amendment does no harm, and we are 
prepared to accept it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we had considered this amendment in the 
subcommittee and tried to persuade the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard] that because of the way the boundaries are now drawn with 
regard to the California wilderness, that they are outside the 
watershed, our feeling or our belief was that there was no impact.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
that it does give a measure of confidence, apparently it is in the 
Senate bill, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] and his 
allies continue to press in terms of providing for additional 
reassurance. I do not think it does any harm in terms of the basic 
language, although I do not know that it affords any additional 
protection, because the boundaries are ultimately outside of it.
  In light of the comity here on the floor today, Mr. Chairman, I am 
willing to go along with the chairman of the committee and accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like thank both gentleman for 
working with this particular Member on this issue, and am willing to 
assure that these Members in the Colorado River Compact States water 
rights are protected.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor, I, too, want to 
thank the gentleman from California. Again, I think it is important 
that this language be in the bill, but it is also important as a 
generic statement in terms of western water that there are not reserved 
water rights here, so I think it is a very important part of the this 
bill, and I appreciate the sponsors accepting this language.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman 
from Colorado. As you know, the Colorado River is extremely important 
to all of the States in the West.
  Water is an essential part of life for many folks living in the arid 
West. The Colorado River is a vital lifeline for many folks throughout 
this region.
  Almost 40 years ago, the States in the Colorado River Basin reached 
and agreement on how this valuable resource should be administered. The 
Colorado River compact has served the western States well and balanced 
the competing needs for water in this area.
  What this amendment is designed to do is protect that important 
agreement and ensure that it is not destroyed by this legislation.
  The amendment offered by myself and Mr. Allard closely resembles an 
amendment to the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, which was approved in 
1990.
  It simply states that nothing in this bill would give the Federal 
Government a reserved water right on the Colorado River. It also states 
that the Havasu and Imperial Wilderness areas, which straddle the 
river, do not have any reserved right to the waters of the Colorado 
River.
  The opponents of this amendment will tell you that this is a 
nonissue. That there is no Federal reserved water right to the Colorado 
River given in the desert protection bill.
  However, I disagree. The very fact the legislation does not state 
that there is no Federal reserved water right to the Colorado River is 
troublesome. We have all seen how the Federal Government works. Once 
the feds get their foot in the door, they will trample on the rights of 
the States.
  In addition, the opponents of this amendment claim the Havasu and 
Imperial Wilderness boundaries have been drawn so that the Colorado 
River is not affected. This is hardly conclusive and could change with 
fluctuations in the river's width and breadth.
  The Colorado River is the only significant water source in these two 
areas. To say these wilderness areas will not be affected by the 
Colorado River is highly misleading.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is sound and will remove any 
misconceptions about the Federal Government having a reserved water 
right on the Colorado River. It is vital for the people of the West to 
have this language included in this bill.
  The Senate has already included this language in its version of the 
California Desert Protection Act, and I urge the House to do the same.
  Support the Thomas-Allard amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?


                  amendment offered by mr. cunningham

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: Page 64, strike line 
     22 and all that follows through line 9 on page 69 (all of 
     section 609).

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes from the bill, 
section 609, a provision which grants special, and I repeat special, 
treatment ton one landholder and one landowner only that is affected by 
this bill. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Huffington], originally intended to offer this amendment. 
Unfortunately, due to a recent operation, and that was in his eye, he 
is unable to be here today. I want to commend him for his work on this 
important amendment which would eliminate an egregious and unfair 
special interest provision from the bill.
  Section 609 permits one landowner and one landowner only to benefit 
from the unique land exchange arrangement with the Government under 
this bill. That landowner is the Catellus Development Corp., a 
multibillion-dollar real estate concern. While other landowners 
affected by this bill will become subject to the Department of the 
Interior's cumbersome and often unfair compensation procedures, that 
will not be the case for the multibillion-dollar Catellus Corp.
  Mr. Chairman, unless this amendment is adopted, Catellus will be 
permitted to swap all of the 355,000 acres. Let me give the Members an 
idea. In the bill, they do not distinguish between excess and surplus 
land. Excess land by the Federal Government, if the Federal Government 
has no use, they can offer it up to another Federal agency. If they do 
not want it, then it is considered surplus. Surplus is if no Federal 
agency wants it, then it can go to anybody.
  What this does, Mr. Chairman, it puts the Catellus Corp. on the same 
level as the Federal Government for land acquisition. They can take 
over military bases, and there is nothing in there that states that 
they could not even sell it to a foreign country like Japan or one of 
the other countries that invests here. It is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, if after the 10-year period Catellus has not exchanged 
all of their landholdings, the corporation would then be allowed to 
establish an exchange account. There is nothing in there in the 10-year 
period that even says they have to use those credits. They can wait and 
pick and choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of affected lands. They can buy the 
9-acre site and exchange it for points in San Francisco. There is 
another 9.6 acres in Malibu, with a 6,000-square-foot house they can 
trade for. It is wrong, Mr. Chairman. In effect, Catellus would go to 
the head of the line of all private parties.

  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the little guy, we have talked 
about the middle of the roader, and we have talked about the rancher. 
This is a company with a multibillion-dollar prospectus. This provision 
means that Catellus would be compensated for 100 percent of their 
losses under this bill. That is dramatically different from the way our 
Government treats most people who become inholders as a result of 
Federal land acquisitions. That situation, will get worse under this 
bill, because this is the largest addition to Federal landholdings in 
history of the lower 48 continental States.
  Mr. Chairman, under law it also says that one cannot exchange land 
outside the State of California. That is law. This bill reneges on that 
law, because there is not enough land in the State of California to 
replace the 335,000 acres, and we would be violating the law in that as 
well.

                              {time}  1130

  Clearly this provision is the kind of special interest legislation 
that undermines the public faith in the fairness-Government. If one is 
in a multimillion-dollar corporation with the money to hire good 
lobbyists, he will be taken care of. If they simply are a retired 
couple who bought a cabin in the desert or a small mining corporation, 
they are out of luck. ``Take a number and wait for the Department of 
the Interior to tell you what they think your land is worth and whether 
or not they will intend to pay for it.''
  What might Catellus eventually get under the deal by being allowed 
exchange of 100 percent of their lands for property elsewhere? They may 
reap up to $100 million more than the actual value of their land in 
compensation. Additionally, they will be permitted to sell their 
exchange credits to others. They can go to one corporation and RTC 
lands and exchange those credits to that company who in turn could buy 
land for 10 cents on the dollar. That is not fair. It is not right.
  Finally, it takes more than 10 years to dispose of all the land they 
may be eligible for property seized by the U.S. marshals, such as the 9 
acres in beackfront property in Malibu. No other desert landholder will 
get such a sweetheart deal. I would love to get 9 acres in Malibu if I 
had a little ranch in the desert, and I think the chairman would, also. 
Catellus stock sold at $38 per share back in 1989 before the real 
estate market collapsed, but that is simply not justification to treat 
one landholder so much better than every other landholder.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not right. The amendment is correct. Let us 
take the special interests and let us put Catellus the same as everyone 
else and not give special interests to a gentlewoman from the other 
body.


        perfecting amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting 
amendment to section 609 that has been printed in the Record.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: 
     Page 64, beginning on line 23, strike ``the Catellus'' and 
     all that follows through ```Catellus')'' and insert ``holder 
     of private lands (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the `landowner')''.
       Page 65, line 3, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 65, line 7, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 65, line 9, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 67, line 8, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 67, line 12, strike ``Catellus'' and insert 
     ``private''.
       Page 67, line 17, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``each 
     landowner''.
       Page 67, line 19, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 67, line 23, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``The 
     landowner''.
       Page 68, line 6, strike ``Catellus's'' and insert ``the 
     landowner's''.
       Page 68, line 8, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.
       Page 68, line 9, strike ``Catellus'' and insert ``the 
     landowner''.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the provision to which the 
Cunningham amendment speaks to is in no way represented by the remarks 
he just made, and I understand that he is standing in for the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Huffington] who wanted to offer this amendment. 
Let me go through the provisions that are in the law and explain what 
we were trying to do.
  We have two very large inholdings in and around these parks and these 
Federal lands. One of them which is the Catellus Corp. of which 41 
percent of the Catellus Development Corp. is owned by the California 
retirees, the State retirees, the CALPERS system, some 900,000 retired 
public workers in our State, that is held in trust for them.
  In the management of the park and in the management of those lands, 
these are checkerboard lands. Every other section is owned by the 
Federal Government and/or Catellus. In trying to manage those lands in 
the most efficient way for the Federal Government and eventually 
hopefully in the most efficient way for the retirees in California, we 
were trying to work out a means by which they could exchange those 
lands and maybe we could consolidate Federal lands and they could 
consolidate their lands. If that did not work out, we would give them 
the option to see if there were other Federal lands we could trade for 
so we could put together a management regime of these lands. Catellus 
would receive no special favor, they would not be allowed, and if the 
gentleman would look at the bottom of page 67, this is for lands within 
the State of California, this has to be done in accordance with the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. But because of the 
concerns he has raised, my amendment simply allows this provision to be 
used by any landowner in the area. We have indications from a number of 
landowners that they, too, would like to swap out. They are more than 
welcome to go through this process and the Secretary will provide a 
list of lands that will be available. If exchanges cannot be available, 
the Secretary will provide an appraisal of their lands. They will be 
able to take that appraisal and look for these surplus lands just like 
any other entity in this country which stands behind the original 
offers of the Federal Government. Eventually they, too, would be given 
an account where they could go in and hopefully they would take some 
RTC land from us. We are still managing it in the RTC.
  As we know over the last 4 or 5 years, many people have gone in and 
bought RTC land and the economy has turned around in Houston or Dallas 
or Fort Worth or Arizona and, as I say, every person is entitled to his 
bargain. That is one way for us to get that land off our back, get the 
decent management and regime so we are not crossing back and forth over 
private properties in the management of this land or we can simply 
leave the status quo. Take Catellus out and we just leave it around and 
make it much more expensive to administer these parks and to 
essentially allow the California retired employees who are the 
stakeholders in this to have a bunch of checkerboard land out in the 
middle of the desert which they may or may not be able to ascribe some 
value to.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing hidden here. This has been out in the 
open. It has been around for a long time. Some people say it is the 
size of it, but that is how the railroads ended up with the land. They 
were given these alternating sections. We are trying to provide some 
consolidation. I have no problem extending that to any other affected 
landowners in the ares. They can do the same thing. Hopefully we will, 
one, whittle down the backlog of excess and surplus property and we 
will whittle down some of the RTC property and we will end up with the 
management of those properties that are affected by this bill and in 
some instances those landowners who want out will be able to 
consolidate their properties so that they can leave.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what is going on here. This amendment would 
simply make it apply to all landowners and then people can decide if 
they want to strike that provision across the board.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, the RTC properties are exempt.
  Mr. MILLER of California. They were in originally. They have now been 
taken out.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Where that could come into effect is past the 10-year 
period, they could sell their credits to someone else or use it for RTC 
property.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think this would be expensive, but at least it 
gives fairness to ranchers or someone who wants to exchange their land 
in the same way. I have no problem. I have been advised they do want a 
recorded vote on it, but I do not have any problem with the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman has no problem with the 
amendment?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do not.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for his perfecting amendment. 
Essentially his perfecting amendment would substitute an amendment that 
we were going to offer at another time during the debate on this 
section of the bill. It does address a very important question which I 
think is important to the public and the membership of the House. It is 
one thing to lightly talk about putting all property owners in the same 
place on the playing field when it comes to getting themselves out of a 
major shift in Federal public land policies. Specifically, when the 
Federal Government acquires private property. It is another thing to 
recognize what the original solution was to sizable landholders in the 
area on the part of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, Catellus is a sizable corporation. But, what it 
actually is, is a company which was originally the landholder for the 
Santa Fe Railroad. Now, Catellus is a publicly traded corporation 
separate from the Santa Fe Railroad. Not quite a half a million acres 
but a sizable number of acres, approximately 355,000 acres spread 
throughout that desert region.
  The committee made the decision that they had to solve the problem of 
some of those large landholders including Catellus, it was essentially 
to say that they would get at the front of the line. Indeed, when it 
came to a new park where Catellus lands were involved, the Natural 
Resources Committee felt that they would be given broad possibility in 
terms of essentially chits they could hold in their pocket and trade 
for other Federal assets.
  The original language actually allowed them to go the RTC and trade 
for properties that were taken back as a result of the savings and loan 
scandal. As a practical fact of life. Catellus, initially the 
landholder for the railroads, has another relationship that is very 
interesting here. Over recent years, the public employees union in 
California has seen the potential values in those railroad lands or 
Catellus stock. They have progressively have purchased that stock.

                              {time}  1140

  Now they own nearly 50 percent of the Catellus stock. So, now we do 
not have just the robber barons to worry about here. Essentially, we 
have got a process where there is a broad public employee base relative 
to their retirement system that was being protected by way of this 
amendment.
  These issues were crystallized in the committee hearings in the 
Senate. Almost nobody discussing this whole subject area outside of the 
very inner bowels of the committee knew about these provisions the last 
time the House considered this legislation. The committee in the Senate 
thought this was outrageous and essentially did what the Huffington-
Cunningham amendment would accomplish.
  There is little doubt that the small miner, the small property owner, 
people who work for a living day in and day out need to be treated 
equally in this process.
  So I support my colleague's amendment, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, as well as the chairman's perfecting 
amendment. But, indeed, the public does need to know that there were 
special groups being taken care of in a very special way as this bill 
left the House the last time and as it was originally being proposed in 
the Senate committee.
  When we are talking about millions of acres of land and thousands of 
small property owners, it is very, very important that the House be 
sensitive to those needs, the needs of the small person and make sure 
their voice is heard. That is what is happening in this case.
  Mr. Chairman, I am including at this point in the Record several 
newspaper articles, as follows:

            [From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 6, 1994]

                           Greed on the Range

                         (By Debra J. Saunders)

       The rap on the Decade of Greed goes like this: In the Bad 
     1980s, aka the Reagan-Bush Years, leveraged buyouts reflected 
     an accumulation sickness in the private sector. Amid a buying 
     frenzy, amoral speculators would take over mom-and-pop 
     operations with money they didn't have. The companies then 
     were run to the ground. In the end, pensioners were left 
     holding worthless junk bonds while raids on company assets 
     cost workers their jobs.
       Congress now is emulating the worst of the leveraged buyout 
     kings. In the crime bills which passed the House and Senate, 
     lawmakers expanded federal crimes even as the deficit has 
     forced cuts in the federal criminal justice system. In April, 
     the Senate passed the California Desert Protection Act, 
     sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which ``protects''--
     Feinstein's word--9 million acres of the California desert. 
     The bill's acquisition pricetag of up to $300 million, plus 
     about $7 million in annual upkeep, would be met by raiding 
     other federal assets, or deficit spending. There could be a 
     vote on a companion House measure, sponsored by California 
     Democratic Representatives George Miller and Richard Lehman, 
     as early as this week.
       The questions Capital Hillians aren't asking: Does America 
     need California desert preserves larger than the state of 
     Maryland? And: Aren't the existing 2 million acre Death 
     Valley National Monument and 500,000 acre Joshua Tree 
     National Monument enough? The question backers aren't 
     answering with any credibility: How are they going to pay for 
     all this wasteland?
       Feinstein and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt insist that 
     the bill can be paid for with savings squeezed from within 
     the Interior Department budget. If this is true, Babbitt and 
     Feinstein would pay for these million acres of scrub by 
     raiding the budgets of real parks, like Yosemite and 
     Yellowstone. That is, they would emulate the leveraged buyout 
     and fund new acquisitions by looting other assets.
       Last week The Chronicle ran a story about Yosemite's 
     staffing woes. Despite a boom in visitorship and growing 
     crime rate, Yosemite's staff is half the size it was 20 years 
     ago. Yosemite charges a $5 fee for visiting cars, which 
     brought in $5.4 million last year. That $5 mil was sent to 
     the Interior Department, which sent back only $920,000. How 
     much less might Yosemite get next year so that Feinstein and 
     company can siphon more dollars to the Size of Maryland 
     National Lizard Refuge?
       As critics have pointed out, Congress has a habit of buying 
     lands it can't care for. Senate Appropriations Chairman 
     Robert Byrd warned, ``We cannot adequately maintain the parks 
     that we now have. * * *'' This kind of overspending cannot go 
     on forever. Already, national parks suffer from a $2.9 
     billion maintenance backlog. If Congress keeps this up, a 
     systems crash is inevitable.
       Ironically, the House bill even contains something of a 
     bailout for a corporate concern that took a bath in 
     California's real estate crash, the Catellus Development 
     Corporation. Catellus owns almost 1 million acres of 
     California desert, land that was given to its parent company, 
     the Santa Fe Railroad, by the federal government. The House 
     bill would allow Catellus to swap more than 300,000 acres for 
     as much as a $400,000 credit for this who-else-wants-it 
     acreage, according to Representative Jerry Lewis, a 
     Republican from the desert area. And that $400,000 could be 
     exchanged in a below-market trade for other federal 
     properties. No coincidence: 40 percent of Catellus, which 
     lost $53 million in 1993, is owned by CalPERS, the 
     politically influential state employee retirement fund, which 
     would benefit from the bill.
       ``The bottom line is we can't afford not to have this 
     park,'' Babbitt once said. Wrong. America cannot afford these 
     wide acres. Other parks will pay for Babbitt's snake-oil 
     pitch and Feinstein's voodoo financing.
                                  ____


                   [From the San Francisco Examiner]

             Real Estate Syndicator Capitalizes on Catellus

                           (By Bradley Inman)

       Not everyone lost money on Catellus. The real estate firm 
     that got the California Public Employees Retirement System to 
     invest in Catellus Development Corp. has been rewarded 
     handsomely.
       JMB Realty Corp. was paid a finder's fee or acquisition fee 
     of $7.96 million when Calpers first invested in Catellus, 
     according to Roger Franz, Calpers' mortgage investment 
     officer. Moreover, the Chicago-based real estate firm is paid 
     an annual asset management fee of $2.38 million.
       In the 1980s, JMB was one of the nation's largest real 
     estate syndicators, raising money for a raft of property 
     deals across the country, including bringing Catellus and 
     Calpers together. Today, JMB is a property manager, developer 
     and real estate adviser.
       ``Have you ever heard of someone getting such a fee to 
     manage a stock? It's the most bizarre thing you can 
     imagine,'' former California State Sen. Dave Elder said 
     earlier this year when Calpers upped its stake in Catellus. 
     While in the state Legislature, the Long Beach Democrat was a 
     frequent critic of Calpers' investment in Catellus.
       ``It (the fee) is certainly unique,'' said Mike Kirby, 
     principal in the Newport Beach-based Green Street Advisors, 
     which does institutional research on publicly traded real 
     estate firms. He also described the fee as ``excessive, 
     foolish, ridiculous and outrageous'' by Wall Street 
     standards.
       Calpers Chief Investment Officer DeWitt Bowman defended the 
     fee, noting that it was ``competitive with private placement 
     fees at the time.''
       The fees are part of a partnership agreement that Calpers 
     has with JMB, in which the realty concern acts as managing 
     general partner of Bay Area Real Estate Investment Associates 
     (BAREI). BAREI was formed to invest in Catellus, although 
     Calpers put up 98.8 percent of the money.
       ``Compared to what some investment bankers get, JMB's 
     (upfront) fees are very low,'' said Bowman.
       He conceded that the ongoing fee may be higher, but he 
     pointed out that ``most Wall Street fees are expensed up 
     front and are often very handsome. We spread ours out over 
     the life of the investment.''
       According to Calpers, the fees go to compensate JMB for 
     independent analysis of Catellus and to represent the pension 
     fund on the board of directors. The two JMB directors on the 
     Catellus board, Darla Totusek Flanagan and Judd D. Malkin, 
     also received $15,000 from Catellus to serve on the board 
     along with $1,000 per board meeting.
       A JMB representative referred calls regarding BAREI to 
     Calpers.
       Bowman said, ``Generally, we get our money's worth.''
                                  ____


                   [From Human Events, June 3, 1994]

       Inside Washington: Will Back-Room Deal Derail Desert Bill?

       Following the Memorial Day recess, the House will consider 
     final approval of the California Desert Protection Act, a 
     monumental environmental bill (HR 518) designed to transfer 
     millions of acres of land in southern California to 
     ``protected wilderness.'' While thousands of endangered 
     property owners, farmers and local miners on the land are 
     mounting opposition, the bill's sponsors have tried to clear 
     the way for passage by inserting a special financial 
     arrangement--originally crafted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-
     Calif.)--for the politically connected Catellus Development 
     Corp., which has large land holdings in the area.
       Angered by the inequities and huge additional costs of such 
     a provision, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R.-Calif.) is now planning to 
     fight the Catellus deal, which, if removed, could jeopardize 
     the passage of the bill itself.
       Introduced over eight years ago by then Sen. Alan Cranston 
     (D.), the California Desert Protection Act was the result of 
     persistent lobbying by a number of environmental groups--
     particularly the Sierra Club--that argued that the southern 
     California desert was at serious risk from mining and off-
     road vehicle use. The bill proposed redesignating tracts of 
     land in and around the East Mojave desert from multiple use 
     standards under the Bureau of Land management to strictly 
     protected wilderness in the National Park Service.
       The final version of the bill, however, ended up applying 
     to an immense area far exceeding any original estimates. 
     Shutting off about 7.5 million acres of variegated land (the 
     size of the state of Maryland) to resource extraction and 
     virtually any other use, it represents the largest withdrawal 
     of federal land in the history of the lower 48 states.
       The mining industry, which has predicted the bill will 
     cause the loss of $1.6 billion in mineral production per year 
     and 12,000 to 20,000 jobs on the extremely valuable lands, 
     has been a staunch opponent. Also aggrieved are the thousands 
     of private property holders within the areas (inholders) who 
     would face stringent land use regulations and lengthy 
     negotiations with the Park Service over the status of their 
     lands (see Human Events, April 22, 1994).
       But perhaps the biggest hurdle for the bill's proponents 
     has been the status of approximately 418,000 acres of land in 
     the protected areas owned by the huge Catellus Corp. 
     According to a staffer on the House Natural Resources 
     Committee, lobbyists for the Catellus Corp.--one of 
     California's biggest land development concerns, with $2.1 
     billion in real estate assets--were able to hold up the bill 
     for years while they tried to get better terms for their 
     land.
       But when Sen. Feinstein was elected in 1992, she 
     resubmitted the ailing California Desert Protection Act 
     originally sponsored by Cranston and made it one of her top 
     legislative priorities. And Feinstein--who has had a close 
     and amicable relationship with the San Francisco-based 
     Catellus Corp. since her days as mayor of that city--was 
     determined to smooth out the rough spots.


                Feinstein Devises Special Catellus Plan

       In her bill, Feinstein granted Catellus an extremely 
     favorable arrangement for the transfer of its lands. While 
     all other land-holders in the protected areas would face the 
     standard, drawn-out, allegedly ``fair-market price'' 
     government purchases, the Feinstein bill established for 
     Catellus a ``special land account''--an unprecedented legal 
     arrangement that will enable the company to immediately 
     exchange its desert lands for other federal property in the 
     state of California or for its cash value.
       Such a provision is a hugely important privilege 
     considering that the National Park Service is already about 
     $9 billion and many years behind in payments to numerous 
     property owners under its normal acquisition procedures.
       Several members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee opposed the deal singling out Catellus for the 
     right to swap its property for valuable lands, such as 
     Resolution Trust Corp.-seized property or land no longer used 
     by the military.
       Republican critics, who decried the concessions made to 
     Catellus as patently unfair to the other desert landholders 
     and estimated that financing the deal would eventually cost 
     American taxpayers an additional $2 to $3 billion, were able 
     to kill the provision in the Senate version of the bill, 
     which then passed 69 to 29 (See Human Events rollcall, April 
     22, page 23).
       But now, the Catellus provision has reappeared in the House 
     bill being aggressively pushed by Natural Resources Committee 
     Chairman George Miller (D.-Calif.), also of the San Francisco 
     area. Specifically, the bill declares, ``The Secretary [of 
     Interior] shall establish an account in the name of Catellus. 
     Upon the transfer of title by Catellus to * * * the United 
     States, the Secretary shall credit the exchange account in 
     the amount of the appraised value. Catellus may use the 
     credits in its account to bid for surplus federal property in 
     California * * * [or] the credits may be sold in whole or 
     part by Catellus to any other party.''
       The land deal with Catellus has provoked bitter reaction 
     from area mining organizations and property rights groups 
     already angry about the bleak future of their own holdings. 
     Chuck Cushman, executive director of the National Inholders 
     Association, remarked, ``It definitely appears that as far as 
     the bill goes, some people are more equal than others.''
       Don Fife, director of government relations at the National 
     Association of Mining Districts, commented, ``[The Catellus 
     deal] is the ultimate in political cynicism. To please the 
     Sierra Club they propose this reckless bill that will 
     thoroughly decimate the miners and * * * then to push it 
     through they cut this huge land deal with Catellus. * * *''


                           undue favoritism?

       Sen. Feinstein, who is up for re-election this fall, is 
     drawing particularly harsh criticism for her role in the 
     desert deal. Besides sponsoring an economically devastating 
     proposal--all four congressmen from affected districts have 
     opposed the bill--she now, with the Catellus deal, also has 
     given the appearance of being involved in a conflict of 
     interest.
       In 1984, when mayor of San Francisco, she entered into a 
     massive business/government venture with Catellus to develop 
     the Mission Bay Project, an urban renewal program on San 
     Francisco Bay. In announcing the awarding of a $2.1-billion 
     contract to Catellus to build the project, she declared, ``I 
     am prepared to support it before various government bodies.''
       Now, 10 years later, and considerably over budget, the 
     joint San Francisco Mission Bay project is still unfinished. 
     And the firm that Feinstein chose to build it is now in 
     serious financial trouble. Last year Catellus posted a $400-
     million loss and its stock has continued to tumble from a 
     high of $38 to about $8 a share.
       And the condition of Catellus' health grew considerably 
     more critical for Cranston, and now Feinstein, after the huge 
     California state pension fund Calpers acquired 41% of the 
     stock of Catellus before the firm's stock began to decline.
       In a letter to Cranston in 1990, Calpers clearly expressed 
     its demand for a special Catellus deal in the impending 
     desert bill. Dale Hansen, executive officer for Calpers, 
     wrote, ``Calpers paid $428 million for this investment [in 
     Catellus], and unless [the bill] adequately compensates 
     owners of land and mineral rights, hundreds of thousands of 
     working people and retired persons in California could suffer 
     financial injury.''
       Hansen concluded, ``The bill must be amended to: (1) 
     exclude a portion of the Catellus holdings thought to have 
     significant mineral deposits, and (2) provide for adequate 
     compensation for other Catellus-owned land.''
       Rep. Lewis, who says that the Catellus deal is just one 
     aspect of an entirely rotten land acquisition deal, told 
     Human Events, ``The Feinstein bill raises visions of robber 
     barons of the Old West. While Sen. Feinstein has largely 
     accommodated large corporate interests, she has forgotten the 
     little guy, the inholders whose land make up our desert.''
       But Lewis promises that the Catellus provision will not 
     stay in the final bill without a bitter fight on the House 
     floor. He plans to propose an amendment that either the 
     Catellus deal be struck from the bill or that its ``special 
     account'' for land swaps be extended to everyone holding land 
     within the proposed wilderness areas. Either provision would 
     deal a nearly fatal blow to this massive proposed land grab, 
     but would, as Lewis notes, finally inject a modicum of 
     fairness and sanity into the government's acquisition of 
     private land.
                                  ____


            [From the San Francisco Examiner, July 20, 1993]

                          Riding Out the Slump

                           (By Bradley Inman)

       Unlike so many California property companies--most of which 
     are private and struggling--Catellus Development Corp. can't 
     mask how the state's slumping real estate market has hammered 
     the San Francisco-based firm.
       The company still has big dreams for its vast property 
     holdings, including San Francisco's 313-acre Mission Bay 
     community. But it is a publicly traded company and its stock 
     performance tells the painful story of the firm's 4-year 
     life, which perfectly parallels the 48-month downturn in the 
     real estate market here.
       Take the earliest investor in Catellus. Just before the 
     company was spun off from the Santa Fe Pacific Corp. in 1990, 
     the $81 billion California Public Employment Retirement 
     System (Calpers) bought 19.9 percent of Catellus at a price 
     equivalent to $38 a share or $398 million.
       Last week, the stock was trading around $6.75 a share. On 
     paper, the pension fund's original investment sank a whopping 
     82 percent, representing a $326 million loss. By this 
     measure, Wall Street has been less forgiving of Catellus than 
     the overall California real estate market, which has 
     collapsed 30 to 50 percent.
       ``If Calpers had just gone out and bought raw land anywhere 
     in California (with their $398 million investment in 
     Catellus), they would have been better off,'' said consultant 
     Jeffrey Lewis, who has advised Calpers on other real estate 
     transactions.
       But while stock investors have heavily discounted the value 
     of Catellus Development Corp., real estate people still drool 
     over the prospects of the company's land holdings. In some of 
     California's most ideal urban settings, these complex deals 
     promise megaprofits on futuristic new towns, massive shopping 
     destinations and expansive new neighborhoods.
       Catellus is caught between two worlds: Wall Street and real 
     estate development. Most property developers are dream 
     peddlers who must aggressively sell the prospects of their 
     projects so that banks lend, so that cities grant approvals 
     and so that consumers use and buy their space.
       On its four massive mixed-use projects in California, for 
     example, Catellus has successfully sold its dreams to local 
     civic leaders, elected officials and hometown lenders.
       Wall Street, on the other hand, doesn't care much for long-
     term promises and cares even less about dreamers: It wants to 
     hear about quarterly earnings, cash flow and stock value.
       Less than a year after Calpers picked up its expensive 19.9 
     percent stake in Catellus, the company's stock went public 
     and opened at $8.50 per share. It rose to $15 per share but 
     has been languishing at $5.75 to $8.25 for the last year.


                       Formed at real estate peak

       Catellus was formed at a time when California's real estate 
     market seemed to offer prosperity at every turn, and Santa Fe 
     Pacific's $3.1 billion property portfolio was viewed as a 
     magnificent asset buried inside the railroad giant.
       But since 1989, the California real estate market has 
     collapsed and Catellus' holdings have plummeted 31 percent, 
     according to company appraisals which valued its property at 
     $2.1 billion at the end of 1992.
       Add a sour market to a tradition by Wall Street to discount 
     land companies and you have a depressed stock.
       ``This isn't a bankruptcy situation and it's not a $1 
     stock, but the company hasn't performed as expected,'' said 
     Mike Kirby of the Newport Beach-based Green Street Advisors, 
     an institutional research firm that does ongoing analysis of 
     Catellus and other publicly traded real estate companies.
       However, while Green Street isn't bullish on the stock, it 
     gives Catellus management credit for effectively steering the 
     company through troubled times.
       ``Vernon Schwartz is a bright capable guy,'' said Green 
     Street's Jon Fosheim, referring to Catellus' chairman, 
     president and chief executive officer.
       Other analysts also give good reviews of management and are 
     more bullish on the firm's prospects. ``Catellus is a good 
     company in bad times,'' said Barry Vinocur, publisher of 
     Realty Stock Review in Shrewsbury, N.J. ``It should be a 
     solid long-term growth play.''
       ``This is definitely an undervalued company, but anyone 
     developing in this market has trouble creating value,'' said 
     San Francisco-based Montgomery Securities' real estate 
     analyst James Wilson.


                        Selling to show a profit

       Though it generates sizable revenues from its 
     many industrial office parks, the company has had to sell 
     off small parts of its 950,000 acres of property to show a 
     profit. The vast majority of the holdings are agriculture 
     land and mountain property.
       One real estate observer equated this strategy to ``someone 
     drinking his own blood to survive.''
       But company executives say that the land-selling scheme was 
     always an integral part of the Catellus plan.
       ``We are selling land out of our surplus of desert and 
     mountain holdings--it's not property that is imminently or 
     near-term developable,'' said Mary Burczyk, a Catellus vice 
     president.
       Green Street's Fosheim confirms that ``the game plan has 
     always depended on selling land.'' But he also said that 
     ``therein lies the whole problem with the company: Just as 
     they need the liquidity (from land sales) to develop and 
     cover their debt service, they need to sell land at a time 
     when land values have collapsed.''
       On the dream front, Catellus faces some formidable 
     challenges as a developer.
       After putting together a complex entitlement with the 
     cities of Emeryville and Oakland, Catellus is furthest along 
     with its East Baybridge discount warehouse retail project. 
     The company is breaking ground later this summer on the 40-
     acre site at the crossroads of interstates 580 and 80 along 
     the Emeryville-Oakland border, which retail experts say is 
     one of the best retail locations in all of California. The 
     462,000 square-foot project will have a Home Depot, Office 
     Max, Pak 'N Save and SportMart.


                        slow-moving mission bay

       Moving much slower is Mission Bay, which in many ways 
     embodies the gap between the dream and booked earnings. This 
     project has won all sorts of honors and accolades for its 
     master plan and for the nearly 10-year planning process 
     undertaken by The City and Catellus.
       But at best, the company won't break ground on the site 
     until 1994 or 1995. And it plans to start with a modest 150- 
     to 200-unit subdivision on a project that promises 8,000 
     homes.
       Catellus is still negotiating with The City about how to 
     undertake and guarantee the environmental clean-up on the 
     former industrial site, which has toxic problems. Regardless, 
     the company hasn't been too eager to proceed because the real 
     estate market has been so bad, according to Catellus Vice 
     President James W. Augustino.
       The company's 1,400-home golf course community in Fremont 
     has received local approvals but, according to Burczyk, 
     financing for the golf course is difficult to obtain in this 
     market. Nevertheless, she said, ``It's on track even if it's 
     not on the fast track.''
       Catellus is also trying to get approval for a major mixed-
     used project in downtown Los Angeles, and plans for a 
     commercial development in downtown San Diego are stalled by 
     the downturn in the economy.


                       scrambling to restructure

       In the meantime, Catellus has been scrambling to 
     restructure its debt, including a $388 million first mortgage 
     loan with the Prudential Insurance Co. of America and a $109 
     million convertible bond with Calpers.
       Prudential committed to refinancing the loan, which comes 
     due in 1994 and 1996. Earlier this year, Calpers doubled its 
     stake in Catellus by converting the bond into $141 million in 
     stock. This boosted Calpers ownership in Catellus to 40 
     percent.
       While company executives say this investment shows a 
     commitment by Calpers, observers say the pension fund had no 
     other choice. If it had demanded payment on the bond, 
     Catellus would have been strapped for funds, hurting its 
     ability to pursue development projects and jeopardizing 
     Calpers' original 19.9 percent stake.
       ``Short term, we are obviously concerned, but we view 
     Catellus as a long-term investment,'' said DeWitt Bowman, 
     Calpers' chief investment officer. ``We are in a hold 
     position with the investment.''
       Added Roger Franz, Calpers' mortgage investment officer, 
     ``In our portfolio, Catellus is an alternate investment--
     somewhat similar to a venture capital investment--where there 
     is no expectation of a return for, say, 5 to 7 years.''
       What's next?
       Both its standing on Wall Street and the future of its big 
     projects are driven so much by the state's real estate 
     market. If the market turns around, ``a land-rich company can 
     double overnight,'' said Green Street's Kirby. ``Catellus is 
     going to be a timing call.''
       A turnaround in the real estate market will also help the 
     company finance its big development projects, drive up the 
     value of its land holdings and increase demand for the 
     developments. Catellus' fate is, in many ways, out of the 
     hands of its board of directors and its executives.
       On the other hand, because of Wall Street constraints, 
     Catellus can't act like a cavalier developer, which pushes 
     forward in a good market or bad. Wall Street forces the 
     company to be conservative and measured.
       These same limits may account for Catellus' survival. Big 
     risks in a bad market have forced many real estate developers 
     out of business.

  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 my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding to me.
  As a Member who has not been intimately acquainted with the details 
of the Catellus provisions, I have a few basic questions. I am trying 
to sort this out as we go through the debate.
  My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], described the 
Catellus investment as being basically retirees in the California 
retirement system. But as I understand it now, as to Catellus, it is a 
little deeper than that, in that the Catellus Corp. is a landholding 
corporation for the Santa Fe Railroad. Is that right?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is my understanding. Their origin was 
that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, just a point 
of clarification, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
said earlier they no longer are that. They are a separate publicly held 
corporation. I believe about 40 to 45 percent of the stock is now owned 
by CALPERS.
  Mr. HUNTER. So it is a corporation which is now publicly owned, and 
that means that it has a mix of investors, some of whom are the 
CALPERS, which is the retirement system in California, but also some 
people are simply Wall Street investors who thought it was a good 
investment who bought stock in Catellus. So it is a mixture.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, so it is a mixture of owners, some of whom 
are simply stock investors; others are individuals who invested in 
CALPERS, which is the retirement plan for public employees in 
California, who have invested about, or who have about 40 percent of 
the stock presently held by Catellus?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Something in excess of that, but the 
gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. What the gentleman is talking about is a deal in which, 
in order to consolidate, as the chairman said, property holdings in the 
California desert, some of which will be wilderness that is presently 
checkerboarded private-public-private-public, and Catellus being 
formerly the railroad holding company, holds a great deal of this land. 
How much is the gentleman talking about? How much acreage?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In excess of 355,000 acres. Some estimates 
are as high as 400,000 acres.
  Mr. HUNTER. Four hundred thousand acres. The one provision originally 
of the bill gave Catellus, this holding corporation which holds 400,000 
acres in fee, fee simple of land in the proposed wilderness, will be 
given a menu of other properties held by the Federal Government 
throughout California or throughout the United States where they could 
pick and choose which ones they wanted to take in exchange for their 
giving up ownership of the desert lands?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The original language was much broader than 
the gentleman suggests. Catellus essentially would have been put at the 
front of the line, given what could essentially be described as chits. 
As they saw properties that were within the Federal collection of 
properties, they could use those chits for value and trade that 
property. It included not just land that was, like, land in the State 
of California, but in an unprecedented fashion, land anywhere in the 
country, and then from there, even other Federal assets were originally 
included, RTC properties, for example.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would love to be on the board of directors 
of a corporation and be able to trade those chits for the assets that 
are really the public's assets or citizen taxpayers' assets and select 
from those that I thought were really valuable to me. These assets 
could include strengths in financial institutions going broke, et 
cetera.
  Mr. HUNTER. So you are saying originally the holding company, the 
Catellus Corp., could say, ``We like this string of condominiums down 
here. We think we might be able to buy it at fire-sale prices if it is 
RTC?''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That was the original plan. Yes.
  Mr. HUNTER. If I could carry this a little bit further, could you 
contrast this with, say, a rancher who had 20 acres that was going to 
be taken that is an inholding in the wilderness area? What choices 
would that rancher have? Would he be able to look at this menu of 
properties throughout the United States and make an acquisition or use 
the chit system you have discussed to acquire those properties?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The amendment, as it would be perfected by 
the chairman, would put all property owners on an equal footing. They 
would not be able to trade for properties around the country, as I 
understand it, but nevertheless, those properties available to them, 
they would be put on an equal footing which seems to be appropriate.
  Mr. HUNTER. Just lastly, as I understand it, basically the chairman's 
amendment does the same thing the Huffington-Cunningham-Lewis amendment 
would do, that is, put everybody, Catellus Corp. and small landowners, 
all on the same playing field where they all have the same opportunity 
to choose from properties around the country?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, The chairman's perfecting amendment has 
essentially combined an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham] and the amendment that was going to be 
proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Huffington]. As you 
know, the gentleman from California [Mr. Huffington] is not able to be 
here today because of a medical problem.
  Mr. HUNTER. Just one last question, and maybe the chairman could 
elucidate on this, is there any constraint on this still that will be 
in place under this amendment where the Catellus Corp. and the other 
landowners now will be able to look at other property around the State 
or around the country and say, ``We would like to trade for that one, 
we would like to trade for that one?'' Have we constrained that at all 
in this amendment, or will all parties have that opportunity?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is my understanding that the language, 
presuming the perfecting amendment, would put all landowners or 
property owners in the same position on a level playing field.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the chairman would correct me if I am 
incorrect, I believe that his perfecting amendment essentially would 
establish the same language that would be a part of the bill as it 
currently exists coming from the other body? Is that correct?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Huffington] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]; two 
different ways to solve the same problem, but it takes care of the 
little guy, and I think that is important in this.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
because I knew you and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] were 
going to offer an amendment later, this same amendment, which 
neutralized and gave the little guy the same rights as the Catellus. I 
only wish that the other body would have taken this into account 
instead of looking after the special interests.
  I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] for the perfecting amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleagues being patient 
with the time on this matter.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Huffington] has put a great deal 
of time and effort into this amendment and was going to present the 
amendment today. Unfortunately, a detached retina has delayed his 
arrival here in Washington. In the meantime, I urge the Members to 
support this perfecting amendment.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in favor of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, most of what I have to say has been covered. However, 
there are some areas here that I think are extremely important, for the 
purpose of land ownership in areas which are surrounded by public lands 
that either needs clarification beyond that of this amendment, or some 
type of colloquy that would explain to the average person what has 
transpired with respect to the arrangement made between the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham] and the chairman over yesterday's 
activities.
  First, let me explain something here that I think is important, and 
that is the assets of the Catellus Corp., one cannot deny, are theirs 
and theirs alone to which they are entitled.

                              {time}  1150

  However, I would point out that by far, largely a very high 
percentage, if not virtually all, of the property held by Catellus is a 
result of the Railroad Act of the 1860's in which, as an encouragement 
for the railroads to build westward, the Federal Government gave them 
optional, that is, on each side of the railroad, sections of land as an 
inducement to spend this money to build the railroad for which then 
they could sell the land as a means of an incentive to go out and 
borrow these large amounts of money and to make this large investment.
  I mention this because the railroad was the original, basic monetary 
investment in the Catellus property, which originated with Santa Fe. 
These lands, which constitute a large part of my district, have since 
been invested in by other parties.
  Now having set that stage, I would like to point out that in the 
area, particularly between the Coachella Valley and Palm Springs area 
and the Colorado River, if one takes a look at the land map they will 
see a checkerboard on top of a checkerboard on top of a checkerboard of 
private ownership, public ownership, private ownership, by sections of 
land.
  The problem we have here is manyfold in that the current legislation 
before us says that if you own a piece of property in this section that 
is going to be designated wilderness, you are no longer--you will no 
longer have access to this property unless you can walk to it.
  All right. Now we have that and we have that property surrounded by 
public land. When we talk about individuals--and they want to dispose 
of that property because it now is to be in a wilderness area. Unless 
this amendment is passed, as I understand the structure of its 
language, then the owner of that section of land, say x amount of 
acres, cannot sell that land as Mr. Catellus or some other person 
could--and I mean ``Mr.'' in the sense of the corporation--so he or she 
becomes a party of the 14th part if they get in line, and there are 14 
pieces of the bone left. I think this is not the right thing to do, as 
I have outlined in the origin of the properties. And I take exception 
to the fact that we have virtually thousands of private property owners 
who own sections of land, quarter sections of land, all through the 
desert area both in my district, Mr. Thomas' district and particularly 
in Mr. Lewis' district, that will not have an opportunity to move 
forward.
  Second, I think we need to clarify what is referred to as Federal 
surplus lands. Are we talking about, say, a Norton Air Force Base or a 
March Air Force Base or another Air Force base or an Army base or a 
Navy base; are these considered to be surplus Federal lands which have 
a value, which have a value to communities? And where in the pecking 
order do we have the Catelluses if this amendment is not passed in 
terms of the purchase of these lands, or the right to have them as that 
right relates to the economic value of that land within the community 
in which it exists?
  So I have a great deal of concern here about not only how are we 
going to move forward and take care of the in-holdings, where we want 
to develop a wilderness area and give that landowner a right that he or 
she deserves with respect to compensation for their land, for which we 
have none in the bill, I might add, but also how to maintain access to 
that property, the development of that property, without the approval 
of the Secretary of the Interior irrespective of whether or not the 
land use is designated by the county or the jurisdictional land use 
authority?
   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, without the consent of the Secretary of 
the Interior, we cannot develop that, as I understand it, within a 
park, within a wilderness area, whatever it might be. This is a multi-
faceted thing that deals with the real rights of a property owner.
  Yes, the property owner is one of many who should contribute to the 
public welfare through the eventual sale of that property to the 
designated area, but in so doing, the property owner is entitled to a 
series of activities which are equal to those of a higher land use of 
ownership in terms of numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know that the chairman of the committee would 
want to respond to this, but there are some real concerns here, given 
the fact that we are trying to develop wilderness areas, we are trying 
to address the issue of private ownership.
  We talked about eminent domain, fair prices, and therein lie some 
real questions as to how that comes about based upon the history of the 
National Park Service and its dealings with private ownership.
  I certainly would suggest to my colleagues that it is a good move to 
approve this amendment, and I ask that it be moved forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment to section 
604, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419, 
noes 0, not voting, 20.

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--419

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barlow
     Bishop
     Danner
     Dicks
     Ewing
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Johnson, Sam
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Moran
     Murphy
     Obey
     Ridge
     Rowland
     Slattery
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Wise

                              {time}  1216

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. HARMON, Mr. ROEMER, and Mr. BATEMAN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to strike offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  So the perfecting amendment to strike was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. No 
Member said, ``no.'' There was not a single ``no.'' How could the 
``noes'' have it?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announced that the ``noes'' had it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I could not hear.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair put the question to a vote on the amendment 
to strike as submitted by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham]. In the vote, as voice voted, the Chair recognized that the 
``noes'' had it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If there were ``ayes'' and there were absolutely no 
recorded ``noes,'' how does the Chair say that the ``noes'' have it?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognized the ``noes,'' and the Chair 
himself voted ``no.''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is one vote, Mr. Chairman. At least 10 Members 
said ``aye.''
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Chairman, if the amendment to strike had been successful, then 
the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], which was agreed to, would be stricken; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The situation now is that the Miller language, as perfected, is in 
the bill, is that correct, as agreed to by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham]?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is as follows:

       TITLE VII--DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS


                              definitions

       Sec. 701. For the purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'', unless specifically designated 
     otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) The term ``public lands'' means any land and interest 
     in land owned by the United States and administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land 
     Management.


                    authorization of appropriations

       Sec. 702. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title VII or the remainder of 
the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
     --Page 69, after line 23, add the following:

            TITLE VIII--CALIFORNIA MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 
     1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal lands within the desert regions of 
     California have provided essential opportunities for military 
     training, research, and development for the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and allied nations;
       (2) alternative sites for military training and other 
     military activities carried out on Federal lands in the 
     California desert area are not readily available;
       (3) while changing world conditions have lessened to some 
     extent the immediacy of military threats to the national 
     security of the United States and its allies, there remains a 
     need for military training, research, and development 
     activities of the types that have been carried out of Federal 
     lands in the California desert area; and
       (4) continuation of existing military training, research, 
     and development activities, under appropriate terms and 
     conditions, is not incompatible with the protection and 
     proper management of the natural, environmental, cultural, 
     and other resources and values of the Federal lands in the 
     California desert area.

     SEC. 802. WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) China Lake.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as otherwise provided in this title, the Federal lands 
     referred to in paragraph (2), and all other areas within the 
     boundary of such lands as depicted on the map specified in 
     such paragraph which may become subject to the operation of 
     the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 
     appropriation under the public land laws (including the 
     mining laws and the mineral leasing laws). Such lands are 
     reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) use as a research, development, test, and evaluation 
     laboratory;
       (B) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapon 
     systems;
       (C) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery, 
     rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, tactical 
     maneuvering and air support; and
       (D) subject to the requirements of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands, located within the boundaries of the China Lake Naval 
     Weapons Center, comprising approximately 1,100,000 acres in 
     Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, California, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``China Lake Naval 
     Weapons Center Withdrawal--Proposed'', dated January 1985, 
     and filed in accordance with section 803.
       (b) Chocolate Mountain.--(1) Subject to valid existing 
     rights and except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
     Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other 
     areas within the boundary of such lands as depicted on the 
     map specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 
     the operation of the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
     (including the mining laws and the mineral leasing and the 
     geothermal leasing laws). Such lands are reserved for use by 
     the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) testing and training for aerial bombing, missile 
     firing, tactical maneuvering and air support; and
       (B) subject to the provisions of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands comprising approximately 226,711 acres in Imperial 
     County, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Proposed--
     Withdrawal'' dated July 1993 and filed in accordance with 
     section 803.
       (c) El Centro Ranges.--(1) Subject to valid existing 
     rights, and except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
     Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other 
     areas within the boundaries of such lands as depicted on the 
     map specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 
     the operation of the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
     (including the mining laws) but not the mineral or geothermal 
     leasing laws. Such lands are reserved for use by the 
     Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) defense-related purposes in accordance with the 
     Memorandum of Understanding dated June 29, 1987, between the 
     Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 
     Department of the Navy; and
       (B) subject to the provisions of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands comprising approximately 46,600 acres in Imperial 
     County, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Exhibit A, Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California, Land 
     Acquisition Map, Range 2510 (West Mesa) dated March 1993 and 
     a map entitled ``Exhibit B, Naval Air Facility, El Centro, 
     California, Land Acquisition Map Range 2512 (East Mesa)'' 
     dated March 1993.

     SEC. 803. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

       (a) Publication and Filing Requirement.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the 
     legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this 
     title; and
       (2) file maps and the legal description of the lands 
     withdrawn and reserved by this title with the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and 
     with the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Technical Corrections.--Such maps and legal 
     descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if they 
     were included in this title except that the Secretary of the 
     Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     such maps and legal descriptions.
       (c) Availability for Public Inspection.--Copies of such 
     maps and legal descriptions shall be available for public 
     inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; the Office 
     of the Director, California State Office of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, Sacramento, California; the office of the 
     commander of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, 
     California; the office of the commanding officer, Marine 
     Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona; and the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, Washington, District of Columbia.
       (d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for the cost of 
     implementing this section.

     SEC. 804. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

       (A) Management by the Secretary of the Interior.--(1) 
     Except as provided in subsection (g), during the period of 
     the withdrawal the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the 
     lands withdrawn under section 802 pursuant to the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.) and other applicable law, including this Act.
       (2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and 
     Executive orders, the lands withdrawn under section 802 may 
     be managed in a manner permitting--
       (A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to applicable law 
     and Executive orders where permitted on the date of enactment 
     of this title;
       (B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat;
       (C) control of predatory and other animals;
       (D) recreation (but only on lands withdrawn by section 
     802(a) (relating to China Lake));
       (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression of brush and 
     range fires resulting from nonmilitary activities; and
       (F) geothermal leasing on the lands withdrawn under section 
     802(a) (relating to China Lake).
       (3)(A) All nonmilitary use of such lands, including the 
     uses described in paragraph (2), shall be subject to such 
     conditions and restrictions as may be necessary to permit the 
     military use of such lands for the purposes specified in or 
     authorized pursuant to this title.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior may issue any lease, 
     easement, right-of-way, or other authorization with respect 
     to the nonmilitary use of such lands only with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy.
       (b) Closure to Public.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy 
     determines that military operations, public safety, or 
     national security require the closure to public use of any 
     road, trail, or other portion of the lands withdrawn by this 
     title, the Secretary may take such action as the Secretary 
     determines necessary or desirable to effect and maintain such 
     closure.
       (2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum areas 
     and periods which the Secretary of the Navy determines are 
     required to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Before and during any closure under this subsection, 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall--
       (A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; and
       (B) take appropriate steps to notify the public concerning 
     such closures.
       (c) Management Plan.--The Secretary of the Interior (after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy) shall develop a 
     plan for the management of each area withdrawn under section 
     802 during the period of such withdrawal. Each plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with applicable law;
       (2) be subject to conditions and restrictions specified in 
     subsection (a)(3);
       (3) include such provisions as may be necessary for proper 
     management and protection of the resources and values of such 
     area; and
       (4) be developed not later than three years after the date 
     of enactment of this title.
       (d) Brush and Range Fires.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     take necessary precautions to prevent and suppress brush and 
     range fires occurring within and outside the lands withdrawn 
     under section 802 as a result of military activities and may 
     seek assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in the 
     suppression of such fires. The memorandum of understanding 
     required by subsection (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land 
     Management assistance in the suppression of such fires, and 
     for a transfer of funds from the Department of the Navy to 
     the Bureau of Land Management as compensation for such 
     assistance.
       (e) Memorandum of Understanding.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of the Navy shall (with respect to 
     each land withdrawal under section 802) enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding to implement the management plan 
     developed under subsection (c) Any such memorandum of 
     understanding shall provide that the Director of the Bureau 
     of Land Management shall provide assistance in the 
     suppression of fires resulting from the military use of lands 
     withdrawn under section 802 if requested by the Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       (2) The duration of any such memorandum shall be the same 
     as the period of the withdrawal of the lands under section 
     802.
       (f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) Lands withdrawn by 
     section 802 may be used for defense-related uses other than 
     those specified in such section. The Secretary of Defense 
     shall promptly notify the Secretary of the Interior in the 
     event that the lands withdrawn by this title will be used for 
     defense-related purposes other than those specified in 
     section 802. Such notification shall indicate the additional 
     use of uses involved, the proposed duration of such uses, and 
     the extent to which such additional military uses of the 
     withdrawn lands will require that additional or more 
     stringent conditions or restrictions be imposed on otherwise-
     permitted nonmilitary uses of the withdrawn land or portions 
     thereof.
       (g) Management of China Lake.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior may assign the management responsibility for the 
     lands withdrawn under section 802(a) to the Secretary of the 
     Navy who shall manage such lands, and issue leases, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and other authorizations, in 
     accordance with this title and cooperative management 
     arrangements between the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of the Navy. In the case that the Secretary of the 
     Interior assigns such management responsibility to the 
     Secretary of the Navy before the development of the 
     management plan under subsection (c), the Secretary of the 
     Navy (after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior) 
     shall develop such management plan.
       (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall be responsible for 
     the issuance of any lease, easement, right-of-way, and other 
     authorization with respect to any activity which involves 
     both the lands withdrawn under section 802(a) and any other 
     lands. Any such authorization shall be issued only with the 
     consent of the Secretary of the Navy and, to the extent that 
     such activity involves lands withdrawn under section 802(a), 
     shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the 
     Navy may prescribe.
       (3) The Secretary of the Navy shall prepare and submit to 
     the Secretary of the Interior and annual report on the status 
     of the natural and cultural resources and values of the lands 
     withdrawn under section 802(a). The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall transmit such report to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
       (4) The Secretary of the Navy shall be responsible for the 
     management of wild horses and burros located on the lands 
     withdrawn under section 802(a) and may utilize helicopters 
     and motorized vehicles for such purposes. Such management 
     shall be in accordance with laws applicable to such 
     management on public lands and with an appropriate memorandum 
     of understanding between the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of the Navy.
       (5) Neither this Act nor any other provision of law shall 
     be construed to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from 
     issuing and administering any lease for the development and 
     utilization of geothermal steam and associated geothermal 
     resources on the lands withdrawn under section 802(a) 
     pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 
     et seq.) and other applicable law, but no such lease shall be 
     issued without the concurrence of the Navy.
       (6) This title shall not affect the geothermal exploration 
     and development authority of the Secretary of the Navy under 
     section 2689 of title 10, United States Code, except that the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of the Interior before taking action under that 
     section with respect to the lands withdrawn under section 
     802(a).
       (7) Upon the expiration of the withdrawal made by 
     subsection 802(a) or relinquishment of the lands withdrawn by 
     that subsection, Navy contracts for the development of 
     geothermal resources at China Lake then in effect (including 
     amendments or renewals by the Navy after the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall remain in effect: Provided, that 
     the Secretary of the Interior, with the consent of the 
     Secretary of the Navy, may offer to substitute a standard 
     geothermal lease for any such contract.
       (h) Management of El Centro Ranges.--To the extent 
     consistent with this title, the lands and minerals within the 
     areas described in section 802(c) shall be managed in 
     accordance with the Cooperative Agreement entered into 
     between the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, 
     and the Department of the Navy, dated June 29, 1987.

     SEC. 805. DURATION OF WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) Duration.--The withdrawal and reservation established 
     by this title shall terminate 15 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Draft Environmental Impact Statement.--No later than 12 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall publish a draft environmental impact 
     statement concerning continued or renewed withdrawal of any 
     portion of the lands withdrawn by this title for which that 
     Secretary intends to seek such continued or renewed 
     withdrawal. Such draft environmental impact statement shall 
     be consistent with the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     applicable to such a draft environmental impact statement. 
     Prior to the termination date specified in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall hold a public hearing on any 
     draft environmental impact statement published pursuant to 
     this subsection. Such hearing shall be held in the State of 
     California in order to receive public comments on the 
     alternatives and other matters included in such draft 
     environmental impact statement.
       (c) Extensions or Renewals.--The withdrawals established by 
     this title may not be extended or renewed except by an Act or 
     joint resolution.

     SEC. 806. ONGOING DECONTAMINATION.

       (a) Program.--Throughout the duration of the withdrawals 
     made by this title, the Secretary of the Navy, to the extent 
     funds are made available, shall maintain a program of 
     decontamination of lands withdrawn by this title at least at 
     the level of decontamination activities performed on such 
     lands in fiscal year 1986.
       (b) Reports.--At the same time as the President transmits 
     to the Congress the President's proposed budget for the first 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and for each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
     Navy shall transmit to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Armed Services, and Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate and to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed 
     Services, and Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a description of the decontamination efforts 
     undertaken during the previous fiscal year on such lands and 
     the decontamination activities proposed for such lands during 
     the next fiscal year including:
       (1) amounts appropriated and obligated or expended for 
     decontamination of such lands;
       (2) the methods used to decontaminate such lands;
       (3) amount and types of contaminants removed from such 
     lands;
       (4) estimated types and amounts of residual contamination 
     on such lands; and
       (5) an estimate of the costs for full decontamination of 
     such lands and the estimate of the time to complete such 
     decontamination.

     SEC. 807. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL.

       (a) Notice and Filing.--(1) No later than three years prior 
     to the termination of the withdrawal and reservation 
     established by this title, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     advise the Secretary of the Interior as to whether or not the 
     Secretary of the Navy will have a continuing military need 
     for any of the lands withdrawn under section 802 after the 
     termination date of such withdrawal and reservation.
       (2) If the Secretary of the Navy concludes that there will 
     be a continuing military need for any of such lands after the 
     termination date, the Secretary shall file an application for 
     extension of the withdrawal and reservation of such needed 
     lands in accordance with the regulations and procedures of 
     the Department of the Interior applicable to the extension of 
     withdrawals of lands for military uses.
       (3) If, during the period of withdrawal and reservation, 
     the Secretary of the Navy decides to relinquish all or any of 
     the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title, the Secretary 
     shall file a notice of intention to relinquish with the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Contamination.--(1) Before transmitting a notice of 
     intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Navy, 
     shall prepare a written determination concerning whether and 
     to what extent the lands that are to be relinquished are 
     contaminated with explosive, toxic, or other hazardous 
     materials.
       (2) A copy of such determination shall be transmitted with 
     the notice of intention to relinquish.
       (3) Copies of both the notice of intention to relinquish 
     and the determination concerning the contaminated state of 
     the lands shall be published in the Federal Register by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) Decontamination.--If any land which is the subject of a 
     notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) 
     is contaminated, and the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, determines that 
     decontamination is practicable and economically feasible 
     (taking into consideration the potential future use and value 
     of the land) and that upon decontamination, the land could be 
     opened to operation of some or all of the public land laws, 
     including the mining laws, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     decontaminate the land to the extent that funds are 
     appropriated for such purpose.
       (d) Alternatives.--If the Secretary of the Interior, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, concludes that 
     decontamination of any land which is the subject of a notice 
     of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) is not 
     practicable or economically feasible, or that the land cannot 
     be decontaminated sufficiently to be opened to operation of 
     some or all of the public land laws, or if Congress does not 
     appropriate a sufficient amount of funds for the 
     decontamination of such land, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall not be required to accept the land proposed for 
     relinquishment.
       (e) Status of Contaminated Lands.--If, because of their 
     contaminated sate, the Secretary of the Interior declines to 
     accept jurisdiction over lands withdrawn by this title which 
     have been proposed for relinquishment, or if at the 
     expiration of the withdrawal made by this title the Secretary 
     of the Interior determines that some of the lands withdrawn 
     by this title are contaminated to an extent which prevents 
     opening such contaminated lands to operation of the public 
     land laws--
       (1) the Secretary of the Navy shall take appropriate steps 
     to warn the public of the contaminated state of such lands 
     and any risks associated with entry onto such lands;
       (2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall undertake no activities on such lands 
     except in connection with decontamination of such lands; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Navy shall report to the Secretary 
     of the Interior and to the Congress concerning the status of 
     such lands and all actions taken in furtherance of this 
     subsection.
       (f) Revocation Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior, upon 
     deciding that it is in the public interest to accept 
     jurisdiction over lands proposed for relinquishment pursuant 
     to subsection (a), is authorized to remove the withdrawal and 
     reservation established by this title as it applies to such 
     lands. Should the decision be made to revoke the withdrawal 
     and reservation, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish 
     in the Federal Register an appropriate order which shall--
       (1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation;
       (2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction 
     over the lands by the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (3) state the date upon which the lands will be opened to 
     the operation of some or all of the public lands laws, 
     including the mining laws.

     SEC. 808. DELEGABILITY.

       (a) Defense.--The functions of the Secretary of Defense or 
     the Secretary of the Navy under this title may be delegated.
       (b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the 
     Interior under this title may be delegated, except that an 
     order described in section 807(f) may be approved and signed 
     only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary of 
     the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the Department of 
     the Interior.

     SEC. 809. HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.

       All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands withdrawn 
     by this Act shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 2671 of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 810. IMMUNITY OF UNITED STATES.

       The United States and all departments or agencies thereof 
     shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for any injury 
     or damage to persons or property suffered in the course of 
     any geothermal leasing or other authorized nonmilitary 
     activity conducted on lands described in section 802 of this 
     title.

     SEC. 811. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

       (a) Effect of Act.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to--
       (A) restrict or preclude continuation of low-level military 
     overflights, including those on existing flight training 
     routes; or
       (B) preclude the designation of new units of special 
     airspace or the establishment of new flight training routes 
     over the lands designated by this Act for inclusion within 
     new or expanded units of the National Park System or National 
     Wilderness Preservation System.
       (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring 
     revision of existing policies or procedures applicable to the 
     designation of units of special airspace or the establishment 
     of flight training routes over any Federal lands affected by 
     this Act.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Defense shall monitor the effects of military 
     overflights on the resources and values of the units of the 
     National Park System and National Wilderness Preservation 
     System designated or expanded by this Act, and shall attempt, 
     consistent with national security needs, to resolve concerns 
     related to such overflights and to avoid or minimize adverse 
     impacts on resources and values and visitor safety associated 
     with overflight activities.

     SEC. 812. TERMINATION OF PRIOR RECLAMATION WITHDRAWALS.

       Except to the extent that existing Bureau of Reclamation 
     withdrawals of public lands were identified for continuation 
     in Federal Register Notice Document 92-4838 (57 Federal 
     Register 7599, March 3, 1992), as amended by Federal Register 
     Correction Notices (57 Federal Register 19135, May 4, 1992; 
     57 Federal Register 19163, May 4, 1992; and 58 Federal 
     Register 30181, May 26, 1993), all existing Bureau of 
     Reclamation withdrawals made by Secretarial Orders and Public 
     Land Orders affecting public lands and Indian lands located 
     within the California Desert Conservation Area established 
     pursuant to section 601 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 are hereby terminated.

  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. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.


             modification to amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified with the technical corrections that I have sent to the 
desk, which are non-controversial and technical in nature.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Vento: Page 69, 
     after line 23, add the following:

            TITLE VIII--CALIFORNIA MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 
     1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal lands within the desert regions of 
     California have provided essential opportunities for military 
     training, research, and development for the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and allied nations;
       (2) alternative sites for military training and other 
     military activities carried out on Federal lands in the 
     California desert area are not readily available;
       (3) while changing world conditions have lessened to some 
     extent the immediacy of military threats to the national 
     security of the United States and its allies, there remains a 
     need for military training, research, and development 
     activities of the types that have been carried out on Federal 
     lands in the California desert areas; and
       (4) continuation of existing military training, research, 
     and development activities, under appropriate terms and 
     conditions, is not incompatible with the protection and 
     proper management of the natural, environmental, cultural, 
     and other resources and values of the Federal lands in the 
     California desert area.

     SEC. 802. WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) China Lake.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as otherwise provided in this title, the Federal lands 
     referred to in paragraph (2), and all other areas within the 
     boundary of such lands as depicted on the map specified in 
     such paragraph which may become subject to the operation of 
     the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 
     appropriation under the public land laws (including the 
     mining laws and the mineral leasing laws). Such lands are 
     reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) use as a research, development, test, and evaluation 
     laboratory;
       (B) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapon 
     systems;
       (C) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery, 
     rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, tactical 
     maneuvering and air support; and
       (D) subject to the requirements of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands, located within the boundaries of the China Lake Naval 
     Weapons Center, comprising approximately 1,100,000 acres in 
     Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, California, as 
     generally depicted on a map entitled ``China Lake Naval 
     Weapons Center Withdrawal--Proposed'', dated January 1985, 
     and filed in accordance with section 803.
       (b) Chocolate Mountain.--(1) Subject to valid existing 
     rights and except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
     Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other 
     areas within the boundary of such lands as depicted on the 
     map specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 
     the operation of the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
     (including the mining laws and the mineral leasing and the 
     geothermal leasing laws). Such lands are reserved for use by 
     the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) testing and training for aerial bombing, missile 
     firing, tactical maneuvering and air support; and
       (B) subject to the provisions of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands comprising approximately 226,711 acres in Imperial 
     County, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Proposed--
     Withdrawal'' dated July 1993 and filed in accordance with 
     section 803.
       (c) El Centro Ranges.--(1) Subject to valid existing 
     rights, and except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
     Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other 
     areas within the boundaries of such lands as depicted on the 
     map specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 
     the operation of the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
     (including the mining laws) but not the mineral or geothermal 
     leasing laws. Such lands are reserved for use by the 
     Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) defense-related purposes in accordance with the 
     Memorandum of Understanding date June 29, 1987, between the 
     Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 
     Department of the Navy; and
       (B) subject to the provisions of section 804(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands comprising approximately 46,600 acres in Imperial 
     County, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Exhibit A, Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California, Land 
     Acquisition Map, Range 2510 (West Mesa) dated March 1993 and 
     a map entitled ``Exhibit B, Naval Air Facility, El Centro, 
     California, Land Acquisition Map Range 2512 (East Mesa)'' 
     dated March 1993.

     SEC. 803. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

       (a) Publication and Filing Requirement.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the 
     legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this 
     title; and
       (2) file maps and the legal description of the lands 
     withdrawn and reserved by this title with the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and 
     with the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Technical Corrections.--Such maps and legal 
     descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if they 
     were included in this title except that the Secretary of the 
     Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     such maps and legal descriptions.
       (c) Availability for Public Inspection.--Copies of such 
     maps and legal descriptions shall be available for public 
     inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; the Office 
     of the Director, California State Office of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, Sacramento, California; the office of the 
     commander of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, 
     California; the office of the commanding officer, Marine 
     Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona; and the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, Washington, District of Columbia.
       (d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for the cost of 
     implementing this section.

     SEC. 804. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

       (a) Management by the Secretary of the Interior.--(1) 
     Except as provided in subsection (g), during the period of 
     the withdrawal the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the 
     lands withdrawn under section 802 pursuant to the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq.) and other applicable law, including this Act.
       (2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and 
     Executive orders, the lands withdrawn under section 802 may 
     be managed in a manner permitting--
       (A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to applicable law 
     and Executive orders where permitted on the date of enactment 
     of this title;
       (B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat;
       (C) control of predatory and other animals;
       (D) recreation (but only on lands withdrawn by section 
     802(a) (relating to China Lake));
       (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression of brush and 
     range fires resulting from nonmilitary activities; and
       (F) geothermal leasing and development and related power 
     production activities on the lands withdrawn under section 
     802(a) (relating to China Lake).
       (3)(A) All nonmilitary use of such lands, including the 
     uses described in paragraph (2), shall be subject to such 
     conditions and restrictions as may be necessary to permit the 
     military use of such lands for the purposes specified in or 
     authorized pursuant to this title.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior may issue any lease, 
     easement, right-of-way, or other authorization with respect 
     to the nonmilitary use of such lands only with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy.
       (b) Closure to Public.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy 
     determines that military operations, public safety, or 
     national security require the closure to public use of any 
     road, trail, or other portion of the lands withdrawn by this 
     title, the Secretary may take such action as the Secretary 
     determines necessary or desirable to effect and maintain such 
     closure.
       (2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum areas 
     and periods which the Secretary of the Navy determines are 
     required to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Before and during any closure under this subsection, 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall--
       (A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; and
       (B) take appropriate steps to notify the public concerning 
     such closures.
       (c) Management Plan.--The Secretary of the Interior (after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy) shall develop a 
     plan for the management of each area withdrawn under section 
     802 during the period of such withdrawal. Each plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with applicable law;
       (2) be subject to conditions and restrictions specified in 
     subsection (a)(3);
       (3) include such provisions as may be necessary for proper 
     management and protection of the resources and values of such 
     area; and
       (4) be developed not later than three years after the date 
     of enactment of this title.
       (d) Brush and Range Fires.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     take necessary precautions to prevent and suppress brush and 
     range fires occurring within and outside the lands withdrawn 
     under section 802 as a result of military activities and may 
     seek assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in the 
     suppression of such fires. The memorandum of understanding 
     required by subsection (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land 
     Management assistance in the suppression of such fires, and 
     for a transfer of funds from the Department of the Navy to 
     the Bureau of Land Management as compensation for such 
     assistance.
       (e) Memorandum of Understanding.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of the Navy shall (with respect to 
     each land withdrawal under section 802) enter into to 
     memorandum of understanding to implement the management plan 
     developed under subsection (c). Any such memorandum of 
     understanding shall provide that the Director of the Bureau 
     of Land Management shall provide assistance in the 
     suppression of fires resulting from the military use of lands 
     withdrawn under section 802 if requested by the Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       (2) The duration of any such memorandum shall be the same 
     as the period of the withdrawal of the lands under section 
     802.
       (f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) Lands withdrawn by 
     section 802 may be used for defense-related uses other than 
     those specified in such section. The Secretary of Defense 
     shall promptly notify the Secretary of the Interior in the 
     event that the lands withdrawn by this title will be used for 
     defense-related purposes other than those specified in 
     section 802. Such notification shall indicate the additional 
     use or uses involved, the proposed duration of such uses, and 
     the extent to which such additional military uses of the 
     withdrawn lands will require that additional or more 
     stringent conditions or restrictions be imposed on otherwise-
     permitted nonmilitary uses of the withdrawn land or portions 
     thereof.
       (g) Management of China Lake.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior may assign the management responsibility for the 
     lands withdrawn under section 802(a) to the Secretary of the 
     Navy who shall manage such lands, and issue leases, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and other authorizations, in 
     accordance with this title and cooperative management 
     arrangements between the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of the Navy. In the case that the Secretary of 
     the Interior assigns such management responsibility to the 
     Secretary of the Navy before the development of the 
     management plan under subsection (c), the Secretary of the 
     Navy (after consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior) shall develop such management plan.
       Nothing in this title shall affect geothermal leases issued 
     by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of 
     enactment of this title or the responsibility of the 
     Secretary to administer and manage such leases consistent 
     with the provisions of this title.
       (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall be responsible for 
     the issuance of any lease, easement, right-of-way, and other 
     authorization with respect to any activity which involves 
     both the lands withdrawn under section 802(a) and any other 
     lands. Any such authorization shall be issued only with the 
     consent of the Secretary of the Navy and, to the extent that 
     such activity involves lands withdrawn under section 802(a), 
     shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the 
     Navy may prescribe.
       (3) The Secretary of the Navy shall prepare and submit to 
     the Secretary of the Interior an annual report on the status 
     of the natural and cultural resources and values of the lands 
     withdrawn under section 802(a). The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall transmit such report to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
       (4) The Secretary of the Navy shall be responsible for the 
     management of wild horses and burros located on the lands 
     withdrawn under section 802(a) and may utilize helicopters 
     and motorized vehicles for such purposes. Such management 
     shall be in accordance with laws applicable to such 
     management on public lands and with an appropriate memorandum 
     of understanding between the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of the Navy.
       (5) Neither this Act nor any other provision of law shall 
     be construed to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from 
     issuing and administering any lease for the development and 
     utilization of geothermal steam and associated geothermal 
     resources on the lands withdrawn under section 802(a) 
     pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 
     et seq.) and other applicable law, but no such lease shall be 
     issued without the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy.
       (6) This title shall not affect the geothermal exploration 
     and development authority of the Secretary of the Navy under 
     section 2689 of title 10, United States Code, except that the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of the Interior before taking action under that 
     section with respect to the lands withdrawn under section 
     802(a).
       (7) Upon the expiration of the withdrawal made by 
     subsection (a) of section 802 or relinquishment of the lands 
     withdrawn by that subsection, Navy contracts for the 
     development of geothermal resources at China Lake then in 
     effect (including amendments or renewals by the Navy after 
     the date of enactment of this Act) shall remain in effect: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
     consent of the Secretary of the Navy, may offer to substitute 
     a standard geothermal lease for any such contract.
       (h) Management of El Centro Ranges.--To the extent 
     consistent with this title, the lands and minerals within the 
     areas described in section 802(c) shall be managed in 
     accordance with the Cooperative Agreement entered into 
     between the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, 
     and the Department of the Navy, dated June 29, 1987.

     SEC. 805. DURATION OF WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) Duration.--The withdrawal and reservation established 
     by this title shall terminate 15 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Draft Environmental Impact Statement.--No later than 12 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall publish a draft environmental impact 
     statement concerning continued or renewed withdrawal of any 
     portion of the lands withdrawn by this title for which the 
     Secretary intends to seek such continued or renewed 
     withdrawal. Such draft environmental impact statement shall 
     be consistent with the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     applicable to such a draft environmental impact statement. 
     Prior to the termination date specified in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall hold a public hearing on any 
     draft environmental impact statement published pursuant to 
     this subsection. Such hearing shall be held in the State of 
     California in order to receive public comments on the 
     alternatives and other matters included in such draft 
     environmental impact statement.
       (c) Extensions or Renewals.--The withdrawals established by 
     this title may not be extended or renewed except by an Act or 
     joint resolution.

     SEC. 806. ONGOING DECONTAMINATION.

       (a) Program.--Throughout the duration of the withdrawals 
     made by this title, the Secretary of the Navy, to the extent 
     funds are made available, shall maintain a program of 
     decontamination of lands withdrawn by this title at least at 
     the level of decontamination activities performed on such 
     lands in fiscal year 1986.
       (b) Reports.--At the same time as the President transmits 
     to the Congress the President's proposed budget for the first 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and for each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
     Navy shall transmit to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Armed Services, and Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate and to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed 
     Services, and Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a description of the decontamination efforts 
     undertaken during the previous fiscal year on such lands and 
     the decontamination activities proposed for such lands during 
     the next fiscal year including:
       (1) amounts appropriated and obligated or expended for 
     decontamination of such lands;
       (2) the methods used to decontaminate such lands;
       (3) amount and types of contaminants removed from such 
     lands;
       (4) estimated types and amounts of residual contamination 
     on such lands; and
       (5) an estimate of the costs for full decontamination of 
     such lands and the estimate of the time to complete such 
     decontamination.

     SEC. 807. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL.

       (a) Notice and Filing.--(1) No later than three years prior 
     to the termination of the withdrawal and reservation 
     established by this title, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     advise the Secretary of the Interior as to whether or not the 
     Secretary of the Navy will have a continuing military need 
     for any of the lands withdrawn under section 802 after the 
     termination date of such withdrawal and reservation.
       (2) If the Secretary of the Navy concludes that there will 
     be a continuing military need for any of such lands after the 
     termination date, the Secretary shall file an application for 
     extension of the withdrawal and reservation of such needed 
     lands in accordance with the regulations and procedures of 
     the Department of the Interior applicable to the extension of 
     withdrawals of lands for military uses.
       (3) If, during the period of withdrawal and reservation, 
     the Secretary of the Navy decides to relinquish all or any of 
     the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title, the Secretary 
     shall file a notice of intention to relinquish with the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Contamination.--(1) Before transmitting a notice of 
     intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Navy, 
     shall prepare a written determination concerning whether and 
     to what extent the lands that are to be relinquished are 
     contaminated with explosive, toxic, or other hazardous 
     materials.
       (2) A copy of such determination shall be transmitted with 
     the notice of intention to relinquish.
       (3) Copies of both the notice of intention to relinquish 
     and the determination concerning the contaminated state of 
     the lands shall be published in the Federal Register by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) Decontamination.--If any land which is the subject of a 
     notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) 
     is contaminated, and the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, determines that 
     decontamination is practicable and economically feasible 
     (taking into consideration the potential future use and value 
     of the land) and that upon decontamination, the land could be 
     opened to operation of some or all of the public land laws, 
     including the mining laws, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     decontaminate the land to the extent that funds are 
     appropriated for such purpose.
       (d) Alternatives.--If the Secretary of the Interior, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, concludes that 
     decontamination of any land which is the subject of a notice 
     of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) is not 
     practicable or economically feasible, or that the land cannot 
     be decontaminated sufficiently to be opened to operation of 
     some or all of the public land laws, or if Congress does not 
     appropriate a sufficient amount of funds for the 
     decontamination of such land, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall not be required to accept the land proposed for 
     relinquishment.
       (e) Status of Contaminated Lands.--If, because of their 
     contaminated state, the Secretary of the Interior declines to 
     accept jurisdiction over lands withdrawn by this title which 
     have been proposed for relinquishment, or if at the 
     expiration of the withdrawal made by this title the Secretary 
     of the Interior determines that some of the lands withdrawn 
     by this title are contaminated to an extent which prevents 
     opening such contaminated lands to operation of the public 
     land laws--
       (1) the Secretary of the Navy shall take appropriate steps 
     to warn the public of the contaminated state of such lands 
     and any risks associated with entry onto such lands;
       (2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall undertake no activities on such lands 
     except in connection with decontamination of such lands; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Navy shall report to the Secretary 
     of the Interior and to the Congress concerning the status of 
     such lands and all actions taken in furtherance of this 
     subsection.
       (f) Revocation Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior, upon 
     deciding that it is in the public interest to accept 
     jurisdiction over lands proposed for relinquishment pursuant 
     to subsection (a), is authorized to revoke the withdrawal and 
     reservation established by this title as it applies to such 
     lands. Should the decision be made to revoke the withdrawal 
     and reservation, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish 
     in the Federal Register an appropriate order which shall--
       (1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation;
       (2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction 
     over the lands by the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (3) state the date upon which the lands will be opened to 
     the operation of some or all of the public lands laws, 
     including the mining laws.

     SEC. 808. DELEGABILITY.

       (a) Defense.--The functions of the Secretary of Defense or 
     the Secretary of the Navy under this title may be delegated.
       (b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the 
     Interior under this title may be delegated, except that an 
     order described in section 807(f) may be approved and signed 
     only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary of 
     the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the Department of 
     the Interior.

     SEC. 809. HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.

       All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands withdrawn 
     by this title shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 2671 of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 810. IMMUNITY OF UNITED STATES.

       The United States and all departments or agencies thereof 
     shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for any injury 
     or damage to persons or property suffered in the course of 
     any geothermal leasing or other authorized nonmilitary 
     activity conducted on lands described in section 802 of this 
     title.

     SEC. 811. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

       (a) Effect of Act.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to--
       (A) restrict or preclude continuation of low-level military 
     overflights, including those on existing flight training 
     routes; or
       (B) preclude the designation of new units of special 
     airspace or the establishment of new flight training routes;

      over the lands designated by this Act for inclusion within 
     new or expanded units of the National Park System or National 
     Wilderness Preservation System.
       (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring 
     revision of existing policies or procedures applicable to the 
     designation of units of special airspace or the establishment 
     of flight training routes over any Federal lands affected by 
     this Act.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Defense shall monitor the effects of military 
     overflights on the resources and values of the units of the 
     National Park System and National Wilderness Preservation 
     System designated or expanded by this Act, and shall attempt, 
     consistent with national security needs, to resolve concerns 
     related to such overflights and to avoid or minimize adverse 
     impacts on resources and values and visitor safety associated 
     with overflight activities.

     SEC. 812. TERMINATION OF PRIOR RECLAMATION WITHDRAWALS.

       Except to the extent that existing Bureau of Reclamation 
     withdrawals of public lands were identified for continuation 
     in Federal Register Notice Document 92-4838 (57 Federal 
     Register 7599, March 3, 1992), as amended by Federal Register 
     Correction Notices (57 Federal Register 19135, May 4, 1992; 
     57 Federal Register 19163, May 4, 1992; and 58 Federal 
     Register 30181, May 26, 1993), all existing Bureau of 
     Reclamation withdrawals made by Secretarial Orders and Public 
     Land Orders affecting public lands and Indian lands located 
     within the California Desert Conservation Area established 
     pursuant to section 601 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 are hereby terminated.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment, as modified, 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] that the amendment be modified?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman to ask about the technical corrections that he just 
mentioned.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my request is based on the modifications discussed with 
the minority to the title VIII amendments dealing with the military 
withdrawal. They involve adding language related to geothermal 
activities and the correction of a cross reference.
  If the gentleman would further yield, the procedure here that I 
followed is simply to deal with title VIII. All of the title VII 
amendments will be considered in due course. It simply was a matter of 
trying to deal with this in an orderly manner, rather than waiting to 
the end of the bill. I believe the military withdrawal language and the 
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] to 
my language is noncontroversial. I appreciate the cooperation of the 
gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment, as modified.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add an additional title 
to the bill, dealing with military lands and overflights in the 
California desert.
  The amendment would effect or renew the withdrawal for military 
purposes of certain public lands in the California desert, and would 
clarify the relationship between the designation of Federal lands in 
that area for conservation purposes and the use of other lands and 
associated airspaces for important military training and testing.
  The provisions of this amendment are similar to ones included in the 
version of the California Desert Protection Act passed by the House of 
Representatives in 1991. It would provide the Armed Services with 
secure tenure on more than 1.3 million acres of lands in the California 
desert areas that are in daily use for very important testing and 
training activities.
  I regret that the Senate did not complete action on the California 
Desert Protection Act during the last Congress. However, earlier this 
year the Senate did pass S. 21, which includes provisions like those in 
this amendment.
  As we did in 1991, the Natural Resources Committee omitted such 
provisions from the version of the bill we reported, because we share 
responsibility over these matters with the Committee on Armed Services.
  In developing this amendment, I have worked with Chairman Dellums and 
Subcommittee Chairman McCurdy, of the Armed Services Committee, and 
with the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr] who both serve on the Armed Services Committee as 
well as on the Committee on Natural Resources. There have also been 
discussions with representatives of the Department of Defense and the 
various military services with an interest in the matters addressed by 
the amendment.
  While there are elements of the amendment--particularly the duration 
of the land withdrawals for military use--that are not exactly as 
suggested by the services, I believe that the amendment provides the 
necessary security for continued military use of these withdrawal areas 
and the airspaces in the California desert area that are so important 
to maintenance of military readiness.
  As I said when the House last considered this matter, it does not 
seem to me that there is an absolute need for Congress to legislate 
regarding military overflights. As a matter of law, designation of 
wilderness or national parks does not preclude continued military 
overflights of the lands involved.
  However, because of the importance of the California desert's 
airspaces for military training, inclusion of such provisions is 
desirable in order to resolve questions that some have raised about how 
this bill might affect the ability of the Armed Forces to continue 
their overflights of the lands involved.
  There will be a second-degree amendment, which is intended to be 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], that will refine 
somewhat the overflight language of my amendment. That second-degree 
amendment has been worked out through discussions between the natural 
resources Committee and the Committee on Armed Services.

  For the information of the House, I am including in my statement 
information about the background and provisions of the amendment.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is 
appropriate as part of this bill's comprehensive blueprint for future 
management of Federal lands in the California desert, and I urge its 
adoption by the House.


            BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT

       Before 1958, Federal lands in California (as in other 
     States) were made available to the military departments for 
     bases, training areas, and other purposes through 
     administrative or executive actions, without the need for 
     Congressional involvement. This was done through Public Land 
     Orders, Executive Orders, or other measures that had the 
     effect of withdrawing lands from operation of some or all of 
     the otherwise applicable public lands laws (such as the 
     Mining Law of 1872 or the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920) 
     and of limiting public access.
       The extent of these military withdrawals and their long 
     duration after the end of the Second World War and the Korean 
     conflict led to the enactment in 1958 of the law popularly 
     know as the ``Engle Act'' (P.L. 85-337). Named after the late 
     U.S. Representative and Senator Clair Engle of California, 
     this law provides that a peacetime withdrawal of 5,000 acres 
     or more of public lands for military purposes can be 
     accomplished only by Act of Congress. It also specifies that 
     (except in certain Naval reserve areas) minerals in lands 
     withdrawn for military purposes are under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of the Interior, but that disposition of such 
     shall not occur in cases in which the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that this would be inconsistent with military use 
     of the lands.
       This amendment, like Title VIII of H.R. 2929 of the 102nd 
     Congress, would withdraw two extensive areas of land in 
     Southern California that have long been used by the Navy, in 
     a manner consistent with Engle Act. It would also similarly 
     withdraw additional lands in Imperial County, referred to as 
     the El Centro Ranges, for use by the Navy. At the time of 
     consideration of the 1991 legislation, agreement had not been 
     reached between the Navy and Interior Departments concerning 
     the extent to which such a withdrawal would be appropriate; 
     that agreement has now been reached, and the amendment 
     reflects and incorporates that agreement.


                            AREAS WITHDRAWN

       The lands that the amendment would withdraw for military 
     uses are the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (``China 
     Lake''), of approximately 1,100,000 acres in Inyo, Kern, and 
     San Bernadino Counties; the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 
     Range (``Chocolate Mountain'') in Imperial and Riverside 
     Counties, of approximately 227,369 acres; and the El Centro 
     Ranges in Imperial County, of approximately 46,600 acres.


                               CHINA LAKE

       According to the Navy, China Lake is the principal Navy 
     center for research, development, test, and evaluation of air 
     warfare systems and missile weapon systems. The Navy has also 
     been actively pursuing a program of developing the geothermal 
     resources of the area for the production of electrical power. 
     The amendment includes the same language as in the 
     corresponding provisions of S. 21 to assure the continuation 
     of geothermal development and utilization in the China Lake 
     area.


                          CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS

       The Chocolate Mountains area is heavily used by the Marine 
     Corps for training of pilots in air-to-air gunnery, air 
     combat maneuvering, air-to-ground ordnance delivery, and 
     related training activities, many involving use of live 
     ordnance.


                            EL CENTRO RANGES

       The California Desert Protection legislation passed by the 
     House in 1991 addressed these lands, but did not make them 
     subject to the military-withdrawal provisions. The public 
     lands involved are on the west side of the Imperial Valley, 
     and have been the subject of a series of withdrawals for 
     reclamation purposes for many years. In 1987, the Interior 
     Committee (now, the Committee on Natural Resources) was told 
     that since 1954 portions of these lands had been used as 
     target ranges by the Navy in connection with the El Centro 
     Naval Air Station. This use was permitted by the Interior 
     Department through a series of ``memoranda of 
     understanding,'' even after the enactment of the Engle Act in 
     1958 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
       The Committee was told that in 1982 the Navy concluded that 
     although the two target ranges were used only for inert 
     ordnance, additional controls on other uses were needed. The 
     Committee was further informed that the Navy therefore 
     proposed to seek a withdrawal of about 290,000 acres of 
     public domain in the El Centro area--more than twice the 
     public domain then being used under the existing 
     arrangements. This evidently provoked controversy.
       Subsequently, the Navy entered into a cooperative agreement 
     with the Interior Department under which the Navy was to 
     reduce its withdrawal request to 55,000 acres immediately 
     around certain target areas, and would seek a right-of-way 
     grant for additional 97,000 acres to control potential 
     conflicts between Navy activities in the area and other uses. 
     The Committee was told that the Navy and the Department of 
     the Interior were planning to submit a legislative request 
     for the 55,000 acre withdrawal before the end of 1988, but to 
     date no such request has been submitted.
       In 1987, the Committee had serious doubts about the 
     authority of the Secretary of the Interior under existing law 
     to permit the Navy to continue its use of public lands in the 
     El Centro area prior to Congressional action on a withdrawal 
     proposal. Therefore, the Committee included in that year's 
     bill for the withdrawal of China Lake and Chocolate Mountains 
     provisions to explicitly authorize the Secretary of the 
     Interior to permit the Navy to use the relevant public lands 
     in the El Centro ranges until January 1, 1990, for the same 
     purposes and to no greater extent than as of July 1, 1987. 
     The intent of this was to assure that the Navy could continue 
     to use these lands for a period of time that the Committee 
     believed adequate for submission and consideration of a 
     proposal for withdrawal of the affected public lands. In the 
     same way, the corresponding provisions of H.R. 2929, as 
     passed by the House in 1991, would have allowed this used to 
     continue until January 1, 1994.
       Since that time, the Interior Department has reached an 
     agreement with the Navy for continued military use of about 
     46,600 acres of these lands, and has taken steps toward 
     revocation of the reclamation withdrawal applicable to the 
     remainder. Accordingly, and consistent with the requirements 
     of the Engle Act, the amendment would statutorily withdraw 
     46,600 acres for continued military use by the Navy and would 
     revoke the reclamation withdrawal applicable to these and 
     other public lands.
       This amendment, like a similar House-passed bill of 1987, 
     is closely modelled on the omnibus Military Lands Withdrawal 
     Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-606), which renewed the Engle Act 
     withdrawals for areas in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and 
     Alaska. That omnibus measure was developed through 
     negotiations between the House and Senate in the closing 
     hours of the 99th Congress and included a number of 
     compromises, such as agreement on 15 years as the standard 
     period for duration of such withdrawals (as opposed to 10 
     years in House measures and 25 years requested by the 
     Administration). The Natural Resources Committee has 
     subsequently approved and the House has twice passed 
     legislation (including H.R. 194 by Representative Hefley) for 
     a 15-year military withdrawal of lands in Colorado 
     associated with Fort Carson.
       The amendment would withdraw the China Lake, Chocolate 
     Mountains, and El Centro Ranges areas for all forms of 
     appropriation under the public lands laws, and from entry, 
     location, and patent under the mining laws. China Lake would 
     be withdrawn from mineral leasing but not from geothermal 
     leasing (to accommodate the ongoing program of developing 
     geothermal resources there); Chocolate Mountains would be 
     withdrawn from both mineral leasing and goethermal leasing. 
     The El Centro Ranges would not be withdrawn from either 
     mineral or geothermal leasing.
       China Lake would be reserved for use by the Secretary of 
     the Navy for a research, development, test, and evaluation 
     laboratory; Chocolate Mountains would be reserved for use in 
     testing and training for aerial bombing, missile firing, 
     tactical maneuvering, and air support; El Centro would be 
     reserved for military uses in accordance with an existing 
     agreement between the Navy and Interior Departments. Each 
     area could be used for additional defense-related purposes.
       The Secretary of the Interior would retain responsibility 
     for management of the lands involved, including the 
     preparation of land-management plans, except that in the case 
     of China Lake this could be assigned by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to the Secretary of the Navy (as is currently done).
       The military withdrawal of the three areas would expire 15 
     years after the date of enactment. No later than 12 years 
     after enactment, the Secretary of the Navy would be required 
     to publish a draft environmental impact statement concerning 
     any desired continuation or renewal of either or both 
     withdrawal. Consistent with the requirements of the Engle 
     Act, any continuation or renewal of any of these withdrawals 
     would be by Congress.
       The amendment includes the same provisions related to 
     decontamination of the withdrawn lands as established by the 
     omnibus withdrawal Act for the areas covered by that Act. The 
     Navy would thus be required to maintain an ongoing program of 
     decontamination, to the extent that funds are made available, 
     at least at the level of work done in fiscal 1986, with 
     reports concerning this program to be submitted to Congress 
     at the same time as the President's budget is transmitted.
       The amendment also includes the same provisions regarding 
     procedures for requesting continuation or renewal of the 
     withdrawal for either or both areas as were included in the 
     omnibus withdrawal Act of 1986 and in the 1987 House-passed 
     bill to withdraw China Lake and the Chocolate Mountain area. 
     Similarly, the amendment's provisions regarding immunization 
     of the United States against damages; regulation of hunting, 
     fishing, and trapping; and delegation of authority by the 
     respective Secretaries are all modelled on those of P.L. 99-
     606.
       Finally, the amendment includes provisions similar to those 
     in Title VIII of H.R. 2929 as passed by the House in 1991 
     with respect to military overflights of the lands withdrawn 
     by the amendment or the lands given wilderness, National 
     Park, or other conservation status by the California Desert 
     Protection Act.

amendment offered by mr. farr of california to the amendment offered by 
                         mr. vento, as modified

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Vento, as modified: On page 20 of 
     the amendment, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     line 23 on page 21, and in lieu thereof insert the following:

     SEC. 811. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

       (a) Effect of Act.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to--
       (A) restrict or preclude continuation of low-level military 
     overflights, including those on existing flight training 
     routes; or
       (B) affect the designation of new units of special airspace 
     or the establishment of new flight training routes over the 
     lands designated by this Act for inclusion within new or 
     expanded units of the National Park System or National 
     Wilderness Preservation System.
       (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring 
     revision of existing policies or procedures applicable to the 
     designation of units of special airspace or the establishment 
     of flight training routes over any Federal lands affected by 
     this Act.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Defense shall monitor the effects of military 
     overflights on the resources and values of the units of the 
     National Park System and National Wilderness Preservation 
     System designated or expanded by this Act, and shall attempt, 
     consistent with national security needs, to resolve concerns 
     related to such overflights and to avoid or minimize adverse 
     impacts on resources and values and visitor safety associated 
     with such overflight activities.

  Mr. FARR 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. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. 
Vento's amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  As it now stands, the California Desert Protection Act would permit 
grazing to continue indefinitely in the Mojave National Park.
  Mr. Vento's amendment will allow current grazing permit holders to 
continue grazing their livestock in the park until their grazing permit 
expires.
  Let us remember that we talking here about protecting some of the 
least productive grazing lands in the United States where it can take 
up to 160 acres of land to feed 1 cow for 1 month. Annual rain totals 
less than 6 inches and summer temperatures regularly approach 120 
degrees.
  The environmental impact of domestic livestock grazing on public 
lands is a controversial issue. It is undisputable however that grazing 
in hot desert areas like the Mojave Desert exacts a high environmental 
cost and causes long term environmental damage. Studies have shown that 
grazing is incompatible with proper management in Mojave National Park.
  The November 1991 GAO report on rangeland management focused on the 
BLM's Hot Desert Grazing Program supports this view.
  The report further emphasizes that deserts have a particularly 
fragile ecosystem and once damage occurs they take a long time to 
recover.
  Research has shown that grazing has a detrimental impact on certain 
hot desert wildlife species, plant species, and vitally important 
habitat for endemic species.
  Numerous desert animal and plant species have evolved elaborate 
survival systems to endure their harsh living conditions. Removing 
competition for survival by removing cattle will eliminate a 
significant threat to this delicate ecosystem.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Vento amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr], a member of both committees, as I said, for his 
work on this matter. The gentleman has been very helpful.
  As the gentleman has indicated, this is an agreement between the 
principals involved, Chairman Miller, Chairman Dellums, myself, and 
others, and this keeps the law in place and provides nothing in the act 
shall be construed to restrict or preclude low level military flights. 
We do enter an agreement here to provide for joint monitoring by the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Interior in terms of 
overflights over the parks and wilderness system.
  It is a data-reporting requirement and consultation about visitors' 
safety and, of course, the necessity for training in these areas.
  I want to make clear to my colleague from Utah and others that may be 
interested or aware of my interest in military overflights that this is 
not disruptive or does not include the provisions of restricting 
military overflights. It is an amendment that was shared with the 
minority. I would be happy to respond to further questions concerning 
it, but it is, as presented by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Farr], a straightforward agreement between the two committees.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] for yielding to me 
and for his help and that of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].


   amendment offered by mr. hansen as a substitute for the amendment 
                   offered by mr. vento, as modified

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Vento, as modified:

  In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert:

               TITLE VIII--MILITARY LANDS AND OVERFLIGHTS

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 
     1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) military aircraft testing and training activities as 
     well as demilitarization activities in California are an 
     important part of the national defense system of the United 
     States, and are essential in order to secure for the American 
     people of this and future generations an enduring and viable 
     national defense system;
       (2) the National Parks and wilderness areas designated by 
     this Act lie within a region critical to providing training, 
     research, and development for the Armed Forces of the United 
     States and its allies;
       (3) there is a lack of alternative sites available for 
     these military training, testing, and research activities;
       (4) continued use of the lands and airspace in the 
     California desert region is essential for military purposes; 
     and
       (5) continuation of these military activities, under 
     appropriate terms and conditions, is not incompatible with 
     the protection and proper management of the natural, 
     environmental, cultural, and other resources and values of 
     the Federal lands in the California desert area.

     SEC. 802. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

       (a) Overflights.--Nothing in this Act, the Wilderness Act, 
     or other land management laws generally applicable to the new 
     units of the National Park or Wilderness Preservation Systems 
     (Or any additions to existing units) designated by this Act, 
     shall restrict or preclude low-level overflights of military 
     aircraft over such units, including military overflights that 
     can be seen or heard within such units.
       (b) Special Airspace.--Nothing in this Act, the Wilderness 
     Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to 
     the new units of the National Park or Wilderness Preservation 
     Systems (or any additions to existing units) designated by 
     this Act, shall restrict or preclude the designation of new 
     units of special airspace or the use or establishment of 
     military flight training routes over such new park or 
     wilderness units.
       (c) No Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to modify, expand, or diminish any authority 
     under other Federal law.

     SEC. 803. WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) China Lake.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as otherwise provided in this title, the Federal lands 
     referred to in paragraph (2), and all other areas within the 
     boundary of such lands as depicted on the map specified in 
     such paragraph which may become subject to the operation of 
     the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 
     appropriation under the public land laws (including the 
     mining laws and the mineral leasing laws). Such lands are 
     reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) use as a research, development, test, and evaluation 
     laboratory;
       (B) use as a range for air warfare weapons and weapon 
     systems;
       (C) use as a high hazard training area for aerial gunnery, 
     rocketry, electronic warfare and countermeasures, tactical 
     maneuvering and air support;
       (D) geothermal leasing and development and related power 
     production activities; and
       (E) subject to the requirements of section 805(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands located within the boundaries of the China Lake Naval 
     Weapons Center, comprising approximately one million one 
     hundred thousand acres in Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino 
     Counties, California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``China Lake Naval Weapons Center Withdrawal--Proposed'', 
     dated January 1985.
       (b) Chocolate Mountain.--(1) Subject to valid existing 
     rights and except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
     Federal lands referred to in paragraph (2), and all other 
     areas within the boundary of such lands as depicted on the 
     map specified in such paragraph which may become subject to 
     the operation of the public land laws, are hereby withdrawn 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
     (including the mining laws and the mineral leasing and the 
     geothermal leasing laws). Such lands are reserved for use by 
     the Secretary of the Navy for--
       (A) testing and training for aerial bombing, missile 
     firing, tactical maneuvering and air support; and
       (B) subject to the provisions of section 805(f), other 
     defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes 
     specified in this paragraph.
       (2) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the Federal 
     lands comprising approximately two hundred twenty-six 
     thousand seven hundred and eleven acres in Imperial County, 
     California, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Proposed--
     Withdrawal'' dated July 1993.

     SEC. 804. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

       (a) Publication and Filing Requirement.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the 
     legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this 
     title; and
       (2) file maps and the legal description of the lands 
     withdrawn and reserved by this title with the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and 
     with the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Technical Corrections.--Such maps and legal 
     descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if they 
     were included in this title except that the Secretary may 
     correct clerical and typographical errors in such maps and 
     legal descriptions.
       (c) Availability for Public Inspection.--Copies of such 
     maps and legal descriptions shall be available for public 
     inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land 
     Management; the office of the commander of the Naval Weapons 
     Center, China Lake, California; the office of the commanding 
     officer, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona; and the 
     Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, District of 
     Columbia.
       (d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     reimburse the Secretary for the cost of implementing this 
     section.

     SEC. 805. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

       (a) Management by the Secretary of the Interior.--(1) 
     Except as provided in subsection (g), during the period of 
     the withdrawal the Secretary shall manage the lands withdrawn 
     under section 803 of this title pursuant to the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) 
     and other applicable law, including this title.
       (2) To the extent consistent with applicable law and 
     Executive orders, the lands withdrawn under section 803 may 
     be managed in a manner permitting--
       (A) the continuation of grazing pursuant to applicable law 
     and Executive orders were permitted on the date of enactment 
     of this title;
       (B) protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat;
       (C) control of predatory and other animals;
       (D) recreation (but only on lands withdrawn by section 
     803(a) (relating to China Lake));
       (E) the prevention and appropriate suppression of brush and 
     range fires resulting from nonmilitary activities; and
       (F) geothermal leasing and development and related power 
     production activities on the lands withdrawn under section 
     803(a) (relating to China Lake).
       (3)(A) All nonmilitary use of such lands, including the 
     uses described in paragraph (2), shall be subject to such 
     conditions and restrictions as may be necessary to permit the 
     military use of such lands for the purposes specified in or 
     authorized pursuant to this title.
       (B) The Secretary may issue any lease, easement, right-of-
     way, or other authorization with respect to the nonmilitary 
     use of such lands only with the concurrence of the Secretary 
     of the Navy.
       (b) Closure to Public.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy 
     determines that military operations, public safety, or 
     national security require the closure to public use of any 
     road, trail, or other portion of the lands withdrawn by this 
     title, the Secretary may take such action as the Secretary 
     determines necessary or desirable to effect and maintain such 
     closure.
       (2) Any such closure shall be limited to the minimum areas 
     and periods which the Secretary of the Navy determines are 
     required to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Before and during any closure under this subsection, 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall--
       (A) keep appropriate warning notices posted; and
       (B) take appropriate steps to notify the public concerning 
     such closures.
       (c) Management Plan.--The Secretary (after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Navy) shall develop a plan for the 
     management of each area withdrawn under section 803 of this 
     title during the period of such withdrawal. Each plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with applicable law;
       (2) be subject to conditions and restrictions specified in 
     subsection (a)(3);
       (3) include such provisions as may be necessary for proper 
     management and protection of the resources and values of such 
     area; and
       (4) be developed not later than three years after the date 
     of enactment of this title.
       (d) Brush and Range Fires.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     take necessary precautions to prevent and suppress brush and 
     range fires occurring within and outside the lands withdrawn 
     under section 803 as a result of military activities and may 
     seek assistance from the Bureau of Land Management in the 
     suppression of such fires. The memorandum of understanding 
     required by subsection (e) shall provide for Bureau of Land 
     Management assistance in the suppression of such fires, and 
     for a transfer of funds from the Department of the Navy to 
     the Bureau of Land Management as compensation for such 
     assistance.
       (e) Memorandum of Understanding.--(1) The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall (with respect to each land 
     withdrawal under section 803 of this title) enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding to implement the management plan 
     developed under subsection (c). Any such memorandum of 
     understanding shall provide that the Director of the Bureau 
     of Land Management shall provide assistance in the 
     suppression of fires resulting from the military use of lands 
     withdrawn under section 803 if requested by the Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       (2) The duration of any such memorandum shall be the same 
     as the period of the withdrawal of the lands under section 
     803.
       (f) Additional Military Uses.--Lands withdrawn under 
     section 803 of this title may be used for defense-related 
     uses other than those specified in such section. The 
     Secretary of Defense shall promptly notify the Secretary in 
     the event that the lands withdrawn by this title will be used 
     for defense-related purposes other than those specified in 
     section 803. Such notification shall indicate the additional 
     use or uses involved, the proposed duration of such uses, and 
     the extent to which such additional military uses of the 
     withdrawn lands will require the additional or more stringent 
     condition or restrictions be imposed on otherwise-permitted 
     nonmilitary uses of the withdrawn land or portions thereof.
       (g) Management of China Lake.--(1) The Secretary may assign 
     the management responsibility for the lands withdrawn under 
     section 803(a) to the Secretary of the Navy who shall manage 
     such lands, and issue leases, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     other authorizations, in accordance with this title and 
     cooperative management arrangements between the Secretary and 
     the Secretary of the Navy: Provided, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall affect geothermal leases issued by the 
     Secretary prior to the date of enactment of this title, or 
     the responsibility of the Secretary to administer and manage 
     such leases, consistent with the provisions of this section. 
     In the case that the Secretary assigns such management 
     responsibility to the Secretary of the Navy before the 
     development of the management plan under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary of the Navy (after consultation with the Secretary) 
     shall develop such management plan.
       (2) The secretary shall be responsible for the issuance of 
     any lease, easement, right-of-way, and other authorization 
     with respect to any activity which involves both the lands 
     withdrawn under section 803(a) and any other lands. Any such 
     authorization shall be issued only with the consent of the 
     Secretary of the Navy and, to the extent that such activity 
     involves lands withdrawn under section 803(a), shall be 
     subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Navy may 
     prescribe.
       (3) The Secretary of the Navy shall prepare and submit to 
     the Secretary an annual report on the status of the natural 
     and cultural resources and values of the lands withdrawn 
     under section 803(a). The Secretary shall transmit such 
     report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the United States House of Representatives.
       (4) The Secretary of the Navy shall be responsible for the 
     management of wild horses and burros located on the lands 
     withdrawn under section 803(a) and may utilize helicopters 
     and motorized vehicles for such purposes. Such management 
     shall be in accordance with laws applicable to such 
     management on public lands and with an appropriate memorandum 
     of understanding between the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       (5) Neither this title nor any other provision of law shall 
     be construed to prohibit the Secretary from issuing and 
     administering any lease for the development and utilization 
     of geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources on 
     the lands withdrawn under section 803(a) pursuant to the 
     Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and 
     other applicable law, but no such lease shall be issued 
     without the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy.
       (6) This title shall not affect the geothermal exploration 
     and development authority of the Secretary of the Navy under 
     section 2689 of title 10, United States Code, except that the 
     Secretary of the Navy shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     Secretary before taking action under that section with 
     respect to the lands withdrawn under section 803(a).
       (7) Upon the expiration of the withdrawal or relinquishment 
     of China Lake, Navy contracts for the development of 
     geothermal resources at China Lake then in effect (as amended 
     or renewed by the Navy after the date of enactment of this 
     title) shall remain in effect: Provided, that the Secretary, 
     with the consent of the Secretary of the Navy, may offer to 
     substitute a standard geothermal lease for any such contract.

     SEC. 806. DURATION OF WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) Duration.--The withdrawals and reservations established 
     by this title shall terminate twenty-five years after the 
     date of enactment of this title.
       (b) Draft Environmental Impact Statement.--No later than 
     twenty-two years after the date of enactment of this title, 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall publish a draft environmental 
     impact statement concerning continued or renewed withdrawal 
     of any portion of the lands withdrawn by this title for which 
     that Secretary intends to seek such continued or renewed 
     withdrawal. Such draft environmental impact statement shall 
     be consistent with the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     applicable to such a draft environmental impact statement. 
     Prior to the termination date specified in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Navy shall hold a public hearing on any 
     draft environmental impact statement published pursuant to 
     this section. Such hearing shall be held in the State of 
     California in order to receive public comments on the 
     alternatives and other matters including in such draft 
     environmental impact statement.
       (c) Extensions or Renewals.--The withdrawals established by 
     this title may not be extended or renewed except by an Act or 
     joint resolution of Congress.

     SEC. 807. ONGOING DECONTAMINATION.

       (a) Program.--Throughout the duration of the withdrawals 
     made by this title, the Secretary of the Navy, to the extent 
     funds are made available, shall maintain a program of 
     decontamination of lands withdrawn by this title at least at 
     the level of decontamination activities performed on such 
     lands in fiscal year 1986.
       (b) Reports.--At the same time as the President transmits 
     to the Congress the President's proposed budget for the first 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     title and for each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall transmit to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Armed Services, and Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     United States Senate and to the Committees on appropriations, 
     Armed Services, and Natural Resources of the United States 
     House of Representatives a description of the decontamination 
     efforts undertaken during the previous fiscal year on such 
     lands and the decontamination activities proposed for such 
     lands during the next fiscal year including--
       (1) amounts appropriated and obligated or expended for 
     decontamination of such lands;
       (2) the methods used to decontaminate such lands;
       (3) amount and types of contaminants removed from such 
     lands;
       (4) estimated types and amounts of residual contamination 
     on such lands; and
       (5) an estimate of the costs for full contamination of such 
     lands and the estimate of the time to complete such 
     decontamination.

     SEC. 808. REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL.

       (a) Notice and Filing.--(1) No later than three years prior 
     to the termination of the withdrawal and reservation 
     established by this title, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     advise the Secretary as to whether or not the Secretary of 
     the Navy will have a continuing military need for any of the 
     lands withdrawn under section 803 after the termination date 
     of such withdrawal and reservation.
       (2) If the Secretary of the Navy concludes that there will 
     be a continuing military need for any of such lands after the 
     termination date, the Secretary of the Navy shall file an 
     application for extension of the withdrawal and 
     reservation of such needed lands in accordance with the 
     regulations and procedures of the Department of the 
     Interior applicable to the extension of withdrawals of 
     lands for military uses.
       (3) If, during the period of withdrawal and reservation, 
     the Secretary of the Navy decides to relinquish all or any of 
     the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall file a notice of intention to relinquish 
     with the Secretary.
       (b) Contamination.--(1) Before transmitting a notice of 
     intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of the 
     Navy, shall prepare a written determination concerning 
     whether and to what extent the lands that are to be 
     relinquished are contaminated with explosive, toxic, or other 
     hazardous materials.
       (2) A copy of such determination shall be transmitted with 
     the notice of intention to relinquish.
       (3) Copies of both the notice of intention to relinquish 
     and the determination concerning the contaminated state of 
     the lands shall be published in the Federal Register by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) Decontamination.--If any land which is the subject of a 
     notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) 
     is contaminated, and the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Navy, determines that decontamination is 
     practicable and economically feasible (taking into 
     consideration the potential future use and value of the land) 
     and that upon decontamination, the land could be opened to 
     operation of some or all of the public land laws, including 
     the mining laws, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     decontaminate the land to the extent that funds are 
     appropriated for such purpose.
       (d) Alternatives.--If the Secretary, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Navy, concludes that 
     decontamination of any land which is the subject of a notice 
     of intention to relinquish pursuant to subsection (a) is not 
     practicable or economically feasible, or that the land cannot 
     be decontaminated sufficiently to be opened to operation of 
     some or all of the public land laws, or if Congress does not 
     appropriate a sufficient amount of funds for the 
     decontamination of such land, the Secretary shall not be 
     required to accept the land proposed for relinquishment.
       (e) Status of Contaminated Lands.--If, because of their 
     contaminated state, the Secretary declines to accept 
     jurisdiction over lands withdrawn by this title which have 
     been proposed for relinquishment, or if at the expiration of 
     the withdrawal made by this title the Secretary determines 
     that some of the lands withdrawn by this title are 
     contaminated to an extent which prevents opening such 
     contaminated lands to operation of the public land laws--
       (1) the Secretary of the Navy shall take appropriate steps 
     to warn the public of the contaminated state of such lands 
     and any risks associated with entry onto such lands;
       (2) after the expiration of the withdrawal, the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall undertake no activities on such lands 
     except in connection with decontamination of such lands; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Navy shall report to the Secretary 
     and to the Congress concerning the status of such lands and 
     all actions taken in furtherance of this subsection.
       (f) Revocation Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary, upon deciding that it is in 
     the public interest to accept jurisdiction over lands 
     proposed for relinquishment pursuant to subsection (a), is 
     authorized to revoke the withdrawal and reservation 
     established by this title as it applies to such lands. Should 
     the decision be made to revoke the withdrawal and 
     reservation, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register an appropriate order which shall--
       (1) terminate the withdrawal and reservation;
       (2) constitute official acceptance of full jurisdiction 
     over the lands by the Secretary; and
       (3) state the date upon which the lands will be opened to 
     the operation of some or all of the public lands law, 
     including the mining laws.

     SEC. 809. DELEGABILITY.

       (a) Department of Defense.--The functions of the Secretary 
     of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy under this title may 
     be delegated.
       (b) Department of the Interior.--The functions of the 
     Secretary under this title may be delegated, except that an 
     order described in section 808(f) may be approved and signed 
     only by the Secretary, the Under Secretary of the Interior, 
     or an Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 810. HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.

       All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands withdrawn 
     by this title shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 2671 of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 811. IMMUNITY OF UNITED STATES.

       The United States and all departments or agencies thereof 
     shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for any injury 
     or damage to persons or property suffered in the course of 
     any geothermal leasing or other authorized nonmilitary 
     activity conducted on lands described in section 803 of this 
     title.

     SEC. 812. EL CENTRO RANGES.

       The Secretary is authorized to permit the Secretary of the 
     Navy to use until January 1, 1997, the approximately forty-
     four thousand eight hundred and seventy acres of public lands 
     in Imperial County, California, known as the East Mesa and 
     West Mesa ranges, in accordance with the Memorandum of 
     Understanding dated June 29, 1987, between the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of 
     the Navy. All military uses of such lands shall cease on 
     January 1, 1997, unless authorized by a subsequent Act of 
     Congress.

  Mr. HANSEN (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 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have in America 
today, I am saying this as a member of the Committee on Armed Services 
as well as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, is training. 
Little by little we have been taking away from the areas that we can 
train in America. In fact, most of our places that we can train we do 
not have unlimited air space, except for the Utah Test and Training 
Range, which is zero to 58,000 feet. It is the only place we can test.
  As this is being given to us and restricted more and more, the 
military finds themselves in a very precarious situation. They are not 
in a position that they can go wherever they want to go and train, and 
they should not go wherever they want to go. But they should have the 
ability to train our pilots.
  The whole thing of the cold war was training. Many of our people in 
the military started out their careers as Second Lieutenant and ended 
at whatever, and all they did was train the entire time. But they were 
trained, and they were perfected and ready to go at the drop of a hat 
and help us out.
  Now we find ourselves more and more, wilderness areas come along, 
more and more parks come along, remember the time over the Grand Canyon 
when we decided we could not fly up and down the Grand Canyon?
  At the time I remember the chairman, Chairman Udall, confessed to 
flying a Cessna down the middle of the Grand Canyon. I confessed to 
flying a Piper Supercub down the Grand Canyon. We cannot do those 
things anymore.
  Now we find ourselves in a position, as we become more restrictive, 
that we cannot train in that area.
  The area that we are talking about is the A-10. They call it the 
Warthog affectionately. That is an airplane that they train in that 
particular area. Go back to the Persian Gulf war. That was the plane 
that was so effective on air-to-ground. That was the plane that stopped 
those tanks from Saddam Hussein. Those people did a super job with it 
at that point.
  Now, as we go through restrictive language, as we start tightening 
that up, more and more we are taking away the ability for our pilots 
and others to learn to fly these aircraft. They are not going to learn 
to do it in a training simulator. They have to have their hands on the 
controls. They have to be able to do it.
  All we are asking here is to accept the same language that the Senate 
has passed. That is all we are asking. The Senate has already passed 
this particular language.
  What this does, it opens it up a wee bit more on military overflights 
to wilderness and parks across the country and not just restricted to 
the desert, the California desert bill.
  I think this a good amendment, a very innocuous amendment, kind of a 
housekeeping measure. I personally feel it would be a better piece of 
legislation than what we have before us.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment really is out of order, according to our rules. The 
gentleman did not share the fact that he was going to offer the 
amendment or I would have tried to dissuade him from doing so. I think 
his last statement points up the problem with the Senate insistence on 
dealing with something that really does not relate to this act.
  We are trying to accommodate the concerns and, as a consequence, end 
up with the dilemma that we now have on the floor in terms of a full-
fledged debate on military overflights which really should be 
considered with the Committee on Armed Services and the Natural 
Resources Committee process.
  The fact is that this amendment applies to all sorts of other laws 
unrelated to the subject before the House. The amendment that I have 
proposed in terms of title VIII, in agreement with the Committee on 
Armed Services, actually provides for a longer period of withdrawal for 
15 years, not until just 1997, as does the amendment of the gentleman 
from Utah.
  Third, the gentleman from Utah is not even really dealing with the El 
Centro withdrawal. The gentleman from Utah is not dealing with the 
46,000 acre request of the Department of Defense that withdraws the El 
Centro area from consideration, which is a major concern of the 
Department of Defense with regards to the California desert.
  We are trying to deal with the Miller-Dellums-Vento title VIII. We do 
not, in fact, as I said to the gentleman in my previous remarks before 
I was aware that he was going to offer this, we do not deal with or try 
to change the necessary air space concerns. There are problems out 
there with military aircraft overflights. That is why I have submitted 
legislation on the subject and why the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy] and myself and members of the respective committees have had 
hearings on this specific issue.
  This does not change the basic tenor. What is being proposed here by 
the Senate and by the gentleman from Utah is to in fact decide that 
issue in favor of, and on this bill, in favor of the military with no 
limitations whatsoever. The Vento amendment doesn't change the basic 
configuration of what the agreements had been in terms of air space 
reservation.
  The Hansen substitute tries to decide it all in 1 day. This is a one-
sided amendment. There has been no consultation. There has been no 
agreement on this amendment. I would hope that the gentleman would not 
pursue this amendment.
  I can assure him that the issue, as he knows, he was in attendance at 
the hearing, is being addressed. We are aware of this problem, and I 
would hope that we would not pursue this particular amendment, because 
I think it is just one area of disagreement more in the House that we 
do not need.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. On page 4, the El Centro ranges, we would be more than 
happy to accept that by unanimous consent.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to agree to that based on the 
tenor of today's debate and the way that this was brought up. I think 
that we have striven to keep this military withdrawal a non-issue in 
the House in the sense that it has been agreed to by the committees. 
This amendment, as the gentleman should know, the Lewis amendment 
initially submitted is out of order. It simply is not valid in terms of 
consideration under the rules of the House, but for the fact that it 
was offered in the way that it was offered, it would have been objected 
to.
  So at this particular point, I think if there is no other 
alternative, the gentleman is going to pursue it, I think this 
amendment richly deserves to be defeated. I would urge the Members of 
the House to defeat this amendment.
  This has nothing to do with the topic we are trying to accommodate 
and deal with the problems of the Department of Defense. This has 
nothing to do with the Desert bill in a sense other than the fact that 
the Senate is attempting to bootstrap this onto the legislation, and 
the gentleman from Utah has picked up on that theme.
  We have tried to work this out. The Committee on Armed Services 
agrees with the language that we submitted, and the Committee on 
Natural Resources agrees with it.
  The Hansen amendment should be defeated. I would urge Members to do 
so.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered as a substitute 
by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. I would like to ask the 
gentleman a couple of questions, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen], that his substitute is a reflection of that 
which was finally agreed to in the other body and in the committee 
hearings relative to military overflight.
  Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that that is 
exactly right. This has been kind of a tacky issue on both the Senate 
side and on this side on what would be military overflight. I am not in 
any way discounting the good work of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], but I think this is one that opens it up, that 
makes it easier, and would not be as restrictive as the language we 
were working with on the House side.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally feel this is the kind of language that 
would be beneficial to our military people, and I think it would take 
care of many of the problems we have been encountering. I may add to 
what the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has brought up, little 
by little we see more restrictions coming in there. We do not know if 
we are going to have any place left for our people to have the idea of 
testing.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, many of these testing ranges, when we talk to the 
Pentagon, are being considered for being closed, so we are going to get 
to the point that I do not know where we are going to test. I imagine 
Siberia, if we could work something out with those folks, is about the 
last place we could test that someone is not going to be upset with us 
or worried about ruining their wilderness trip or hearing an airplane 
or having an experience where they are completely silent.
  I think people have to accept the fact that this has to be done and 
it is part and parcel of what we do in the military, and an extremely 
important part.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. My 
concern about the Vento proposal versus this substitute is that every 
indication we received as this bill went through the complete process 
in the House was that the committee was avoiding military language 
while in committee, because they essentially wanted to avoid re-
referral to the appropriate policy committee that really should be 
dealing with this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a pretty fundamental question relative to those 
training grounds that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is talking 
about. Military overflight is very, very significant and potentially 
impacts very greatly the ability we have to effectively train our 
troops, particularly the pilots who fly our airplanes. There is little 
doubt that the Senate dealt with this matter after considerable 
struggle, debate, and compromise. Senator Nunn, among others, 
apparently served as the driver behind the language that is part of 
this substitute.
  The point is, Mr. Chairman, that we want to make certain that 
military overflight does not interfere across the country with training 
processes that are so vital to our national interest. If indeed the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] had chosen to present this 
amendment or this proposal in the committee, or in his subcommittee, 
that would be another circumstance. It was clear that they wanted to 
avoid the Armed Services committee which really understands this issue. 
What my colleague [Mr. Hansen], is attempting to do here is essentially 
take the language of that compromise that took place in the other body, 
use it as a substitute here, and then negotiate the process out as the 
bill goes to conference.
  Mr. Chairman, indeed, I urge the House to support the substitute 
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the gentleman that the 
concern was not to avoid it. We worked with the Committee on Armed 
Services. This is not the Vento amendment, it is the Miller-Dellums 
amendment we are dealing with, and it does include the El Centro. In 
fact, we have made several changes that are a compromise. For instance, 
removing to the wilderness area from Death Valley the 17,000 acres was 
another compromise. There have been a number of compromises made.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the language from the Senate has not 
been heard in any committee. Nobody knows what it is. It has not been 
considered by any of the committee members. It is simply a matter that 
has not been exposed to the light of the day. It does not accomplish 
what needs to be done in terms of El Centro and some of the other 
issues in the desert that are at the insistence of the Members. The 
delegation wanted this included in the withdrawal. It does not withdraw 
wrongly, it just does not do the job, so it is basically throwing out 
what has been.
  If we go to conference with the same language, there will be no 
negotiations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, if 
the gentleman would agree with me that this is a complicated issue and 
we ought to send this bill with this matter to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House, all right.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if 
we act on this, it will be all done. The Senate language will be the 
same. There will be no consideration or modification of this. That is 
why I am urging the rejection of the Hansen amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am very 
disconcerted by the fact that the committee has done all that it can by 
their past actions to avoid input from, as we have discussed many 
times, those Members who are elected to represent the desert by way of 
consultation. It is very clear that there was some attempt to avoid the 
Committee on Armed Services in the House as well, a re-referral.
  In this case, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly tend to put my faith in 
the work that was done by the likes of Senator Nunn on the Senate side. 
I would urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], as modified.
  The amendment to the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, unfortunately, our colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], has provided some kind of capital based on 
his theory and his construction of how this bill was considered, which 
was a very open process. Any and all amendments could have been offered 
in committee. Some were and some were not. The fact is that at the time 
we were considering this legislation, the Committee on Armed Services 
was considering their authorization bill and getting ready to bring 
that to the floor, and we told them in advance that this is, in fact, 
what we were going to do. We sat down in advance of the bill leaving 
our committee. After it left our committee with the people of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], with the people of the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], with the people of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] on the Committee on Armed Services, they 
reviewed these provisions. That is why the chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] has signed off on this legislation contingent 
upon the Farr amendment being adopted, which has now been adopted, and 
clearly the Vento amendment more clearly reflects the needs of the 
withdrawal proposals within the California Desert Act.

  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would go along with what the Committee 
on Armed Services of this House has considered, both the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] and the chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], with what we have considered and addressed this. It is 
very interesting that the criticism is that we did not consider it with 
the Committee on Armed Services, when in fact we did, and yet the 
gentleman supports legislation from the Senate that never went to 
committee, that they never had a hearing on.
  We can understand that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
wants to act like he fell off the back of the vegetable truck and found 
himself in Congress this morning. He is a very clever member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, very skilled, but in fact his arguments 
ought to be rejected. We ought to get on with the one amendment that 
has been addressed by both the Committee on Armed Services, signed off 
by the chairman, our committee, and addresses the problems of the 
California Desert Protection Act as it affects military overflights and 
maneuvers. I would hope we would consider the Vento amendment as now 
amended by the Farr amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento, as modified, as 
amended.
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment, as modified, 
as amended, was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], as modified, as amended.
  The amendment, as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VII?


                    amendment offered by mr. duncan

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan: Strike Section 702 in its 
     entirety and insert the following:
       ``Sec. 702.
       Authorization of Appropriations. There are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of 
     the Act an amount not to exceed $36 million for all 
     additional construction and operational costs over the next 5 
     years and $300 million for all land acquisition costs. No 
     funds in excess of these amounts may be used for any purpose 
     authorized under this Act without additional, specific 
     authorization of an Act of Congress. Provided further, that 
     operational funding and staffing to support new National Park 
     Service responsibilities established pursuant to this Act may 
     not be reallocated from any National Park Service area 
     outside the State of California.''

  Mr. DUNCAN. (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.


            modification to amendment offered by mr. duncan

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

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Duncan: Strike the 
     amendment in its entirety and insert the following:


                             APPROPRIATIONS

       Sec. 702. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act an amount not to exceed 
     $36,000,000 for additional administrative and construction 
     costs over the fiscal year 1995-1999 period and $300,000,000 
     for all land acquisition costs. No funds in excess of these 
     amounts may be used for construction, administration, or land 
     acquisition authorized under this Act without a specific 
     authorization in an Act of Congress enacted after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DUNCAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment, as modified.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is one which I 
feel can and should be supported by anyone who is in the least 
concerned about either our tremendous national debt and the impact of 
this legislation on our taxpayers, or this country's great National 
Park System.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply replaces the open-ended ``such sums 
as may be necessary'' language currently in the bill with the 
Congressional Budget Office estimate of $336 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Park Service already faces a 37-year 
backlog in funds for development of existing parks and a 25-year 
backlog in funding for land acquisition at existing parks.
  H.R. 518, as reported by the Natural Resources Committee, ignores 
both of these considerations.
  Instead, it authorizes unlimited expenditures, funds which will come 
from the already underfunded National Park Service.

                              {time}  1250

  In the State of California alone, the National Park Service reports a 
shortfall of $936.4 million for construction and land acquisition and 
$31.8 million for annual operations at its existing 20 National Park 
Service areas in that State.
  I would like to quote from Senator Byrd's floor statement when he 
spoke in opposition to this bill in the other body:

       We cannot adequately maintain the parks that we now have, 
     nor buy the lands which the authorizing committees have told 
     us to buy. Having three new beautiful national parks would be 
     nice. In an age when the United States enjoyed small 
     deficits, creating new parks would be desirable, but we, in 
     this Chamber, have to come to grips with the realities of the 
     age in which we live. One does not go out and buy a Cadillac 
     when one cannot make payments on the family Ford.

  To address this concern, my amendment limits the amount that can be 
spent to implement this bill based on the amount projected by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this measure will cost 
between $100 and $300 million for land acquisition and $36 million in 
additional costs over the next 5 years for construction and 
administration.
  I have a letter from Secretary Babbitt, which I will insert into the 
Record, in which he asserts that based on the experience of his 
Department in implementing similar legislation, the cost of H.R. 518 
will be less than the amount estimated by CBO.
  Certainly, this amendment does not totally solve the problems in this 
bill of unfunded mandates for our National Park System, but it does 
institute some degree of accountability.
  It puts in place a very liberal and feasible ceiling on the total 
cost of this effort, which can be enforced and monitored during the 
annual appropriation process.
  The fact is that funds for operating our existing park areas are not 
likely to see increases in the near future.
  Further, Secretary Babbitt recently ordered the National Park Service 
to cut 1,325 positions, about 7 percent of their work force.
  Last month, in testimony before the Senate, National Park Service 
Director Roger Kennedy stated that it was his intent to take personnel 
from other existing National Park Service areas in order to staff the 
350 vacant positions at the proposed new Presidio National Park in San 
Francisco.
  Mr. Chairman, many National Park Service areas across this country 
cannot afford to take any more cuts in funding or personnel. I know 
this is true of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, part which is 
in my district.
  Ninety percent of the lands addressed in this bill are already owned 
by the Federal Government, and there are already nearly 4 million acres 
of Mojave and Sonoron Desert lands in the National Park System today.
  The only thing this bill really provides is a more expensive way to 
manage these 8 million acres, which will result in less economic 
opportunity and fewer jobs for Californians.
  I believe it is not in the national interest to take money from other 
National Park Service areas to implement this legislation.
  Let me make clear, so that my colleagues understand, my amendment 
simply replaces the open-ended ``such sums as may be necessary'' 
language in this bill with the Congressional Budget Office estimate of 
$336 million, which is greater than the amount Secretary Babbitt says 
we need to implement this bill.
  This is a very reasonable and sound amendment. The fact is that we 
cannot continue to pass bills around here that provide such sums as may 
be necessary. We simply cannot afford to operate like this anymore.
  We always get low ball estimates on the front end of almost every 
project. My amendment leaves a huge amount of funding for this 
legislation, but it still sets at least some type of cap and gives us a 
little more certainty on the total cost. The American people do not 
want us passing bills when we have no idea or at least no limitation on 
what the actual cost will be.
  I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the lasts 
word.
  Mr. Chairman. if I might ask the author of the amendment a question, 
it is my understanding that the intent of the amendment is to place a 
cap of $36 million over and above fiscal year 1994. Is that correct?
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. That is correct.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
that be inserted into the amendment and then we would be clear on that.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] would have 
to present a modification to the desk.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the agreement to reflect that it is over and above the cost of 
fiscal year 1994.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to have that in writing from the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I would just on the general topic while we are getting 
that prepared so that it will be in writing, I think it is important, 
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of elements here that I think should 
be considered. Obviously here we are dealing with a piece of the 
California desert, the park areas, and treating them separately from 
the BLM wilderness managed areas and the other lands that will be 
managed in a general manner. Clearly because of the expansion of Death 
Valley and Joshua Tree, we have BLM lands that are being transfered to 
the Park Service including the east Mojave area. That will free up 
dollars or should free up some dollars from BLM which is now managing 
those lands and they will have to be, of course, dedicated or partially 
dedicated to the Park Service management of the lands that they will be 
absorbing in this particular instance.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize that Death Valley 
and Joshua Tree monuments now being expanded and made parks by this 
bill already have base budgets which I think the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] has rightly stated that the 1994 appropriation 
or authorization ought to be built upon.
  I agree, frankly, with the concern of the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan] about stating specifically insofar as we have information 
as to what the development ceiling, what the land ceilings ought to be. 
If there are difficulties with that, if there are special expenditures 
that are being made that are unusual, they can come back before the 
committee to explain them. I would like to state as the gentleman from 
California continues to yield to me that there has been a lot of 
discussion about the backlog in terms of park dollars. We are getting 
some specific information. I might say that I have repeatedly tried to 
qualify or tried to find specific information from the current 
Secretary of Interior and from the Park Director about these backlogs 
cost statement. In fact, the first backlog discussions occurred because 
of GAO studies initiated by Congress and instigated by Congress and 
questions as to what the backlog problems were. They are, in fact, not 
even half as much as some of the explanations and some of the material 
that has been passed around and suggested. I will not go through it, 
but it is substantially less and a substantial amount of it is in 
roads, in highway construction dollars, some in park construction 
dollars, some in unprioritized construction, and amazingly over a $1 
billion backlog in land purchases.
  Of course we have repeatedly, during the 1980's, talked about the 
shortfalls in the land water conservation fund and the fact that it was 
not carrying out the intended task and policy; the result has been, of 
course, the land costs within the parks have dramatically increased 
during that period of time. As many of the Members and committees had 
predicted.
  I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and for my 
opportunity to point these differences out.
  I think he now has his amendment ready.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his comments.


   modification offered by mr. miller of california to the amendment 
                   offered by mr. duncan, as modified

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be modified so that there be inserted after 
``36,000,000'' the phrase, ``over and above that provided in fiscal 
year 1994.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Miller of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Duncan, as modified: After 
     ``$36,000,000'' insert ``over and above that provided in 
     fiscal year 1994''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] that the amendment be modified?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike the amendment in its entirety and insert the 
     following:


                             appropriations

       Sec. 702. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act an amount not to exceed 
     $36,000,000 over and above that provided in fiscal year 1994 
     for additional administrative and construction costs over the 
     fiscal year 1995-1999 period and $300,000,000 for all land 
     acquisition costs. No funds in excess of these amounts may be 
     used for construction, administration, or land acquisition 
     authorized under this Act without a specific authorization in 
     an Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Duncan amendment 
as modified by the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel we have before us an excellent amendment which 
is something long overdue in this House. The gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan] has brought up a very realistic point talking about what 
can and cannot be done with the money that we appropriate for various 
things.
  I think if people look at this California wilderness bill and the 
three parks that are inherent in it, have to realize that from time to 
time we miss the amounts of money that go on around here. They used to 
say in the construction business, ``Whenever you build a house, one 
thing you should remember and you will not be frustrated, one, it is 
going to take longer and, two, it will cost more.''
  Mr. Chairman, that seems to be a standard around here, also. To give 
an example of that as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] pointed 
out, we always get the low ball estimate and it does not turn out that 
way. Medicare passed in the House and Senate years ago and this body 
and the other body missed it the first year by 300 percent.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, you take 300 percent in the insurance business, if they miss a 
line by 6 percent, they go broke. So it seems to me it would be an 
interesting study for someone at some time to figure out all the things 
we say it is going to cost and then what it really costs, and we will 
find we give a lowball estimate on this almost every time.
  There was an interesting discussion between the chairman, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and others about what the costs 
of parks are. As we get into some of these particular areas, we find 
there is a difference of opinion, if I may say to my friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota, as to what it costs on the land and water 
money, what it costs for infrastructure of parks, and I personally feel 
that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] has come up with an 
excellent amendment, one we should probably consider in many pieces of 
legislation around here, and we would probably be in better shape as 
far as worrying about the estimated costs that are going to come 
forward.
  So with this very reasonable amendment, I would like to offer my 
support and urge the Members of this body to support it as it comes up 
for a vote.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize we do support this. The 
gentleman has been productive in terms of producing specific language. 
We like to have specifics. We want accurate information as far as the 
costs are concerned.
  I might say that it is to no one's advantage to either overstate or 
understate what the costs are. There is a significant backlog in land 
and construction projects and highway and road projects within the 
parks. We should recognize that as we are dealing with the issue.
  I wanted to assure the gentleman that that is my interest, as it is 
his.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the assurance of the gentleman from 
Minnesota. I think, if you do any traveling this year and stop in a 
park, talk to the superintendent about the backlog he has got in 
infrastructure. You have got a whole day of listening to him. They all 
seem to be in that position.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, I think the amendment by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], is a very important amendment, 
for the language of the bill otherwise would allow for the expenditure 
of such sums as may be necessary for the entire process to consume.
  It is very apparent by the history of some of these efforts that we 
need to be rather specific in making certain that there is some dollar 
limitation on legislation which is passed on the floor of the House 
after this committee has worked its will. As an Appropriations 
Committee member, I make that point in a very special way.
  In the Senate when this item was considered, the chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd, suggested that we 
have severe difficulty with the cost of these programs and indicated 
that someone does not go out and buy a Cadillac when one cannot make 
the payments on the family Ford. What he was really referring to 
essentially is this, we can't pay for the operation, maintenance, and 
land acquisition of our current park system.
  Let me share with the House one example of this: On August 10, 1988, 
the House debated the Manassas National Battlefield Park amendments. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimated this acquisition would cost 
roughly $13 million. Many of my colleagues suggested the Manassas bill 
could cost as much as $100 million.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a member of 
the Natural Resources Committee, said, and I quote, ``The fact is that 
there have been a lot of scare tactics used on this floor throughout 
the debate. The scare tactic is that somehow this bill is going to cost 
$100 million. The developer paid less than $10 million for it less than 
2 years ago.'' Mr. Vento said, ``The Congressional Budget Office 
reports the assessed value at $13.6 million.''
  Well, my friends, the Manassas legislation has cost the taxpayers 
well over $150 million, and the acquisition is not complete yet.
  Obviously this was not a scare tactic, but it is, to say the least, 
frightening. The CBO estimate for just land acquisition for H.R. 518 is 
between $100 million to $300 million. Based on the Manassas battlefield 
estimate, the actual cost of land acquisition, I would not really 
suggest this would ever happen, but just think about it. It could be 
between $1 billion and $3 billion.
  During this time of increased fiscal awareness, is the House really 
prepared to pass legislation with a price tag this high? My 
constituents want Congress to cut spending first, not continue to 
increase the deficit.

  In California, there are already 20 units of the National Park System 
with 22,000-plus acres of authorized but unacquired lands. Estimates 
vary, but land acquisition costs from the Santa Monica Mountains 
National Scenic Area alone have been estimated at $500 million to $1 
billion and are climbing every day.
  To put this in perspective, Congress appropriates between $80 and 
$100 million a year for land acquisition throughout the entire National 
Park System. But the value of the backlog of unacquired lands is really 
in the billions.
  Why should we obligate a large expenditure of funds that should, 
instead, go to existing units of the National Park System? Should we 
not preserve what we have already designated before we create new 
mandates?
  It is no wonder the American people are faced with a burgeoning 
Federal deficit.
  This next chart, my colleagues and Members, kind of outlines in 
California the budget shortfalls at selected locations in our State. At 
Yosemite, no minor park of some interest, annual operating shortfall of 
$9.4 million; construction and land acquisition shortfall of $394 
million. But let us say we are not worried about all the rest of these, 
but let us go down to the Channel Islands National Park, one of our 
last actions. There is a $3.3 million shortfall in operating costs, 
annual operating costs; $62 million in construction and land 
acquisition.
  To say the least, we have promised an awful lot more than we are able 
to fully fund by the work of this fine committee that has this bill on 
the floor today.
  Unlike many of our national parks, the California desert is not 
threatened from overdevelopment. It is more appropriately and cost-
effectively managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
  Desert legislation must balance desert protection with economic 
preservation. The bill before us today, H.R. 518, fails this criteria 
test.
  However, legislation introduced by my desert colleagues and I does 
pass this test. The only problem is in the past we have not been able 
to get that legislation set for hearing in the committee.
  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 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that across the 
country in park after park and wilderness after wilderness we find 
ourselves in the circumstances where our committee puts up a big wish 
list, considering what they would like to do in terms of expanding 
Federal ownership of public lands, never considering how you pay for 
it. The reality is that we are faced with a $4 trillion deficit, and 
every extra dime that this committee recommends that we spend, no 
matter how we should pay for it, just adds to that deficit.
  The desert of California is doing mighty well by itself without my 
colleagues from this committee, I must suggest, but in the meantime as 
we go forward with this bill, the least we ought to do is to put some 
lid on what the costs will be.
  They are suggesting whatever we might consume. Well, friends, what we 
might consume is all that we have for the rest of the year to spend. 
This is a bill that requires careful consideration, not just in terms 
of public policy but in the costs to the American taxpayer. I strongly 
support the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the amendment and at odds with the statements of 
my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
commitments made and the sequency of events and status of the National 
Park Service financial needs.
  I note that in holding up a chart talking about whatever the 
construction backlog is, it is not any discussion, and/or land, whether 
or not any of that is authorized at all for Yosemite or for the 
construction of any of the buildings. Some may not have the ceilings on 
that he is seeking for these new parks today.
  I think those ceilings ought to be put in place. But historically 
they have not always been. So what you are really looking at is a wish 
list of a park superintendents or a general management plan that guides 
these parks goals.
  Second of all, in terms of establishing the units, the Congress some 
time ago, almost over 25 years ago, set up what is called the Land 
Water Conservation Fund that sets aside nearly $1 billion each year for 
States and for the Federal Government land management agencies to 
expend money on the purchase of lands; the intention is, as we expend 
resources or expend and develop the oil on the outer continental 
shelves of this Nation, the idea was to take, as we exploit or use a 
resource, to preserve a resource. The idea was to preserve and to buy 
historic sites, great natural resources in our States and across this 
Nation to provide that in perpetuity for the American people to 
conserve those areas.
  The fact of the matter is that Congress and the administrations over 
the past decades have failed to provide or to allocate the dollars from 
that Land Water Conservation Fund to the point today where there is 
nearly $10 billion in Land Water Conservation Funds that are available 
until expended that are supposed to be going for the parks, for the 
national forests, for the BLM, and for the State conservation lands. So 
we are not keeping that pledge.
  We made that pledge in law and it is not being kept. We are taking 
and using that money, those dollars, for other purposes. If that were 
available, it would certainly eclipse any type of commitments that have 
been made with regards to the parks, and, yes, even for Manassas or for 
Bull Run, as we in Minnesota refer to it.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, I cannot make up for the 
lack of credentials and ability and motivation of the Justice 
Department in terms of advocating or representing the Congress and the 
American people in the courts to enforce the laws that are enacted.

                              {time}  1310

  The court made a decision on the value of Manassas land added to the 
park. I think the information I quoted in that debate was accurate with 
regard to what was paid, what the assessed valuation is, but the court 
decided to award and to enrich an individual who had made some 
investment. We were wronged. But I think that part of the error has to 
deal with the way the case was presented. The fact of the matter is we 
know in case after case during the decade of the 1980's we found the 
Justice Department lawyers showing up 2 days before a case was to be 
presented to a court, in order to prepare their case. I suggest that is 
not good diligence. They did not do their homework.
  The result is they penalized the United States taxpayers and the 
Congress in terms of cost and the policy that was to be developed. I 
think we would look to the difference or the changes in the Justice 
Department with regard to these problems of representation. Mr. 
Chairman, the Congress has acted prudently with regard to the expansion 
of the Park System. It has been modest. Much of the cost is embedded in 
the existing units. The American public want these parks, the American 
public needs these parks, and they want to have them as a lasting 
legacy.
  The parks in California that we intend to act on in these remaining 
weeks during the summer will be a legacy that many of us can look back 
on and be very proud that we expanded and developed and designated 
places like the Mojave Desert, places like Death Valley, like the 
Joshua Tree Parks. These are public lands, and the public and the youth 
of today and the citizens today and tomorrow have a right to have such 
a legacy. We should not diminish that or destroy it in the name of 
trying to make the case with regard to a different philosophy or a 
different policy with regard to these lands.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to my 
colleagues relative to the budgetary process. The fact that they were 
talking about the substitution of Bureau of Land Management budget 
authority and its appropriation to offset additional costs involved in 
this project. I would call, again, to the attention of the subcommittee 
chairman and the full committee chairman that the entire area in 
question has a total of 42 Bureau of Land Management rangers. Now, we 
have talked about the size. It is my understanding that the size of 
this is twice, to repeat, twice the size of Rhode Island. So we are 
saying, well, OK, we are going to have 42 highway patrolmen for the 
entire State, 2 States of Rhode Island, to manage what it is we have 
here in the way of additional wilderness, special designations, closing 
of existing wilderness, special designations, closing of existing 
roads, pathways, whatever the designation may be. I have a lot of 
concern here about the fact that we are talking about the substitution 
of an already--how should we say it--diminished ability on the part of 
the existing Federal agency to manage what it has now.
  Certainly the amount of money involved would not be anywhere near--
would not take care of--what is going to be required in the way of 
additional management, given the fact that this legislation would add 
additional parks to the authority of the National Park Service.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
observation. I know he intended to imply that the transfer would be 
equal, that there would not be additional costs here and thinks that 
there are. I would suggest that when the committee's hearings and 
debates had begun on this, as I recall, there were 25 BLM personnel in 
the desert. So we have made some progress. All of us can agree it ought 
to be enhanced, the presence of BLM, not only in California but 
elsewhere, so that they can do a better job and meet the expectations. 
I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. It was through 
the Committee on Appropriations, particularly the interest of 
Congressman Lewis, that we were able to increase the number from 22 to 
44, which is just a drop in the bucket as to what is necessary to 
properly manage this activity.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield, to at least respond, in 
part, to some of the statements made by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Bruce Vento] regarding my presentation and the 
shortfall in the national parks. It was suggested in his remarks that 
these items had not been authorized. It is my understanding that indeed 
they are authorized.
  There is some question as to whether the authorization included 
language with some specific lid on the amount authorized. On about half 
of them, there has been a specific amount, a specific limitation; on 
the balance, there is not. It is left to the discretion of the needs 
that exist in those parks, based upon the local supervisor. But I must 
say the backlog is very real, and we do not find the funds to actually 
appropriate the money needed to carry out the promises made, often by 
our authorizing committees. I must say that Secretary Babbitt suggested 
that there would obviously be enough money available to carry out the 
intention of the bills that passed from the committee of the other 
body. One more time we get the promise without having to bite the 
bullet relative to the appropriations process and see where this money 
is going to come from.
  I have with me a letter from my colleague [Mr. Vento] that addresses 
his response to my concern about a very specific problem in one of 
these parks. In one of these parks, Ranger Mike McKie is shown in this 
news article lowering a flag before the residency has been provided at 
this park. It happens to be--you see those truck crates, those metal 
cars often on railroad cars across the country? He has one of those 
metal-framed items with holes cut in it, and he is living in it in one 
of our parks, Death Valley National Monument. We have asked for funding 
to provide adequate facilities for rangers to live in, and the response 
from the committees is, ``We have other priorities. Don't worry about 
those rangers who are out there.'' They are living like they were in a 
ghetto rather than in one of our national parks.
  Mr. Chairman, we are long past due recognizing that the promise is 
one thing and to pay the bill is another. This bill before us, lots of 
promises are being made.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to 
yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman.
   Mr. Chairman, in this bill we have many a promise but no indication 
as to how we ought to pay for it or adjust our priorities; it is simply 
language that suggests how it may be consumed by the needs of this 
bill. I think the gentleman's reasonable limiting amendment is long 
past due in this process, and I commend him for his effort.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
comment with regard to housing in the parks. I would just suggest to 
you that we are undergoing a major reevaluation of housing in the parks 
because traditionally the Forest Service and BLM have not provided 
housing for their employees. The Park Service has fallen into a pattern 
of continuing to add this in irrespective of what the changes are, 
either demographically or geographically with regard to location and to 
the cost of housing. So you do not find a ready advocate in me for 
necessarily housing in the parks, especially if it is not necessary. I 
think that is one of the problems with some of the backlogs that we 
get.
  I think Death Valley is a substantial area, it may be in a remote 
area, and in those areas we need to deal with housing. But the pattern 
here has been that we have done this in the past and we are going to 
continue to do it in the future, and it is exactly that type of a 
decision that we have to address to reprioritize what our housing 
policy would be with respect to our employees and for others, 
concessionaires in the park. I will be working with the gentleman and 
others to try to do a reasonable job with respect to that problem.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Reclaiming my time and responding to the subcommittee 
chairman, I find it difficult to accept the fact that we have 
traditionally not provided housing for this type of a Bureau of Land 
Management employee. I do not think the Bureau of Land Management 
employee would be living out there under these conditions unless it was 
something that he was asked to do or required to do by the management 
of that region.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not understand. My point was that the Park 
Service finds it essential that they have housing in the parks. BLM and 
Forest Service less often provided it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield further to the gentleman.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman.
  My point is there has been the proper evolution, I do not think, in 
terms of policy with regard to housing of park employees, or not 
housing them. It is a sensitive issue to me, and I think it will be to 
the Members here. In some cases we simply do not need that housing. 
There is a lot of resonance in terms of building and doing things, but 
it does not necessarily serve the purposes of the park.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I must say that the chairman kind of passes 
by neatly a pretty fundamental question. Maybe we do not need housing 
in these parks. Maybe in a remote area we might consider that policy 
question.
  My colleagues, this is a remote area. We are talking about millions 
of acres way out in the countryside. Death Valley National Monument is 
huge, huge territory.
  I quote Secretary Babbitt of the Department of the Interior. He says 
there are park rangers living with families in slums as bad as anything 
we would see in the third world, and that same secretary said in the 
committee of the other body that we will have enough money to carry 
forward whatever is required by this bill.
  Well, my colleagues, it is time we tell these park rangers and their 
families, as well as the American taxpayer, how we are going to pay for 
it.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would like to 
respond by saying that we are asking people who are law enforcement 
officers, who are responsible; the basic responsibility lies within the 
framework of these officers to enforce what it is that this legislature 
and that this legislative agreement that we are talking about is 
required to do and to say to them, ``Well, we want you at a certain 
place 60 miles from the nearest grocery store, and we don't have 
anything out there, but we have been able to find some type of a 
railroad car that we bought for a price.'' This is just not the way we 
want to treat these people who have the basic responsibility for 
managing this bill, as it is to be implemented, into the real world.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just once more?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCandless was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think the question we have to ask 
ourselves is BLM manages this land now at 24 employees. How many 
housing units do they have in the California desert? I do not know that 
they have any. They have 242 housing units, BLM does, throughout all of 
the units it has in North America, in Alaska and the contiguous States. 
They have 242.
  So, this is the point I am trying to make here. It is that we have to 
harbor our resources carefully today and look at what the contemporary 
needs are. They ought to be living in the community, and I think there 
is a real advantage to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill 
     add the following:

                      Title VIII--Buy American Act

     SEC. 801. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     expended in violation of sections 2 through 4 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act''), which are applicable to those funds.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, earlier we had a hypothetical 
supposition by the chairman, that in the event that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] would fall out of a vegetable truck, here is 
what my amendment would do:
  I would want that vegetable truck to be made in America, those 
vegetables to be grown in America, and, if the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] would have to go to the hospital, I would want 
him to go in an ambulance that is made in America, and, if he needed to 
be x rayed, tested on machines, I would want those machines to be made 
in America because the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] falling 
out of a vegetable truck on or about the desert could be good for 
American workers and the American economy.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my buy American 
amendment and pass it overwhelmingly.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this 
amendment. It is fine.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment, as 
all the amendments of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] usually 
are.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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. 
Montgomery) 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.

                          ____________________