[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                         HEADWATERS FOREST ACT

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 536 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 536

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2866) to provide for the sound management 
     and protection of Redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, 
     California, by adding certain lands and waters to the Six 
     Rivers National Forest and by including a portion of such 
     lands in the national wilderness preservation system. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
     one hour, with thirty minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Agriculture and thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against provisions 
     in the bill for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule 
     XXI are waived. Except as provided in section 2 of this 
     resolution, no amendment shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Agriculture or a designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en 
     bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as 
     read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Agriculture or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. All points of order against such amendments en bloc 
     are waived. For the purpose of inclusion in such 
     amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a 
     motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane 
     perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be 
     stricken. The original proponent of an amendment included 
     in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, over 1,300 years ago--before Shakespeare and 
Michelangelo, before Marco Polo travelled and Columbus ever sailed to 
these shores--there stood a magnificent forest along the Pacific Ocean 
that blanketed every inch of the land.
  At a time of absolute beauty, it was one of the most pristine 
stretches of woodland mankind has every known.
  By the time the founders of this country were declaring independence 
and writing our Constitution, over two million acres of these redwoods 
stood--reaching 300 feet into the sky--providing a home for countless 
species of plants and animals, and producing many of the raw materials 
that helped this Nation grow.
  But today--even though this forest is still one of America's great 
natural treasures--only 4 percent of these majestic trees remain.
  The old growth redwood forest is still one of America's greatest 
natural resources, but it is not a renewable resource. Once these trees 
are gone, they're gone--never to come back. The conditions that 
fostered their growth no longer exist, even if today's young trees are 
allowed to grow for hundreds of years.

  We all have an interest in protecting this forest, and today we have 
a bill in front of us that will do just that.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a unique bill. For decades, 
there hasn't been much political peace between the timber industry, 
landowners, and environmentalists.
  But in this case, local landowners, the timber industry, and 
environmentalists all support a plan--this plan--to help preserve this 
precious national resource.
  They all agree that this bill before us is the best solution to the 
problem.
  I want to take a moment to commend Congressman Dan Hamburg for the 
leadership he has shown in bringing together both sides on this issue. 
Not many people thought it could be done--but Congressman Hamburg 
believed--and he has done an extraordinary job in working out this 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule now before the House is fair and reasonable. It 
makes in order nine amendments--by Republicans and Democrats. These 
amendments address all the major issues in the bill--including three 
amendments to guarantee the rights of private property owners.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill--for the environment 
and for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 536 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and 30 minutes controlled by 
the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report 
to accompany the rule, which are to be considered in the order and 
manner specified in the report.
  These amendments are not subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division of the question. All points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report are waived.
  The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture or 
his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
printed in the report and germane modifications thereto.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and reasonable rule--and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, over the past 2 years, a saying has sprung 
up in the West to describe the numerous Federal Government actions that 
threaten private-property rights, cut off large tracts of Federal land 
and resources from productive use, destroy private-sector jobs and 
undermine economic prosperity. It's called the Democrats' War on the 
West.
  This very ambitious agenda, which is having a disproportionate impact 
on Western States, includes: limits on logging, mining and water use; 
dramatically increased grazing fees; over-zealous enforcement of the 
Endangered Species Act to the point where certain animals have more 
rights than property owners; and Federal land grabs in the lower 48 
States such as this Headwaters Forest Act.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2866 is another attack on working people in the 
West. For example, four of the five Humboldt County California 
Supervisors oppose this legislation because of the local economic 
impact. The forest is in Humboldt County, and they see this bill as 
another direct attack on private-sector jobs in their county.
  This restrictive rule is an attack on the principle of accountability 
here in the House. Make no mistake about it, the American people are 
demanding that we be accountable for controversial policies. A rule 
that is clearly designed to prevent the House from having the 
opportunity to fully debate important issues relating to the Headwaters 
Forest bill violates that principle.
  Although an open rule would be far preferable, this restrictive rule 
is most unfair in prohibiting consideration of sound, substantive, 
germane amendments that were offered in committee. For example, Mr. 
Doolittle will not be able to offer an amendment to restrict the 
Headwaters Forest acquisition plan to the 4,400 acres of old growth 
redwood forest. We should make this critical distinction between buying 
old growth redwood stands and using taxpayer dollars to purchase over a 
billion dollars' worth of everyday forestland.
  This rule also prohibits an amendment by Mr. Pombo to prohibit the 
Federal Government from using the Endangered Species Act to devalue 
land in order to acquire that land at a reduced cost. This critical 
property rights amendment is identical to a Tauzin amendment to the 
California Desert Protection Act which passed the House 281 to 148 
earlier this year. Without this amendment, Federal bureaucrats will be 
tempted to devalue Headwaters Forest land that they plan to acquire by 
claiming that the redwood trees cannot be harvested in order to protect 
a seabird called the marbled murrelet. Therefore, I will be attempting 
to defeat the previous question so that this one additional amendment 
is made in order. This should be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, a 
vote for the previous question will be a vote against the Tauzin 
Endangered Species Act language.
  Finally, a number of worthy amendments designed to protect the 
American taxpayer, not just in the West but all over this country, are 
being blocked by this rule. An amendment by Mr. Lewis of Florida, the 
ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Natural Resources, 
would insure that taxpayer property held by the RTC or FDIC is not 
traded at below market value to acquire forest land. Mr. Pombo has an 
amendment to limit acquisition authority for this project to 5 years to 
reduce the potential outflow of taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, there are numerous problems with this bill. Some will be 
addressed by the amendments that have been made in order, but some 
cannot. The folly of authorizing $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to 
buy forestland when the Federal Government already owns 46 percent of 
California, including the 78,000-acre Redwood National Forest, is best 
addressed by voting the bill down in its entirety.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that we can amend this rule and make the Pombo amendment on the 
Endangered Species Act in order. If that effort to protect private-
property rights fails, if that effort fails, I urge Members to defeat 
this unfair rule so that we can consider this bill under a more fair 
and open process.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the amendment I will 
offer if the previous question is defeated, as well as statistics on 
rollcall votes in the Rules Committee, as follows:

            H. Res. 536--An Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

       Page 2, line 21, insert before the period the following: 
     ``and the amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution 
     if offered by Representative Pombo of California, or a 
     designee, said amendment shall not be subject to amendment 
     but shall be debatable for not to exceed 20 minutes to be 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Page 4, add the following after line 9:
       ``Sec. 3. An amendment to be offered by Representative 
     Pombo of California, or a designee.
       ``Add the following new section at the end of the bill:
       ``Sec.   . Appraisal.
       ``Lands or interests in lands acquired under section 3 
     shall be appraised for their highest and best use without 
     regard to the presence of a species listed as threatened or 
     endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).''.
                                  ____


  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
 Rule on H.R. 2866--Headwaters Forest Act--Tuesday, September 20, 1994

       1. Open Rule--This amendment to the proposed rule provides 
     for an open rule with one-hour of general debate equally 
     divided between the Agriculture Committee and the Natural 
     Resources Committee. (Rejected 4-5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.
       2. Doolittle #7--Reduces the amount of land authorized to 
     be acquired by the federal government for the Six Rivers 
     National Forest Addition from 44,000 acres to 4,488 acres. 
     (Rejected 4-5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--
     Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.
       3. Pombo #10--Provides that appraisal of land values under 
     the bill will be done without regard to the presence of a 
     threatened or endangered species. (Rejected 4-5). Yeas--
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, 
     Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, 
     Wheat.
       4. Pombo #12--Sunsets the acquisition authority of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture after five years from the date of 
     enactment. (Rejected 4-5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.
       5. Pombo #16--Substitute amendment consisting of the text 
     of the bill as reported by the Committee on Agriculture. 
     (Rejected 4-5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--
     Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.
       6. Lewis (FL) #15--Prohibits the exchange, donation, or 
     purchase at less than fair-market value of lands from the 
     FDIC or the RTC to the Secretary of Agriculture. (Rejected 4-
     5). Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, 
     Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.
       7. Adoption of Rule--(Adopted 5-4). Yeas--Moakley, Frost, 
     Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Nays--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Not Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Hall, Wheat.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           94      27         29       67         71 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Sept. 20, 1994.                                                       


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  .................................
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak in behalf of a 
bill that was so expertly crafted by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hamburg]. And I know it was expertly crafted, because originally I 
introduced a similar bill and it needed a lot of work, and he did it.
  I would like to also correct a statement of my distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from California. This is not the result of a 
Democrat's war on the West, but indeed it is the Democrats from 
California protecting what little of California Secretary Watt did not 
try and sell to the entertainment business.
  We are, as our majority whip has so eloquently suggested, trying to 
protect a precious national monument from an ill-fated business deal 
which pledged a lot of junk bonds and secured them with these redwoods, 
and they had been sold off to redeem bonds which had very little 
relationship to protecting the jobs in the area. So through the work of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] and the work of the company 
which owns the property, they have agreed on a compromise. So in effect 
we have a willing seller and a willing buyer. There is no coercion. 
Indeed, the property rights have been respected in the highest 
tradition of private and free enterprise, and the companies, led by 
leaders of the Republican Party are, in fact, in accord with the bill.
  It is a balanced compromise between parties who had been in severe 
contention and have been in that contentious operation who concede the 
compromises and the agreements that have been made on both sides. 
Property rights have been protected and addressed. The environmental 
issues have been taken care of to the satisfaction of both sides. 
Fisheries, which will create jobs, will be encouraged. Sustained yield 
cutting will preserve jobs for all time, not just a quick buildup for a 
year or so while we slice all of the trees down, and then leave an 
underemployed, devastated community behind, but continuous yield so 
that the logging industry will flourish and grow in this part of 
northern California.
  This has indeed been a long-running dispute. Two predecessors in two 
parties to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] have attempted 
to see this area denuded. They have attempted to see all of these 
redwoods cut down. It has been a bipartisan attempt in that area until 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] stepped in to compromise 
this issue and protect the redwoods.

                              {time}  1220

  There have been accommodations by the Committee on Rules to people on 
both sides of this issue to allow amendments. I think it is fair. There 
will be substantial changes made in order by the amendments, should 
they prevail, that have been made in order, and I would urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and to vote in favor of the bill and 
make a step for free enterprise, a step toward property rights, a step 
toward conserving the environment and protecting one of our most 
precious historical monuments.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that my friend has talked about this marvelous compromise which has 
been structured by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg], and yet 
four out of five of the members of the Humboldt County Board of 
Supervisors have stood up for the workers of this area and opposed this 
so-called compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Palm Beach Gardens, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Lewis], the ranking member, soon to be 
chairman, if he were to stay here, of the National Resources 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. LEWIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule for the floor consideration of H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that the Rules Committee would provide 
for an open rule in considering the Headwaters Forest Bill.
  However, this rule is closed and many of the amendments which have 
been made in order under the rule were accepted in the Agriculture 
Committee and now are being offered again on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, three important amendments which were submitted to the 
Rules Committee were not made in order under the rule. Those are Mr. 
Pombo's endangered species amendment, Mr. Doolittle's acreage reduction 
amendment, and an amendment which I had planned to offer prohibiting 
the Secretary of Agriculture from obtaining any of the lands through 
donation or at less than fair market exchange from the FDIC or RTC.
  Many Members will recall the debate on the California Desert 
Protection Act in which language similar to Mr. Pombo's proposed 
amendment to this bill was adopted overwhelmingly in the House--this 
amendment should be allowed to be debated on the floor as the House has 
clearly signaled its intentions on this issue in the past.
  Let me also give some background on the significance of Mr. 
Doolittle's acreage reduction amendment which was also not made in 
order under the rule. This amendment is a true reflection of the 
intentions of the Pacific Lumber Co. who has indicated their 
willingness to sell or exchange only the 4,400 acre Headwaters Forest. 
Without this amendment and the open ended authorization of the bill--
this bill carries an enormous price tag of $1.5 billion.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule and 
also against the bill, it is unnecessary and costly.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as one Californian who has not cosponsored this bill; 
today, I rise in very strong support of the rule, and final passage of 
H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.
  I do that because I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hamburg] has worked diligently to bring us to a point where everyone 
from California can now support this act. I rise in support of it 
because, in addition, it represents a balanced approach to 
environmental protection that will not result in economic dislocation 
for the timber-dependent communities of northern California.
  I want to congratulate him. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hamburg] has done a tremendous job. A tremendous amount of hard work 
went into this. His diligence is obvious, by putting together this 
bill; by listening to all the parties affected by it, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hamburg] has crafted a compromise that is 
supported by the environmental community and the timber industry. The 
bill has the support of numerous national and regional environmental 
organizations, the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, National 
Audubon Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council, to name just a 
few. They all support this bill.
  The latest list of supporting environmental organizations includes 
some 50 national and regional groups in support. But, importantly, this 
bill also has the support of the Pacific Lumber Co., because they are a 
willing seller in this compromise.
  Under the amendments made in order by the rule, the Forest Service 
may not acquire lands without the consent of the landowner and, 
moreover, the landowners within the 44,000 acres are entitled to the 
full and lawful use of their land, the enjoyment of their land, until 
those lands are actually acquired by the Federal Government.
  One question that was raised early in the debate over the headwaters 
bill was, how will the Federal Government be able to acquire these 
lands without hurting other programs or raising the Federal deficit? 
The gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] has found the key to that. 
The real challenge was to make this environmentally important 
legislation fiscally responsible. He has succeeded in crafting such a 
compromise.
  The bill relies heavily on land exchanges to acquire the lands we 
seek to protect, and under this bill surplus or excess Federal lands 
under the jurisdiction of Federal agencies may be transferred to the 
Department of Agriculture for use in land exchanges.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation embodies the art of compromise. It is 
what legislating is all about, and in his first term, this Member has 
taken an extremely difficult and contentious problem that affects his 
district and shown great leadership that he has succeeded in protecting 
the environment without destroying the economy or raising the deficit 
that we all worry about.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, but I am particularly 
hopeful they will support a rule that makes in order nine amendments 
distributed to both parties, across the spectrum, allowing the major 
issues to come to the floor for consideration. The most important 
amendment regarding private property rights, the willing-seller 
amendment the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] will offer, is I 
think, appropriate. This gives the property owners the appropriate veto 
over any proposed exchange or sale of land, which we do need to keep in 
mind is the way to get fiscal prudence included in this bill, let alone 
protect property rights.
  This is a fine piece of work, and it deserves the support of all 
Members, particularly those from our State of California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage my friend, the gentleman from 
Sacramento, in colloquy. I just wanted to ask one question, and I would 
be happy to yield to my friend to respond: There has been some 
confusion as to exactly what piece of legislation we are considering 
here, and my friend has just talked about the fact that this measure 
guarantees landowners full and lawful use and enjoyment of their lands 
until they are acquired by the Federal Government, and yet the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] sought to offer an amendment 
to do that, because he is under the impression that is not addressed.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, he must have been mistaken in that regard, 
because I think it is fair to assert that it is with the agreement that 
has been reached; the en block amendment will make certain all of those 
concerns are taken into consideration.
  I realize there is a tremendous temptation, particularly in a 
political year, to sort of ``stir the troubled waters'' here and create 
a political problem that really ought not be part of our deliberations. 
I think this issue has been dealt adequately with by the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, what 
has happened here is a very convoluted process as to exactly what piece 
of legislation is actually being considered, whether it was the measure 
originally introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg], 
whether it was the measure reported out of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the Committee on Natural Resources. I hope my friend will 
acknowledge the fact that this is a very unusual procedure which has 
created a great degree of confusion which has nothing whatsoever to do 
with politics emanating from our side.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to just simply say that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] has, I think, dealt very 
effectively with the necessary compromises that are embodied. When we 
vote today, his management of these compromises will be reflected in 
the final product.
  He has fully understood what would be required to meet the test all 
along the way in the several committees this bill has proceeded 
through. The fact this bill will be in the fine shape it is in, as we 
complete the rule, and as we go on to debate the bill, is a tribute to 
him, and, again, something all members of our delegation can support.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I should say to my friend this statement 
proves there is nothing political whatsoever about this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] has consumed 2 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my very eloquent 
colleague from Tracy, the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], who 
unfortunately has had an amendment denied on this, one which I hope we 
will be able to make in order if we are able to defeat the previous 
question.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for a number of 
reasons. But I guess the main reason that I have to oppose this rule is 
that it is being brought up as a closed rule. It thereby limits the 
amendments of the Members of the House, limits their ability to offer 
amendments to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to serve on two of the committees that this 
particular bill was referred to, the Committee on Natural Resources and 
the Committee on Agriculture. And in both committees major changes were 
made to the bill, there was major discussion, major confrontation, and 
ultimately two separate pieces of legislation were passed out of both 
of those committees of this House.
  We are faced today with the situation where the bill as introduced is 
being brought up--and, hopefully, with the en bloc amendments we can 
get back to the version which was passed out of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I presented in the Committee on Natural Resources an 
amendment to the bill that dealt with the Endangered Species Act and 
the valuation of the land. That failed in committee, and I was not 
allowed by the Committee on Rules to offer that on the floor here as an 
amendment to this piece of legislation.
  We offered a similar amendment, in fact the same amendment, to the 
Desert Protection Act very recently on the House floor. It passed with 
281 votes in favor of that amendment. So I believe the House has spoken 
very clearly about what its intention is with the devaluation of 
property values that the Federal Government has in regard to the 
Endangered Species Act.
  I would like to explain to you why it is so important in this 
specific example, in this specific case: In the California northwest, 
where we have the spotted owl and other endangered species, the 
property values have sunk rapidly on property that has been declared 
endangered species habitat because they cannot do anything with the 
property other than let it sit, the private property. They have very, 
very limited use for that property because of actions of the Federal 
Government.
  The Federal Government holds all the cards in this situation. They 
step in and make the determination whether or not an endangered species 
is truly endangered and they list it. Then, using their own scientists 
and their own science, they step out and decide where the habitat of 
that endangered species happens to be.
  Now, in this particular instance there has been admitted that maybe 
the spotted owl is not endangered as it was first thought to be, and 
maybe the habitat is different than what they originally thought that 
it was.
  But we have no recourse for that at this time. So the Federal 
Government stepped in and listed the species as endangered; they 
declared where the habitat of that species was. And now they are 
stepping out to buy that private property which happens to be habitat 
for one endangered species or the other.
  So the Federal Government came in, all on their own, listed and 
devalued a piece of property which they are now attempting to buy. My 
amendment would rectify that by saying you cannot do that to a private 
property owner; you have to pay them what their property was worth 
before you took the actions. What this does is it does cost the 
taxpayers money but it spreads the cost of protecting the environment, 
protecting that particular endangered species, over the entire 
population. So that one individual property owner or one small group of 
property owners is not saddled with 100 percent of the burdens of the 
action of the Federal Government and this Congress.

  I believe that if it is a priority of this country, of this 
Government, and of this Congress to save endangered species, if it is 
our priority, then we ought to make it a priority to pay for it and 
that one individual property owner or a small group of individual 
property owners are not forced to bear the entire financial burden tat 
you are heaping on them with this legislation.
  I guess to bring it down more to a localized level, if your local 
city decided they were going to put a road through your house, they 
would have to pay you the value of your property before they put the 
road through your house. They would have to pay you the value of your 
property before they put the road through your house, not after, 
because the value of your property would be diminished if your house 
was gone, if your back yard was gone and your front yard was covered by 
asphalt. The local government is not allowed to do this. The Federal 
Government should not be allowed to do this.
  The Federal Government should not be allowed to step into a situation 
where they hold all the cards, where they have the ability to set the 
price on private property and then force you to accept that price and 
force you to operate your company or your farm or your ranch or your 
small business with this hanging over your head.
  I do feel this is an extremely important amendment. I do not 
understand why the Rules Committee would not allow me the opportunity 
to present this amendment on the floor.
  As I said previously, we have had the opportunity to debate this 
amendment before; it passed overwhelmingly on the House floor and there 
is absolutely no reason for House, for the Committee on Rules not to 
take up this amendment today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman the issue that my friend has 
addressed can be voted on and will be voted on in just a few moments 
when we try to defeat the previous question to make the Tauzin-Pombo 
endangered species language in order for consideration here.
  I hope very much we will recognize that anyone who votes in favor of 
the previous question will be voting against the Tauzin-Pombo language 
dealing with the endangered species.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I rise to really refute some of the statements of the earlier speaker 
in terms of his amendment that he was going to be offering today, was 
going to have the same impact as the Endangered Species Act amendment 
act offered by Mr. Tauzin on the Desert Protection Act.
  As a strong supporter of private property rights and as a strong 
supporter of endangered species legislation, which Mr. Tauzin offered, 
I point out this is a very much different situation, because we have 
here a bill, when amended, is going to have provisions in it which 
ensure a willing buyer and a willing seller. The Federal Government is 
not going to hold all the cards in this contract or in these 
negotiations because you still have the rights of the private owner to 
make the decision whether he thinks the compensation, the price which 
is going to be negotiated, is adequate for the value of the property.
  I also point out the owners of this property agree with this. In a 
letter they sent out just in the last month they stated that the 
amendment--that the bill as passed out of the Agriculture Committee, 
which will be the way this legislation looks like after the en bloc 
amendments are accepted, now contains significant amendments and fully 
protects the company's rights as a private property owner. If the 
company had any concerns about the Federal Government being able to 
lower the economic utility of their property by the designation of 
endangered species, they would not have written this letter.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY. I will yield to the gentleman from California, surely.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason this is needed on this particular one, and my 
colleague and I have worked together a number of times on property 
rights issues, the reason it is needed on this amendment is because 
once the Federal Government clamps down and says they cannot do 
anything with this property, they are faced with a situation where they 
have to cut and run, where they have to sell it for whatever the 
Federal Government is offering in order to get something out of it. 
They cannot say ``no'' and sit on it for years.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, the issue is different in this case 
because what you are making is an argument for a reform of the 
Endangered Species Act, which I grant needs some reform, but in this 
instance the gentleman is saying that the Federal Government holds all 
the cards when it does not because the Federal Government cannot 
condemn this property, the Federal Government cannot force the sale.

                              {time}  1240

  The owners of this property are going to be operating this, and 
managing this, and utilizing this property as consistent with existing 
environmental laws and the management plans as they are prescribed by 
the State of California. If the management of this property is 
infringed upon by some environmental regulation, certainly this 
property is going to be maybe of a lesser value, but that is 
irregardless of whether or not this legislation passed which provided 
for an authorization for this land to go into a Federal park or Federal 
ownership. Still the bottom line is that the private property owner, 
which we should be protecting, has the sole right of either to accept 
this sale, the contract that is offered, and I think we have gone 
beyond and a long ways to ensure that private property, to ensure that 
this is going to be a negotiated settlement, to ensure that a fair 
price will be provided for this property, and I urge everyone to 
support the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tracy, CA [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] for having yielding this time to me, and I took up some of the 
gentleman's time, so, if he would like to respond, I would be willing. 
But the reason is that on this particular incidence, where one has a 
hundred million dollar investment that they are sitting on with 
absolutely no return because of actions of the Federal Government, and 
they are offered half or a third of what that property is worth, it is 
better to take that money, and cut their losses, and get out, than it 
is to sit on that piece of property for the remainder of the time that 
this bill will be authorized, waiting for the Federal Government to 
come up with a better offer, and getting no return.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if there is 
endangered species that are actually habitating this area, and if that 
does lower the economic utility, what is going to be the value of that 
property after the authorization of this bill expires 10 years hence 
when the Federal Government is no longer a purchaser? What will be the 
value of this property to another, a private entity that would come in 
and negotiate? Would it be any higher or any less than what the Federal 
Government would be able to offer if the owner of this property has the 
sole right whether or not to agree to the purchase and the acceptance 
of the offer that the Federal Government is offering?
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it would not be any 
higher until we reform the Endangered Species Act, but in the meantime, 
while the Federal Government is holding all the cards and holding the 
ability, the financial future of this company, in their hand and giving 
them no other options that have to do with that piece of property, I 
feel that the Federal Government should pay a fair market value for 
that property, and, unless my amendment is passed, that is not 
possible.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield just for one final 
comment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The time of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] has expired.
  Mr. POMBO. Sorry.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield these two an additional 
minute.
  Mr. POMBO. And I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. I guess the only point I would make is that, if we pass 
this amendment on this particular piece of legislation, we are going to 
be prescribing financial treatment of this property that would ensure 
that its value in some instances could potentially be far higher than 
what its actual market price, free market price, a value, would be, and 
that is where I think that the gentleman knows where it is difficult to 
accept this language because we would be prescribing a value to 
property which, in effect, the private sector would not even 
acknowledge, and that is a comment that I think the gentleman even 
agreed to. When its authorization expires in 10 years, this is not 
going to be worth any more than it is under current law.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the property has been 
devalued in that entire region because of actions of this body and 
actions that we have taken on the floor, and that is what I am 
attempting to rectify, is the hurt that has been placed on the private 
property owners throughout northern California.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, let me try to set the 
record straight. It is my understanding that the rule permits several 
amendments that, it is my understanding, will be accepted by the 
authors. One of the amendments that the rule permits is an amendment to 
make it clear, an amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dooley] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], that the Six 
Rivers National Forest will be extended only as the lands are required 
and that the Forest Service may develop management plans only for those 
lands they actually acquire. Second, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dooley] will offer an amendment that will be accepted, I understand, 
that will provide that landowners within that area will have full use 
and enjoyment of their property until the lands are actually acquired 
by the Federal Government, but more importantly it also will allow an 
amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] that will apply 
this bill only to willing sellers, and it is my understanding that 
amendment will be accepted by the authors of the legislation.
  Now let me put that in perspective. What it means is that in this 
particular case the Government will not have the right to take property 
by condemnation as existed in the Desert Protection Act. The Government 
will only have the right to acquire property from willing sellers. So, 
with that being the case, with those amendments being in order and, I 
understand, being acceptable to the authors, in this bill no one will 
be in a position where the Government will confiscate their property, 
and, therefore, there will not be a need for the language of the Tauzin 
amendment that was adopted in the Desert Protection Act.
  Why is there not a need for it? Here is the reason:
  If the Government is not mandated to buy, and it is not, it is only 
authorized to buy, and the seller is not mandated to sell, and under 
the Pombo amendment that landowner will not be mandated to sell, then 
there is no issue for us to settle as to price, as to value. That is an 
issue that will be settled by the Government and the landowner at their 
discretion. If the landowner asks for too much more than the Government 
is willing to spend, the Government does not have to buy. If the 
Government offers too little than the landowner wants for his property, 
the landowner does not have to sell. The need for the protection of the 
Tauzin amendment that protects the right of the property owners to get 
full value in a confiscation is, therefore, not present in the bill as 
it is recommended to us by the Committee on Rules.

  I would, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and urge 
those who support all of us in the property rights fight to recognize 
that, if the Pombo, and the Dooly-Volkmer and the Dooley amendments are 
adopted, that we do not have the problem in this bill that we had in 
the Desert Protection Act, and let me make it clear. The fight over 
compensation for endangered species takings goes on, and it applies 
generically across the country in this case and in all cases, and if a 
landowner in this area cannot use his property because endangered 
species regulations take away his use and his value, he ought to have 
his right to go to court, or to go to claims court, or to go to the 
agency and get compensated. That issue is settled in the property 
rights bill we filed, House bill 3875. I say to my colleagues, If you 
haven't cosponsored it, you ought to. It's the right thing to do. It is 
not relevant in this case.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule as the Committee on Rules 
provides for us and to support the Dooley and the Pombo amendments 
because those two amendments together take the issue off the table.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the gentleman on one 
point, and that is, that when the Government has the ability to take 
the property by adverse condemnation and take away the value of the 
property, and we are limiting the time and the terms of this agreement, 
they are going to be able to force the property owners to accept their 
offer whether or not they are truly a willing seller by a shotgun 
wedding, and that is what is occurring in this situation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger].

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this gag 
rule. I am particularly outraged that the rule will prevent my 
California colleague Mr. Pombo, from offering his amendment to protect 
the value of private property affected by this bill.
  Mr. Pombo's amendment simply would require that the Federal 
Government appraise lands to be acquired at their highest and best 
value, without regard to the presence of endangered species on the 
land.
  What is wrong with that? It simply fulfills the requirements of the 
fifth amendment to the Constitution that requires that private property 
not be taken by the Federal Government without just compensation for 
the owners.
  Why is the Rules Committee afraid of making this legislation 
consistent with a basic tenet of the Bill of Rights?
  The refusal to make the Pombo amendment in order is yet another 
example of how the majority in this Congress has nothing but contempt 
for the rights of private property owners.
  We may lose on this rule today, but I predict we're coming to the end 
of the period when the imperial Congress runs roughshod over the 
American people. D-day for the embattled American citizen will be 
November 8.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 2 
minutes. I wish I had a little longer. But the gentleman in the well 
that just spoke, I am a little disappointed. As one who has traveled to 
his district and worked with him for several years on the spotted owl 
problem in northern California and has been very helpful I think in 
working with the gentleman on that issue out there, I am a little 
disappointed, not only that the gentleman no longer is on the Committee 
on Agriculture to work with us, but also that he does not work with us 
on this issue.
  You know, folks, as one who is former chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, I 
have wrestled with this problem for about 6 years. This is the first 
time in that time frame we have even been able to move the bill to the 
floor because of the problems connected with it and the problems of 
negotiations and how big should the area be, how much should be paid 
for it, whether they should have condemnation, and all these other 
questions.
  I want to commend not only the gentleman from California who is now 
the sponsor of this legislation for being willing to compromise and 
being willing to work with us on this issue and many other parts of it 
to bring it to the floor, I also wish to commend the present chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] and the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], 
and the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], because it has taken a lot of time and 
effort in order to reach this point.
  What we have here is not what I am sure the gentleman from California 
would like as his bill, if he could write it by himself and send it up 
here to the floor. This is not the bill he wanted. But, folks, some of 
us said, and I am willing to work with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dooley] in committee, out here on the floor, with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hamburg], to work it out so that it is something 
that we can eventually hopefully pass, and we can then protect those 
headwater areas that are willing to be sold by the owner. Pacific 
Lumber wants to sell it; we should buy it. That is the only way you are 
going to protect that beautiful area of pristine redwoods.
  So I urge all Members to vote for this rule, and vote for the 
amendments that are agreed to, and vote for the bill at the end.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the gentleman 
from Rockland, CA [Mr. Doolittle], the author of several amendments 
that unfortunately were not made in order.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. This should 
have been an open rule in the first place. Second, as important as 
private property rights are, and many of these amendments deal with 
private property rights and I strongly support them, this bill is more 
than private property rights. It is the rights of men and women to earn 
a living, which is a God-given right of every person in this country, 
guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And 
if this rule passes and this bill passes, you are going to put those 
people out of work.
  Why else, for example, would the city councils of Fortuna and Rio 
Dell, the two most directly affected communities, unanimously oppose 
this bill? Why else would the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors 
oppose this bill, adopt a resolution in opposition to it? Why else 
would such traditional Democrat constituencies as the lumber producers 
and industrial workers oppose this bill? The Woodworker Lodge W-98, 
affiliated with International Machinists, AFL-CIO, why are they opposed 
to this bill? Because their jobs are going to be eliminated if this 
passes. I do not care how many protections are put in this bill.
  I offered an amendment which was rejected in both the Committee on 
Agriculture and rejected by the author and rejected yesterday by the 
Committee on Rules that would have shrunk down the acreage to be 
acquired by the Government to 4,500 acres. We could live with that. 
These men and women could still have their jobs if that is all we were 
talking about. But this bill is 44,000 acres. We should not be passing 
this rule or this bill.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], for making this 
time available to me. I urge your opposition to the rule so that we 
vote ``no'' on the previous question, so we can offer our amendments 
and put this bill in decent shape before we kill jobs in a recession-
plagued State.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. 
The rule allows for technical cleanup of this bill, to tighten it, and 
with that rule, everything in this bill ought to be supported by all 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  First of all, the issue here is preservation of old growth redwood. 
These are living things that are over 1,000 sometimes 2,000 years old. 
Only Members of Congress, this body, can save those trees and put them 
in a national forest.
  That has all kinds of future economic opportunity for tourism and for 
visiting these forests. That is an economic asset, and Congress is the 
only one that can do it.
  We have shown that we are able to save mountains, even though they 
have mining value and potential. But you do not mine the Mount Whitneys 
and Mount Rushmores, and so on, because Congress has decided they are 
unique to this United States and they need saving, just as these 
redwoods need saving.
  The issue of private property rights. The owners of the property 
support the bill. The local government that opposed the bill did that 
before the owners showed their support. Obviously, if you were the 
biggest business in the district, local city councils and boards of 
supervisors would go on record in opposition. But are they still in 
opposition knowing that the owner of the property supports it?
  The issue on price, it is a bargain for consideration. Our colleague, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], pointed out exactly how that 
works out. There is also a provision in here for protecting the Federal 
tax dollar by allowing an exchange of land. It does not all have to be 
for price. It can be for exchange of land.
  This rule allows for the amendments to be adopted that are necessary 
for final passage. I would think that with the kind of support that the 
landowner has, and all of those property rights issues that have been 
addressed here today, that both the rule and the bill ought to be 
adopted unanimously.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Youngstown, OH [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am not from California. I support the bill. I think 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] did a good job. I was 
impressed by the statements made by the Democrats, and I was impressed 
by the statements made by the Republicans. Taxpayers from my district, 
though, are going to come up with the money to help buy this property 
in question out in California.
  But here is what troubles me as a Member of Congress. I think the 
purpose and role of Congress is to have all people's views debated and 
voted on. We have a significant impasse. I am inclined to agree with 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and have followed his lead 
on property rights.

                              {time}  1300

  But the gentleman from California, [Mr. Pombo] brings forward, as a 
Californian, an issue and a question that I think deserves an answer. 
As a Democrat, I think one of the problems in the House is, we suppress 
some of this opportunity by individuals who are affected by the votes 
that come around here.
  The worst thing we can do is vote without considering the interests 
of all concerned. I am not necessarily going to vote for the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo]. I am going to listen to the debate. But I 
believe that the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] should have an 
opportunity, because of the passion involved and the issues of 
California, to have his issue heard.
  I support the Committee on Rules. I think they have a tough job. But 
I think after looking at this, we have come to one impasse. It involves 
an issue that has been intelligently brought forward by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo], and as a Democrat, I think the Democrats 
should allow for the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] to have his 
vote. If it is defeated, so be it. But I think he should have that 
right.
  That is the purpose and the function of our Congress, my colleagues, 
that we do not exclude, we include. I think Democrats should heed that. 
I support the bill. I will vote for the bill. I support the rule, but I 
am going to vote with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] in 
opposing the previous question, even though that may cause me some 
discomfort over here, because I think out of fairness, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo] deserves his chance.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Ravenel].
  Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to get away for just a moment from 
the politics of this issue and just speak to the ultimate aim of the 
legislation. Of course, the ultimate aim is the salvation, the 
salvation of approximately 5,000 acres of ancient forest.
  I come from the Southeast and down in South Carolina, where we only 
have a pitiful remnant of ancient forest left. I really had never seen 
an ancient forest until I went to the Northwest to take a look for 
myself.
  Down in South Carolina, in the little tiny bit of ancient forest that 
we have left, you get a loblolly pine, which is 100 feet tall, and 
everybody stands around in just amazement and just says, ``Look, gosh, 
this tree is 200, 300 years old. It is 100 feet tall.''
  Then I have gone out into the Northwest, and I have gone into these 
ancient forest groves, only about 4 percent of them left, and one looks 
up and they go 300 feet in the air. And the diversity of those forests 
is just absolutely amazing to observe.
  That is why I am going to vote ultimately for the legislation, vote 
for the rule and vote for the legislation.
  I have described it thus previously and I will do so again, one of my 
sons has the Downs syndrome. He has an IQ of only about 17. And we have 
a grove of about 3,500 acres of bald cypress down there in South 
Carolina. It has been preserved by the Audubon Society.
  I took him out to visit it and walked down the boardwalk on a cold 
New Year's day one day. And we walked to the end of the boardwalk, 
about a mile down in the swamp, observing these magnificent, beautiful 
trees, of which only a pitiful remnant remains.
  And I said to him, I said, ``William,'' imagine now, this guy has an 
IQ of only 17, I said, ``William, where are you?'' And this little old 
guy said, ``Church.'' Church, to him it was a religious experience. And 
to those of my colleagues who have never observed an ancient forest, if 
they go there and see for themselves, it is a religious experience. It 
is something that should be preserved not just for those folks there in 
California but for all Americans to have and to hold and to enjoy on 
into the future.
  That is why I am going to vote for the rule and ultimately for the 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Redlands, CA [Mr. Lewis], who led the charge against another major land 
grab, the California Desert Protection Act.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Responding to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Ravenel], for just a moment, he talked about 5,000 acres as being 
saved. I must say that if there were only 5,000 acres involved in this 
bill, I am sure that the bill would go forward without any opposition 
in terms of this rule. A proposal was made for 4,500 acres; this bill 
includes 44,000 acres.
  Addressing myself, on the other hand, to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr], who suggests the rule is designed to allow 
for some minor technical adjustment, that is not what our rules ought 
to be about around here.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] made the point. Open rules 
allows the House to work its will on the floor and all of the people to 
be heard. This bill is a very controversial item. The amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] was an amendment that addressed 
itself to our desert bill as well. We spent endless numbers of hours on 
that bill and yet we are spending just a short time here. Indeed, we 
are not allowing Members to be heard thoroughly. No question, 
endangered species applied to land values can distort the process. It 
is crazy to apply it to this circumstance.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] is trying to correct that 
situation in order to make sure that appropriate values are applied to 
these properties. Indeed, his amendment should be heard by the floor. 
We should debate these issues on the floor and allow the people's will 
to take place right here on the floor of the House where it was meant 
to take place in the first place.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, speaking in favor of the rule, this is 
why we have a Committee on Rules. Reference has been made to the fact 
that the legislation is convoluted. Of course, it is convoluted. That 
is what legislation is all about. It has to deal with the Committee on 
Agriculture. It has to deal with the Committee on Natural Resources. It 
has merchant marine implications.
  Reference has been made to business and to workers. I understand why 
some of the Members in opposition have had difficulty in actually 
naming the unions involved because they are not used to saying those 
names. There are some crocodile tears being shed for workers here.
  Nobody has mentioned the coho salmon. What about that industry? The 
fact of the matter is, that this legislation is going to help protect 
what is remaining, speaking of remnants, of the salmon industry. The 
fact is that we are dealing here, with the Headwaters Forest Act, with 
something that precedes and predates all of these questions about 
condemnation.
  I happen to be somebody who does believe that there is a capacity, in 
fact, an obligation to the government to pass condemnation. Because 
there are private interests, special interests, if you will, that put 
their profit ahead of the public good. That has to be debated. That has 
been debated. Some of the amendments that have been mentioned by some 
of the previous speakers here have been debated at length.
  If Members want to have an open committee, a single committee and do 
not devolve any of the legislation down to subject matter committees, 
we can handle it that way. The fact of the matter is, some of these 
amendments would be offered and Members would not know of all the 
discussion that has taken place previously in the Committee on Natural 
Resources and elsewhere.
  The bottom line is, this rule needs to be passed because the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] and those who support this bill 
have been through a process of compromise. It is a little disconcerting 
when someone like myself and others who support my position about 
condemnation work do compromise, we get through all of the compromises, 
we accommodate the individuals who have brought up the items that they 
have with respect to private property rights, and then in the end it 
still is not good enough. We have to give them 100 percent of 
everything that they want or legislation cannot proceed.
  That is why we need to pass this rule and the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and in 
support of the rule.
  I represent a timber state, the state of Oregon, as well as a timber 
district. I think that too many nonwesterners have this idea that we 
westerners have not met a tree that should not feel the biting teeth of 
a chain saw. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  We care very much about our trees, our forests, and our environment. 
If this was not the case, we would not have so many nonwestern tourists 
visiting our State each year, visiting in such numbers that tourism is 
now the third leading industry in Oregon. These tourists spend a lot of 
money, not just on food and gas, but also on camping, hiking equipment, 
fishing and hunting equipment, guides, packers. Tourists get the 
benefit of the outdoor experience and our economy has prospered.

                              {time}  1310

  We also care deeply about the timber industry, both the product, the 
highest quality building material in the world, and the high-paying 
jobs the resource provides. The bill before us aids greatly both the 
tourism and the timber industry. It does this because it resolves a 
dispute. It fixes the problem. It ends gridlock.
  It protects 5,300 acres of prime redwood old growth forest. Why is so 
much acreage necessary? It goes to the science of a forest. The science 
dictates that you need significant acreage, not 10 or 20 acres, to 
ensure the survivability of the forest ecosystem.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Americans want a significant stand of giant, 
magnificent redwood forests to view, to enjoy today. I believe 
Americans also want to leave such a forest as a legacy from our 
generation to the next; for our children today, and for generations 500 
years from now.
  The bill helps the timber industry because it resolves the dispute. 
It allows nearly 39,000 acres of forest lands to be managed on a 
substainable yield basis for years to come. This means lumber product 
today, as well as jobs today.
  Mr. Speaker, what do Americans get out of this bill today? They get 
two items. First, Americans get a fair debate under the rule, with all 
the important and relevant issues debated and voted upon. The rule ends 
gridlock, allows debate, allows votes.
  Second, Americans get a legacy of a redwood forest. I compliment the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] for his willingess to 
compromise and his due diligence with this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule on 
H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.
  H.R. 2866 provides for public acquisition of the largest privately 
owned stands of old growth redwood in the world, lands located within 
the headwaters forest in Congressman Hamburg's district. The rule on 
H.R. 2866 is fair and has broad support from Republicans and Democrats.
  The rule makes in order three amendments to guarantee private 
property rights, including a willing seller amendment, which gives 
property owners an absolute voto over any proposed exchange or sale of 
land.
  In additon, the rules makes in order an amendment which will require 
the Forest Service to pursue alternatives to cash payments when 
acquiring lands under the bill whenever possible.
  Further, under the rule, an amendment will be offered which sets a 
cap on the amount of funds authorized for land acquisition under the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, who believe that we must preserve our 
precious environment and the rights of local land owners, should 
support this rule.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the 
balance of our time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], 
the valiant warrior for property rights.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have checked, and the affected 
communities of Rio Dell and Fortuna remain opposed to this bill, 
unanimously so. The county of Humboldt, its board of supervisors, is 
strongly opposed. It remains opposed to this bill. These are the local 
governments that represent the area affected.
  Mr. Speaker, I said before that the only labor unions in the timber 
industry in Humboldt county are unanimously opposed to this 
legislation. It has been represented, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a 
compromise. Well, it is an interesting compromise that leaves out of 
the loop completely the men and women who work in the forests and who 
are going to lose their jobs. Some compromise.
  It may be a compromise between the author and between the mega 
corporation that acquired this lumber company, but let me tell the 
Members, yes, if it sounds ironic that Republicans are defending 
working men and women, let me assure you, it is not an irony that is 
lost on Americans across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable, with a $4.5 trillion deficit, that 
this bill proposes to spend money we do not have to acquire land we do 
not need to eliminate jobs that presently exist.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should have been an open rule. It should have 
allowed for the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], his very 
worthwhile amendment, an amendment that was adopted on the desert bill 
by an overwhelming majority of this House, 281 to 148. All of a sudden 
what was good for the desert apparently is not good for the forests. I 
would like to know why.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question, so the Pombo 
amendment can be brought up and passed, so that my acreage reduction 
amendment can be brought up and passed. Those amendments would allow an 
acceptable, genuine compromise. A no vote on the previous question is a 
vote for jobs. A no vote is a vote for private property rights. A no 
vote is a vote for the taxpayers of this great country.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield the final minute of our time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg], the sponsor of the 
legislation, who has worked very hard to put an important piece of 
legislation together.
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and vote yes on 
the rule.
  Some of the issues that have been brought up by my colleagues over 
the last hour or so of this debate will be discussed during general 
debate. I do not have time now to refute all those arguments, but 
indeed, they are refutable. We will be discussing them during the 
general debate, so stay tuned for that.
  I want to take my last few seconds here to very strongly thank the 
chairmen of the two committees that have heard this bill, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], of the Committee on Natural Resources, 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  This rule is a good rule because it encompasses all of the relevant 
issues that need to be discussed, that are germane to this bill. Once 
we have completed the amendment process, and heard these amendments and 
accepted the majority of these amendments, we will have a very strong 
bill indeed which provides a flexible framework for negotiations, for 
resolving a very longstanding dispute in the communities within my 
congressional district.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
question of the adoption of the rule.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 175, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               YEAS--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--175

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bliley
     Cardin
     Ford (MI)
     Frost
     Gallo
     Istook
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thompson
     Washington

                              {time}  1337

  Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 174, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               YEAS--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--174

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bacchus (FL)
     Bliley
     Costello
     Cunningham
     Frost
     Gallo
     Kaptur
     Nussle
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thompson
     Washington

                              {time}  1345

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). Pursuant to House Resolution 
536 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2866.

                              {time}  1346


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2866) to provide for the sound management and protection of 
redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, CA, by adding certain lands 
and waters to the Six Rivers National Forest and by including a portion 
of such lands in the national wilderness preservation system, with Mr. 
Lancaster in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Lewis] will 
be recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that I would like the Members to know 
that I dissociate myself entirely from any personalities which may crop 
up during the debate of this legislation. I want to dissociate myself 
from any partisan endeavor that may come up during the course of this 
legislation. I want to dissociate myself from any provincial attitude.
  My responsibility is to bring to the floor this legislation, so 
instructed by the members of the Committee on Agriculture, and 
hopefully we might discuss it purely with its technical aspects and 
what I believe will be a great asset provided to the people of the 
United States of America.
  Let me say that the bill has been amply discussed. All of the 
amendments have been discussed, and I do not see any need for us to 
take the membership's time and repeat what has been discussed during 
the consideration of the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LEWIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition 
to H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Protection Act.
  As the ranking minority member of the Specialty Crops and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, I must oppose this 
bill because I believe it is unnecessary and carries an extremely heavy 
price tag of $1.5 billion.

  This bill states that its purpose is to protect the old growth 
coastal redwood forests in the area. Yet only 20 percent of the forests 
under consideration in the bill is truly old growth.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the coastal redwood is already the most 
protected commercial tree species in the world, with 250,000 acres 
already protected in Federal, State, and local lands. Acquisition of 
these entire 44,000 acres is unnecessary.
  Mr. Chairman, Forest Service and Congressional Budget Office cost 
estimates put the price tag of land acquisition in this bill at between 
$1 and $1.5 billion. Without any type of appropriation it is a rape on 
the American taxpayer who will pay this bill. This cost is outrageous, 
Mr. Chairman, in a time of $200 billion budget deficits and $4.5 
trillion public debts. It is fiscally irresponsible for the House to 
consider an open-ended authorization which is 23 times the Forest 
Service's land acquisition budget of $64 million.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, these costs will extend beyond the Federal 
Treasury. Through its excessive reach, this bill will ultimately rob 
workers of their jobs and cause great harm to the local economy.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, it is an 
inappropriate and irresponsible bill.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. Volkmer and I are offering today 
is identical to an amendment that we offered during full Agriculture 
Committee consideration of this bill. I am disappointed that the 
compromise bill that was reported out by the Agriculture Committee is 
not being considered on the floor today. However, I am pleased that Mr. 
Hamburg, the sponsor of the bill, is supporting our amendment. I hope 
that my colleagues will follow his lead.
  I am very concerned about the scope of H.R. 2866. The Headwaters 
Forest encompasses less than 4500 acres of the 44,000 affected by the 
bill. The U.S. Forest Service has appraised the value of the 4,500 
acres, including the Headwaters Forest and a buffer zone, to be $500 
million. The appraisal took into account the impact of the Endangered 
Species Act and similar State laws on the timber volume that could be 
harvested on this land. Obviously, the cost of acquiring 44,000 acres 
would vastly exceed half a billion dollars. It is unrealistic to think 
that the Federal Government will ever have the funding available to 
make the entire purchase.
  During committee consideration of this bill I voiced my strong 
concerns and opposition to the legislation as introduced. In fact, 
during the Natural Resources Committee markup I offered an amendment to 
decrease the number of acres affected by the bill from 44,000 to 7,009. 
While my amendment was rejected, I has planned to offer it again when 
the Agriculture Committee considered the bill. I am pleased that Mr. 
Hamburg was willing to work with me and other members of the 
Agriculture Committee in an effort to meet our concerns with his 
legislation.
  Our amendment does three important things. First, it allows for the 
extension of the Six Rivers National Forest boundary if and when any of 
the 44,000 acres is actually acquired by the Forest Service and only 
allows a management plan to be developed for lands that have been 
acquired. This provision ensures that privately held land will continue 
to be available to the owner to use in the any way consistent with 
State and Federal law.
  Second, the amendment creates a system under which the acquisition of 
land will have to be approved by the Congress. This provision is 
important because of the serious budget impacts that a large land 
acquisition would have.
  Finally, the amendment sunsets the authorization for acquisition of 
the 44,000 acres 10-years after enactment of the bill. I believe that 
this time period is sufficient for any acquisition that will take 
place. It would be unlikely that any land not acquired during this time 
period would ever be acquired.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that my colleague, Mr. Hamburg, has done a 
superb job in moving this legislation through the House and in 
compromising on the important areas I have described. I think that this 
legislation provides the opportunity for the acquisition of the virgin 
old growth redwoods in the Headwaters Forest and any other surrounding 
lands of significance without curbing the rights of the current private 
land owner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not really ready to come up here for 2 minutes, 
but I do want to make a comment about this bill and some of the issues 
that are important to many of the Members on the floor.
  We do have many Members that are concerned about the economy, we do 
have many Members concerned about property rights protection, and I 
think to a large extent the amendments that have been offered en bloc 
and amendments will be offered later will deal with these economic 
issues, property rights issues.
  But I come to the floor to make a suggestion about a different frame 
of reference for this type of legislation, and that is the term that is 
used in this legislation called biodiversity.
  Mr. Chairman, my portion of this bill emphasizes the vital connection 
between the quality of life for human beings and the importance for 
preserving biodiversity in our environment; creative alternatives. Now, 
if we as Members of Congress will just take a couple of extra seconds 
to take a look at the issues a little bit deeper and find creative 
alternatives, which, in my opinion, are essential to protect the 
ecological significance of our ecosystems, which in effect means 
protect our resources, protection of these irreplaceable ecosystems 
will benefit because we are a part of this ecosystem. We human beings 
are a part of biodiversity. If we want to protect the quality of life 
of human beings, we finally have to fine-tune the process of 
understanding our niche in biodiversity. If we are going to do that, we 
will benefit human beings, which is us, which is our constituents, 
which is our great grandchildren, for generations to come.
  So all I would is ask the Members to do at this particular point as 
we debate these issues, and I know we feel strongly about property 
rights, feel strongly about the timber industry, feel strongly about 
family values, protecting jobs, we also have to understand some aspect 
of biodiversity of the ecosystems.
  Simply put, where human beings fit into this niche of our 
environment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2866.
  Mr. Chairman, we will hear several myths today trying to explain that 
this bill's price tag will be far below the Forest Service estimate of 
$1.5 billion. Let us explore these myths;
  Myth No. 1--``Much of this land will be acquired through equal value 
land exchanges thus eliminating the need for costly purchases.''
  Response--Even if there was a diligent exchange effort, we should not 
forget that several weeks ago we passed the California Desert 
Protection Act where we were promised land exchanges would be used to 
acquire 750,000 acres of private lands. Federal agencies tell us that 
task is virtually impossible because many Federal lands have endangered 
species, riparian habitat and wetlands values. Consequently, the 
agencies are effectively prohibited from trading them and the burden of 
finding $1.5 billion worth of more Federal lands for exchange purposes 
is unrealistic.

  Myth No. 2--``Because endangered species restrictions will reduce the 
owners ability to harvest timber, land values will be reduced and the 
Federal Government will save money.''
  Response--The landowner has indicated it will fight to get the best 
price for its land. Also, because this bill does not allow the 
Government to acquire lands from an unwilling seller, the landowner is 
not forced to sell for a low price. Consequently, this effort to drive 
down land prices will likely prevent this land from ever being 
acquired. Moreover, recent Federal court decisions have reduced the 
regulatory impact of the endangered species act on private property.
  Myth No. 3--``This is merely an authorization and contains no money. 
Money can only be spent after the Appropriations Committee authorizes 
it.''
  Response--This is one the lamest excuses I have ever heard in this 
body. This bill creates a future obligation for the Federal Government 
to meet. Mr. Hamburg has been extremely aggressive in collecting over 
140 cosponsors and getting the Agriculture and Natural Resources 
Committees to report this bill to the floor despite great protests. He 
certainly will use his skills and the clout of California's 52 Member 
delegation to get money appropriated.
  Mr. Chairman, let us also remember the Federal Government has a 
history of grossly underestimating the value of redwood timberlands. In 
1978 Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus told Congress that expansion of 
Redwood National Park would cost $359 million. The actual cost when all 
landowners were paid has exceeded $1.4 billion. Consequently, Secretary 
Andrus' estimate was off by 417 percent.
  The timber supply crisis has resulted in sharply increased redwood 
stumpage prices. According to the U.S. Forest Service, stumpage prices 
of coastal redwoods have been increasing at an annual rate of 15 
percent in recent years. Since much of this land would be purchased 
many years in the future, costs will be significantly greater than 
today.
  Finally, this bill is unnecessary. There are already 265,000 acres of 
redwoods protected in State and Federal parks in California. 90,000 of 
these acres are old growth stands making redwoods the most protected 
commercial tree species in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2866.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman for his work, 
and the work of the Committee on Agriculture on this measure, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg]. Mr. Hamburg has been very 
diligent in his work concerning responding to the questions that have 
been raised, regarding this proposal Mr. Chairman, concerning this 
important matter, and in fact of course the economics of this are all-
important to his district.
  I have heard many Members comment about the size of this headwaters 
area, this redwood stand of about 5,300 acres. The fact is one cannot 
simply in isolation preserve of that type of area. One needs to have 
additional areas around it that are managed in a way that is compatible 
with this 5,300 acres in order to achieve the preservation of the 
biological diversity that makes up this unique area, hence the 44,000 
acre proposal before the House.
  There are, of course, several threatened and endangered species in 
this old growth stand and related forest. There are, of course, the 
magnificent giant redwoods that are in this area, nearly 2,000 years in 
age this old growth, this ancient timber, and the fact is of course 
these are magnificent, as I note my colleague and friend from South 
Carolina pointed out, the very cathedrals of nature that stand in the 
California coasts. As Congressman Udall, our revered colleague and 
former chairman of the Commission on Natural Resources often pointed 
out, these are areas of the Earth that are the way that they left the 
hand of the Creator, and indeed we have the responsibility to preserve 
this legacy for future generations.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, too often we miss the point here that we 
had a compact, an agreement, through the land water conservation fund 
which should generate nearly a billion dollars and does generate 
billions of dollars in revenue each year, and we are supposed to take 
$900 million of it and set it aside to protect our natural resource 
legacy for future generations. Unfortunately throughout the history of 
this program we have only used about a third of the funds committed for 
this, so this Congress, this Federal Government, has reneged on its 
commitment, and today I think we have an opportunity to restate, and to 
put in place and to try through other creative means that have been 
brought to this House, and worked on by the Committee on Agriculture 
and natural resources, to in fact achieve that particular objective and 
goal, provide and safeguard our natural heritage and I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure, and not just for the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hamburg] who has worked so hard, but for the 
constituents we all represent who want this preserved and the legacy of 
future generations of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2866, which was introduced by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hamburg], provides for the sound management and 
protection of redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, CA. Northern 
California once boasted 2 million acres of old growth redwood forests, 
but today only 95,000 acres of this old growth remains. Of this 
remnant, 83,000 are protected in parks and reserves and 12,000 acres 
are unprotected and in private ownership.
  H.R. 2866 would add approximately 44,000 acres to the Six Rivers 
National Forest in Northern California. The land is currently owned by 
the Pacific Lumber Co. Within this national forest addition, it would 
designate a 3,000-acre special part of this forest addition as the 
Headwaters Forest Wilderness.
  These lands contain the largest remaining stands of unprotected old 
growth redwoods left in the Nation. Some of these ancient giants are up 
to 300 feet tall, 15 feet in diameter and 2,000 years old. Furthermore, 
these lands provide one of only three remaining nesting habitats in 
California for the marbled murrelett which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has listed as a threatened species. It is also habitat for the 
northern spotted owl which also is listed as a threatened species. 
There has been considerable concerns expressed about how these special 
lands are managed.
  Despite its unique characteristics, the old growth redwoods, as well 
as the old growth Douglas-Firs and the associated ecosystems of these 
forests, are being logged at an unacceptable rate. The Maxxam Corp., 
the parent today of PLC which today owns this forested area acquired 
such control in the mid-1980's by a hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber 
Co. Maxxam financed much of its take-over activities with junk bonds, 
which has resulted in great pressure to turn this natural heritage of 
old growth redwoods from a vertical standing to a horizontal harvested 
position.
  The Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on headwaters 
legislation in the 102d and 103d Congress and in May of this year 
ordered reported favorably to the House its version of H.R. 2866. 
Certainly a question before this Nation and the Congress is whether or 
not it is in our Nation's interest to liquidate a significant portion 
of America's remaining unprotected ancient redwood giants to fund the 
financial machinations of junk bonds and corporate raids. Ancient 
redwoods are without question a unique global heritage found nowhere 
else in the world. This is a uniquely American legacy that we have 
within our ability and will to decide to protect as stewards of these 
resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Headwaters Forest Act. I 
just think that understanding that this bill could cost the American 
taxpayer up to $1.5 billion is a lot to ask from the taxpayers to 
contribute to a campaign, particularly in light of the fact that the 
local officials in the area are opposed to this bill for many of the 
same old reasons. Once again Big Brother government is coming in, 
taking productive timberland to a major degree that is outlined in this 
bill, which means a loss of revenue to the county and local school 
districts. It causes increased unemployment in counties that are 
already having high unemployment problems in levels, and it certainly, 
because it is putting people out of jobs, is causing all kinds of 
social and personal family disruptions.
  This is outrageous that we are once again spending moneys that we do 
not have, taking private property that we should not be taking, and for 
what? I think the Members of this House understand what it is all 
about.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for bringing this bill to the 
floor, and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hamburg], for his relentless work on behalf of this 
legislation to provide a vehicle that will, hopefully, end the gridlock 
in a situation that is neither good for the environment nor good for 
the company that is involved. Because of his work we now have 
legislation on the floor of this House that both the company which owns 
the land supports and which those of us who are concerned about this 
irreplaceable resource also support.
  What this legislation does, in spite of those who have come to the 
well and tried to pretend and to represent that it does something other 
than this, what this does is authorize the Forest Service to enter into 
negotiations with the owners of these lands to see whether or not an 
arrangement could be worked out so that some of these lands may be 
acquired by exchange purchase or otherwise for the purposes of 
preserving some irreplaceable old growth forests in the redwood stand 
of California's forest.

                              {time}  1410

  It does nothing more than that. If it is not done by willing seller-
willing buyer, it will not be done. What we have here are two very 
sophisticated parties. We have the Forest Service that engages in many 
of these kinds of negotiations around the country, and we have a very 
sophisticated company, a very large company, a very well-endowed 
company, with very sophisticated people who manage both their 
resources, their properties, their books, and their assets. And they 
will make a decision about whether or not they should go forward with 
this effort.
  We ought to allow them to do that. We ought to authorize this. That 
is what they are asking for. They have been unsuccessful in trying to 
proceed down other avenues to do something with this land. If for some 
reason these negotiations break down, they do not agree to it, it will 
not happen. It will not happen, because this bill preserves both the 
rights of the company and authorizes the Forest Service to engage in 
this negotiation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo], a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I do know that 
this bill has been around for a number of years and a lot of work has 
been done to try to bring this to the floor. But I rise in opposition 
to this bill because I am against the Federal Government purchasing 
more property, especially 44,000 acres more in California and further 
upsetting the balance in northern California, in particular to our 
economic balance in northern California and the ability to create jobs 
in the hard times that California has fallen upon.
  I think that if you look at what this bill does in adding 44,000 
acres to the rolls of the Federal property, what we end up with is 
4,500 acres of old growth redwoods. We end up with another 40,000 acres 
of timberland that is currently being timbered, currently being logged, 
which is employing people and providing for the food, the fiber, of a 
number of people in northern California, as well as throughout all of 
California.
  That 40,000 acres is going to be permanently taken off of the 
economic ability of northern California. I feel that that is a huge 
mistake, especially in a State where the Federal Government already 
owns 48 percent of the property, 48 percent of California. If you add 
in what the local and State governments own, it reaches 56 percent. 
Over half of California is currently owned by the Government, and we 
are going to reach out and purchase another 44,000 acres after we 
create the Desert Protection Act, which increases it by 8 million 
acres. It is a continuing land grab of the Federal Government, and 
government in general, to continue to purchase private property and 
contributes to completely decimate the private property in this 
country.
  This bill is just a small part, but a continuing part, of that 
movement of doing away with our private property. I do feel very 
strongly that this is a mistake that we should not make, that we need 
to strengthen private property and create more private property in this 
country, because I believe that the backbone of our system in this 
country is private property and the ability for the individual to get 
ahead by purchasing property and passing that down to his children and 
grandchildren. This is a continuing effort that I am horrified that 
this Congress is continuing in this fashion.
  Furthermore, in particular with this bill and this legislation, it 
has been said that it is a willing buyer-willing seller, which is true. 
That is going to be included in the bill. It was an amendment that I 
brought up in both the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee 
on Agriculture, and I feel strongly about that amendment.
  But if you look at what is going to happen in this instance, you have 
a company who has a $1 billion asset sitting there that they are going 
to be limited as to what they can do with it. They are going to be 
limited by the Federal Government as to what they can do with that 
piece of property.
  That devalues the property. If another timber company were to come in 
and make an offer on it, they would look at what the return would be on 
their investment and would offer considerably less because of the 
actions of the Federal Government. So they are sitting there with a $1 
billion investment that has been devalued by the Government. And when 
the Federal Government comes in and makes an offer for the property, 
all their accountants, all of their people that are so highly educated 
and know all about all of this, are going to look at it and say, ``Do 
we cut and run and take one-third of what the property is worth, or 
half of what the property is worth, and get out and go into something 
else? Or do we stay and fight?''
  It was mentioned earlier today that they can go to court and fight 
for the value of this property. Well, they cannot, because it would 
take 10 years in court to hear out this argument, and in the meantime 
they have got a $1 billion asset that is not producing. So they have to 
cut and run and take whatever the Government offers. The actions that 
are happening on this floor are putting a company out of business.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to address an issue that is so 
exaggerated, one that we are going to keep hearing throughout the 
afternoon, that this bill costs $1.5 billion. The odds are that it will 
not. Even the CBO says that it may, but there will be an exchange of 
lands. It will not be appropriated funds. There will be an amendment to 
limit that. I do not know how that will go.
  But the dissertation we just heard about protecting rights and 
acquiring rights, where I come from, I agree with that. But I am not 
talking about adding to major corporate owners. What we were talking 
about was an individual with 40 acres, 100 acres, 400 acres.
  So the preservation of property rights for the individuals, I agree, 
I submit to you. But protecting major corporate endeavors, that was not 
what was intended by the Founders of the Constitution or any of the 
amendments to the Constitution that have been mentioned here earlier. 
We are talking about an individual having the ability, not major 
corporate enterprises.
  But the main thing is that this bill is here today because the owners 
of the property want it to be here today. The negotiations will come 
later. The owners of the property are agreeable to us being here today. 
So property rights and all of the other things are not at issue here. 
We would not be here unless the prospective, and I might not even call 
them sellers, because it is going to be an exchange, if it takes place, 
wanted it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clarifying that 
important point. I think the other point that should be made with 
regard to fair market value, there is an implication here that the 
Forest Service, the Federal Government, would not pay fair market 
value. But by law, is it not true that the Forest Service and Federal 
Government are compelled to pay fair market value? They cannot pay 
less, they cannot pay more, but they must pay fair market value. Is 
that the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. de la GARZA. The gentleman is correct. That is my understanding.
  Mr. VENTO. Furthermore, if the Federal Government, the National 
Forest Service, were to acquire this land, there is in fact to be a 
plan devised as to how that land will be managed. Is that correct?
  Mr. de la GARZA. That is correct. There will be a study. There will 
be a plan in place.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield further, part of that is 
designated wilderness by this, the 4,400 acres, but also, of course, 
there would be management of that land in terms of some timber harvest 
or some enhancement of it, which would in fact continue to produce jobs 
and be an active part of the economic viability of that particular 
community and those communities in that area. Is that correct, Mr. 
Chairman?

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, that is the case within the direction 
given to the Forest Service.
  Mr. VENTO. I think the implication here is that facts to the contrary 
or statements to the contrary are not accurate. I thank the gentleman 
for this opportunity for clarification.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The chairman pointed out that there is exaggeration here. I would 
like to point out that the bill within itself says that we will 
appropriate such sums as necessary, authorizing the Secretary to 
acquire these lands and also the appraised value of these lands, the 
44,000 acres, is $1.5 billion. So there is no exaggeration that I have 
heard.
  If it is market value, as the gentleman from Minnesota points out, 
then the taxpayer will be paying $1.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2866, 
the Headquarters Forest Act, which proposes to take 44,000 acres of 
private lands and add them to the Six Rivers National Forest.
  One point that seems to have gone unnoticed is the fact that 
California already has the strongest forest protection laws for private 
lands in the world, including restrictions on clearcutting, buffer 
zones for watersheds and mandated reforestation and of the land growing 
coastal redwoods, over 80 percent is already preserved in Federal, 
State, and county parks.
  Why on Earth would this Congress accept this bill, which will throw 
4,000 more men and women onto the unemployment lines in a county that 
is already experiencing double-digit unemployment?
  Equally important, H.R. 2866 will cost the American taxpayer $1.5 
billion. And there is no guarantee that the Federal Government, with 
its already overburdened land and conservation fund, can maintain the 
beauty of these lands.
  Finally, this bill is a clear violation of private property rights. 
While Pacific Lumber is no longer opposing this bill, they are by no 
means a willing seller. Because the company has been forced to go to 
court every single time it prepares a timber sale, it has finally given 
up hope on a reasonable settlement and therefore reached the conclusion 
that their land is not longer worth the fight.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe those of us who back private property rights 
in this chamber should stand up and fight for private property owners 
and their employees and soundly reject H.R. 2866.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon, [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this legislation. 
I tell my colleagues that this bill will affect my constituents in the 
most beneficial ways a number of ways.
  Oregonians travel to this beautiful area. They look to see these last 
magnificent trees. Salmon, salmon, which are vital to the economy of 
Oregon, to the tribal, commercial and sports fishery which relies upon 
the salmon, they spawn in the headwaters protected by this bill.
  I have heard Members talk about the cost of this bill. Well, let me 
tell my colleagues the cost to the economy of my State, when habitat is 
destroyed and salmon no longer spawn.
  Our fishery on the coast was a $3 billion fishery. That is reduced 
every year as habitat disappears.
  I want to congratulate the author of this bill. What he has done is 
something that we do not see very often. He has worked with all the 
constituencies. He has brought them together to produce a bill that has 
such widespread support. I would like to see that that affects Oregon, 
too. We, too, can learn from the way that this bill was authored.
  We also have problems with our forestry. We need to know how to work 
together with private property owners and with the public interest.
  As a new Member, a freshman Member, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that 
it is very difficult to get such a comprehensive piece of legislation 
to the House floor. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] 
is to be congratulated for the fact that as a new Member he listened, 
he listened to all his constituents and he created a bill that is so 
beneficial, not just to the area that it specifically protects but to 
my State, the State of Oregon.
  We need this habitat protected. We need to know how we can work 
together with all interests. I am in full support of this bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this bill. I 
keep hearing about how there has been such a compromise and how 
reasonable it is. I just want to reemphasize that the local government, 
all the affected local governments are strongly opposed to this bill.
  I have before me a letter, dated September 21, 1994, from the county 
of Humboldt. In that letter it indicates that:

       Our reasons for opposition remain the same. Loss of 
     productive timber land to the degree indicated in H.R. 2866 
     means loss of tax revenue to the county and local schools, 
     increased unemployment in a county with already high 
     unemployment levels, social and personal family disruption. 
     Our board has supported the concept of a 4,500 acre 
     headwaters forest proposal but remain adamantly opposed to 
     the Hamburg proposal of 44,000 acres. Signed, Stan Dixon, 
     First District Supervisor.

  It indicates in the letter that they opposed this by a four-to-one 
vote of the board of supervisors.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the point needs to be made that the land in 
this 44,000 acres is already zoned for timber production under the 
Humboldt County land use guidelines.
  Furthermore, the point needs to be made that 90 percent of the 
property in this 44,000 acres has already been harvested at least once 
and in some instances twice. So they have gone through it. They have 
cut the trees once. They have grown back. They have cut them again. And 
they have grown.
  So let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we are protecting 
ancient redwoods in all of these 44,000 acres. It just is not true. The 
Headwaters Forest itself is about 3,900 acres. In order to go the extra 
10 miles, in my opinion, and provide buffer around that, they threw in 
approximately an extra 600 acres, just to make sure that everything 
would be nice. And the county, the Maxxam, has said they would be 
willing to entertain the idea of transferring the 3,900 acres of old 
growth redwoods with the 600 acre buffer for a total of approximately 
4,500 acres.
  They would be willing to sell that at market value to the U.S. 
Government.
  That is something that would allow logging to go on in Humboldt 
County. This is the largest county in the First Congressional District. 
The people of that district are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
  When we speak of old growth redwoods, I think it is worth noting, all 
of these red areas here show where we have protected timber lands. And 
it is 265,000 acres of protected redwoods in the State of California; 
the Federal Government presently owns 46 percent of our State, not 
counting the California Desert bill, and not counting this bill, 46 
percent of the State. Of this 265,000 acres of protected redwoods, 
91,000-some acres are old growth redwoods already.
  How much more public land do we have to have? How can we hear 
impassioned speeches from the President and from Members of this 
Congress about getting the deficit under control and asking us to 
sacrifice by hiking our taxes, and then come before us with proposals 
like this, which are going to be proposing to spend money we do not 
have to buy land we do not need in order to eliminate jobs that 
presently exist?
  I find it unbelievable that a compromise can be talked about when the 
men and women who work in the forests, who depend upon those jobs, have 
not even been brought into the equation. The two timber unions are 
strongly opposed to this particular bill, because they will not have 
any jobs. It is a job-killing measure.
  It is wrong for that reason to enact this legislation. This is a bad 
bill, and I would like just to urge all of the Members, please, vote no 
on this bill.
  If we want to talk about preserving ancient redwoods, then maybe we 
can talk, if you would have allowed the amendment which I sought to 
offer before the Committee on Rules. I was denied that permission 
yesterday. I was denied permission by adopting the previous question 
today. We would have reduced the acreage to the 4,500 acres.
  Why should the taxpayers pay $1.5 billion? We have a $4.5 trillion 
debt. How much more public land do we need in the State of California? 
We cannot manage what we have.
  Maxxam has been referred to have been a party to a compromise. It 
does not include the men and women who work, who are strongly and 
unitedly opposed to this particular bill.
  Maxxam bought Pacific Lumber Co., I think it was 1986. They bought it 
and all of its assets, all of its land, its capital assets, et cetera, 
for $900 million, approximately. Now we have a bill that basically 
proposes to spend $1.5 billion to buy 4,400 acres. Maxxam maybe thinks 
that is not so bad, $1.5 billion, and they paid $900 million.
  The men and women who are going to be out of work do not think that 
is a good compromise. We should not think it is a good compromise. Vote 
``No.''
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this bill. I recognize 
that there are elements of controversy surrounding this. I applaud the 
fact that efforts have been made in the rule to make in order 
amendments which will correct some of these problems.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the overall thrust of this bill is absolutely 
on target. This bill will seek to protect an additional acreage of old 
growth redwoods which is badly in need of protection. Why is it in need 
of protection? The previous speaker has just indicated a little 
something about the history of this tract. I imagine other speakers 
have previously addressed this.
  This was acquired, this land was acquired, in a transaction that 
cost, as I understand it, $900 million dollars. The entrepreneur who 
secured this apparently financed it with a high interest-bearing loan 
of some sort which has forced him to vastly accelerate the rate of 
cutting in order to pay the interest, the service on the debt that he 
acquired.
  The previous owner, as I understand it, was managing this property in 
a much better fashion to protect the long-term interests of the people 
of California, but the present situation actually threatens the total 
destruction of this irreplaceable stand of redwood.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of jobs is addressed here. Obviously, Mr. 
Chairman, when we have an acceleration of the cutting rate, a lot of 
logs being cut, there is a lot of lumbering being done. How long would 
this last? The fact is, at the rate you were cutting you would have a 
very short lifetime for the employment of those forest workers in that 
particular area. They would be out of jobs anyway, regardless, at the 
rate of cutting which was going on there, within a very short period of 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of sound Forest Service management is 
perpetual yield and protection of the jobs on a steady-state basis for 
a long time into the future. This is what we will get through the 
proper management of these forests. I encourage support for this bill, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, no 
Member of this Congress who stands for fiscal responsibility can make 
that claim while voting for this bill. No Member of this Congress who 
claims to be concerned about our $4.5 trillion national debt can make 
that claim while voting for this bill, and no Member who claims to want 
to balance the budget of this Federal Government can make that claim 
while voting for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, advocates of this bill want to spend $1.5 billion to 
acquire 44,000 acres of land. That is $35,000 an acre. That exceeds the 
Forest Service's total fiscal year 1995 request for land acquisition by 
almost $1 billion. It is three times as much to be spent in one county 
in California as what is proposed to be spent in the entire country. 
Redwood trees are already afforded the highest level of protection 
through Federal, State, and local government designations in the world. 
I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in New York. This 
is a bill that protects a very important resource in California. We are 
a continent apart. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a 
national resource. People all across the country want these redwoods 
protected.
  This bill is an intelligent approach to that protection. It 
establishes a flexible framework for public acquisition of the largest 
privately owned old-growth redwoods in the world. It does so in a 
unique and unusual way, because it works with the owner to ensure that 
this is done on a willing seller-willing buyer basis.
  Mr. Chairman, less than 4 percent of the old-growth redwoods that 
historically covered coastal northern California remain. They are not a 
renewable resource. With the amendments being considered today, the 
bill is supported by the owner, as I mentioned.
  This is an unusual bill because it also is supported by numerous 
regional and national fishery and environmental organizations. It 
establishes a balanced and reasonable transition process, from the old-
growth-dependent timber industry to a sustainable harvest forest 
products industry.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does, it ensures that this industry 
remains viable, and that the people in it continue to have jobs. These 
forests are about to be wiped out, Mr. Chairman. If we do not move to a 
sustainable timber industry, rather than one that simply goes in and 
just eliminates the forests entirely, there are not going to be jobs in 
this industry any longer.
  Mr. Chairman, furthermore, the ecosystem that is protected here is 
critically important to the coho salmon. The coho salmon is also an 
industry and a resource that is important to California and to people 
up and down the west coast, as it is to people all across the country.
  This bill takes an intelligent approach. It ought to be passed. I 
support it, and hope everyone else will.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the ranking 
minority member on the Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. My reasons are many. 
They have been discussed on the floor. They range from the bill itself 
to the rule that was adopted that did not permit many, many needed 
improving amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about the cost. The gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Goodlatte] has already mentioned this problem. The Forest Service 
estimates the acquisition of the headwaters lands will cost taxpayers 
$1.5 billion. That is billion, that is a B, not M; that is $1.5 
billion.
  I know what will be said: ``This is not appropriations, only 
authorizing. We are only going up to the bank, we are not going to 
withdraw any money. It is only authorized.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us say that we cannot find another way to pay for 
this, and I will talk about that in just a minute, and that we have to 
appropriate. What would happen?

                              {time}  1440

  The land and water conservation fund has been created for 30 years. 
Over the 30-year period, we have spent roughly $950 million. That is M, 
million, not billion. This particular tract would cost taxpayers $1.5 
billion to acquire 44,000 more acres. That is more than we have spent 
during the entire 30-year period of the whole program.
  Second, the Forest Service annual budget for land acquisition is 
around $64 million a year. That is the normal acquisition process. If 
we funded no other projects, the current pace of appropriations for the 
land and water conservation fund would require 23 years to complete the 
acquisition of the headwaters tract.
  According to my information, there is a backlog of over 500 projects, 
other States, 39 States and Puerto Rico, that would require $660 
million, again, million, in funding. Again, the headwaters proposal, 
one project, more than doubles the Forest Service projected backlog. If 
you are from one of these 39 States, wake up, there are not many people 
on the floor, 39 States and Puerto Rico, $1.5 billion if in fact we 
cannot find other ways to pay for headwaters.
  How are we going to pay for it if we do not appropriate? Oh, there 
are several alternatives here. As a matter of fact, this bill is a 
little unique in regards to opportunities. In the chairman's en bloc 
amendment, we say ``may be acquired by the Secretary only by donation, 
by purchase, with donated or appropriated funds or by exchange.'' And 
there is about 6 more lines about special administrative jurisdiction 
of the Secretary if the Secretary identifies the lands as suitable for 
use in making an exchange. What kind of an exchange?
  Then the gentleman from California, the sponsor of the bill, is going 
to have an amendment to make use of all practical alternatives in 
regards to paying for this. How are we going to pay for it?
  Let us see. We could have land acquisition funds from the State of 
California, except they are not forthcoming. We could have some kind of 
land exchange. That is done on occasion, but that is not forthcoming. 
So what are we going to do? What is this exchange? How are we going to 
pay for this if we are not going to expend the $1.5 billion and put a 
backlog of 500 other projects at risk?
  Well, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Lewis] and I shared that 
concern. So the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Lewis] and I wrote the 
acting chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation last month 
and we said there have been numerous reports regarding the possibility 
of a land-for-debt exchange occurring between the Pacific Lumber Co., 
owners of the Headwaters Forest and owned by MAXXAM, and the FDIC, due 
to an outstanding liability of MAXXAM to the FDIC in connection with 
the failure of United Savings of Texas, some $1.6 billion.
  Is this what we are going to do? So we wrote that letter and they 
wrote back and they indicated, and I am sure the chairman will point 
this out: ``Potential claims arising from the failure of United Savings 
Association of Texas is neither complete nor public.'' So they say, 
``We really don't have any idea about this. We can also inform you 
there's no direct relationship between United Savings and the 
Headwaters Forest currently owned by Pacific Lumber Company.''
  Then the last line is this. Listen to this because this situation and 
possible unique arrangement has been reported in Time, Business Week, 
Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal. They were talking about an RTC 
loss and hard-earned taxpayers dollars trying to resolve that. The 
letter from FDIC states: ``We would consider it as one alternative and 
would conscientiously strive to resolve any pertinent issues.''
  Now, if we cannot get the money from State acquisitions sharing from 
California, if we cannot get it with a land exchange and we are not, we 
are going to have some kind of land-for-debt exchange with the FDIC, 
what kind of precedent is this? When this proposal sees the light of 
day and public scrutiny, I can tell you then we will be back with these 
$1.5 billion appropriations. I am telling you, folks, this is dangerous 
territory that we are treading on here and I warn Members in regards to 
their vote.
  Finally, in consideration of this package, we excluded the proposed 
amendments by the gentleman from California, both gentlemen from 
California. It was a bad rule. It is a very questionable bill more 
especially in regards to financing. We do not want to give this 
authority to the Secretary, and as I say again, tread on very, very 
dangerous ground. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an original cosponsor and a 
strong supporter of the Headwaters Forest Act.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's natural resources are an important part of 
our heritage. We have the sacred responsibility of ensuring that those 
resources endure so that future generations can enjoy and appreciate 
their beauty.
  Our Nation's forests are vital parts of our ecological systems. They 
provide critical habitat for thousands of species including some that 
are threatened and endangered.
  For these reasons, it is essential that logging be done in a sound 
and sustainable manner. By logging trees selectively and responsibly we 
can maintain a balance between conservation and economic development.
  Regrettably, the Maxxam Corp. has not been logging the Headwaters 
Forest area in a responsible way. It has accelerated timber logging to 
the point where the ecological balance of the area is threatened and 
has placed in danger the old-growth redwoods that remain.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will authorize the Department of 
Agriculture to acquire up to 44,000 acres of lands for addition to the 
Six Rivers National Forest. It will stop the irresponsible logging and 
provide protection for this precious area.
  The Headwaters Forest Act is an important piece of legislation and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I just want to point out a couple of things. 
I have a letter from the supervisor of the county of Humboldt, CA, that 
the supervisors, a majority, are opposed to this bill. I would like to 
submit that for the Record, Mr. Chairman, and again reiterate the cost 
of this bill, which is $1.5 billion. It does not make any difference 
whether you exchange land, whether you trade boot or whether you use 
dollars, it still adds up to $1.5 billion that the American taxpayer is 
going to have to pay, and that is 23 times the Forest Service 
acquisition budget. This bill will not only cost the American taxpayer 
money but as pointed out, it will also cost jobs.
  The bill is unnecessary, I think it is inappropriate, I believe this 
bill is irresponsible. We already have as mentioned 265,000 acres of 
protected redwood which is the most protected commercial species that 
we have in the world.
  I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out by 
the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture the possibility of 
Maxxam trading land in this particular operation and I would like to 
point out that the author of the bill, though people have said that 
this is not going to be used for debt retirement, I would like to point 
out that this author of the bill pointed out 2 weeks ago on a MacNeil/
Lehrer report that should the Federal Government successfully act 
against Mr. Horwitz of Maxxam Corp., there could be a debt to the 
Federal Government which might be satisfied by a trade of these lands. 
I wanted that part in the record, Mr. Chairman, because there is 
concern about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter referred to, as 
follows:
                                             Board of Supervisors,


                                           County of Humboldt,

                                   Eureka, CA, September 21, 1994.
     Hon. John T. Doolittle,
     House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Doolittle: I have been informed that 
     Congressman Hamburg's H.R. 2866 will be heard on the floor of 
     the House of Representatives today. This letter is to 
     reiterate the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors official 
     position on that piece of legislation. Our Board has 
     consistently opposed H.R. 2866. The vote was four to one and 
     this position has been re-confirmed on several occasions.
       As I testified before Congressional committees last October 
     the preponderance of local elected officials on the North 
     Coast of California are opposed to H.R. 2866.
       Our reasons for opposition remain the same. Loss of 
     productive timberland to the degree indicated in H.R. 2866 
     means loss of tax revenue to the county and local schools; 
     increased unemployment in a county with already high 
     unemployment levels; social and personal family disruption.
       Our Board has supported the concept of a 4,500 acre 
     Headwaters Forest proposal but remain adamantly opposed to 
     the Hamburg proposal of 44,000 acres.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Stan Dixon,
                                        First District Supervisor.

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de 
la Garza] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for bringing 
this legislation to the floor today. Most of all I want to praise our 
colleague, the gentleman from northern California [Mr. Hamburg] for his 
leadership in putting this legislation together and rallying support 
around it.

                              {time}  1450

  Others of our colleagues have referred to what this very important 
piece of legislation does. I would like to reference why it is needed.
  Of the 2 million acres of ancient redwood forest that once stood on 
the Nation's Pacific coast, Mr. Chairman, less than 5 percent remain 
today. The Headwaters Forest in northern California is the largest 
privately owned stand of old growth redwoods left in the world.
  I want to point out very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that of the 44,000 
acres that are covered by this bill, only 5,200 would not have lumber 
harvested on them. Those acres are of the very old growth timber. For 
the most part, nearly 40,000 of the 44,000 acres will still be job 
producing in terms of lumber, and the entire 44,000 acres will be job 
producing because of the fishing that will be encouraged and protected 
there.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] has brought together 
environmentalists and workers, the company and the community. His 
leadership has served us well. I urge our colleagues to support this 
legislation to protect jobs and protect the environment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg].
  (Mr. HAMBURG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to include for the 
Record a press release from Pacific Lumber Co. in which they assert 
that H.R. 2866, as modified by the House Committee on Agriculture 
contains amendments that fully protect the company's rights as a 
private property owner. I will include that for the Record at the end 
of my remarks.
  Also I submit for the Record a series of letters of support for this 
legislation. I think as Members read the names of these groups they 
will see how broad the support is not only among environmental 
organizations throughout the country, but markedly among fishery 
groups, among groups that are very concerned about the crashing of 
stocks of fish in the Pacific Northwest and over the coast of 
California. I will read some of the supporters. Save the Redwoods 
League, the National Audubon Society, the Western Ancient Forest 
Campaign, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 
Trout Unlimited, B.A.S.S., Inc., Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society, 
Mendocino Environmental Center, Columbiana Bioregional Education 
Project, Klamath Forest Alliance, and on and on.
  Referring, if I may, to this map on the right, there has been a lot 
of discussion about how much redwood forest is currently protected, and 
a lot of talk to the effect that there is plenty of this already locked 
up, and they are protected by State and Federal Government. This map to 
my right indicates the original redwood forests. What we see here in 
red is the original redwood forests. In green is what remained as of 
1992 of the virgin redwood forests of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.
  Several Members have referred to the fact that there are less than 5 
percent of this ancient forest remaining. In fact, just about 100 years 
ago there were over 2 million acres of these forests stretching from 
Santa Cruz County to southern Oregon. Today there are less than 80,000 
acres remaining.
  This tract, the Headwaters Forest tract, represents the largest 
privately owned remaining tract of ancient redwood trees left in the 
world. Many speakers have referred to how this is an irreplaceable 
resource. This is not something that will happen again. These are trees 
which have grown since the time of Christ. They are 300 feet to 350 
feet in height, they are 18 feet in diameter. They should not be cut 
down to make porch furniture or decking. These are our heritage for the 
future.
  Second, I would like to refer to this map which shows the extent of 
the 44,000 acres. I think it illustrates why this bill has taken in 
this much acreage. A lot of speakers have said OK, let us save the 
5,400 acres of ancient forest, but the rest maybe is not all that 
important.
  This map outlines the 44,000-acre tract and shows that those 
boundaries have been drawn so that the remaining important tracts of 
virgin redwood forests can be included. The brown part here, which is 
approximately 3,000 acres, is what is commonly called the Headwaters 
Forest. The other tracts, which are in green, are also very significant 
stands of virgin redwood. Together they make up about 5,300 acres of 
land which this bill seeks to protect. The remaining acreage, 88 
percent of this land, about 39,000 acres is second- and third-growth 
forests.
  This forest under this bill will continue to be harvested on a 
sustained yield basis. However, it is not enough merely to preserve the 
stands of virgin old growth and leave the rest to be clearcut. We need 
to treat this unit as one ecosystem and manage it as one ecosystem. 
Otherwise we are going to have the same kinds of situation happen in 
northern California that we have already experienced with the northern 
spotted owl.
  Secretary Babbitt often speaks in terms of environmental train 
wrecks, and the kind of train wreck we had in the Pacific Northwest 
when the northern spotted owl was listed as an endangered species and 
11 million acres was tied up when that occurred. We cannot allow that 
to happen again, and unless we protect these stands of old growth 
ancient redwood forests, we will have more environmental train wrecks, 
we will have more people thrown out of work because lands are tied up, 
we will have less salmon in our streams for our fishermen to catch, and 
overall we will hurt our regional economy.
  The material referred to previously is as follows:

              [Press release from the Pacific Lumber Co.]

                          (By David W. Galitz)

       The Pacific Lumber Company said today that H.R. 2866 (as 
     modified by the House Committee on Agriculture) now contains 
     significant amendments that fully protect the company's 
     rights as a private property owner.
       John A. Campbell, president and chief executive officer of 
     the Pacific Lumber Company, said, ``Although the legislation 
     still authorizes the acquisition of up to 44,000 acres, the 
     bill now clearly says that no acquisition can occur without 
     our consent. In essence, the 44,000 acres is not at risk. 
     That's good news for us because, in fact, we continue to be 
     opposed to the sale of 44,000 acres. Despite that 
     unwillingness to sell 44,000 acres and our disagreement with 
     the way in which the oil characterizes our forest management 
     practices, we have decided to support H.R. 2866, with its 
     important amendments, in the House of Representatives because 
     the bill appears to be a vehicle for resolving the issue of 
     government acquisition of the much smaller `Headwater 
     Forest.''' Pacific Lumber's ``Headwaters Forest'' is 
     approximately 3,000 acres.
       The bill is on the U.S. House of Representatives suspension 
     calendar for August 16. Legislation on the suspension 
     calendar requires a two-thirds vote to pass and ordinarily 
     cannot be amended by the full House.
       H.R. 2866 was originally introduced by Congressman Dan 
     Hamburg (D-CA). The bill's important amendments were 
     sponsored separately by Representatives Dooley (D-CA), 
     Doolittle (R-CA), and Pombo (R-CA). Key amendments include:
       A provision that states the landowner's consent is required 
     for any acquisition.
       A provision granting Pacific Lumber the full lawful use and 
     enjoyment of its lands and confirming that enactment of the 
     bill is not to be construed as imposing any new limitations 
     upon the implementation of any timber harvest plans.
       A provision clarifying that the government has no right 
     under the legislation to develop a so-called ``management 
     plan'' for any portion of the 44,000 acres that it does not 
     acquire.
       A provision stating that the government's authority under 
     the legislation to acquire any lands, even with Pacific 
     Lumber's consent, expires after ten years.
       A provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     come up with a plan within six months for acquiring specific 
     lands within the 44,000 acres that the government wishes to 
     acquire. A related provision requires the Secretary to 
     identify specific federal properties that would be suitable 
     to swap for these lands.
       A provision that states the boundaries of the Six Rivers 
     National Forest will not be extended to include any portion 
     of Pacific Lumber's timberland unless and until that land is 
     actually acquired by the government with Pacific Lumber's 
     consent.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                  Washington, DC, August 15, 1994.
     Re support H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act (Hamburg, D-
       CA).

     House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Since 1970, the League of Conservation 
     Voters (LCV) has served as the bipartisan political arm of 
     the environmental community. Each year LCV publishes the 
     National Environmental Scoreboard which details the voting 
     records of members of Congress on environmental legislation. 
     The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members and concerned 
     voters nationwide.
       H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act, will soon come before 
     the House for your consideration. LCV urges you to support 
     H.R. 2866 which was introduced by Rep. Dan Hamburg, 
     cosponsored by 142 of your colleagues, and reported out of 
     the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees.
       Rep. Hamburg's bill will authorize the acquisition of the 
     largest remaining unprotected virgin redwood forest in the 
     world, currently owned by the Pacific Lumber Co. The Pacific 
     Lumber Co. supports H.R. 2866, opening the door to resolution 
     of the debate over the future of the Headwaters Forest which 
     has polarized communities in Northern California for almost a 
     decade. In addition to its recent endorsement by the Pacific 
     Lumber Co., the Headwaters Forest Act is supported by a broad 
     spectrum of local, regional, and national environmental 
     groups.
       If H.R. 2866 is enacted, the Forest Service will be 
     authorized to acquire the Headwaters Forest from a willing 
     seller. The unique ancient redwood groves, which provide 
     critical habitat for wildlife and fish stocks threatened with 
     extinction, will be acquired by the agency over a period of 
     time using a wide range of acquisition policies, including 
     land exchange.
       If you need more information please call LCV's Political 
     Director, Betsy Loyless, at 202-785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jim Maddy,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                             Pacific States Marine


                                         Fisheries Commission,

                                 Gladstone, OR, September 2, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: The Pacific States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission was established in 1947 to represent the 
     interest and needs of the West Coast marine fisheries, both 
     recreational and commercial, and those of its member states 
     of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, and California. The 
     goal of the Commission is to promote and support policies and 
     actions directed at the conservation, development and 
     management of fishery resources through coordinated regional 
     research, monitoring, and utilization.
       We would like to be on record supporting H.R. 2866, 
     legislation protecting the area known as the Headwaters 
     Forest. Our support derives from the purported benefits that 
     this legislation will confer on the maintenance of anadromous 
     salmon coho and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. As 
     you are aware, numerous stocks of coho and steelhead are at 
     all time record lows, making protection of healthy spawning 
     and rearing habitats vital to any recovery efforts.
       Please feel free to contact me if I may be of any further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Randy Fisher,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   The Pacific Rivers Council,

                                  Alexandria, VA, August 25, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: The Pacific Rivers Council would 
     like to offer our continuing support for H.R. 2866, the 
     Headwaters Forest Act. We recognize the current constraints 
     on the Federal budget and therefore support the land exchange 
     concept as a means of acquiring this important acreage.
       This magnificent forest is one of the few remaining, intact 
     stands of ancient redwoods that once stretched along the 
     coast of northern California and southern Oregon. This 
     functioning old growth ecosystem provides a sanctuary for a 
     number of rare plants and animals. In addition, the 
     Headwaters Forest has some of the last remaining, good 
     spawning and rearing habitat for the coho salmon in 
     California; a species that is at risk throughout its range. 
     Protection of this forest will be a legacy for future 
     generations to enjoy.
       We wish you well in this endeavor.
           Sincerely,
                                            Judy R. Guse-Noritake,
                                         National Policy Director.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                               San Francisco, CA, August 22, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re Headwaters Forest Act (H.R. 2866).
       Dear Representative Hamburg: I am writing on behalf of the 
     170,000 members of the Natural Resources Defense Council 
     (NRDC) to express our strong support of the Headwaters Forest 
     Act, H.R. 2866. We appreciate your leadership in this 
     important legislative effort.
       The Headwaters Forest and its associated old growth redwood 
     ecosystem is a unique natural resource worthy of public 
     acquisition. Only by the adequate protection and proper 
     management provided by H.R. 2866 can we be certain that this 
     ecosystem will persist over time and that future generations 
     of Americans will be able to visit and enjoy this priceless 
     treasure.
       Thank you again for your commitment to sound stewardship 
     and environmental protection demonstrated by the introduction 
     of this important piece of legislation. The NRDC looks 
     forward to working with you to secure passage of H.R. 2866 in 
     this Congress.
           Very truly yours,
                                                       Sami Yassa,
                                         Senior Project Scientist.
                                  ____



                                 National Wildlife Federation,

                                  Washington, DC, August 22, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: I am writing to express the 
     National Wildlife Federation's support for bringing H.R. 
     2866, the Headwaters Forest Act, to a vote on the House 
     floor.
       As you know, the Headwaters Forest, located in Northern 
     California, is the largest remaining unprotected redwood 
     forest in the world. It is valuable not only for its size and 
     beauty, but also because it provides habitat for the coho 
     salmon, a species whose decline has cost the state of 
     California approximately $100 million a year in lost revenue 
     since the 1970's. In fact, the plight of coho salmon is so 
     serious that the species has been petitioned for listing as 
     ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act.
       The Headwaters Forest Act enjoys the support of local, 
     regional and national environmental groups as well as that of 
     many sport and commercial fishing organizations. Most 
     importantly, the acquisition H.R. 2866 authorizes is 
     acceptable to Headwater's current owners, the Maxxam 
     Corporation and the Pacific Lumber Company. With such broad 
     backing and 142 cosponsors of the bill, we see no reason why 
     the Headwaters Forest Act should not move ahead and urge that 
     it be brought to a House vote soon.
       The passage and enactment of H.R. 2866 will finally resolve 
     a longstanding regional issue and provide the affected 
     communities with a sustainable ecosystem management strategy 
     that incorporates both watershed restoration and private 
     property rights protection. The time to save the Headwaters 
     Forest is now, before it's too late.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you to receive 
     passage of H.R. 2866.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jay D. Hair,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                                    LightHawk,

                                    Santa Fe, NM, August 18, 1994.
     Rep. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: I am writing to let you know 
     that LightHawk strongly supports efforts to protect 
     Headwaters forest in northern California. Your work in 
     combination with Rep. Pete Stark and a host of California-
     based and national organizations and individuals is a 
     valuable example of teamwork to accomplish ecosystem 
     preservation.
       As you know, Headwaters contains the largest remaining 
     unprotected stand of ancient redwood trees in the world. The 
     array of biological diversity supported in the Headwaters 
     forest complex is both unique and threatened. We at LightHawk 
     have an ongoing conservation program interest in protecting 
     the remnants of the temperate rain forest ecosystem--
     stretching from Alaska to Chile--of which Headwaters forest 
     is a critical component.
           Respectfully yours,
                                         Robert W. Harrill, Ph.D.,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                               B.A.S.S., Inc.,

                                  Montgomery, AL, August 18, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: The Bass Anglers Sportsman 
     Society (B.A.S.S., Inc.) and its membership approaching some 
     600,000 is fully supportive of H.R. 2866, the ``Headwaters 
     Forest Act,'' sponsored by Representative Hamburg et al. 
     Although B.A.S.S. members are primarily interested in angling 
     for and supporting the future well being of black bass, we 
     all have an understanding and respect for healthy watersheds 
     and the role they play in the future of our fisheries 
     resources. Healthy streams and watersheds are particularly 
     important where migratory (anadromous) species like coho 
     salmon are involved.
       We have a powerful testimony for the economic involved and 
     the importance of protecting habitat for the future of our 
     fisheries resources. Gamefish species like salmon and black 
     bass are particularly sensitive. The public readily 
     identifies with them and their ``indicator role'' in alerting 
     us to the health of our watersheds and public waters. The 
     fact that increasing numbers of species are threatened with 
     extinction, or are often so contaminated with chemicals they 
     can not be safely consumed by the public, is a national 
     embarrassment.
       We are beginning to comprehend the long term costs the 
     public will bear when species appear on endangered and 
     threatened lists in the numbers we are beginning to see. H.R. 
     2866 provides an unusual opportunity to begin reversing the 
     trend of mortgaging our future for the extremely short 
     sighted motives so evident in timber and fisheries resource 
     decisions we have witnessed over the past century.
           Best regards,
                                                      Don Corkran,
                                     Federation National Director.
                                  ____



                                       Save America's Forests,

                                  Washington, DC, August 19, 1994.
     Rep. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: We are writing to thank you 
     again for your courageous effort to save the last remaining 
     privately owned Ancient Redwood groves still threatened with 
     logging. We are honored to be working with you to pass your 
     historic legislation, H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.
       This bill now supported by the Administration and has broad 
     backing in the U.S. Congress. The Headwaters grove is a world 
     treasure. Our coalition of over 500 environmental groups and 
     responsible businesses nationwide will continue to work for 
     your bill until these glorious forests are protected forever.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Ross,
     Mark Winstein,
       Co-Directors.
                                  ____



                                  Audubon Society of Portland,

                                    Portland, OR, August 17, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: Portland Audubon Society, with 
     7000 members in Oregon, strongly supports H.R. 2866, the 
     Headwaters Forest Act, introduced by you and co-sponsored by 
     142 House members.
       What is at stake is the largest remaining unprotected 
     virgin redwood forest in the world. We support your efforts 
     to protect this priceless forest and threatened coho salmon 
     and marbled murrelet, and other wildlife species which depend 
     on this forest for their survival.
       H.R. 2866 authorizes the Forest Service to acquire the 
     Headwaters from a willing seller by means of direct payment, 
     land exchange and other acquisition means. Pacific Lumber 
     Co., the current owner, endorses H.R. 2866.
       Please continue your stalwart efforts to gain passage of 
     the Headwater Forest Act and to protect this irreplaceable 
     virgin redwood forest. Your unfaltering support of H.R. 2866 
     is a critical vote for the hope of species and economies 
     which depend on healthy ecosystems.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul Ketcham,
                                            Conservation Director.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                  Washington, DC, August 15, 1994.
       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the Sierra 
     Club's half-million members to urge you to support H.R. 2866, 
     the Headwaters Forest Act, when it comes to the House floor. 
     We expect the bill to come up for a vote this week.
       This legislation offers critical protection for over 44,000 
     acres of redwood forest, including approximately 5,000 acres 
     of old-growth. The old-growth in the Headwaters Forest is in 
     urgent need of preservation, as it faces imminent logging if 
     not protected by this bill. The Headwaters forest area also 
     contains habitat for several threatened and endangered 
     species including the peregrine falcon and marbled murrelet.
       In the past eight years, more than 40,000 acres of residual 
     old growth and almost 10,000 acres of virgin redwood trees 
     have been logged by the Maxxam Corporation. The Headwaters 
     Forest Act will put an end to this tragedy by balancing the 
     need for timber production with the need for conservation. 
     H.R. 2866 will also provide long-term job stability by 
     shifting logging practices toward sustainable use and 
     promoting regeneration. This legislation will create jobs in 
     the restoration of watersheds and habitat critically damaged 
     by previous timber harvests.
       H.R. 2866 has passed both the Natural Resources and 
     Agriculture committees by substantial margins, and it 
     currently possesses over 130 cosponsors from both parties. 
     Your support of this legislation is necessary to protect one 
     of the last remaining ancient redwood forests. Thank you for 
     your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debbie Sease,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                              Trout Unlimited,

                                  Washington, DC, August 26, 1994.
     Re: Our Continuing Support for H.R. 2866, The Headwaters 
         Forest Act of 1993
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: On behalf of Trout Unlimited's 
     (TU) 75,000 members nationwide, I am writing to let you know 
     that we continue to support H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest 
     Act of 1993, and urge you to continue your strong push to 
     enact this legislation. We commend you for your leadership in 
     pressing for enactment.
       TU is committed to protecting and restoring west coast 
     Pacific salmon resources. These runs were once the finest 
     salmon resources in the world. Now, according to the Clinton 
     Administration's Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 
     (FEMAT) Report, over 100 stocks have been extirpated and 314 
     are at risk of extinction. Despite dramatic declines in 
     Pacific salmon stocks, these fish still support a one billion 
     dollar annual sport and commercial fishing industry. These 
     valuable industries are threatened directly by continuing 
     loss of salmon habitat. Conversely, if the region takes 
     strong actions now, the entire nation stands to gain 
     tremendous new ecological and economic benefits from restored 
     salmon runs.
       In that light, your bill is an important element in the 
     foundation of Pacific salmon recovery. If enacted and 
     implemented, it will protect some of the best remaining 
     salmon habitat in California, and in the case of coho salmon, 
     some of the most critical habitat on the entire west coast. 
     Dr. Peter Moyle, renowned salmon scientist from University of 
     California at Davis, has testified before two House 
     Committees that H.R. 2666 would protect 5 to 10% of the 
     remaining coho spawning habitat in California. Such a 
     management action is essential in view of the 97% decline in 
     wild coho in California.
       Again, we commend you for your work on this bill, and we 
     look forward to its early enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Steven N. Moyer.
                                  ____



                                          World Wildlife Fund,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 1993.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: On behalf of World Wildlife Fund 
     (WWF) and our 1.25 million members nationwide, I am writing 
     in support of H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.
       As you may know, during the past decade WWF has invested a 
     great deal of effort protecting forest ecosystems throughout 
     the world. Here in the United States, our old-growth redwood 
     forest ecosystems have been reduced to 5 percent of their 
     original acreage, and we strongly support protection of the 
     remaining fractions of these truly unique forests. We support 
     the provisions of H.R. 2866 which designate 44,000 acres as 
     an addition to the Six Rivers National Forest. This acreage 
     is vital to the maintenance of intact watersheds in the 
     Humboldt region. Given that, at present, most redwood forests 
     have been substantially fragmented, maintaining the integrity 
     of the remaining intact redwood ecosystems needs to become a 
     priority for U.S. forest policy.
       The proposed addition of redwood forest to the Six Rivers 
     National forest contains critical intact watersheds for 
     threatened salmonids, marbled murrelets, and northern spotted 
     owls. The dire status of these species is a reflection of the 
     health of many of our northern temperate forests, which we 
     need to take strong steps to improve. Old-growth redwood 
     forests also generate millions of dollars for local tourism 
     industries yearly in California, hence these systems are 
     vital to the economic health of the state.
       It is clear that the long-term costs outweigh the short-
     term profits generated by current timber practices in the 
     U.S. H.R. 2866 will protect vital redwood forest habitat, 
     which we can no longer afford to degrade and squander. I 
     congratulate you on this important piece of legislation and 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,

                                               Michael Sutton,

                                            Acting Vice President,
                                   U.S. Land and Wildlife Program.
                                  ____



                               Mendocino Environmental Center,

                                       Ukiah, CA, August 25, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Washington DC.
       Dear Dan: The Mendocino Environmental Center 
     enthusiastically supports the Headwaters Forest Act H.R. 
     2866. We are most appreciative of your fine work in 
     introducing and sponsoring this very important piece of 
     legislation. This legislation will authorize acquisition by 
     the federal government of approximately 44,000 acres of 
     remaining old-growth redwood groves and the second growth 
     forests that connect them. Because of the serious over 
     cutting of the redwood forests, it is crucial that this bill 
     pass, in order to insure the ability of the forest to 
     regenerate.
       In addition the Headwaters Forest is critical habitat for 
     the Northern Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet, several 
     native stocks of salmon, and several other old-growth 
     dependent species. We are losing these species at an alarming 
     rate, due mainly to loss of habitat. If we are to keep these 
     species from extinction, it is crucial that we maintain 
     enough of their habitat to insure perpetuation of viable 
     populations. Acquiring the 44,000 acres Headwaters Complex 
     would be a significant step in this direction.
       We are thrilled that the Headwaters Bill has passed so many 
     hurdles, and that it is now ready to go to the House Floor. 
     We send our support and best wishes. Please be assured that 
     we are ready to assist in any efforts that may be needed to 
     ensure the passage of this bill.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Gary and Betty Ball.
                                  ____



                                                   Greenpeace,

                               San Francisco, CA, August 18, 1994.
     Congressman Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: Greenpeace U.S.A. would like to 
     announce our continued support for H.R. 2866 and S. 2866, The 
     Headwaters Forest Act. Greenpeace believes this Act to be one 
     of the most important pieces of legislation facing Congress 
     that will help protect the remaining U.S. ancient forests. 
     The Act is critical to the protection of the Headwaters 
     Forest, one of the last remaining unprotected stands of 
     redwoods, a natural heritage of California.
       Greenpeace is actively campaigning to stop the destructive 
     logging of ancient forests worldwide, with a particular 
     emphasis on stopping clearcut practices in the temperate 
     forests. We believe the Hamburg bill is an important global 
     contribution to the protection of old-growth forests.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Pamela Wellner,
                                                Forest Campaigner.
                                  ____

                                                       Columbiana,


                                Bioregional Education Project,

                                    Oroville, WA, August 26, 1994.
     Re: Headwaters Forest Bill HB 2866
     Congressman Dan Hamburg,
     Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Hamburg: We want to add our voices in support of 
     your bill which authorizes acquisition of the Headwaters 
     Redwood Forest.
       Before moving to Washington State, we lived in northern 
     California, and were appalled at the wanton destruction of 
     the incomparable heritage of the old growth redwood 
     ecosystem. Whatever can be set aside as a living legacy of 
     this splendid species, should be done so, without hesitation.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the redwoods.
           Most Sincerely,
                                                 Geraldine Payton,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                              Kettle Range Conservation Group,

                                    Republic, WA, August 18, 1994.
     Representative Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: I wish to express the unequivocal support 
     of the Kettle Range Conservation Group for the Headwaters 
     Forest Act, H.R. 2866.
       As you are aware, the majority of the once expansive 
     ancient redwood forest has been logged. It is of key 
     importance both to the new emerging economy of the Northern 
     California coastal region, and to the multitude of plant and 
     animal species that rely on this finite resource, that the 
     Headwaters Forest grove of ancient redwoods be preserved.
       The Kettle Range Conservation Group greatly appreciates 
     your attention given to this important national issue. We 
     thank you for your kind consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Timothy J. Coleman,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                       The Wilderness Society,

                                San Francisco, CA, August 5, 1993.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: I am writing on behalf of the 
     300,000 members of The Wilderness Society (TWS) to express 
     our strong support for the Headwaters Forest Act of 1993, 
     H.R. 2866. TWS would also like to thank you for your 
     leadership in this important legislative effort.
       As you are well aware, the Headwaters Forest and its 
     associated old growth redwood ecosystem is an unique natural 
     resource worthy of public acquisition. Only by the adequate 
     protection and proper management provided by H.R. 2866 can we 
     be certain that this ecosystem will persist over time and 
     that future generations of Americans will be able to visit 
     and enjoy this priceless treasure.
       In addition, TWS is especially happy to support the 
     addition of the Headwaters Forest into the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System as Section Four of your bill 
     provides. This addition will bestow the ultimate level of 
     protection on this irreplaceable tract.
       Congressman, thank you again for your commitment to sound 
     stewardship and environmental protection demonstrated by the 
     introduction of this important piece of legislation. The 
     Wilderness Society looks forward to working with you and Mr. 
     Stark to secure passage of H.R. 2866 in this Congress.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Louis Blumberg,
                                      Assistant Regional Director.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                  Washington, DC, August 31, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representative, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Sierra Club's half-million members to offer our strong 
     support and to express our gratitude for your leadership on 
     the Headwaters Forest issue.
       As you know, this legislation offers critical protection 
     for over 44,000 acres of redwood forest, including 
     approximately 5,000 acres of old-growth. The old-growth in 
     the Headwaters Forest is in urgent need of preservation, as 
     it faces imminent logging if not protected by this bill. The 
     Headwaters Forest area also certain habitat for several 
     threatened and endangered species including the peregrine 
     falcon and marbled murrelet.
       In the past eight years, more than 40,000 acres of residual 
     old growth and almost 10,000 acres of virgin redwood trees 
     have been logged by the Maxxam Corporation. The Headwaters 
     Forest Act will put an end to this tragedy by balancing the 
     need for timber production with the need for conservation. 
     H.R. 2866 will also provide long-term job stability by 
     shifting logging practices toward sustainable use and 
     promoting regeneration. This legislation will create jobs in 
     the restoration of watersheds and habitat critically damaged 
     by previous timber harvests.
       By introducing H.R. 2866, you have taken the lead in 
     conserving the last unprotected old-growth redwood forest in 
     the world. We hope to continue to work with you in protecting 
     our ancient forests.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debbie Sease,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                  Robin Lawrence Schaeffer, Ph.D.,


                                      Helene Schaeffer, Ph.D.,

                                     Modesto, CA, August 18, 1994.
     Congressman Dan Hamburg,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: I am writing on behalf of our 
     grassroots group S.A.F.E. (Save our Ancient Forest Ecology), 
     to thank you for introducing a most essential bill, H.R. 
     2866, The Headwaters Forest Act. I cannot tell you how 
     important this is to all of us. I am delighted to hear that 
     your bill has gained the support of both the environmental 
     community and the timber company involved; since it is 
     therefore quite non-controversial, we look forward to it's 
     speedy passage on the floor of the House. Our children thank 
     you for your efforts to preserve such a vital part of their 
     heritage.
           Sincerely,

                                       Dr. Robin L. Schaeffer,

                                                S.A.F.E. (Save our
                                          Ancient Forest Ecology).
                                  ____



                              Washington Wilderness Coalition,

                                     Seattle, WA, August 24, 1994.
     Representative Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: The Washington Wilderness 
     Coalition is writing in support of your efforts to pass the 
     Headwaters Forest Act (H.R. 2866). We advocate the 
     acquisition of this 44,400 tract of unprotected redwood 
     forest and are particulary pleased that Pacific Lumber is not 
     opposed to the Bill's passage.
       We are concerned about the possibility of weakening 
     amendments being added to this act. Amendments that do not 
     allow a holistic management approach for all lands (both 
     those acquired and those with acquisition pending) should be 
     avoided at all costs.
       At this crucial time when the remnant stands of redwood 
     forests have suffered from the onslaught of whole-sale 
     harvesting, it is of critical national importance that the 
     Headwaters Forest be saved!
       The Washington Wilderness Coalition represents forty 
     grassroots and statewide conservation organizations and over 
     one thousand individual members who are dedicated to 
     protecting public lands in Washington State. Protection of 
     ancient forest of Washington and the Pacific Northwest is a 
     special priority to our members.
       Thanks for your ongoing support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barb Miranda,
                                   Wilderness Project Coordinator.
                                  ____

                                                 Sierra Club Legal


                                           Defense Fund, Inc.,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: On behalf of the Sierra Club 
     Legal Defense Fund, I am writing to express our support for 
     H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act. The bill authorizes the 
     purchase, from a willing seller, of the largest remaining 
     tract of unprotected redwood forest.
       As you well know, the Headwaters forest--along with the 
     people, fish, and wildlife that depend on it--are paying the 
     price for the leveraged buy-out bonanza of the 1980s. Maxxam 
     Corporation has more than doubled logging rates of this 
     magnificent redwood forest in order to pay off junk bonds 
     used to finance its hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber in 
     1985.
       In so doing, Maxxam has jeopardized not only coho salmon 
     and other species of fish and wildlife for which the 
     Headwaters provides habitat, but the jobs of fishers and 
     others who depend on healthy populations of those species as 
     well. In addition, by rapidly liquidating the forest, Maxxam 
     has effectively signed the termination papers for the workers 
     who had logged Pacific Lumber's lands in a more conservative, 
     sustainable manner for generations.
       We appreciate your leadership in moving this bill through 
     the Congress and look forward to working with you toward its 
     enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin Kirchner.
                                  ____



                                     National Audubon Society,

                                  Washington, DC, August 24, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: The National Audubon Society 
     would like to express its support of H.R. 2866, the 
     Headwaters Forest Act of 1994.
       The Headwaters Forest is a priceless remnant of an 
     environment nearly lost. Only fragments remain of the great 
     redwood stands that once blanketed much of the northwestern 
     coast of your state. These virgin stands of redwood forest 
     are more than just trees. They are complex ecosystems of 
     hundreds of species, including the endangered northern 
     spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The forest also protects 
     the watersheds that support the coho salmon, which may be 
     soon listed as a threatened species. Saving these remaining 
     islands of old growth and the surrounding second growth 
     forests is critical to protecting the species that depend on 
     them.
       The timing of this legislation is also critical. The 
     Headwaters Forest Act would take advantage of a unique 
     opportunity to rescue this last unprotected remnant of a 
     virgin redwood forest ecosystem. Maxxam Corporation is a 
     ``willing seller'', having endorsed H.R. 2866. But without 
     government acquisition, Maxxam will log the area to service 
     its debt. The moment for action to save the Headwaters Forest 
     has arrived.
       The National Audubon Society supports H.R. 2866 and thanks 
     you for your efforts to protect this natural treasure. We 
     look forward to working with you in every way possible to 
     secure passage of H.R. 2866 and the permanent protection of 
     the Headwaters Forest.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brock Evans,
                               Vice President for National Issues.
                                  ____



                                       Ancient Forest Alliance

                                                  August 15, 1994.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Ancient Forest Alliance, whose 
     member groups represent citizens across the nation, strongly 
     urges you to support H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act, 
     when it come before the House later this week. H.R. 2866 was 
     introduced by Rep. Dan Hamburg D-CA) and cosponsored by 142 
     of your colleagues; it was recently passed out of both the 
     Agriculture and Natural Resource Committees.
       The Headwaters Forest Act would authorize the acquisition 
     by the U.S. Forest Service of the largest remaining 
     unprotected redwood forest in the world. These virgin redwood 
     groves are currently owned by the Maxxam Corporation, which 
     acquired them along with the Pacific Lumber Company in 1986. 
     The Maxxam Corporation will not oppose the Headwaters bill, 
     which is supported by local, regional and national 
     environmental groups, along with the American Fishing Tackle 
     Manufacturers Association and representatives of sport and 
     commercial fishing organizations.
       The Headwaters Forest is significant not only because of 
     its size, and its virgin redwood forest ecosystem, but also 
     because it is home to the coho salmon, which has been 
     petitioned for listing as a threatened species under the 
     Endangered Species Act. The protection of the coho salmon 
     habitat is especially critical to northern California, where 
     the decline of the coho salmon fishing industry since the 
     1970's has cost the state about $100 million a year in 
     reduced economic activity.
       The passage and ultimate enactment of H.R. 2866 would take 
     a troubling land management issue affecting private lands and 
     threatened species out of the courts and resolve a dispute 
     which has polarized the people of northern California for 
     almost a decade.
       Please support the Headwater Forest Act. Your vote for H.R. 
     2866 can provide the community, and the remaining Headwaters 
     Forest, with a sustainable ecosystem management strategy 
     based upon watershed restoration and the protection of 
     private property rights.
           Sincerely,
     Brock Evans,
                                         National Audubon Society.
     Judy Guse-Noritake,
                                           Pacific Rivers Council.
     Jim Owens,
                                  Western Ancient Forest Campaign.
     Doug Inkley,
                                     National Wildlife Federation.
     Kevin Kirchner,
                                   Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
     Michael Francis,
                                           The Wilderness Society.
                                  ____



                                                     Etna, CA,

                                                  August 18, 1994.
     Re support for H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.

     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: The directors and members of 
     Marble Mountain Audubon Society wish to express their strong 
     support for H.R. 2866 and our appreciation for the leadership 
     you have demonstrated in bringing this bill through committee 
     and, hopefully, to the floor of the House.
       The best scientific information indicates that we need the 
     Headwaters Forest protected if we are to have a chance of 
     retaining viable populations of Marbled Murrelets in 
     California. The Headwaters Forest is also a legacy for our 
     children a place where we hope that, because of your efforts 
     and the action of the US Congress, future generations will be 
     able to experience the majesty of the Ancient Forests which 
     dominated the landscape when European Americans first arrived 
     on the North Coast.
       Please let us know if there is any way we can help to 
     achieve passage of H.R. 2866.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Felice Pace,
                                               Conservation Chair.
                                  ____



                                      Klamath Forest Alliance,

                                        Etna, CA, August 18, 1994.
     Subject: Support for H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act.

     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: The board, activists and staff of 
     Klamath Forest Alliance wish to express their strong support 
     for H.R. 2866 and our appreciation for the leadership you 
     have demonstrated in bringing this Bill through committee 
     and, hopefully, to the floor of the House. It is abundantly 
     clear that we need the Headwaters Forest protected if we are 
     to have a chance of retaining viable populations of Marbled 
     Murrelets in California. Furthermore, the Headwaters Forest 
     is a legacy for our children--a place where we hope that, 
     because of your efforts and the action of the U.S. Congress, 
     future generations will be able to experience the forests 
     which dominated the landscape when European Americans first 
     arrived on the North Coast.
       Please let us know if there is any way we can assist you in 
     achieving passage of H.R. 2866.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Felice Pace,
                                              Program Coordinator.
                                  ____



                                     Save-the-Redwoods League,

                             San Francisco, CA, September 2, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     Cannon Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: The Save-the-Redwoods League 
     supports the protection of the old growth Redwood Forest in 
     H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act. Protecting the 
     Headwaters Forest is a key to the long term regional 
     protection of the remaining coastal old growth ecosystem.
       We are encouraged that the Pacific Lumber Co. now supports 
     the bill. We are committed to working with you to see that 
     H.R. 2866 and Senator Boxer's companion legislation are 
     enacted in this session of Congress.
       The debate over the fate of the Headwaters Forest is of 
     national importance. We feel that H.R. 2866 is an effective 
     means for resolving this long-standing dispute to protect the 
     remaining old growth Redwoods owned by Pacific Lumber Co. and 
     its parent company Maxxam Corp.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John B. Dewitt,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   Environmental Defense Fund,

                                  Washington, DC, August 29, 1994.
     Hon. Dan Hamburg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hamburg: This letter is to offer my strong 
     support for H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act. The 
     Environmental Defense Fund welcomes the long overdue 
     protection of the largest remaining stands of old-growth 
     coastal redwoods on private property, and applauds the sale 
     by willing owners to the federal government.
       The old-growth redwoods of northern California are of 
     inestimable value not only to Californians, but to all 
     Americans. The transfer of this property to federal ownership 
     would ensure permanent protection for these magnificent 
     giants. In addition, through the broad-based protection of 
     habitat in the Headwaters Forest, H.R. 2866 offers new hope 
     for other imperilled species as coho and other salmon.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Bean,
                                       Chairman, Wildlife Program.
                                  ____



                                      Rainier Audubon Society,

                                      Auburn, WA, August 19, 1994.
     Re H.R. 2866 Headwaters Forest Act.

     Representative Dan Hamburg,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hamburg: The members of Rainier Audubon 
     Society in Washington State would like you to know that we 
     whole-heartedly support the Headwaters Forest Act that you 
     have introduced in Congress.
       The redwood forests in California are a National treasure. 
     A treasure to man and wildlife to be protected and preserved 
     forever. Who can think of the Redwood Forests without singing 
     a few lines of ``This Land Is My Land''. This land is OUR 
     land, and the US Forest Service has the chance to acquire 
     44,000 acres of forest and 7,000 acres of natural (never 
     managed by man) late successional old growth forest. This 
     wonderful part of the earth has for too long been abused and 
     now needs good stewardship.
       This bill is critical to not only saving trees, but we're 
     also talking about essential habitat for threatened coho 
     salmon. Salmon only live in cold water. The need for thick 
     cover over rivers and streams means life or death. Salmon 
     also need clear rivers and streams to lay eggs, too much silt 
     from the land when trees are cut, suffocates the eggs.
       Economically, this bill will help to keep the fishing 
     industry alive along the coast and rivers of California. The 
     Number 1 money maker in the world is tourism. When these 
     lands are restored from past logging and brought back to 
     their natural state, some of it can be used for tourism.
       H.R. 2866 will designate as a wilderness area, The 
     Headwaters Grove, the largest of the virgin stands in this 
     acquisition. This is an area that can never be re-produced. 
     It should be an area preserved for scientific and natural 
     study as well as for its aestetic value.
       The Maxxam Corporation has dropped its opposition to this 
     bill and even the timber industry is supporting this bill. 
     NOW is the time to act and turn over this land to the 
     stewardship of the US Forest Service.
       Please feel free to use any parts of this letter to help 
     securing the passage of your bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Beverly Blinn,
                                          Rainier Audubon Society.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. If the 
author of the bill would not mind, I would like to ask a question about 
the map he has put up.
  In particular, the gentleman has down there the irregular borders of 
what would be included in the 44,000 acres in this tract. Are there any 
other property owners, private property owners included in that 44,000 
acres?
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority is owned by the Pacific 
Lumber Co. There are some small owners. I believe Sierra Pacific, and I 
believe Simpson owns about a thousand acres in there, and I think that 
is it.
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, are there any 
areas outside of that 44,000 acres that are old growth redwood that 
should be protected in the gentleman's opinion?
  Mr. HAMBURG. If the gentleman will yield further, I believe that on 
the 190,000-acre ownership of Pacific Lumber there are other stands of 
residual old growth.

                              {time}  1500

  Pacific Lumber has been logging that old growth. In fact, when they 
took over the company in 1985, there were about 16,000 acres of ancient 
redwoods on the property, and this 5,300 acres represents just about 
all that is left. I am sure there are some small residual stands which 
they continue to log.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would strongly 
urge opposition to this bill. It kills jobs. It burdens the taxpayers. 
It is totally unnecessary and is opposed by hundreds of workers who 
work for Palco who signed these petitions. Let us bring them into the 
equation, because it is their jobs that are going to be lost.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 30 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in open debate, any statement that is made by one 
person can be refuted by another person, and that is where we find 
ourselves with a billion and a half and 1 billion, bringing in the RTC 
and all of the other areas of concern. I submit to you that we have an 
answer, a logical, appropriate answer, to every one of those statements 
made.
  What I would like to finally say is that, and as I said in the 
beginning, I dissociated myself from any provincial, from any partisan, 
from any personal; I want to deal solely with the legislation that we 
have here before us and to state that these proposed acres to be 
acquired by whatever manner will belong to us, to all of us.
  I have youngsters in my congressional district that have never seen a 
redwood. Iowa has youngsters that may not ever have seen a national 
seashore which we acquired, the Federal Government, some in my area, 
some in the Carolinas, some on the Pacific coast.
  We are talking about the future of this country. We are talking about 
youngsters that may never have seen a redwood or a salmon in the river 
or a trout in the river or a deer in the wild. This is what this bill 
is all about. It is not about acquiring more property for the 
Government of the United States of America. It is so that we preserve 
for the future generations some of that which could be lost and never 
be again.
  Time rolls on. The weather, the climate change. I have seen 
clearcutting and do not approve of it, and we have tried to temper 
that, these two committees that are here sponsoring, handling this 
bill. We do not want the clearcutting. We do not want to clear the 
countryside.
  We want every American youngster to be able to see a pine tree, a 
redwood tree, the ocean, to wet his feet in the ocean waters. The only 
pearls many of the youngsters in my district would be able to see would 
be seashells.
  Finally, I want to quote the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Ravenel], one of our colleagues, who mentioned that his son, when he 
saw the spread of trees and the light shining through, he asked him, 
``What is this?'' And he said, ``a church.'' Oddity of all oddities, I 
was at Mount Hood under some gigantic trees, old growth, and I told the 
forester who was my guide, when only a little bit of sun would shine 
through the trees, I says, ``You know, I feel as if I were in a 
national cathedral somewhere in Europe.'' How odd that the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, the Congressman from Texas, would say 
that at Mount Hood, and a little boy would say that in South Carolina. 
That is what this bill is all about.
  Everything else can be compromised. Everything else can be adjusted. 
But the availability of the resources and the bounty of this country to 
future generations should be protected, and that is what this bill is 
all about.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support not only the 
Headwaters Forest Act, but the process that will be used to carry out 
the measures that comprise this legislation.
  There were at one time 2 million acres of ancient redwood forests on 
our Nation's Pacific coast. Less than 5 percent of these remain. The 
Headwaters Forest now remains the largest private owned stand of old-
growth forest in the world, and this bill is designed to protect this 
parcel of critical land and habitat.
  But the unique thing about this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that it has 
enlisted the support of the owners of this private property as well as 
environmental and other groups.
  The process spelled out in the bill seeks to avoid direct taxpayer 
expenditures whenever possible, using instead land transfers. This 
respect for both the environment and for the rights of private property 
owners is an important model for us to use in future endeavors, and I 
want to strongly compliment Representative Dan Hamburg of California 
for carefully crafting this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, we throw the word ``leadership'' around in this Chamber 
quite freely, but I want to say that this is an example of leadership. 
Congressman Hamburg has provided a quality answer to a difficult 
problem, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the original bill shall be considered under the 
5-minute rule and, without objection, is considered as read.
  There was no objection.
  The text of H.R. 2866 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2866

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Headwaters Forest Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Redwoods are a significant national symbol and a 
     defining symbol of the State of California.
       (2) Old growth redwood trees are a unique and irreplaceable 
     natural resource.
       (3) Most of the Nation's old growth forests have been cut. 
     Less than 5 percent of the original 2,000,000 acre Coast 
     redwoods remain standing. The groves that are left are 
     crucial to maintain habitat needed for survival of old-growth 
     dependent species. The Headwaters Forest, for example, is 
     home to one of California's three largest population of 
     marbled murrelets, rare sea birds that nest only in coastal 
     old growth trees; the Northern Spotted Owl; and native salmon 
     stocks that spawn in the Forest's creeks.
       (4) The remaining unprotected stands of old growth forests 
     and old growth redwoods are under immediate threat of being 
     harvested without regard to their ecological importance and 
     without following Federal timber harvest guidelines.
       (5) Significant amounts of old growth redwoods in the 
     proposed National Forest additions are being cut at a pace 
     that is based on paying high interest rates on poor quality 
     bonds and not at a pace that is based on sound forest 
     management practices.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the 
     sound management and protection of old growth Redwood forest 
     areas in Humboldt County, California, and to preserve and 
     enhance habitat for the marbled murrelet, Northern Spotted 
     owl, native salmon stocks, and other old growth forest 
     dependent species, by adding certain lands and waters to the 
     Six Rivers National Forest and by including a portion of such 
     lands in the national wilderness preservation system.

     SEC. 3. ADDITION TO SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) Extension of Boundaries.--The exterior boundaries of 
     the Six Rivers National Forest in the State of California are 
     hereby extended to include the area comprising approximately 
     44,000 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition proposed'', dated June 1993. 
     Such area shall hereinafter in this Act be referred to as the 
     Six Rivers National Forest Addition. The map shall be on file 
     and available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest, and in the 
     offices of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (b) Acquisition of Land.--(1) The Secretary shall acquire 
     lands or interests in land within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Six Rivers National Forest Addition by donation, by 
     purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or by exchange 
     for other lands owned by any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States. When any tract of land 
     is only partly within such boundaries, the Secretary may 
     acquire all or any portion of the land outside of such 
     boundaries in order to minimize the payment of severance 
     costs. Land so acquired outside of the boundaries may be 
     exchanged by the Secretary for non-Federal lands within the 
     boundaries, and any land so acquired and not utilized for 
     exchange shall be reported to the General Services 
     Administration for disposal under the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377). Lands, 
     and interests in lands, within the boundaries of the 
     Headwaters Forest which are owned by the State of California 
     or any political subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by 
     donation or exchange.
       (2) The Secretary is authorized to accept from the State of 
     California funds to cover the cost of acquiring lands within 
     the Headwaters Forest, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary may retain and expend such 
     funds for purposes of such acquisition. Such funds shall be 
     available for such purposes without further appropriation and 
     without fiscal year limitation.
       (c) Land Acquisition Plan.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement, within 6 months after the enactment of this Act, a 
     land acquisition plan which contains specific provisions 
     addressing how and when lands will be acquired under 
     subsection (b). The plan shall give priority first to the 
     acquisition of lands within the boundaries of the Headwaters 
     Forest Wilderness identified on the map referred to in 
     section 3(a). The Secretary shall submit copies of such plan 
     to the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on 
     Agriculture, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     United States House of Representatives and to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the United States Senate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 4. WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), lands in the State of 
     California acquired under section 3 of this Act which are 
     within the areas generally depicted on the map referred to in 
     section 3 as the ``Headwaters Forest Wilderness (Proposed)'' 
     shall be designated as wilderness and therefore as a 
     component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, 
     effective upon acquisition under section 3. Such lands shall 
     be known as the Headwaters Forest Wilderness.
       (b) Map and Description.--As soon as practicable after the 
     inclusion of any lands in the Headwaters Forest Wilderness, 
     the Secretary shall file a map and a boundary description of 
     the area so included with the Committee on Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and with the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate. The 
     Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     such boundary description and such map. Each such map and 
     boundary description shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
       (c) Buffer Zones Not Intended.--The Congress does not 
     intend that designation of any area as wilderness under this 
     section lead to the creation of protective perimeters or 
     buffer zones around the wilderness area. The fact that 
     nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from 
     areas within a wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such 
     activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.
       (d) State Authority over Fish and Wildlife.--As provided in 
     section 4(d)(8) of the Wilderness Act, nothing in this Act 
     shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or 
     responsibilities of the State of California with respect to 
     wildlife and fish in any areas designated by this Act as 
     wilderness.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Management Plan.--The Secretary shall develop, within 1 
     year after the enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 
     management plan detailing measures for the preservation of 
     the existing old growth redwood ecosystems in the Six Rivers 
     National Forest Addition, including but not limited to each 
     of the following:
       (1) Prohibition of sale of timber from lands within the old 
     growth redwood groves as depicted generally on the map 
     referred to in section 3(a). Timber sales in other areas 
     shall be allowed consistent with the purposes of this Act and 
     other applicable Federal laws and regulations.
       (2) Measures to restore lands affected by previous timber 
     harvests to mitigate watershed degradation and impairment of 
     habitat for the marbled murrelet, spotted owl, native salmon 
     stocks, and other old-growth forest dependent species 
     (``Restoration Measures'').

     The Management Plan shall be reviewed and revised every time 
     the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management 
     plan is revised or more frequently as necessary to meet the 
     purposes of this Act.
       (b) Applicable Laws and Policies.--(1) The Secretary, 
     acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall 
     administer the lands acquired under section 3(b) in 
     accordance with the Management Plan, this Act, and with the 
     other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to such 
     national forest. In addition, subject to valid existing 
     rights, any lands acquired and designated as wilderness under 
     section 4(a) shall also be administered in accordance with 
     the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas 
     designated by that Act as wilderness, except that any 
     reference in such provisions to the effective date of the 
     Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall be deemed to 
     be a reference to the date of acquisition of such lands under 
     section 3 of this Act.
       (2) To the maximum extent practicable, all work to 
     implement the management plan's Restoration Measures shall be 
     performed by unemployed forest and timber workers, unemployed 
     commercial fishermen, or other unemployed persons whose 
     livelihood depends on fishery and timber resources.
       (3) In order to facilitate management, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Chief of the Forest Service may enter into 
     agreements with the State of California for the management of 
     lands owned by the State or purchased with State assistance.

     SEC. 6. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) PILT.--Solely for purposes of payments made pursuant to 
     chapter 69 of title 31 of the United States Code, all lands 
     added to the Six Rivers National Forest by this Act shall be 
     deemed to have been acquired for the purposes specified in 
     section 6904(a) of such title 31.
       (b) 10-Year Payment.--(1) Subject to annual appropriations 
     and the provisions of subsection (c), for a period of 10 
     years after acquisition by the United States of lands added 
     to the Six Rivers National Forest by this Act, the Secretary, 
     with respect to such acquired lands, shall make annual 
     payments to Humboldt County in the State of California in an 
     amount equal to the State of California Timber Yield Tax 
     revenues payable under the California Revenue and Taxation 
     Code (sec. 38101 et seq.) in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act that would have been paid with respect 
     to such lands if the lands had not been acquired by the 
     United States, as determined by the Secretary pursuant to 
     this subsection.
       (2) The Secretary shall determine the amounts to be paid 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection based on an 
     assessment of a variety of factors including, but not limited 
     to--
       (A) timber actually sold in the subject year from 
     comparable commercial forest lands of similar soil type, 
     slope and such determination of appropriate timber harvest 
     levels,
       (B) comparable timber size class, age, and quality,
       (C) market conditions,
       (D) all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and 
     regulations, and
       (E) the goal of sustainable, even-flow harvest or renewable 
     timber resources.
       (c) California Timber Yield Tax.--The amount of State of 
     California Timber Yield Tax payments paid to Humboldt County 
     in any year pursuant to the laws of California for timber 
     sold from lands acquired under this Act shall be deducted 
     from the sums to be paid to Humboldt County in that year 
     under subsection (b).
       (d) 25-Percent Fund.--Amounts paid under subsection (b) 
     with respect to any land in any year shall be reduced by any 
     amounts paid under the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) 
     which are attributable to sales from the same lands in that 
     year.

     SEC. 7. FOREST STUDY.

       The Secretary shall study the lands within the area 
     comprising approximately 13,620 acres and generally depicted 
     as ``Study Area'' on the map referred to in section 3(a). The 
     study shall analyze the area's potential to be added to the 
     Headwaters Forest and shall identify the natural resources of 
     the area including the location of old growth forests, old 
     growth redwood stands, threatened and endangered species 
     habitat and populations including the northern spotted owl 
     and marbled murrelet, commercial timber volume, recreational 
     opportunities, wildlife and fish, watershed management, and 
     the cost of acquiring the land. Within one year of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     with the findings of the study to the Committees on Natural 
     Resources, and Agriculture of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Energy and Natural 
     Resources, and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     United States Senate.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except the 
amendments printed in House Report 103-732. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  Debate time on each amendment will be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture or a designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments printed in the report or germane modifications of any such 
amendment. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, except that 
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Agriculture, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.
  The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc 
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before 
disposition of the amendments en bloc.


      amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 2 of House 
Resolution 536, I offer amendments en bloc, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc, as 
modified.
  The text of the amendments en bloc, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by Mr. de la 
     Garza:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Dooley, as modified: Strike 
     section 3 and insert the following:
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The terms ``Six Rivers National Forest Addition'' and 
     ``Headwaters Forest'' mean the area authorized for land 
     acquisition activities under section 3, as depicted on the 
     map described in section 3(b)(1).
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. ADDITION TO SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) Modification of Boundaries.--Effective upon the 
     consummation of a land acquisition conducted as provided in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall modify the 
     exterior boundaries of the Six Rivers National Forest in the 
     State of California to include the acquired lands.
       (b) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) Area for acquisition activities.--The Secretary may 
     acquire lands and interests in land within the boundaries of 
     an area comprising approximately 44,000 acres, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Six Rivers National Forest 
     Addition proposed'' and dated June 1993, for inclusion in the 
     Six Rivers National Forest under subsection (a). The map 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     offices of the Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest, 
     and in the offices of the Chief of the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Manner of conducting acquisition.--Lands and interests 
     in lands within the Six Rivers National Forest Addition may 
     be acquired by the Secretary only by donation, by purchase 
     with donated or appropriated funds, or by exchange.
       (3) Special rule for federal transfers.--For purposes of 
     making an exchange under paragraph (2), excess or surplus 
     lands under the jurisdiction of any other department, agency, 
     or instrumentality of the United States may be transferred, 
     subject to the advance approval of the transfer by law, to 
     the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary if the 
     Secretary identifies the lands as suitable for use in making 
     an exchange. To facilitate the approval of a transfer of 
     lands under this paragraph, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate proposed legislation in connection with the 
     proposed transfer. The transfer of lands under this 
     paragraph shall be made without compensation to the 
     transferring department, agency, or instrumentality.
       (4) Acquisition of certain lands outside addition.--When a 
     tract of land proposed to be acquired is only partly within 
     the Six Rivers National Forest Addition, the Secretary may 
     acquire all or any portion of the land outside of the Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition to minimize the payment of 
     severance costs. Land acquired outside of the boundaries may 
     be exchanged by the Secretary for nonFederal lands within the 
     boundaries. Land acquired outside of the boundaries of the 
     Six Rivers National Forest Addition under this paragraph and 
     not used for exchange shall be reported to the Administrator 
     of the General Services Administration for disposal under the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (5) Special rule for state or local government lands.--
     Lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition that are owned by the State 
     of California or any political subdivision thereof, may be 
     acquired only by donation or exchanges.
       (6) Acceptance and use of funds.--The Secretary may accept 
     from the State of California funds to cover the cost of 
     acquiring lands within the Six Rivers National Forest 
     Addition. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary may retain and expend such funds for purposes of 
     such acquisition. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without further appropriation and without fiscal 
     year limitation.
       (c) Land Acquisition Plan.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement, within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, a land acquisition plan that contains specific 
     provisions addressing how and when lands will be acquired 
     under subsection (b). The plan shall give priority first to 
     the acquisition of lands within the Six Rivers National 
     Forest Addition proposed for inclusion in the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System. The plan shall include an 
     analysis of the possibilities for acquisition through means 
     other than the expenditure of funds, including the use of 
     excess and surplus Federal properties. The Secretary shall 
     identify and list these properties. The Secretary shall 
     submit copies of the plan to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and to 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (e) Termination of Acquisition Authority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, the Secretary may not 
     acquire lands under the authority of this section after the 
     end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       In section 4 of the bill, strike subsection (b) and insert 
     the following new subsection:
       (b) Map and Description.--As soon as practicable after the 
     inclusion of any lands in the Headwaters Forest Wilderness, 
     the Secretary shall file a map and a legal description of the 
     area so included with the Committee on Natural Resources of 
     the House of Representatives and with the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate. The Secretary may 
     correct clerical and typographical errors in such legal 
     description and such map. Each such map and legal description 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     offices of the Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest, 
     and in the offices of the Chief of the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.
       In section 5 of the bill, strike subsection (a) and insert 
     the following new subsection:
       (a) Management Plan.--Within 1 year after acquiring all or 
     part of the lands identified to be acquired in section 3, the 
     Secretary shall develop a comprehensive management plan for 
     the acquired lands detailing measures for the preservation of 
     the existing old growth redwood ecosystems. The management 
     plan shall include each of the following with respect to the 
     lands so acquired:
       (1) Prohibition of the sale of timber from lands within the 
     old growth redwood groves as depicted generally on the map 
     referred to in section 3(b)(1). Timber sales in other areas 
     within the Six Rivers National Forest Addition shall be 
     allowed consistent with the purposes of this Act and other 
     applicable Federal laws and regulations.
       (2) Measures to restore lands affected by previous timber 
     harvests to mitigate watershed degradation and impairment of 
     habitat for the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, 
     native salmon stocks, and other old-growth forest dependent 
     species.

     The management plan shall be reviewed and revised each time 
     the land and resource management plan for the Six Rivers 
     National Forest is revised or more frequently as necessary to 
     meet the purposes of this Act.
                                  ____

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 8. NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON LANDS UNTIL ACQUIRED.

       (A) In General.--Until the lands in the Six River National 
     Forest Addition are acquired under section 3, the owners of 
     the lands and their designees shall be entitled to the full 
     and lawful use and enjoyment of the lands. Nothing in this 
     Act may be--
       (1) construed to impose any limitations upon any otherwise 
     lawful use of the lands by the owners of the lands or their 
     designees;
       (2) construed as authority to defer the submission, review, 
     approval, or implementation of any timber harvest or similar 
     plan with respect to any portion of the lands; or
       (3) construed to grant a cause of action against the owner 
     of the lands or their designees.
       (b) Voluntary Deferment of Use.--The owners of lands 
     described in section 3 or their designees may agree of their 
     own accord to defer some or all lawful enjoyment and use of 
     the land for a certain period of time.
                                  ____

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo, as modified:
       Add at the end of section 3 of the bill the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Consent of Owner Required for Acquisition.--Lands and 
     interests in lands within the Six Rivers National Forest 
     Addition may not be acquired by the Secretary for purposes of 
     this Act without the consent of the owner of the lands.
       The Secretary may not acquire lands or interests in land 
     within the Six Rivers National Forest Addition by 
     condemnation.
                                  ____

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest: Add at the end of 
     subsection (a) of section 2 of the bill the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) The continued fragmentation and loss of irreplaceable 
     ecosystems creates an urgent need to develop creative 
     solutions to achieve the long-term benefits of permanent 
     protection and preservation.
                                  ____

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff: Add at the end the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS IN SIX RIVERS NATIONAL 
                   FOREST.

       As provided in section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1133(c)), mechanical transport (including motor 
     vehicles, motorized equipment, and the landing of fixed-wing 
     and rotary aircraft) shall be permitted anywhere within the 
     boundaries of the Six Rivers National Forest with respect to 
     any emergency involving the health or safety of an individual 
     within the national forests.
                                  ____

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Add at the end of the 
     bill the following new section:

     SEC. 8. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased with funds made available under this Act 
     should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing payments under 
     section 6 or other financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available 
     under this Act, the Secretary, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice describing 
     the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modifications to the 
amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modifications to amendments en bloc offered by Mr. de la 
     Garza:
       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Dooley of California is 
     modified by striking ``Committee on Energy and Commerce'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Energy and Natural Resources''.
       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Pombo is modified by adding 
     at the end the following: ``The Secretary may not acquire 
     lands or interests in lands within the Six Rivers National 
     Forest addition by condemnation.''

  Mr. de la GARZA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de 
la Garza] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendments en bloc include one offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Volkmer].
  In addition, the amendment requires the land and interest in lands 
within the Six Rivers National Forest addition may be acquired only by 
donation, by purchasing with donated or appropriated funds, or by 
exchange; also, the amendment assures that privately held lands will 
continue to be available to the owners to use in any way consistent 
with State and Federal law.
  Finally, the amendment sunsets authorization for the acquisition of 
the 44,000 acres 10 years after enactment of the bill, and as a result 
of the acquisition language in this amendment, CBO estimates that the 
pay-as-you-go impacts of the bill are negligible or basically zero.
  We also have the so-called Doolittle amendments which were accepted 
by the full committee, and guarantee landowners full and lawful use and 
enjoyment of their lands until they are acquired by the Federal 
Government. The purpose of the amendment is, in part, to prevent 
restrictions on use as a result of the Federal Government's examination 
of this land for inclusion in the Six Rivers National Forest. This 
amendment is supported by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] 
and the Maxxam Corp. This amendment was offered during the Natural 
Resources Committee markup, but not adopted. However, report language 
was included to reflect the intent of the amendment.

  Then we have the Pombo amendment. This amendment was approved by the 
full committee and requires consent of the landowner as a condition of 
the acquisition of lands in the Six Rivers National Forest addition. 
This amendment is supported by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hamburg] and the Maxxam Corp. This amendment was offered during the 
Natural Resources Committee markup but not adopted.
  Then we have a Gilchrest amendment. This amendment provides that the 
continued fragmentation and loss of irreplaceable ecosystems creates an 
urgent need to develop creative solutions, which was explained by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Then we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff]. This amendment would permit the mechanical transport 
within the Six Rivers Forest addition, and that sometimes you legislate 
and it does not work out in real life. That is the reason for this 
amendment, in that if there be an injury or something like that that 
you can use mechanical transport to move the injured person, or in any 
other similar need.
  Then there is the Traficant amendment, which applies to Buy American 
provisions of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture for including my proposed amendment in the proposed en bloc 
amendments.
  I want to explain, as the chairman said, sometimes we legislate in 
certain ways, but it does not work out well practically.
  We had a situation in New Mexico a couple of months ago where, in 
brief, a 14-year-old was lost, and the State police helicopter located 
him but was denied permission to land by the U.S. Forest Service based 
upon their understanding of the Wilderness Act. The boy remained lost 
another night until the Forest Service made a special exception and 
called the State police helicopter back. This time they found him again 
and picked him up the second time.
  This should not happen another time. I think that wilderness areas 
have their purpose. I support that purpose. But when someone is lost, 
when someone is injured, when there is any other kind of emergency 
involving life or health, that is a reason to allow a mechanical 
device, in this case it was a helicopter, to land and make a rescue. 
That is what this amendment says.

                              {time}  1510

  That is what this amendment says. This same language has been adopted 
in the Santa Fe Forest-related bill passed by this House in recent 
weeks.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] 
for agreeing to this.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Madam Chairman, we have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment was offered by us to accommodate 
legitimate, valid concerns of many Members. Madam Chairman, I urge an 
``aye'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). The question is on the 
amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza].
  The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is advised that amendment 
numbered 5 in House Report 103-732 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6, printed in House 
Report 103-732.


                   amendment offered by mr. doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle: Strike subsection (d) 
     of section 3 of the bill and insert the following new 
     subsection.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations; Limitations.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act; except that the total amount 
     obligated or expended to acquire lands or interests in lands 
     in the Six Rivers Forest Addition shall not exceed 
     $200,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is quite straightforward. It merely 
replaces the bill's unlimited authorization with a cap of $200 million 
for land acquisition.
  Many of the bill's proponents claim that most of the 44,000 acres 
will be acquired through land exchanges rather than costly direct 
purchases. Consequently, my amendment should not hamstring the Forest 
Service's efforts to acquire this land through the exchange process. In 
fact, the Lands Division of the U.S. Forest Service has advised me that 
last year it spent about $7 million in administration costs to acquire 
60,000 acres through the exchange process.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment is an insurance policy for the taxpayer 
against the Federal Government's past history of grossly 
underestimating the value of redwood timber lands, which 
underestimation has resulted in exorbitant land acquisition costs. For 
example, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus told Congress in 1978 that 
expansion of the Redwood National Park would cost an estimated $359 
million. The final costs for that land acquisition were $1.4 billion. 
In other words, it ended up costing more than 40 percent what had been 
estimated.
  By the way, this is one of the least visited national parks in the 
entire National Park System.

  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I wanted to clarify something. My understanding is 
that the gentleman's so-called cap includes only prospective 
appropriated funds. Am I correct? It does not include donated or 
exchange properties?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is prospective, yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Of only appropriated funds.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. And prospective appropriated funds, that is correct.
  Mr. de la GARZA. It does not include donated lands?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Does not include donated lands.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Or exchanged lands.
  I thank the gentleman for helping us clarify the situation.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right. It only applies to appropriated money. That is 
why if the lands are going to be acquired through exchange, that is 
outside the $200 million.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. If I may continue here: The Forest Service's official 
appraisal of a 4,488-acre tract, which included the Headwaters Forest 
and a buffer zone, conducted almost 2 years ago, found that tract 
valued $499 million. Since Redwood stumpage prices have risen about 15 
percent annually since then, this tract now has a value exceeding $650 
million. Moreover, the chief appraiser of the Forest Service told the 
Subcommittee on National Parks at a hearing on October 12, 1993, that 
the additional 40,000 acres in this bill had an estimated value of $1 
billion. This would bring the entire price tag to $1.5 billion.
  Let us remember the Congress in recent years has appropriated an 
average of $64 million per year for Forest Service land acquisition in 
the entire country. As a result, if there were no inflation and if the 
Forest Service used this money only for this particular property, it 
would take them 23 years to complete the purchase, to complete the 
purchase.
  It is also important to remember that the Forest Service has a 
backlog of $750 million of high-priority land acquisitions. H.R. 2866 
without the cap would only make this situation worse. Without my 
amendment, this bill appropriates ``such sums as may be necessary,'' 
which history shows can be astronomical. In the case of the Redwood 
National Park, the expansion there in 1978, over 400 percent over what 
has been estimated. For that reason, Madam Chairman, I bring this 
amendment to the House, before the committee, just to provide some 
level of certainty as to what the costs are actually going to be. I 
request that the Members support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman and my colleagues, the scenario 
presented by our distinguished colleague who immediately preceded me 
explains the reason why the concern. If there are 7,000-some projects 
and this goes to the bottom of the line, if it would take 23 years, 
when the bill already has a limitation of 10 years. So what is the 
problem? So it seems to me that there is something beyond the 
legislation, because if there are only $63 million per year 
appropriated, it may be years before there is a penny appropriated, and 
maybe never. It will be done by the land exchanges, by donations from 
California, or other interested groups.
  So I think the excellent presentation made by my colleague just 
before me negates any major concern that we will be appropriating 
money, unless the Forest Service would negate all of its prior work and 
put this at the top of the list, which I am sure that all of the other 
prospective recipients would object to strenuously.
  So I do not see any need at all for this amendment because the 
explanation by the author of the amendment dictates that it is not 
needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman demands a recorded vote and makes the 
point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order----
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum for the moment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdrew my point of order on a 
quorum.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The gentleman requests a recorded vote.
  A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to make a motion at this point if it is permissible, or if the 
gentleman would withdraw his request for a recorded vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, 
but I will not withdraw my request for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Texas please state the reason 
he has risen.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to 
vacate the proceedings up to this point if the gentleman is in 
agreement. The purpose for doing this is that the author of the 
legislation feels that he would be agreeable to accepting the 
amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to vacating the proceedings by which 
a recorded vote was ordered and the proceedings by voice vote on the 
amendment?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object. I would like a recorded 
vote. I would like the recorded vote because the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], testified it was a useless 
amendment. So, let us get the recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. A recorded vote is ordered.


                             recorded vote

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               AYES--240

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--188

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blackwell
     Frost
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Inhofe
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Thompson
     Washington

                              {time}  1543

  Messrs. BERMAN, KREIDLER, FINGERHUT, MOAKLEY, WATT, BISHOP, and 
DINGELL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, HOLDEN, TAYLOR of Mississippi, PAYNE of Virginia, 
MFUME, LEVIN, PETERSON of Florida, LANCASTER, BROWDER, GLICKMAN, 
JACOBS, RIDGE, POMEROY, Ms. FURSE, and Mr. DEAL changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 103-732.


                     amendment offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designated the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo: Strike section 7 of the 
     bill relating to a forest study by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, section 7 of the bill requires that a study be 
conducted to look into the possible expansion of this bill from 44,000 
acres and adding an additional 13,260 acres.
  As I have stated previously in the debate over the bill, I feel that 
the 44,000 acres that are already included in the bill are unneeded. I 
do believe that there are arguments over the old growth, the virgin old 
growth redwood forest and that that is the way the bill should have 
been brought up to begin with and should not have been expanded to 
include a 40,000 acres buffer zone around a 4,500 acre old redwood 
forest.
  What this section of the bill attempts to do is add an additional 
13,260 acres for possible acquisition under the bill. We currently 
have--and Members, this is important--we currently have an estimated 
cost of $1.5 billion on this bill. And what section 7 would authorize 
is an additional 13,260 acres.
  I would like to state that again for those who did not hear. We have 
4,500 acres of old redwood forest in the center of this bill at an 
approximate cost of $500 million.

                              {time}  1550

  We have the further acquisition of another 40,000 acres with an 
approximate cost of $1 billion. What section 7 of this bill attempts to 
do is add an additional 13,620 acres, or the possibility of adding 
13,620 acres to the bill for acquisition and for study.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel that, because of the current fiscal situation 
that the Federal Government is in, it is totally irresponsible, first 
of all, to buy the 40,000 acres, but even more so, to expand that by an 
additional 13,620 acres. I think it is unconscionable to include this 
provision in this bill at this time for a number of reasons, including 
the fiscal reasons that I have said.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] seek 
recognition in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that in section 7 there is no 
authorization for acquisition of this land. This is a study area only. 
In my statement earlier I talked about one of the key importances of 
this acreage being its importance for the restoration of the salmon 
fisheries of northern California and the Pacific Northwest. Nearly 
8,400 full time jobs in the region depend on this particular resource; 
$70 million in annual revenue to the State of California from the 
salmon fisheries; $150 million from the salmon resource for the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, the coho fishery in and of itself, and this is one of 
the remaining last areas, this Elk River area, for the spawning of coho 
salmon, has historically generated $60 million a year in revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, the drainages which are contained in the 44,000 acres 
and contained within the study area, Salmon Creek, Elk River, and Yager 
Creek, contain significant populations of coho salmon, chinook salmon, 
cutthroat trout, and steelhead, which are of primary importance, not 
only to the commercial fisheries, but to sport fishery as well.
  The drainages within this study area and within the 44,000 acres 
block of the Headwaters Forest contain the spawning grounds for up to 
10 percent of the remaining wild salmon population in the State of 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, during the hearings on this bill, Dr. Peter Moyle, who 
is a renowned fisheries biologist from the University of California at 
Davis, discussed the importance of this acreage, of the 44,000 acres, 
and of the remaining acreage, as a protector for the future health of 
the spawning populations of coho salmon.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular drainage is one of the very few 
remaining on the west coast which has a genetic pool for coho salmon 
which has not been contaminated by hatchery fish. There have been no 
hatcheries built on this river which have in any way compromised the 
health of this coho population.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it takes out of the 
bill the possibility of a study of this area for its overall importance 
for the coho salmon fishery.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMBURG. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we 
have to operate on a base of information. What this amendment does, it 
says, ``We are not going to study it. We are not going to look at it.'' 
That is the entire type of attitude that has gotten us into so many 
environmental crises.
  Mr. Chairman, all that is being asked here is to study these 
essential 12,000 acres, 13,000 acres, so that the House, so that the 
Congress, so others can have the basis of that information to make 
sound decisions. This amendment really should be soundly defeated.
  I do not know why it is being offered. Any product that comes out of 
this has to come back to Congress to be acted on. It has to be 
appropriated in terms of the major underlying bill. It would have to be 
authorized or designated in terms of being brought into the forest, if 
that is the decision.
  Mr. Chairman, Members may disagree or agree with that, but Members 
ought to agree that it ought to be done on the basis of having the 
information. This amendment says, ``We do not want to know. We do not 
care.'' That is exactly the type of head-in-the-sand point of view that 
has delivered the problems to us in terms of the Pacific Northwest. We 
need to move forward. We need to defeat this amendment and pass this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota, and urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. This area should be studied. It is essential to the future 
of the salmon industry of northern California and the Pacific 
Northwest. I urge all my colleagues to vote in opposition to this 
amendment and for the bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMBURG. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with the gentleman from 
California in alerting the Members to the fact that this amendment 
really is nothing more than a gutting amendment to the bill. If Members 
want to vote against the bill, vote against the bill at the end. 
However, I would recommend that they do not vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I take offense at the last statement made on the floor 
that this is a gutting amendment. It is not a gutting amendment. It has 
nothing to do with the backbone of this bill, which is the acquiring of 
4,000 acres. It has to do with the acquisition of an additional 13,620 
acres. That is what we are talking about in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the author of the bill was 
specifically saying that ``We shall identify the natural resources in 
the area,'' talking about the various fishes. However, we just put a 
$200,000 cap on this bill, and this study is looking to add this 
additional 13,000 and some acres to the Six Rivers National Forest.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the record shows that, that we 
are looking to put more acreage in, not only looking at the natural 
resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just, in closing, say that I believe that the 
Federal Government is too big and it spends too much; and that this 
bill in its entirety is part of that problem, that ever-growing Federal 
Government. The addition of 13,620 to the 44,000 acres that are already 
included in this bill is a mistake. It is a mistake for a number of 
reasons. The fiscal reasons are just part of that.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 253, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--170

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blackwell
     Frost
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Grams
     Matsui
     Norton (DC)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Stokes
     Sundquist
     Thompson
     Washington

                              {time}  1616

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________