[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9962-H9966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HANFORD REACH PRESERVATION ACT

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2292) to preserve and protect the Hanford Reach of the 
Columbia River, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2292

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
                TITLE I--HANFORD REACH PRESERVATION ACT

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 100-605.

       Section 2 of Public Law 100-605 is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``INTERIM'' in the section heading.
       (2) By striking ``For a period of eight years after'' and 
     inserting ``After'' in subsection (a).

[[Page H9963]]

       (3) By striking in subsection (b) ``During the eight year 
     interim protection period, provided by this section, all'' 
     and inserting ``All''.
              TITLE II--LAMPREY WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT

     SEC. 201. DESIGNATION.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph at 
     the end thereof:
       ``(157) Lamprey River, New Hampshire.--The 11.5-mile 
     segment extending from the southern Lee town line to the 
     confluence with the Piscassic River in the vicinity of the 
     Durham-Newmarket town line (hereinafter in this paragraph 
     referred to as the `segment') as a recreational river. The 
     segment shall be administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior through cooperative agreements between the Secretary 
     and the State of New Hampshire and its relevant political 
     subdivisions, namely the towns of Durham, Lee, and Newmarket, 
     pursuant to section 10(e) of this Act. The segment shall be 
     managed in accordance with the Lamprey River Management Plan 
     dated January 10, 1995, and such amendments thereto as the 
     Secretary of the Interior determines are consistent with this 
     Act. Such plan shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements 
     for a comprehensive management plan pursuant to section 3(d) 
     of this Act.''.

     SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Committee.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     coordinate his management responsibilities under this Act 
     with respect to the segment designated by section 3 with the 
     Lamprey River Advisory Committee established pursuant to New 
     Hampshire RSA 483.
       (b) Land Management.--The zoning ordinances duly adopted by 
     the towns of Durham, Lee, and Newmarket, New Hampshire, 
     including provisions for conservation of shorelands, 
     floodplains, and wetlands associated with the segment, shall 
     be deemed to satisfy the standards and requirements of 
     section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the 
     provisions of that section, which prohibit Federal 
     acquisition of lands by condemnation, shall apply to the 
     segment designated by section 201 of this Act. The authority 
     of the Secretary to acquire lands for the purposes of this 
     paragraph shall be limited to acquisition by donation or 
     acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof, and shall 
     be subject to the additional criteria set forth in the 
     Lamprey River Management Plan.

     SEC. 203. UPSTREAM SEGMENT.

       Upon request by the town of Epping, which abuts an 
     additional 12 miles of river found eligible for designation 
     as a recreational river, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     offer assistance regarding continued involvement of the town 
     of Epping in the implementation of the Lamprey River 
     Management Plan and in consideration of potential future 
     addition of that portion of the river within Epping as a 
     component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
      TITLE III--WEST VIRGINIA NATIONAL RIVERS AMENDMENTS OF 1996

     SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE NEW RIVER GORGE 
                   NATIONAL RIVER.

       (a) Boundaries.--Section 1101 of the National Parks and 
     Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-15) is amended by 
     striking out ``NERI-80,023, dated January 1987'' and 
     inserting ``NERI-80,028A, dated March 1996''.
       (b) Fish and Wildlife Management.--Section 1106 of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-20) 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: ``The 
     Secretary shall permit the State of West Virginia to 
     undertake fish stocking activities carried out by the State, 
     in consultation with the Secretary, on waters within the 
     boundaries of the national river. Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the State of 
     West Virginia with respect to fish and wildlife.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Title XI of the National Parks 
     and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-15 and following) 
     is amended by adding the following new section at the end 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 1117. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF OTHER LAW.

       ``(a) Cooperative Agreements.--The provisions of section 
     202(e)(1) of the West Virginia National Interest River 
     Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww-1(e)(1)) shall 
     apply to the New River Gorge National River in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to the 
     Gauley River National Recreation Area.
       ``(b) Remnant Lands.--The provisions of the second sentence 
     of section 203(a) of the West Virginia National Interest 
     River Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww-2(a)) shall 
     apply to tracts of land partially within the boundaries of 
     the New River Gorge National River in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as such provisions apply to tracts of land 
     only partially within the Gauley River National Recreation 
     Area.''.

     SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL 
                   RECREATION AREA.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 205(c) of the West 
     Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 1987 (16 
     U.S.C. 460ww-4(c)) is amended by adding the following at the 
     end thereof: ``If project construction is not commenced 
     within the time required in such license, or if such license 
     is surrendered at any time, such boundary modification shall 
     cease to have any force and effect.''.
       (b) Gauley Access.--Section 202(e) of the West Virginia 
     National Interest River Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 
     460ww-1(e)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph 
     at the end thereof:
       ``(4) Access to river.--(A) In order to facilitate public 
     safety, use, and enjoyment of the recreation area, and to 
     protect, to the maximum extent feasible, the scenic and 
     natural resources of the area, the Secretary is authorized 
     and directed to acquire such lands or interests in lands and 
     to take such actions as are necessary to provide access by 
     noncommercial entities on the north side of the Gauley River 
     at the area known as Woods Ferry utilizing existing roads and 
     rights-of-way. Such actions by the Secretary shall include 
     the construction of parking and related facilities in the 
     vicinity of Woods Ferry for noncommercial use on lands 
     acquired pursuant to paragraph (3) or on lands acquired with 
     the consent of the owner thereof within the boundaries of the 
     recreation area.
       ``(B) If necessary, in the discretion of the Secretary, in 
     order to minimize environmental impacts, including visual 
     impacts, within portions of the recreation area immediately 
     adjacent to the river, the Secretary may, by contract or 
     otherwise, provide transportation services for noncommercial 
     visitors, at reasonable cost, between such parking facilities 
     and the river.
       ``(C) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall affect the rights 
     of any person to continue to utilize, pursuant to a lease in 
     effect on April 1, 1993, any right of way acquired pursuant 
     to such lease which authorizes such person to use an existing 
     road referred to in subparagraph (A). Except as provided 
     under paragraph (2) relating to access immediately downstream 
     of the Summersville project, until there is compliance with 
     this paragraph the Secretary is prohibited from acquiring or 
     developing any other river access points within the 
     recreation area.''.

     SEC. 303. AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE BLUESTONE NATIONAL 
                   SCENIC RIVER.

       (a) Boundaries.--Section 3(a)(65) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(65)) is amended by striking out 
     ``WSR-BLU/20,000, and dated January 1987'' and inserting 
     ``BLUE-80,005, dated May 1996''.
       (b) Public Access.--Section 3(a)(65) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(65)) is amended by adding the 
     following at the end thereof: ``In order to provide 
     reasonable public access and vehicle parking for public use 
     and enjoyment of the river designated by this paragraph, 
     consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the 
     natural and scenic values of such river, the Secretary may, 
     with the consent of the owner thereof, negotiate a memorandum 
     of understanding or cooperative agreement, or acquire not 
     more than 10 acres of lands or interests in such lands, or 
     both, as may be necessary to allow public access to the 
     Bluestone River and to provide, outside the boundary of the 
     scenic river, parking and related facilities in the vicinity 
     of the area known as Eads Mill.''.
TITLE IV--LIMITATION ON LAND ACQUISITION: MISSOURI RIVER, NEBRASKA AND 
                              SOUTH DAKOTA
       The undesignated paragraph in section 3(a) of the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) relating to the 39-mile 
     segment of the Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota, 
     from the headwaters of Lewis and Clark Lake to Ft. Randall 
     Dam is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding section 6(a), lands and interests in lands 
     may not be acquired for the purposes of this paragraph 
     without the consent of the owner thereof.''.
     TITLE V--TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

     SEC. 501. NUMBERING OF PARAGRAPHS.

       (a) Designations.--The unnumbered paragraphs in section 
     3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)), 
     relating to each of the following river segments, are each 
     amended by numbering such paragraphs as follows:

                                                              Paragraph
River:                                                          Number 
  East Fork of Jemez, New Mexico..................................(109)
  Pecos River, New Mexico.........................................(110)
  Smith River, California.........................................(111)
  Middle Fork Smith River, California.............................(112)
  North Fork Smith River, California..............................(113)
  Siskiyou Fork Smith River, California...........................(114)
  South Fork Smith River, California..............................(115)
  Clarks Fork, Wyoming............................................(116)
  Niobrara, Nebraska..............................................(117)
  Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota.......................(118)
  Bear Creek, Michigan............................................(119)
  Black, Michigan.................................................(120)
  Carp, Michigan..................................................(121)
  Indian, Michigan................................................(122)
  Manistee, Michigan..............................................(123)
  Ontonagon, Michigan.............................................(124)
  Paint, Michigan.................................................(125)
  Pine, Michigan..................................................(126)
  Presque Isle, Michigan..........................................(127)
  Sturgeon, Hiawatha National Forest, Michigan....................(128)
  Sturgeon, Ottawa National Forest, Michigan......................(129)
  East Branch of the Tahquamenon, Michigan........................(130)
  Whitefish, Michigan.............................................(131)
  Yellow Dog, Michigan............................................(132)
  Allegheny, Pennsylvania.........................................(133)
  Big Piney Creek, Arkansas.......................................(134)
  Buffalo River, Arkansas.........................................(135)
  Cossatot River, Arkansas........................................(136)
  Hurricane Creek, Arkansas.......................................(137)
  Little Missouri River, Arkansas.................................(138)
  Mulberry River, Arkansas........................................(139)
  North Sylamore Creek, Arkansas..................................(140)
  Richland Creek, Arkansas........................................(141)
  Sespe Creek, California.........................................(142)
  Sisquoc River, California.......................................(143)
  Big Sur River, California.......................................(144)
  Great Egg Harbor River, New Jersey..............................(145)
  The Maurice River, Middle Segment...............................(146)
  The Maurice River, Middle Segment...............................(147)
  The Maurice River, Upper Segment................................(148)
  The Menantico Creek, Lower Segment..............................(149)
  The Menantico Creek, Upper Segment..............................(150)
  Manumuskin River, Lower Segment.................................(151)
  Manumuskin River, Upper Segment.................................(152)
  Muskee Creek, New Jersey........................................(153)
  Red River, Kentucky.............................................(154)

[[Page H9964]]

  Rio Grande, New Mexico..........................................(155)
  Farmington River, Connecticut...................................(156)

       (b) Study Rivers.--Section 5(a) of such Act is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Paragraph (106), relating to St. Mary's, Florida, is 
     renumbered as paragraph (108).
       (2) Paragraph (112), relating to White Clay Creek, Delaware 
     and Pennsylvania, is renumbered as paragraph (113).
       (3) The unnumbered paragraphs, relating to each of the 
     following rivers, are amended by numbering such paragraphs as 
     follows:

                                                              Paragraph
  River:                                                        Number 
    Mills River, North Carolina...................................(109)
    Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord, Massachusetts..................(110)
    Niobrara, Nebraska............................................(111)
    Lamprey, New Hampshire........................................(112)
    Brule, Michigan and Wisconsin.................................(114)
    Carp, Michigan................................................(115)
    Little Manistee, Michigan.....................................(116)
    White, Michigan...............................................(117)
    Ontonagon, Michigan...........................................(118)
    Paint, Michigan...............................................(119)
    Presque Isle, Michigan........................................(120)
    Sturgeon, Ottawa National Forest, Michigan....................(121)
    Sturgeon, Hiawatha National Forest, Michigan..................(122)
    Tahquamenon, Michigan.........................................(123)
    Whitefish, Michigan...........................................(124)
    Clarion, Pennsylvania.........................................(125)
    Mill Creek, Jefferson and Clarion Counties, Pennsylvania......(126)
    Piru Creek, California........................................(127)
    Little Sur River, California..................................(128)
    Matilija Creek, California....................................(129)
    Lopez Creek, California.......................................(130)
    Sespe Creek, California.......................................(131)
    North Fork Merced, California.................................(132)
    Delaware River, Pennsylvania and New Jersey...................(133)
    New River, West Virginia and Virginia.........................(134)
    Rio Grande, New Mexico........................................(135)
        TITLE VI--PROTECTION OF NORTH ST. VRAIN CREEK, COLORADO

     SEC. 601. NORTH ST. VRAIN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS.

       The Act of January 26, 1915, establishing Rocky Mountain 
     National Park (38 Stat. 798; 16 U.S.C. 191 and following), is 
     amended by adding the following new section at the end 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 5. NORTH ST. VRAIN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS.

       ``Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor any other 
     Federal agency or officer may approve or issue any permit 
     for, or provide any assistance for, the construction of any 
     new dam, reservoir, or impoundment on any segment of North 
     St. Vrain Creek or its tributaries within the boundaries of 
     Rocky Mountain National Park or on the main stem of North St. 
     Vrain Creek downstream to the point at which the creek 
     crosses the elevation 6,550 feet above mean sea level. 
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the 
     issuance of any permit for the construction of a new water 
     gaging station on North St. Vrain Creek at the point of its 
     confluence with Coulson Gulch.''.

     SEC. 602. ENCOURAGEMENT OF EXCHANGES.

       (a) Lands Inside Rocky Mountain National Park.--Promptly 
     following enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall seek to acquire by donation or exchange those 
     lands within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park 
     owned by the city of Longmont, Colorado, that are referred to 
     in section 111(d) of the Act commonly referred to as the 
     ``Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980'' (Public Law 96-560; 94 
     Stat. 3272; 16 U.S.C. 192b-9(d)).
       (b) Other Lands.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     immediately and actively pursue negotiations with the city of 
     Longmont, Colorado, concerning the city's proposed exchange 
     of lands owned by the city and located in and near Coulson 
     Gulch for other lands owned by the United States. The 
     Secretary shall report to Congress 2 calendar years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter 
     on the progress of such negotiations until negotiations are 
     complete.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2292, a bill to 
preserve the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and for other 
purposes. Mr. Speaker, this is good bi-partisan legislation which 
provides for the preservation and improved management of important 
rivers thoughout the country.
  Title I, authored by Mr. Hastings, of the bill provides for permanent 
protection of the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River which 
support native salmon spawning beds. In 1988, Congress enacted 
legislation to prohibit damming and dredging of this river segment for 
8 years while directing the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan 
for future management of this river segment. While Secretary Babbitt 
has yet to send us the required study, the moratorium on damming and 
dredging is about to expire and therefore it is important for Congress 
to renew this moratorium in perpetuity. I applaud the gentleman from 
Washington, [Mr. Hastings], for his effort to preserve the Hanford 
Reach.
  Title II of the bill is a measure authored by Congressman Zeliff 
which designates 11.5 miles of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as a 
wild and scenic river. This legislation is based on a report prepared 
pursuant to a previous act of Congress. Although the river is bounded 
by mostly private property, this legislation contains adequate 
safeguards to protect private property and is strongly supported by 
local persons.
  Title III, authored by Mr. Rahall relates to several wild and scenic 
rivers in the State of West Virginia which are also units of the park 
system. It reflects the work of the committee over the last 4 years to 
amend boundaries and make technical amendments to improve the 
management of these parks. This title adds important lands to these 
parks, assures that the State can continue to manage wildlife and 
improves public access to the rivers.
  Title IV, authored by Mr. Johnson of South Dakota prohibits the 
Secretary of the Interior from using condemnation along a 39-mile 
segment of the Missouri Wild and Scenic River in the State of South 
Dakota. Since the NPS has already stated their intent not to use 
condemnation along this stretch of river, this legislation simply puts 
into action the plans already adopted by the NPS.
  Title V of the bill simply contains technical amendments to the Wild 
and Scenic River Act which provides for the numbering of the study and 
designation paragraphs of the existing act.
  Title VI of the bill, authored by Mr. Skaggs provides for the 
protection of the St. Vrain Creek in Colorado. This provision also 
enhances the protection of Rocky Mountain National Park through which 
the stream flows.
  In all Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill with many strong protection 
measures. I commend the many Members for their work on this bill and 
urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], who has worked 
very hard on title VI of this legislation dealing with the North St. 
Vrain River and Rocky Mountain National Park.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
   Mr. Speaker, this provision, title VI of this bill, represents the 
culmination now of some 8 years of work conducted by many, many 
citizens in the area of Colorado that I represent who have been 
concerned for some time with the protection of this pristine roadless 
canyon, the last major roadless canyon along the front range of the 
Rockies in the State of Colorado.
  We are here because folks with different interests, from 
environmentalists to water district managers, to local communities and 
residents, spent literally hours and hours, and tons of meetings over 
several years developing a consensus that is embodied in title VI of 
this bill. It will ensure that the free flow of this stream in the 
upper reaches of the North Saint Vrain Canyon originating in Rocky 
Mountain National Park down to Button Rock Reservoir will remain free 
flowing forever.
  This is really some extraordinary country, Mr. Speaker, one of the 
most impressive wildlife habitat areas along the front range as well as 
an area of extraordinary and dramatic beauty. We should all be proud of 
taking this step to make sure that it remains that way in perpetuity.
  I want to thank the members and the leadership of the Committee on 
Resources, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for his assistance 
on this, and urge its passage along with the other provisions in this 
piece of legislation.
  I am delighted that the House will today approve H.R. 2292, 
legislation that includes well-deserved and long-awaited protections 
for North St. Vrain Creek, the largest remaining roadless canyon along 
Colorado's Front Range.
  The relevant part--title VI--of the bill will prevent construction of 
new dams on North St.

[[Page H9965]]

Vrain Creek as it flows through Rocky Mountain National Park and the 
Roosevelt National Forest, and will clarify public land ownership along 
the creek. Both of these provisions are based on freestanding 
legislation that I introduced last year and I appreciate the inclusion 
of the North St. Vrain Creek Protection Act in this bill.
  North St. Vrain Creek, fed by countless rivulets and wild 
tributaries, is the primary stream flowing from the southeastern 
portion of Rocky Mountain National Park. From its beginnings at the 
continental divide, in snowfields near Long's peak, it tumbles through 
waterfalls and cascades in the Wild Basin area of the park. After 
leaving the park, the creek cuts a narrow, deep canyon until it reaches 
the Ralph Price Reservoir.
  The watershed includes habitat for bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and 
mountain lions; for peregrine falcons, owls, hawks, and songbirds; for 
native fish, insects, and other small creatures; and for a dazzling 
diversity of aquatic, riparian, and mountain plants. It provides 
popular hiking, fishing, and hunting terrain relatively near to some of 
Colorado's larger cities.

  The stream, surrounded by a thousand shades of greenery cooled by the 
mist of tumbling water, provides a profound sense of refreshment, of 
inspiration, and of wonder. This joining of land and water is 
exceptional, even for Colorado--which is no small distinction.
  The North St. Vrain should be kept free of additional dams and 
impoundments. To that end, my bill's provisions, now included in H.R. 
2922, incorporate the recommendations of a citizens' advisory 
committee, which I appointed in conjunction with the Boulder County 
Commissioners. That committee spent over 5 years developing a consensus 
proposal on how to protect the creek and canyon while protecting local 
property and water rights.
  Thus, these provisions represent a great deal of work by Coloradans--
especially the 50 people who took part in 103 advisory committee 
meetings and performed over 300 hours of independent research. Another 
600 people attended 12 public hearings on the proposal. I've never 
known such a dedicated and conscientious group of public servants as 
the unpaid members of this North St. Vrain Advisory Committee. They 
know the creek and its environs as thoroughly as any group of citizens 
anywhere knows a particular area in the United States.
  The advisory committee reached four principal conclusions:
  First, that the North St. Vrain Creek is deserving of National Wild 
and Scenic River status, but that it would be premature to seek 
legislation to so designate it, pending development of consensus on 
that point. This bill would not preclude such a designation later.
  Second, that, for now, a permanent prohibition should be placed on 
Federal approval or assistance for the construction of dams on the 
creek and on any part of its national park tributaries.
  Third, that the National Park Service and the Forest Service should 
move promptly to reach agreement with the city of Longmont, CO, 
regarding Federal acquisition of lands the city owns along the creek.
  And, fourth, that a series of the committee's recommendations should 
be followed in managing the Federal lands along the creek.
  Three of these proposals are specified in the bill's language. I have 
submitted, as part of the hearing record, two documents related to the 
fourth proposal, regarding management of the relevant lands. One is a 
copy of the advisory committee's final report, and the other is a copy 
of the advisory committee's management plan outline. I will also 
present these documents to the Forest Service and National Park Service 
when they develop future management plans for the creek and adjoining 
lands.
  The primary theme of these documents is that Federal management 
decisions should retain the current types and levels of recreational 
uses of the public lands in the corridor along North St. Vrain Creek. 
This can be done by restricting the expansion of trails and 
campgrounds, and through strategic land acquisitions to protect natural 
features from damage that would come from expanded or excessive uses. 
The documents also support continued good stewardship on private lands 
in the corridor under the guidance and control of Boulder County's 
land-use regulations, as well as continued protection against trespass.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation not only because of my 
belief in the importance of protecting the North St. Vrain, but also 
because of my firm conviction that the hundreds of Coloradans who have 
worked toward that goal have crafted a sound, effective consensus 
measure. Its provisions are good, clear, and straightforward, and they 
have the strong support of the people in the area. I urge the House to 
approve this bill, so that, with its enactment into law, the wonders of 
North St. Vrain Creek will be protected for all time.
  Finally, let me express my thanks to the leadership of the Resources 
Committee for bringing this bill up for House action and to my 
colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, for his assistance.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Most of the titles of this legislation we are in agreement with, but 
we along with the administration, as they noted in their testimony, are 
concerned about the protections provided in the Hanford Reach 
provisions of this legislation. The concern being that we are accepting 
a much lesser degree of protection than we believe and the 
administration believes the Hanford Reach deserves, and are concerned 
whether or not this will eventually lead to the loss of vital natural 
and cultural resources. We recognize that there is disagreement on 
this, but we are concerned that this does not provide the level of 
protection that is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendments adopted by the Resources Committee wraps 
into H.R. 2292 several river bills pending before the committee. 
Several of the titles in the amended bill are either opposed by the 
administration or they otherwise have concerns with the language. This 
is not a noncontroversial bill. We would have preferred that the House 
take up these river bills separately.
  As the administration noted in its testimony, if not followed by 
subsequent actions, the Hanford Reach provisions of H.R. 2292 would 
result in a far lesser degree of protection than the Hanford Reach 
deserves and could result in the potential loss of vital natural and 
cultural resources.
  We have no objection to the Lamprey River title. I understand the 
administration supports the bill and that the language is consistent 
with what we have done for similar rivers.
  We also have no objection to the provisions dealing with the North 
St. Vrain. The House passed the same legislation in the last Congress, 
also sponsored by Representative Skaggs.
  The administration has expressed some minor concerns about certain 
provisions in the West Virginia rivers title, specifically as they 
relate to river access and fish stocking activities, but these should 
not delay its passage.
  Likewise I would note that the administration does not support the 
language dealing with the Missouri River.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand the desire to package legislation, but 
in this case, with the concerns and objections outstanding, it may 
eventually delay, rather than facilitate, enactment of the various 
provisions.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 2292, the 
Hanford Reach Preservation Act. I want to thank my fellow colleagues on 
the House Resources Committee, in particular Chairman Young and 
subcommittee Chairman Hansen, for their expeditious consideration of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, title I of H.R. 2292 makes permanent the current 
moratorium on dam building, channeling, and navigational projects along 
the stretch of the Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach. Located 
in the heart of my central Washington congressional district, the 
Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River. 
Running through the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the reach is also the 
location of some of the healthiest salmon runs anywhere in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  For the past 8 years, the Federal Government has played an important 
role in protecting the reach by prohibiting its agencies from 
constructing dams, channels, and other projects on this part of the 
river. H.R. 2292 permanently extends the current moratorium on these 
activities that is set to expire November 6, 1996.
  The original moratorium was a direct response to proposals that would 
have opened the reach to barge traffic. We have since learned that 
making the reach navigational is not only unwise ecologically but is 
also impractical. H.R. 2292 ensures that we will never consider this 
policy again.
  The Hanford Reach Preservation Act will make a significant 
contribution to the continued protection of this pristine area. While 
more needs to be resolved within the local community before this area 
is completely protected, H.R. 2292 is a positive step in the right 
direction.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance and strongly urge 
the House to vote in favor of this measure.
  Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H9966]]

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2292, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________