[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3936-H3961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H3936]]
    SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 516

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3605) to establish the San Rafael Western 
     Legacy District in the State of Utah, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. The 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as read and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. 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 with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall); pending which I yield myself such much time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. H. Res. 516 would grant an open rule 
waiving all points of order against the consideration of the bill, H.R. 
3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation 
Act.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. 
It makes in order the Committee on Resources' amendment in the nature 
of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment which shall be open for amendment at any point.
  The rule also provides that the amendment printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered 
as read and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1045

  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. It also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during the consideration of the bill, and to reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 3605 is to establish the San Rafael 
Western Legacy District in the State of Utah, and for other purposes. 
The San Rafael region possesses many important historical, cultural, 
and natural resources that are representative of the American West. Its 
history includes influences from Native American culture, exploration, 
pioneering, and industrial development. The bill will provide important 
Federal protections, similar to heritage designation protections, to 
the lands designated in the bill.
  H.R. 3605 would require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
the National Park Service, to establish a legacy council to furnish 
advice regarding management, grants, projects, and technical 
assistance. It would authorize the Secretary to make matching grants up 
to 50 percent to any nonprofit organization or government unit with 
authority inside the legacy district's boundaries.
  The bill limits appropriations to no more than $1 million annually 
and $10 million in total. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 
enactment of H.R. 3605 would cost $15 million over the 2001 to 2005 
period. Pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply, and the bill contains 
no unfunded governmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. CBO estimates that some State and local governments might 
incur some costs as a result of the bill's enactment, but those costs 
would be voluntary.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Resources reported the bill by a voice 
vote and the Committee on Rules has granted a request for an open rule 
so that Members wishing to offer germane amendments might have the 
fullest opportunity to do so. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3605.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This is an open rule. It will allow the House to consider H.R. 3605. 
This is about the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National 
Conservation Act.
  As my colleague has described, this rule will provide 1 hour of 
general debate to be controlled and equally divided by the chairman and 
ranking minority member on the Committee on Resources.
  This permits amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the normal 
amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the aisle 
will have the opportunity to offer germane amendments.
  The bill creates the San Rafael Western Legacy District of 2.8 
million acres in Emery County, Utah. The bill authorizes up to $10 
million for grants which can be used for planning, museum exhibits, 
preservation projects, and public facilities.
  The San Rafael Swell is an area of beauty and history. It has been 
home to the Basketmakers, Fremont Indians and Ute Indians. The 
explorer, John Wesley Powell, led an expedition to the area. The famous 
outlaw, Butch Cassidy, once escaped into the desolate canyons there.
  Because of the natural beauty of the area, it has been proposed often 
as a natural park. Unfortunately, the bill before us falls short of 
offering that kind of protection that I think this area deserves.
  The bill does not effectively deal with the increasing use of off-
road vehicles, which damage the soil and vegetation. The bill does not 
protect the water resources of the district. Even more important, the 
bill does not address the need to study the wilderness areas within the 
district.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the Federal Government is going 
to provide $10 million in grants, we should have sufficient safeguards 
to protect the basic historic and natural resources. But this is an 
open rule, and Members will have the opportunity to offer germane 
amendments and to improve the bill. Therefore, I will support the rule.

[[Page H3937]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the subcommittee chairman in charge 
of this legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 3605.
  The San Rafael area of Emery County, Utah, is home to some of the 
most beautiful landscapes in the West. For years, the county 
commissioners and the Bureau of Land Management have sought to protect 
the lands within the San Rafael Swell. After years of controversy, 
literally years, 20 years possibly, the county commissioners sat down 
with Secretary Babbitt and his professional staff and crafted 3605.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3605 will protect nearly 1 million acres of Federal 
lands in Emery County, Utah, in a fashion that will allow wilderness, 
recreation, preservation, and wildlife to coexist without degrading the 
resource. This bill sets up a public planning process wherein all views 
will be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act. 
Moreover, this bill will further protect the wilderness study area 
contained within the National Conservation Area. In fact, over 600,000 
acres of potential wilderness area will receive further protection from 
OHV use, mining and other uses which are incompatible with the area.
  H.R. 3605 enjoys the enthusiastic support of Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
and this administration. Through months of strenuous negotiation, this 
consensus legislation is brought before the House on a bipartisan 
basis. Secretary Babbitt has stated that ``the administration supports 
this legislation because of the additional protection it provides for 
important public land, including the withdrawal from mineral 
development and sale or exchange, restrictions on off-highway vehicle 
use and innovative provisions for a legacy district.'' In fact, the 
administration holds H.R. 3605 out as a model to show how we should 
protect these BLM lands managed under National Conservation Areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I will go into greater detail in general debate on the 
legislation. Members are hearing from the extreme environmental groups 
that this is anti-wilderness legislation or some other blatant untruth 
such as that. The fact is that some extremists would rather raise money 
than solve problems to protect public grounds, and this seems to be, 
from sea to shining sea, the way a lot of these extremists look at it.
  This legislation comes before the House with overwhelming support of 
the Committee on Resources, Secretary Babbitt, the administration, the 
governor of Utah, local elected officials, the people of Utah, 
sportsmen, wildlife groups, historic preservation people; and the list 
goes on and on. I urge the Members to look at this legislation and see 
the facts and ignore the rhetoric.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and I urge Members to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the sponsor of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House is 
considering H.R. 3605, San Rafael Western Legacy District and National 
Conservation Area Act.
  As my colleagues may know, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the 
Committee on Resources, and I have been working on this legislation 
since I came to Congress in 1997. We have made great progress, and I am 
especially pleased that the Secretary of the Interior has now shown 
that he is fully behind this bill. He supports the concept of this 
National Conservation Area, as well as the specific implementation of 
it, that the people of Emery County have developed.
  This bill sets aside nearly 1 million acres as a National 
Conservation Area, withdrawn from future mining claims and providing 
protection for primitive and semi-primitive areas. The Secretary of the 
Interior, in conjunction with an advisory council, will develop a 
management plan for the National Conservation Area that will allow 
various land uses, while simultaneously preserving the natural 
resources of the area for future generations.
  It would also place 2.8 million acres into a legacy district to be 
managed for the conservation of the area's historical and cultural 
resources, allowing management that would guarantee the preservation of 
the dramatic canyons, wildlife, and historic sites of the San Rafael 
Swell. I am pleased to be contributing to the conservation of such a 
beautiful and historic area.
  Negotiations have been ongoing for 3 years on this bill, and everyone 
from the Bureau of Land Management to the Secretary of the Interior to 
the county commission has agreed to its final form. Additionally, the 
county commissioners have presented it to as many groups as they could 
find to participate, and received agreement.
  Recent negotiations regarding this bill have shown me just how 
committed the people of Emery County, Utah, are to the protection of 
this land. I am proud to offer with them and the Secretary of the 
Interior this bill to protect the San Rafael area. I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 516 and rule XVIII, 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. 3605.

                              {time}  1055


                     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. 3605) to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in the 
State of Utah, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska 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 Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western 
Legacy District and National Conservation Area Act sponsored by my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  H.R. 3605 will protect for future generations the spectacular lands 
known as the San Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah.
  Mother Nature created this area nearly 50 million years ago with a 
massive geological uplift in the Earth's crust. After millions of years 
of erosion by water, wind, heat, and cold, the amazing high mesas, deep 
canyons, domes and arches of the San Rafael decorate nearly a million 
acres of Federal lands. The rugged nature of these lands has allowed 
little or no development even today.
  Man first came to this area 11,000 years ago. The Fremont culture 
thrived and their history is written in petroglyphs and pictographs 
throughout the area. Spanish explorers came to this area in the mid-
18th century with regular visits from American explorers in the 1850s. 
Brigham Young established the first permanent occupation of this area 
in 1877 by sending 50 hearty Mormon families to Castle Valley. These 
strong individuals have been prospering in this area ever since. 
However, the sheer cliffs, steep canyons, columns and shafts of rock 
have insured the preservation of the Swell for decades.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to continue protecting 
this area with bipartisan consensus legislation. The San Rafael Western 
Legacy District and National Conservation Act provides important 
protection for these lands. H.R. 3605 contains two levels of 
protection: first, all of Emery County

[[Page H3938]]

will be designated as the Western Legacy District, where Americans will 
learn of the history, science, archeology, and culture of over 2.8 
million acres of land.
  Secondly, H.R. 3605 establishes the San Rafael National Conservation 
Area, which consists of nearly 1 million acres of Federal lands managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management.

                              {time}  1100

  Subject to valid existing rights, the entire area will be withdrawn 
from mining, mineral leasing, or land disposal. The Secretary is 
mandated to enter into a public planning process to manage the area in 
a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances its resources and 
values. Over 600,000 acres of potential wilderness will receive a 
higher level of protection, and recreational use will be organized and 
managed in a way as to prevent resource degradation.
  Mr. Chairman, early this Congress I asked Secretary Babbitt to take 
the time to look at the San Rafael area and help us find a way to 
protect these lands in a manner that fits the landscape and will ensure 
that we can fully protect some BLM lands in Utah. Secretary Babbitt 
sent Molly McUsic and other staff out there and they toured the lands, 
heard the concerns of the people who live and work in the area; and 
that began months of work by many dedicated BLM staff and the Emery 
County commissioners and their staff.
  H.R. 3605 is a result of this work and represents a consensus bill 
that is supported by Secretary Babbitt, the administration, the 
Governor of Utah, the county commission, wildlife experts, historians, 
and conservationists. The bill has enjoyed overwhelming support in the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the issues that Members 
are hearing rhetoric about surrounding this legislation. Extreme groups 
are claiming that this is an anti-wilderness bill because it fails to 
designate wilderness. As many Members know, the issue of wilderness in 
Utah is one of the most polarized public land issues in America. 
However, that debate has raged for over 20 years; and although many 
efforts have been made by both sides, the fact is that we have failed 
to protect BLM lands in Utah because of this wilderness debate.
  H.R. 3605 will finally protect nearly one million acres of BLM land 
in central Utah. This bill will actually provide enhanced protection to 
over 600,000 acres of potential wilderness land. In fact, this process 
has resulted in further protections already. The BLM, after working 
with the county, recently closed OHV trails and wilderness study areas. 
This will ensure that these lands remain available for wilderness 
protection by future Congresses.
  For myself, and I believe Secretary Babbitt feels the same way, we 
would prefer to resolve the wilderness issue within the San Rafael 
area. However, that is impossible in today's climate. This legislation 
is a major step in the right direction. The BLM will formulate a 
management plan that will ensure that those lands that have wilderness 
qualities will be managed to protect those qualities. H.R. 3605 
mandates the Secretary to manage these lands to prevent resource 
degradation.
  Furthermore, the legislation formally recognizes that wilderness is 
left to future Congresses to decide how many of these million acres 
should be designated. This bill will ensure that these lands are 
protected in the future to allow for wilderness designation.
  Attempts were made by some to amend the bill with wilderness 
designations that are reflected in legislation sponsored by my 
colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Wilderness 
designations are more complicated than simply dropping legislation that 
seems to ignore all the science, all the work of the BLM professionals, 
the views of the people of Utah, and the opinion of the Secretary of 
Interior.
  Let us pass this bill today, protect one million acres of the BLM 
land, and ensure that further Congresses have the ability to designate 
wilderness.
  Mr. Chairman, claims are being made by extreme groups that this bill 
fails to adequately manage off-road vehicle use within the San Rafael. 
I would hope that Members would actually read the bill and also 
recognize what actions have already been taken by the BLM.
  The legislation in section 202 specifically states that use of 
motorized vehicles in the conservation area will be restricted to 
existing roads and trails. Thus, cross-country four-wheeling is 
prohibited by the bill.
  More importantly, the legislation mandates that the BLM mapping OHV 
use pursuant to 43 CFR 8340. This regulation guarantees that OHV will 
be prohibited if vehicles are causing or will cause considerable 
adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, 
cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered 
species, wilderness suitability, etc. The legislation ensures that the 
management plan, through a public process, will appropriately manage 
the activities.
  Those who wish to simply prevent all OHV recreation in this area are 
ill-informed. Just because they prohibit this use in the law does not 
mean the activity will stop. The language in this bill presently was 
negotiated with Secretary Babbitt and is acceptable to the recreation 
community. We currently have agreements with all OHV users, the BLM, 
and the county, who will be charged with policing many of these uses.
  The bill calls for regulation of OHV pursuant to the BLM's own 
regulations. This bill is not an attempt to micromanage these lands but 
to set up a planning process under NEPA wherein all of America can be 
involved in the decision-making process.
  Under the language in H.R. 3605, the Secretary is mandated to close 
any road or trail where undue problems are occurring. I urge the 
Secretary to exercise his authority over these regulations. The bill, 
as written, allows for a public process and ensures that the Secretary 
has the necessary tools to close roads and trails when it becomes 
necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat any attempt to change this language.
  The current boundaries reflected in H.R. 3605 were drawn by Secretary 
Babbitt, his staff, and the professionals of BLM. There is criticism 
that the entire swell is not included. First, this is completely false. 
Who should we rely on to tell us what land should be included, the 
professionals at the BLM who manage these lands, or a few extreme 
groups who have an agenda but no responsibility for managing the lands 
in question?
  The boundaries are drawn just like every other provision of this 
bill. They have been worked out with the Secretary and professionals. 
There is room for some tinkering around the edges, and we attempted to 
work with the minority to make some of the changes they sought. 
However, as with many of these issues, it was an all-or-nothing 
proposition.
  If the Secretary and the county would not agree to all of their 
wants, there would be no negotiations. And that is the hallmark of 
these groups. The boundaries in H.R. 3605 make geographical and 
management sense and they include those lands worthy of protection. 
This House should respect the professional judgment of our Federal land 
managers and keep the boundaries as reflected in the bill.
  The San Rafael area is a desert. There has been some misinformation 
floating around about the fact that this bill does not protect the 
water of this area. The fact is there are only two bodies of water in 
the whole conservation area. One is the San Rafael River. This river 
begins with the conservation area and is currently protected because 
the State holds an in-stream flow right in perpetuity on the river. 
Thus, the Federal-reserved water right is simply not necessary. No 
water will be diverted, no dams will be built, no pipes, nothing. The 
State holds all the rights for conservation purposes.
  The second body of water is an intermittent stream called Muddy 
Creek. H.R. 3605 mandates that the Secretary shall enter into 
agreements with the State to ensure that these waters are preserved.
  The language in the bill was heavily debated with Secretary Babbitt 
and the Solicitor's office, and all parties are comfortable with this 
language. The bill further protects the small amount of water in this 
area. I urge my colleagues to defeat any efforts to amend this 
language.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3605 is progressive conservation legislation that 
will

[[Page H3939]]

protect nearly one million acres of Federal land. Every word of this 
legislation has been fully agreed to by Secretary Babbitt and the 
administration. We have sat down at the table, and this is a bipartisan 
measure that deserves our full support.
  I urge the Members to ignore the rhetoric of the extreme groups and 
look at the hard work of the Secretary and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon) who have put this legislation together. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat destructive amendments designed to kill this effort, and I urge 
support for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on H.R. 3605, the San 
Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area Act, I 
first would like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), our 
subcommittee chairman, for his work and commitment to this legislation.
  Emery County and the State of Utah do not have a stronger voice in 
this body than the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). His continued 
dedication and unyielding support for this and other land management 
initiatives will finally prove successful in H.R. 3605. The gentleman 
from Utah (Chairman Hansen) successfully shepherded this legislation 
through the committee process, and his efforts have given us a very 
strong, effective, and balanced bill.
  In addition, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Emery County 
Commissioner Randy Johnson and thank him. He has been tireless in his 
3-year campaign to protect and preserve the San Rafael Swell. But for 
the dedication and devotion of Randy to this crusade, we would not all 
be here today. The people of Emery County should be proud to have such 
a hard-working public servant.
  As many of our colleagues know, we have been working on this project 
to protect the San Rafael Swell for over 3 years. This legislation sets 
up a process to preserve the remarkable area famous for such outlaws as 
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and many, many others of the famous 
western outlaws.
  Over the last 3 years, people in Emery County, Utah, the off-road 
vehicle users, the sportsmen, and others came together with county 
officials, landowners, and the Bureau of Land Management to approve 
this plan.
  The San Rafael Western Legacy District and Conservation Area Act 
would place 2.8 million acres into a Legacy District to be managed for 
the conservation of the region's historical and cultural resources.
  Similar to a National Heritage Area, this designation would allow the 
people of Emery County to invest in the protection of their diverse 
cultural, archaeological, and natural assets. Additionally, they will 
be able to better manage the many tourists who now strain the region's 
tourism infrastructure, providing the tourists with a more enjoyable 
visit and the region with a sustainable economy.
  Additionally, this bill will set aside almost a million acres as a 
national conservation area, withdrawn from future mining claims and 
closed to cross-country vehicle travel.
  The Secretary of Interior, in conjunction with an advisory council, 
will develop a management plan for the national conservation area that 
will provide for various lands uses and that the preservation of these 
amazing natural resources for future generations. This is an amazing 
area that is sorely in need of protection, and the national 
conservation area will provide that in a flexible context that 
incorporates the views of those closest to the land.
  We, as Americans, are united in our love for our public lands and our 
desire to use them appropriately. I introduced this bill to preserve a 
beautiful and historic part of the State of Utah while taking into 
account the local economy. It provides a process for managing the land 
and providing access for people who come to enjoy it.
  This bill represents a breakthrough in land management policy for the 
western United States. It gives the proper weight for citizen input in 
balancing wilderness preservation, commercial use, and recreation. It 
proves that consensus can be achieved from the ground up, rather than 
from the top down.
  Today we have an opportunity to pass landmark legislation to protect 
and conserve the historical and cultural values of one of the most 
beautiful and pristine areas in the Union. We have come a long way in 
our discussions by crafting legislation that is supported by the 
administration, the local officials, and outdoor enthusiasts. This area 
is experiencing record visitation, and the time to establish adequate 
protections is now.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3605 and preserve these lands 
for generations to come.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), my friend.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3605.
  Mr. Chairman, I have negotiated with the gentleman from Utah 
(Chairman Hansen) to prepare some amendments that will further clarify 
and improve the bill. But even in its current form, I support the 
general thrust of the bill, as does the Secretary of the Interior, 
Bruce Babbitt, with whom we have been in contact this morning.
  H.R. 3605 is the product of lengthy negotiations between local 
officials in Utah and officials of the Department of the Interior, 
including, as I mentioned, Secretary Babbitt.
  These two sets of officials, representing local and national 
interests, agreed to wade into a protracted and politically thorny set 
of land use issues to put aside years of acrimony, to break a draining, 
pointless, ideological stalemate by working out practical, helpful 
compromises. And to just about everyone's amazement, they succeeded.
  I believe these local and Federal officials of both political parties 
deserve to be rewarded for their success, not snubbed. The negotiations 
that produced this bill should be a precedent for resolving land use 
disputes. That does not mean that every dispute will be resolved or 
that every resolution will merit congressional support. But thoughtful, 
carefully worked out resolutions like this one concerning the San 
Rafael Swell have earned our support.

                              {time}  1115

  Does this bill successfully dispose of every issue the way I would 
most prefer? No, of course not. But this is a case where an old 
congressional saying is quite appropriate: ``Let's not make the perfect 
the enemy of the good.''
  To those who believe that more land should be protected more fully 
than this bill allows, I say there is nothing in the bill that would 
block consideration of further land protection at a later date. But 
this bill will protect the bulk of the San Rafael Swell right now. To 
those who want greater restrictions on off-highway vehicles, I say the 
management plan or later laws can impose even further limitations. But 
this bill will codify significant restrictions on off-highway vehicle 
use right now. So we need to act right now to increase the protections 
for the San Rafael area. That is good for the environment.
  The amendments I have worked out will make the bill better for the 
environment by expanding the boundaries of the conservation area, 
clarifying the restrictions on off-highway vehicles and ensuring that 
land in the conservation area remains at least as protected as it is 
right now.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3605 as a bipartisan step 
forward in protecting our lands in the West for all Americans.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that this bill is before the House today 
because I do

[[Page H3940]]

not think it is ready for this prime time appearance. By that I do not 
mean that the bill is all bad. It does have some positive aspects. And 
I do not mean that the sponsors are not serious when they say that they 
want to improve the management of this special part of the public 
lands. I know they are sincere and I respect their efforts. What I do 
mean is that the bill still has several serious flaws. We should have 
fixed those flaws when we considered the bill in the Committee on 
Resources, but that did not happen. We should have revised the bill so 
that it would cover the entire San Rafael Swell area, but we did not. 
We should have provided the BLM with all the tools it needs to protect 
the resources and values of these public lands that have been shaped by 
the forces of wind and water, but we did not do that, either. And we 
should have made the bill truly wilderness neutral by providing at 
least interim protection for the wilderness resources of these lands. 
Again, we did not do that in the committee.
  So here we are with a bill that falls short. We will be considering 
some amendments to try to do at least part of the work that we could 
have done in the committee. Those amendments deserve approval. But 
unless the bill's flaws are corrected, it should be rejected so that we 
can start again in the Committee on Resources and do the job right the 
next time.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: 
         Environmental Defense, Western Water Project--Trout 
           Unlimited, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies,
                                                     June 5, 2000.
     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary of the Interior,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Babbitt: We are writing about H.R. 3605, the 
     San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation 
     Act, that was reported out of the Resources Committee, as 
     amended, on May 16, 2000. Environmental Defense and Trout 
     Unlimited have not been a part of the negotiations and debate 
     that surround this legislation, and we are not in a position 
     to express a general position on that legislation. However, 
     we have been made aware of this legislation's water rights 
     provision and have carefully reviewed that legislation 
     language. We have very serious concerns about this provision. 
     We do not believe that its terms will permit the Bureau of 
     Land Management to protect and conserve the water-related 
     resources of the San Rafael Swell. And we are gravely 
     concerned about the precedent that this legislation likely 
     will set. Thus, we urge you to insist that this legislative 
     provision be removed or substantially strengthened.


                          i. general comments

       By way of background, we note that H.R. 3605 withdraws 
     those lands within the proposed national conservation area 
     from disposal under the public lands laws. That is certainly 
     a positive step forward. However, we also note that H.R. 
     3605, both as introduced and as amended, expressly disclaims 
     either an express or implied federal reserved water right. 
     This is a dramatic departure from the general approach that 
     the Congress has taken when it reserves lands either for 
     wilderness or for national conservation areas. For example, 
     section 201(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (which 
     dealt with Bureau of Land Management lands) both effected a 
     reservation of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of 
     the reservation and directed the Secretary to take all 
     necessary steps to protect those rights. Section 706 of the 
     California Desert Protection Act of 1994 and section 8 of the 
     Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989 were to like effect. 
     Similarly, when it established the El Malpais National 
     Conservation Area, the Congress expressly reserved water to 
     carry out the purposes of the national conservation area. And 
     when Congress established the San Pedro Riparian National 
     Conservation Area, the Congress expressly reserved a quantity 
     of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the national 
     conservation area. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 460XXX.
       Admittedly, in individual cases the Congress has seized 
     upon an alternative strategy to protect and conserve the 
     water-related resources within a reservation. The Colorado 
     Wilderness Act of 1993 is perhaps the best example of such an 
     approach. The water rights language in that legislation 
     established a model for providing a high level of protection 
     for water-related resources within a reservation without 
     resort to a reserved right. However, the water rights 
     language approved by the Resources Committee for the San 
     Rafael Swell would neither effect a reserved right nor 
     establish an alternative approach for protecting water-
     related resources. Instead, the Resource Committee's amended 
     bill would effectively abdicate the United States' 
     responsibility for protecting and conserving water and water-
     related resources within the Swell. We believe that would be 
     a serious error.


                         ii. specific comments

       Set out below are our more specific comments on the water 
     provisions added to the bill during Resource Committee 
     markup:
       A. Water rights already have been appropriated. Subsection 
     (k) of the amendment avers that available water resources 
     within the external boundaries of the conservation area 
     already have been appropriated. While we do not have the 
     information to determine whether that is an accurate 
     statement, we will assume for the sake of argument that it 
     is; most river basins in the West would fit within that 
     general description. But even if this is an accurate 
     description, it is not a sufficient basis to both disavow a 
     reserved right and fail to adopt an equally effective 
     alternative for the protection of water resources within the 
     national conservation area. We should start with the 
     fundamentals. And the fundamentals are that those of us who 
     have visited the Swell, as you perhaps have, know that at 
     certain times of the year there is abundant water in the 
     water courses that arise upon or flow through the proposed 
     national conservation area. And of course, the riparian 
     vegetation that adjoins those watercourses is dependent 
     upon those flows. But the assertion that water resources 
     within the basins that will, in whole or in part, be 
     encompassed by the national conservation area are 
     appropriated is not necessarily in conflict with the 
     presence of flowing and standing water within the proposed 
     national conservation area. Neither is a sufficient 
     argument to disclaim not only a reserved right but even a 
     meaningful alternative for protecting water resources 
     within the proposed national conservation area.
       It may be that water storage projects upstream of the 
     proposed national conservation area are not capable of 
     capturing the entire flow of the streams during heavy rains 
     or during the spring. It may be that the water rights 
     upstream of the proposed national conservation area are 
     unperfected and may, or may not, ever be made absolute. It 
     may be that upstream appropriators are simply unable, at this 
     time, to make full use of the waters that arise upon or flow 
     through the national conservation area. Thus, there may be 
     water that is available for a junior appropriation even 
     though the area appears fully appropriated.
       B. No express or implied reservation of water. The water 
     provisions in the committee amendment do preserve pre-
     existing valid existing water rights. However, there is no 
     evidence in the record that we have seen to suggest that the 
     Bureau of Land Management possesses existing water rights 
     adequate to protect water-related resources within the 
     national conservation area. Moreover, as noted above, 
     subsection (1) of the water provisions added during committee 
     markup expressly disclaims either an express or implied 
     federal reserved water right. This is a deeply troubling 
     precedent. But notwithstanding the claim that is routinely 
     made in legislation such as this that water provisions are 
     not intended to create a precedent, our own experience had 
     disapproved any such claim. If the Congress follows this 
     course, this legislation language inevitably will become the 
     template for future legislation. That would be a tragic 
     mistake. Although western interests have been hostile to 
     federal reserved and non-reserved rights for over a century, 
     these tools have been indispensable to the protection of 
     water resources on reservations created on the public land.
       If this legislation instead adopted the course traveled by 
     so many other public lands statutes, the Secretary would have 
     the ability to file for a water right to protect the Swell's 
     water resources. Admittedly, the water right would be junior 
     to all pre-existing water rights. Nevertheless, such a water 
     right would enable the Secretary to prevent senior water 
     rights from being changed or expanded if such actions would 
     ``injure'' the junior reserved right. Similarly, the 
     existence of a reserved right, however junior, would permit 
     the Secretary to protect water resources within the Swell 
     from injury by over-use of water upstream of the national 
     conservation area (either through diversions in excess of 
     upstream rights, or by over-application of water to a 
     beneficial use). In the absence of a reserved right, the 
     Secretary will be seriously challenged in his or her ability 
     to address problems such as these. Indeed, we believe future 
     Secretaries will be entirely disabled from effectively 
     dealing with issues such as this. At the same time, without a 
     reserved or nonreserved right (both of which appear to be 
     foreclosed by this legislation), the Secretary may well 
     discover ten or twenty years in the future that he or she is 
     unable to secure adequate water supplies even to serve the 
     visiting public at visitors centers, campgrounds, and similar 
     facilities.
       C. No other authority for water resources. The most 
     troubling part of the amendment is the provision directing 
     that if the United States determines it needs additional 
     water resources, it must attempt to work with a state agency 
     that is eligible to hold instream flow water rights in order 
     to acquire such rights in accordance with state water law. 
     But under Utah state law, only the state may hold an upstream 
     water right; neither an individual nor a federal agency can 
     acquire an instream flow right. Moreover, and even more 
     troubling, Utah state agencies may only convert existing 
     water rights to instream flows; there is no statutory basis 
     that would enable even a state agency to file a new, junior 
     appropriation for an instream flow within the national 
     conservation area. Ut. Rev. Code Sec. 73-3-3. The current 
     bill language thus creates a chimera for protection

[[Page H3941]]

     of instream values. Worse, it would preclude entirely the 
     Secretary from obtaining any right to divert water for other 
     legitimate governmental uses associated with the conservation 
     area, such as providing water for fire protection.


                              iii. summary

       This legislation, as it currently stands, would tie the 
     hands of the United States. The Bureau of Land Management 
     would lack the tools that are needed to protect valuable 
     resources within this reservation. Indeed, this legislation 
     effectively abdicates the federal government's 
     responsibilities in that regard. Those of us who have visited 
     the Swell, as you have, know full well that the Swell is an 
     extraordinary place. It is a place that was shaped by the 
     forces of wind and water. Whatever the other merits of this 
     proposal may be, it would be a tragic mistake to accept a 
     legislative proposal that contains this sweeping precedent on 
     water resources. We urge you to insist that this provision be 
     removed or substantially strengthened.
           Respectfully,
     James B. Martin,
                                                  Senior Attorney,
                                            Environmental Defense.
     Melinda Kassen,
                                        Director, Colorado Office,
                           Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited.
     Daniel Luecke,
                               Senior Scientist/Regional Director,
                                            Environmental Defense.
     Bruce Driver,
                                               Executive Director,
                               Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset of this debate that the 
gentleman from Utah has worked very, very hard on this legislation; and 
I think any of us who are familiar with these issues in the West 
recognize the controversy that they provoke. As many of us are also 
aware, the controversy goes on for a considerable period of time. In 
this particular area, we have had controversy and discussions since the 
1930s about what to do in the San Rafael area. This legislation deals 
with the San Rafael Swell, which is an incredible dome of uplifted 
sedimentary rock that rises some 1,500 feet above the surrounding 
desert measuring 50 miles long and 30 miles wide. This is an area that 
those who may be familiar with the area recognize is sheer-walled 
cliffs and twisting canyons with incredible mesas and buttes. This is 
the incredible beauty of this area of the West, this area of Utah; and 
that is why it has been an area of such great controversy because there 
are those who live there and make their livelihood there. There are 
those who want to protect it in the highest form of protection we can 
provide as a national treasure, and there are those who simply want to 
drive by and look at it as part of their summer vacation. It is a 
dramatic area, it is a beautiful area, and it clearly has resources and 
values and assets that are on a par with Arches, Canyonlands and Zion 
National Parks.
  This is not a minor piece of legislation. This is dealing with one of 
the great environmental assets in this Nation. But again it is also 
that fact that makes this legislation so controversial and even the 
discussion of the parts of this legislation is controversial. The 
gentleman from Utah has worked hard with the community in trying to 
develop a consensus and worked with the Secretary of Interior as he 
pointed out over many, many months recently to see whether or not they 
could come up with a legislative package that addressed all of their 
needs. I am sad to say that I do not believe that they have yet arrived 
at that package, that this legislation has a number of flaws that need 
to be corrected. We repeat some mistakes that we know have turned out 
to be very costly from the past, and, that is, when we start setting 
environmental and ecological boundaries that are based upon political 
jurisdictions and political decisions that follow existing roads or 
follow existing section lines or follow existing political boundaries 
of counties or townships, that we very often make a terrible mistake 
because that does not reflect the true protection of the environmental 
assets, it does not reflect the movement of wildlife, it does not 
reflect the expanse of habitat, it does not reflect necessarily the 
corridors that are needed for wildlife to move during different seasons 
and wet and dry periods of the year.
  Yet in this legislation once again we see that almost the entire 
southern boundary here is based upon a county line. As we know, as we 
struggled with the issues surrounding Yellowstone Park and other 
preserves in this country, those old decisions that were made in that 
fashion have turned out to be very bad for the protection and the 
conservation of those resources. I think that we even see in areas 
where we would be considering wilderness protection, protection of 
those assets in some cases, the boundaries here split those in two 
without taking that into consideration.
  The same is true with known wildlife habitat. I also think that we 
make the mistake in this legislation in not addressing the need for 
wilderness area. I appreciate the controversy that that raises in the 
West when discussing the wilderness area, and our committee from time 
to time has tried to work around that area; but to simply set these up 
as conservation areas is to allow a whole range of activities in those 
areas that then later work against the qualification of those areas for 
wilderness areas, whether it is communication towers, whether it is 
roads, those kinds of uses that then people use as evidence to say, 
Well, you can't consider this a wilderness area.
  So a great deal of damage can be done to the wilderness areas and the 
potential for wilderness protection if in fact we do not arrive at that 
level of protection. We have studied this, we have had a number of 
wilderness assessments done in this State, most recently several years 
ago, and clearly have identified these areas. There will be amendments 
on the floor to establish this as a wilderness area or a wilderness 
study area. I think the Members ought to give serious consideration to 
that.
  The other one is, there has been a tragic history here of really 
irresponsible off-the-road vehicle use. Clearly that is one of the uses 
of lands in many parts of the West. It is very controversial. Some 
people adamantly disagree with it and do not believe there should be 
any ORV use. I do not think that is realistic necessarily, or 
appropriate or necessary; but what we do have to have is responsible 
policies. In the past, this area has been closed because of those 
irresponsible policies and now simply to engage and let those people 
continue this for another 4 years I think is a mistake and again fails 
to recognize what we have learned from the past management of this 
land. We would in effect be codifying the same BLM regulations that 
have failed to protect this area.
  We also have the problem of creating something called the Western 
Legacy District. We do not know what a Western Legacy District is; we 
do not know what values it is there to protect. It appears that 
apparently this county has determined that. I think if we were looking 
for historical assets or whatever the basis is or environmental assets, 
we might find others that are more worthy of that designation. Clearly 
some definition, some protection of both the areas and of the taxpayer 
ought to be written into this legislation.
  I am also deeply concerned, again this is a controversial area in the 
West, about the issues of Federal reserve water rights. Here the 
Secretary apparently turned over whatever would be a federally reserved 
water right to the States, the State of Utah; but that does not provide 
for the kinds of protections necessary to protect the full range of a 
Federal asset here because it is a rather limited water right that the 
State has for conservation based mainly on wildlife and puts the State 
in the position of negotiating with its own citizens who may want to 
make withdrawals and consumptive use of this water. I know this is 
controversial, but we should be protecting these Federal assets to the 
full extent of the law and the need of the area; and if we start just 
continuing to take consumptive use upstream from this area, we then 
denigrate the environmental values and assets of this area. Clearly, I 
think the Secretary has made a mistake on the Federal reserve water 
rights.
  There will be amendments offered after the general debate on these 
areas. I would hope Members would support the amendments by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) because I do believe that they strengthen 
this bill; and most importantly they provide the kind of protection 
that the people of

[[Page H3942]]

this Nation are entitled to for environmental assets that are as 
magnificent as the San Rafael Swell and the surrounding areas.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3605, 
the San Rafael Western legacy Act. This bill does not do all I would 
like it to do, but having seen the stalemate which has existed for 
decades, I believe it is time to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 105th Congress, as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I went to Southern 
Utah more than once and spent some time traveling the area to better 
understand the national and local issues involved. As noted by my 
colleagues, this truly is a unique area which deserves protection. On 
that there is agreement. As we have seen this afternoon, the problem 
arises in what level of protection do we afford, and how much area do 
we protect.
  I do not see this bill as the end of wilderness protection in the 
State of Utah--rather I see it as a first step. I am glad to see that 
the Administration was able to reach a compromise with the 
Representatives from this area, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this compromise bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind that the 
stunning landscape of the San Rafael Swell with its multicolored 
sandstone exposed in deep canyons should be protected. The question 
before us today is, does this legislation offer that protection? 
Unfortunately, the answer is no. Therefore, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 3605 because it fails to protect and preserve the unique beauty 
that this wild area of Utah deserves.
  While I adamantly support the strongest protection possible for the 
San Rafael Swell in Utah, and have cosponsored the ``America's Redrock 
Wilderness Act,'' H.R. 3605 provides inadequate protection for these 
lands. This legislation creates the ``San Rafael Western Legacy 
District,'' a vague moniker that falls short of the real protection 
this land merits.
  How can this land be protected by legislation that does not address 
the rampant off-road vehicle use, which poses the gravest risk to this 
land? How can this land be preserved for generations when this 
legislation fails to designate a single acre as a wilderness study 
area, much less declare any land as wilderness? How can this ecosystem 
be protected by legislation that does not address the issue of water 
rights?
  Terry Tempest Williams wrote that these lands ``swing the doors of 
our imagination wide open.'' It is passed time to protect these 
treasured lands and ensure they remain wild and free before they slip 
away from us forever.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further 
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3605

       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 ``San Rafael Western Legacy 
     District and National Conservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' 
     means the San Rafael National Conservation Area established 
     by section 201.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Western legacy district.--The term ``Western Legacy 
     District'' means the San Rafael Western Legacy District 
     established by section 101.

              TITLE I--SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY 
                   DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--In order to promote the preservation, 
     conservation, interpretation, scientific research, and 
     development of the historical, cultural, natural, 
     recreational, archeological, paleontological, environmental, 
     biological, educational, wilderness, and scenic resources of 
     the San Rafael region of the State of Utah, as well as the 
     economic viability of rural communities in the region, there 
     is hereby established the San Rafael Western Legacy District, 
     to include the San Rafael National Conservation Area 
     established by section 201.
       (b) Areas Included.--The Western Legacy District shall 
     consist of approximately 2,842,800 acres of land in the 
     County of Emery, Utah, as generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``San Rafael Western Legacy District and National 
     Conservation Area'' and dated ______________.
       (c) Map and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Congress a map and legal description of 
     the Western Legacy District. The map and legal description 
     shall have the same force and effect as if included in this 
     Act, except the Secretary may correct clerical and 
     typographical errors in such map and legal description. 
     Copies of the map and legal description shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the Office of the Director 
     of the Bureau of Land Management, and in the appropriate 
     office of the Bureau of the Land Management in Utah.
       (d) Legacy Council.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Legacy 
     Council to advise the Secretary with respect to the Western 
     Legacy District. The Legacy Council may furnish advice and 
     recommendations to the Secretary with respect to management, 
     grants, projects, and technical assistance.
       (2) Membership.--The Legacy Council shall consist of not 
     more than 10 members appointed by the Secretary. Two members 
     shall be appointed from among the recommendations submitted 
     by the Governor of Utah and 2 members shall be appointed from 
     among the recommendations submitted by the Emery County 
     Commissioners. The remaining members shall be persons 
     recognized as experts in conservation of the historical, 
     cultural, natural, recreational, archeological, 
     environmental, biological, educational, and scenic resources 
     or other disciplines directly related to the purposes for 
     which the Western Legacy District is established.
       (3) Relationship to other law.--The establishment and 
     operation of the Legacy Council established under this 
     section shall conform to the requirement of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (e) Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants and provide 
     technical assistance to accomplish the purposes of this 
     section to any nonprofit or unit of government with authority 
     in the boundaries of the Western Legacy District.
       (2) Permitted uses.--Grants and technical assistance made 
     under this section may be used for planning, reports, 
     studies, interpretive exhibits, historic preservation 
     projects, construction of cultural, recreational, 
     educational, and interpretive facilities that are open to the 
     public, and such other expenditures as are consistent with 
     this Act.
       (3) Planning.--Up to $100,000 of amounts available to carry 
     out this section each fiscal year, up to a total amount not 
     to exceed $200,000, may be provided under this subsection 
     only to a unit of government or a political subdivision of 
     the State of Utah for use for planning activities.
       (4) Matching funds.--Federal funding provided under this 
     section may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the 
     activity carried out with such funding, except that non-
     Federal matching funds are not required with respect to--
       (A) planning activities carried out with assistance under 
     paragraph (3); and
       (B) use of assistance under this section for facilities 
     located on public lands and that are owned by the Federal 
     Government.
       (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated under this section not more than 
     $1,000,000 annually for any fiscal year, not to exceed a 
     total of $10,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY 
                   DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Bureau of Land 
     Management and subject to all valid existing rights, shall 
     administer the public lands within the Western Legacy 
     District pursuant to this Act and the applicable provisions 
     of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.). The Secretary shall allow such uses of the public 
     land as the Secretary determines will further the purposes 
     for which the Western Legacy District was established.
       (b) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities 
     of the State of Utah with respect to fish and wildlife within 
     the Western Legacy District.
       (c) Private Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     as affecting private property rights within the Western 
     Legacy District.
       (d) Public Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     as in any way diminishing the Secretary's or the Bureau of 
     Land Management's authorities, rights, or responsibilities 
     for managing the public lands within the Western Legacy 
     District.

            TITLE II--SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA

     SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
                   AREA.

       (a) Purposes.--In order to conserve, protect, and enhance 
     for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 
     generations the unique and nationally important values of the 
     Western Legacy District and the public lands described in 
     subsection (b), including historical, cultural, natural, 
     recreational, scientific, archeological, paleontological, 
     environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife, educational, 
     and scenic resources, there is hereby established the San 
     Rafael National Conservation Area in the State of Utah.
       (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of 
     approximately 947,000 acres of public lands in the County of 
     Emery, Utah, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``San 
     Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation 
     Area'' and dated ________. Notwithstanding any depiction on 
     such map, the boundary of the Conservation Area shall be set

[[Page H3943]]

     back 300 feet from the edge of the Interstate 70 right-of-way 
     and 300 feet from the edge of the State Route 24 right-of-
     way.
       (c) Map and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Congress a map and legal description of 
     the Conservation Area. The map and legal description shall 
     have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, 
     except the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 
     errors in such map and legal description. Copies of the map 
     and legal description shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bureau 
     of Land Management and in the appropriate office of the 
     Bureau of Land Management in Utah.

     SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
                   AREA.

       (a) Management.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau 
     of Land Management, shall manage the Conservation Area in a 
     manner that conserves, protects, and enhances its resources 
     and values, including those resources and values specified in 
     section 201(a), and pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and other 
     applicable provisions of law, including this Act.
       (b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the 
     Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further the 
     purposes for which the Conservation Area is established.
       (c) Vehicular Uses.--
       (1) In general.--Except where needed for administrative 
     purposes or to respond to an emergency, and subject to 
     paragraph (2), use of motorized vehicles in the Conservation 
     Area shall be--
       (A) prohibited at all times in areas where roads and trails 
     did not exist as of February 2, 2000;
       (B) limited to roads and trails that--
       (i) existed as of February 2, 2000; and
       (ii) are designated for motorized vehicle use as part of 
     the management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (f); and
       (C) managed consistent with section 8340 of title 43, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (relating to designating public lands 
     as open, limited, or closed to the use of off-road vehicles 
     and establishing controls governing the use and operation of 
     off-road vehicles in such areas).
       (2) Limitation on application.--(A) Subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (1) do not limit the provision of reasonable 
     access to private lands or State lands within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (B) Any access to private lands or State lands pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be restricted to 
     exclusive use by, respectively, the owner of the private 
     lands or the State.
       (d) Withdrawals.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as provided in paragraph (2), all Federal lands within 
     the Conservation Area and all lands and interests therein 
     that are hereafter acquired by the United States are hereby 
     withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 
     under the public land laws and from location, entry, and 
     patent under the mining laws, and from operation of the 
     mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and all 
     amendments thereto. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to effect discretionary authority of the Secretary 
     under other Federal laws to grant, issue, or renew rights-of-
     way or other land use authorizations consistent with the 
     other provisions of this Act.
       (2) Communication facilities.--The Secretary may authorize 
     the installation of communications facilities within the 
     Conservation Area, but only to the extent that they are 
     necessary for public safety purposes. Such facilities must 
     have a minimal impact on the resources of the Conservation 
     Area and must be consistent with the management plan 
     established under subsection (f).
       (e) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--Hunting, trapping, and 
     fishing shall be permitted within the Conservation Area in 
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the United 
     States and the State of Utah, except that the Utah Division 
     of Wildlife Resources, or the Secretary after consultation 
     with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, may issue 
     regulations designating zones where and establishing periods 
     when no hunting, trapping, or fishing shall be permitted for 
     reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and 
     enjoyment.
       (f) Management Plan.--Within 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan for the long-range protection and 
     management of the Conservation Area. The plan shall describe 
     the appropriate uses and management of the Conservation Area 
     consistent with the provisions of this Act. The plan shall 
     include, as an integral part, a comprehensive transportation 
     plan for the lands within the Conservation Area. In preparing 
     the transportation plan the Secretary shall conduct a 
     complete review of all roads and trails within the 
     Conservation Area. The plan may incorporate appropriate 
     decisions contained in any current management or activity 
     plan for the area and may use information developed in 
     previous studies of the lands within or adjacent to the 
     Conservation Area.
       (g) State Trust Lands.--The State of Utah and the Secretary 
     may agree to exchange Federal lands, Federal mineral 
     interests, or payment of money for lands and mineral 
     interests of approximately equal value that are managed by 
     the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 
     and inheld within the boundaries of the Conservation Area.
       (h) Access.--The Bureau of Land Management, the State of 
     Utah, and Emery County may agree to resolve section 2477 of 
     the Revised Statutes and other access issues within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (i) Wildlife Management.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     deemed to diminish the responsibility and authority of the 
     State of Utah for management of fish and wildlife within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (j) Grazing.--Where the Secretary of the Interior currently 
     permits grazing, such grazing shall be allowed subject to all 
     applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders.
       (k) No Buffer Zones.--The Congress does not intend for the 
     establishment of the Conservation Area to lead to the 
     creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around the 
     Conservation Area. The fact that there may be activities or 
     uses on lands outside the Conservation Area that would not be 
     permitted in the Conservation Area shall not preclude such 
     activities or uses on such lands up to the boundary of the 
     Conservation Area consistent with other applicable laws.
       (l) Water Rights.--Because the available water resources in 
     the drainage basins included in part within the exterior 
     boundaries of the Conservation Area have already been 
     appropriated--
       (1) nothing in this Act, the management plan required by 
     subsection (f), or any action taken pursuant thereto, shall 
     constitute either an express or implied reservation of 
     surface or ground water;
       (2) nothing in this Act affects any valid existing water 
     rights in existence before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including any water rights held by the United States; and
       (3) if the United States determines that additional water 
     resources are needed for the purposes of this Act, the United 
     States shall work, with or through any agency that is 
     eligible to hold instream flow water rights, to acquire such 
     rights in accordance with Utah State water law.
       (m) Wilderness Acts.--Nothing in this Act alters the 
     provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131) or 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) as they pertain to wilderness resources within 
     the Conservation Area. Recognizing that the designation of 
     wilderness areas requires an Act of Congress, the Bureau of 
     Land Management, the State of Utah, Emery County, and 
     affected stakeholders may work toward resolving various 
     wilderness issues within the Conservation Area.

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out this title such sums as may be necessary.

  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment printed in House Report 106-654 shall be 
considered read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand 
for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hansen

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

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-654 offered by 
     Mr. Hansen: 
       In section 101(b), strike ``2,842,800'' and insert 
     ``2,859,100''.
       In section 101(b), strike ``dated'' and all that follows 
     through the period and insert ``dated March 24, 2000.''.
       In section 201(b), strike ``947,000'' and insert 
     ``958,600''.
       In section 201(b), strike ``dated'' and all that follows 
     through the first period and insert ``dated March 24, 
     2000.''.

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment containing 
the more exact acreage measurements according to the official BLM map 
dated March 24, 2000. According to the map dated March 24, 2000, the 
acreage changes are from 2,842,800 to 2,859,100. That is on page 2, 
line 26; and from 947,000 to 958,600 on page 7, line 15.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                                 Hansen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Hansen:
       In the first amendment to section 201(b), strike 
     ``958,600'' and insert ``1,052,800''.
       In the second amendment to section 201(b), strike ``March 
     24, 2000'' and insert ``June 6, 2000''.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the

[[Page H3944]]

amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has been 
negotiated with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon). The amendment would expand the boundaries of 
the San Rafael Conservation Area to include parts of the Factory Butte 
and Muddy Creek areas in Wayne County. These are areas that, 
appropriately, environmental groups have been most interested in 
protecting and so am I, and thus this amendment.
  I know that some Members and outside groups would like to include 
even more terrain in the Conservation Area. But this is the most we can 
get right now without destroying the fragile coalition that reached the 
agreement that is embodied in this bill. There is nothing in the bill 
that prejudices or prevents any decision to add further territory later 
on.
  So I urge support for this amendment, which will extend the 
protection of this bill to two key scenic areas. Let us make the San 
Rafael Conservation Area as large as we can right now for the 
protection of the environment and the enjoyment of all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), his excellent efforts to include these areas. Maybe this 
technically is out of the San Rafael Swell, but, frankly, no one really 
knows what the San Rafael Swell is anyway. But as far as we can tell, 
this expands it, rather substantially in the areas of Factory Butte, 
which is absolutely a fantastic beautiful monument all by itself and 
also Muddy Creek.
  And, in my opinion, this will make the bill substantially better, and 
on top of that, it should negate many of the arguments that have been 
coming up in the last little while that we have not gone far enough. 
This does expand it, and I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), let us do it now and get it done. So I think that probably 
ends most of the arguments that should be brought up regarding the 
expansion of the San Rafael Swell. And I support the gentleman's 
amendment to my amendment.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) for his involvement and effort on this issue. 
Recent negotiations regarding this bill have shown me just how 
committed the people of Emery County, Utah, are to the protection of 
this land.
  Each time that we considered a change, they have gone out of their 
way to accommodate the proposals. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, one 
of our county commissioners flew out there at great expense to 
negotiate language changes. He then flew back to Utah to present to a 
neighboring county, that is Wayne County, the expansion of the 
boundaries of the National Conservation Area to include such areas as 
Factory Butte, which, by the way, is really a beautiful area.
  Although the Secretary of the Interior felt comfortable with the 
current boundaries, Commissioner Johnson negotiated in good faith to 
include more land in the National Conservation Area. Even this new 
county, Wayne County, was willing to work with us and developed an 
excellent offer to expand the boundaries.
  The language that Mr. Boehlert is offering is this compromised 
language, which continues, in the spirit of this bill, to accommodate 
all parties.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this amendment to Mr. 
Hansen's amendment.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) to expand the boundaries of the San Rafael Western 
Legacy District. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), for accepting this 
southern boundary addition.
  The underlying bill would have fragmented fragile ecosystems and 
excluded several wildland areas. The amendment of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert) will bring spectacular parts of the San Rafael 
Swell's southern wilderness landscape into the protection of the 
Western Legacy District. Places like Factory Butte, pictured behind me, 
and Red Desert will now be preserved for generations. More importantly, 
the new boundary now will make scientific and ecological sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
protect these southern Utah wildlands; and if some additional 
amendments can be achieved, I can even see myself supporting the 
underlying bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                   TITLE III--WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``San Rafael Swell Region 
     Wilderness Study Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 302. DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--In order to maintain the options of 
     Congress with regard to possible future designation of lands 
     as wilderness, certain public lands in Utah, comprising 
     approximately 1,054,800 acres as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Proposed Wilderness within San Rafael Swell 
     Region'' and dated March, 2000, and as specified in 
     subsection (b) of this section, are hereby designated as 
     wilderness study areas.
       (b) Wilderness Study Areas.--The areas designated as 
     wilderness study areas by subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The lands identified as ``Sids Mountain'' and ``Eagle 
     Canyon'' on the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising 
     approximately 112,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Sids 
     Mountain-Eagle Canyon Wilderness Study Area''.
       (2) The lands identified as ``Mexican Mountain'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     99,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Mexican Mountain 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (3) The lands identified as ``Muddy Creek'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     235,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Muddy Creek 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (4) The lands identified as ``Wild Horse Mesa'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     91,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Wild Horse Mesa 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (5) The lands identified as ``Factory Butte'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     25,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Factory Butte 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (6) The lands identified as ``Red Desert'' and ``Capital 
     Reef Adjacent Units'' on the map referred to in subsection 
     (a), comprising approximately 40,000 acres, which shall be 
     known as ``Red Desert Wilderness Study Area''.
       (7) The lands identified as ``Price River-Humbug'' on the 
     map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     99,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Price River-Humbug 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (8) The lands identified as ``Lost Spring Wash'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     35,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Lost Spring Wash 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (9) The lands identified as ``Mussentuchit Badlands'' on 
     the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising 
     approximately 25,000 acres, which shall be known as the 
     ``Mussentuchit Badlands Wilderness Study Area''.
       (10) The lands identified as ``Rock Canyon'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     17,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Rock Canyon 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (11) The lands identified as ``Molen Reef'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     33,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Molen Reef Wilderness 
     Study Area''.
       (12) The lands identified as ``Limestone Cliffs'' on the 
     map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     24,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Limestone Cliffs 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (13) The lands identified as ``Jones Bench'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a),

[[Page H3945]]

     comprising approximately 2,800 acres, which shall be known as 
     ``Jones Bench Wilderness Study Area''.
       (14) The lands identified as ``Hondu Country'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     20,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Hondu Country 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (15) The lands identified as ``Devil's Canyon'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     23,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Devil's Canyon 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (16) The lands identified as ``Upper Muddy Creek'' on the 
     map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     19,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Upper Muddy Creek 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (17) The lands identified as ``Cedar Mountain'' on the map 
     referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 
     15,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Cedar Mountain 
     Wilderness Study Area''.
       (18) The lands identified as ``San Rafael Swell Reef'' on 
     the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising 
     approximately 105,000 acres, which shall be known as ``San 
     Rafael Swell Reef Wilderness Study Area''.

     SEC. 303. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and to 
     subsection (b), the Wilderness Study Areas shall be 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with section 
     603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
     so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 
     preservation of wilderness until Congress determines 
     otherwise.
       (b) Further Acquisitions.--Any lands within the boundaries 
     of any of the Wilderness Study Areas that are acquired by the 
     United States after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall become part of the relevant Wilderness Study Area and 
     shall be managed in accordance with all the provisions of 
     this Act and other laws applicable to such a Wilderness Study 
     Area.

     SEC. 304. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' has the same 
     meaning as that term has in section 103(e) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Wilderness study area.--The term ``Wilderness Study 
     Area'' or ``Wilderness Study Areas'' means one or more of the 
     areas specified in section 302(b).

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the 
lands in the San Rafael Swell area that would be designated as 
wilderness by H.R. 1732, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, introduced 
by our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I am a 
cosponsor of that bill, as are 160 other Members of this body.
  However, this amendment would not designate those lands as 
wilderness. Instead, it would require that instead they be managed as 
wilderness study areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very familiar with these lands. I have walked the 
length and breadth of the San Rafael Swell. I have floated Muddy Creek 
down through the beautiful Narrows. I am convinced that these lands 
fully deserve and need the full protection that would come with their 
designation as wilderness.
  So when the Committee on Resources considered this bill, I gave 
serious consideration to offering an amendment to provide that 
wilderness designation. However, I decided against offering that 
amendment.
  I did so because of the assurance by the bill's sponsor, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), that he intends for the bill only to 
defer consideration of wilderness designations in this part of Utah and 
not to influence one way or another the outcome of the future debate.
  I have great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon). I know that he means what he says. So I decided to offer an 
amendment which is completely consistent with his intention, and that 
is what I am now offering.
  This amendment is the same that I offered in the Committee on 
Resources. This amendment would assure that this bill is truly 
wilderness neutral because it would assure that the Congress would 
retain all its options with respect to these lands. It would do that by 
requiring that they be managed so they will retain their present 
suitability to be designated as wilderness until Congress decides in 
the future, not now, on that question of wilderness designation.
  The amendment would also simplify and unify the management of these 
lands. Right now, some of them are formal wilderness study areas, 
others are lands that are subject to the BLM's inventory process, while 
others are not in either of those categories.
  To be specific, the amendment will require interim protection of 
about 1,054,800 acres of public lands that are managed by the Bureau of 
Land Management. Of that total right now, about 263,000 acres are 
classified as formal wilderness study areas. Another 500,000 are being 
managed as if they were wilderness study areas, but the remaining 
291,000 acres, which would be designated as wilderness under the 
Redrock Wilderness bill, do not even have that interim protection.
  My amendment would change this. It would end the current differences 
in bureaucratic classification. It focuses on the most important 
characteristics of these lands, the things that they have in common, 
their wild, unspoiled character and their eminent suitability for being 
added to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
  Mr. Chairman, by itself, this amendment will not make this a perfect 
bill. But by adopting this amendment, the House can assure that the 
bill will not prejudice the outcome of the future debate about 
designated wilderness in the San Rafael Swell area.
  I personally think that the wilderness debate has been delayed too 
long. I would prefer that we were debating the question today. But for 
now, I can support deferring this debate about wilderness provided that 
in the meantime we act to prevent the wilderness characteristics of the 
superlative public lands from being impaired. That is the purpose of 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not all that I would really like, but I think it 
is a reasonable and appropriate compromise. And I urge its adoption.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall). This debate has gone on too long. In my 20 years 
in Congress, I think this is about the umpteenth-hundredth bill we have 
done on something to do regarding wilderness in Utah.
  One of the problems is we cannot get people to sit down and talk 
about it. In fact, I have a memorandum from some extreme groups that 
say they will not sit down and talk about, or it could be resolved. In 
the State of Utah, the legislature has done its study. The governor has 
done a study. There has been study upon study upon study.
  Finally, after all of this work and after Secretary Babbitt gets 
involved, we say here is a way to take one small segment of Utah and 
get it resolved. There will be ample opportunity for this protection 
group that I spoke of in my opening remarks to look at this and 
determine where we can put this into wilderness. But just arbitrarily 
say, let us put all of this in WSAs, let us not look at it, let us not 
go.
  Most of these amendments that are coming at us people have not even 
seen the areas, they could not even identify it. It is as bad as the 
Grand Staircase Escalante, when the person who designated it put it in 
the wrong State. Anyway, be that as it may, we find ourselves in the 
situation here where this is unnecessary.
  There is no reason to do this amendment at this time because there 
will be things coming up. Some extreme groups are claiming that this is 
an antiwilderness bill because it fails to designate wilderness, the 
very reason we are failing to designate wilderness, because we cannot 
get to that point. And when we can, it should be, some of it should be; 
I do not have any argument with that.
  I do not buy into the argument that wilderness is the only thing, the 
only panacea that is going to solve and protect ground. In fact, I can 
give you actual cases where it is gotten better protection under a 
management plan than it does as a national monument or wilderness.
  So when they buy that argument, that is very fallacious. As many 
Members know, the issue of wilderness in Utah is a polarized one, and 
Utah has become the focal point; however, that debate has gone on and 
on.
  H.R. 3605 will finally, finally protect nearly 1 million acres of BLM 
lands in

[[Page H3946]]

central Utah. This bill will actually provide enhanced protection to 
over 600,000 acres of potential wilderness grounds. It is right in the 
bill, so why do we need this amendment?
  In fact, this process has resulted in further protection already. The 
BLM, after working with the county, and I hope the gentleman realizes, 
it has been in all the papers in Utah, maybe in Colorado, recently 
closed OHV trails in wilderness study areas, and this will ensure that 
these lands remain available for wilderness protections by some future 
Congress when we have a chance to look at it, to digest it, to see if 
it fits the criteria of wilderness, which no one seems to know.
  If you look at the 1964 Wilderness Act, the criteria of wilderness is 
untrammeled by man, as if man was there, there was no sign of man. What 
does that mean? I would be willing to ask my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle show me a picture of this area, show me where those roads, 
those signs of man would be.
  We do not get that. We just get these general statements of 
amendments. The BLM will formulate a management plan, will ensure that 
those lands that have wilderness qualities will be managed to protect 
those qualities, and that is what the Secretary is saying. That is why 
Molly McKusack went down, 8 months pregnant she went down there, bless 
her heart, and walked all over the area and saw the whole thing. This 
is a great lady who went to all of this work so we could come up with 
this piece of legislation.
  H.R. 3605 mandates that. Furthermore, the legislation formally 
recognizes that wilderness is left to future Congresses, and that is 
where it should be. Congress should be the ones to act on the public 
lands of America. Congress should be the ones to do national monuments 
and to do wilderness areas. This bill will ensure that these lands are 
protected.
  Wilderness designation is very complicated, and simply dropping 
legislation that ignores all the science, all the work of the BLM 
professionals, all of the support of Secretary Babbitt, all of the 
support of this administration; and let us just pass the bill today, 
and let us vote against the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I want to first express my great respect and affection 
for my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I think we do 
see this in many ways in a similar fashion. We both agree that the 
Congress ought to decide the ultimate fate of these lands, and that is 
simply what this amendment would do. It would just say these are going 
to be wilderness study areas, that we will manage them in that way, so 
we do not preclude the option of Congress.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, if these lands are left in a state where 
they can be degraded in any way, then the point becomes moot as to 
whether they have wilderness values in 5 or 10 years; and that is all 
this amendment would do is make sure these lands are managed in the way 
that we say we want them to be managed.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time and say to my 
friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), I would offer the 
gentleman and any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, come 
on out, let us look at it, let us have input in this area, if you want 
that input; but let us do it by that method rather than finding 
ourselves in a situation we arbitrarily put a wilderness designation in 
it. I think the gentleman should withdraw his amendment, but I say that 
with my tongue in my cheek, obviously.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                    offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

                       TITLE III--LAND MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 301. PROTECTIVE STATUS.

       Pending completion of the management plan required by 
     section 202(f), the Secretary shall manage each section of 
     the Conservation Area in a manner at least as protective of 
     the environment as was the case on June 6, 2000.

     SEC. 302. INTENT REGARDING MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       The Congress does not intend for the establishment of the 
     Conservation Area to reduce the protection of any land within 
     the Conservation Area. The Congress expects that, in general, 
     the management plan developed under section 202(f) will be at 
     least as protective of the environment as were the Bureau of 
     Land Management policies in effect as of June 6, 2000.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will continue reading the amendment.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the 
conservation area results in more, not less, protection for the land 
within its borders. That is the whole point of this bill, after all.
  Of particular concern are the so-called 202 lands, lands that are not 
now wilderness study areas, but are being considered for that 
designation. My amendment includes two provisions to ensure that such 
lands and other lands outside the WSAs are strongly protected.
  First, my amendment makes clear that lands within the conservation 
area are to be managed in at least as protective a manner as they are 
right now, pending completion of the management plan.
  Second, my amendment clearly states Congress's intent that the 
management plan overall only strengthen existing land protections. We 
have to allow some latitude for the management plan, or there is no 
point in developing it. But the burden of proof will be on those who 
want to weaken protections for any portion of the conservation area, 
and the overall plan must at least maintain the current level of 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), my 
friend with whom I have so often worked closely in partnership, would 
like to go a step further and give more land WSA status, and that may 
indeed be something we should do at a later date, but this bill is 
designed to move the ball forward without raising new wilderness 
issues.
  My amendment should guarantee that land in the conservation area is 
more protected than ever before. Let me stress that. My amendment 
should guarantee that land in the conservation area is more protected 
than ever before. Let us save for another day, without prejudice, the 
question of how much more of that land should be WSAs or wilderness. 
Let us provide further protection now, without undermining the progress 
embodied in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  I rise in opposition because I think that the amendment, while well 
intentioned, fails to recognize the battle that rages in the West over 
wilderness study areas. What the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is 
trying to do with his amendment is to protect many of those lands that, 
in fact, have been identified as having wilderness qualities eligible 
for wilderness study areas, but have not yet been designated. That is 
one of the problems that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
will address, because if we look at the southern edge of the boundary 
here, we have significant areas that have been identified in the 202 
process, and that is halted and it is halted as of this day, which 
means, in fact, they can be managed in an area that is inconsistent 
with the notion that they would later be designated as a wilderness 
study area. That is also true on the western edge of this swell also 
where that is going on outside of the boundaries.
  Now, why do we have to designate these wilderness study areas, which 
is

[[Page H3947]]

different than designating them as wilderness? That is a separate 
determination. We do that because we have to protect the environmental 
assets that are on the ground, in place. We know that out West there is 
a hard attitude in some communities against wilderness, and we know 
that there is constant lobbying going on in terms of claims on land, in 
terms of efforts to push roads into lands, into ORV policies that do 
not adequately protect them, and then later, those are used as evidence 
saying that these lands should not be wilderness because they have been 
degraded.
  So this amendment does not really protect those lands, even those 
lands that have already been designated by BLM in its process that it 
went through of reevaluating these lands after a rather flawed process 
in the late 1980s and in the early 1990s.
  This is not a stagnant situation. This does not just stay frozen in 
time because of this bill or this amendment. With all due respect, 
wilderness is about politics. Wilderness is about politics. It is about 
judgeships, it is about appointments, it is about what the 
administration wants and does not want. This is not child's play; this 
is the big leagues out West. So U.S. senators saying what they want and 
what they do not want in wilderness has nothing to do with the 
environment, and what members of delegations tell the administration, 
this administration and the next administration and the last 
administrations. It is sort of nonpartisan, if you will, in some cases, 
or bipartisan, because this is the struggle about the politics of local 
communities and of the States. If we do not adopt the Udall amendment, 
all of that continues and these areas are quite eligible for further 
degradation of those environmental values.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is trying to upgrade that 
but, in fact, the amendment does not do that. That is why we need to 
designate these lands as wilderness study areas.
  Finally, let me say, as the gentleman from Utah suggested, that this 
is an arbitrary amendment, that we are just slamming down wilderness 
study areas. The fact of the matter is much of it is as a result, or 
all of it is as a result of the 202 process that has been gone through 
and has identified these areas. This is far from arbitrary. In fact, 
very little about wilderness is arbitrary in the West because it has 
been argued for so many years and has been identified and the values 
have been argued back and forth. So the fact of the matter is, to 
provide the real protections that these areas are entitled to means 
that we have to reject the Boehlert amendment and pass the Udall 
amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to acknowledge the good work that I have 
completed with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my friend 
and colleague. I do think there is a dilemma here. I think that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wants to do the right thing, he 
is trying to do the right thing with his amendment, but I think it is 
only almost the right thing, and I think that that is just not quite 
good enough.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) points out that the rub 
here is that if we allow these lands to be degraded, then they do not 
meet the standard of wilderness, and so our choice then, the decision 
that we talked about making in the future could be precluded and we 
would not be able to make that choice. There are half a million acres 
of lands that only have administrative protection under the wilderness 
study status, and there are another 260,000 acres of land that have no 
protection at this time.
  So I would, with some reluctance, need to oppose this amendment from 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). It just does not quite get 
there; it only keeps the status quo in place.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to the Udall amendment.
  I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) who has been very active in this discussion in a way that has 
brought a certain collegiality, a certain friendliness to the process 
which I think sometimes has been missing in the past and, certainly 
when we get outside of these hallowed halls, it deteriorates sharply. 
But there are a couple of things that I would like to say to help folks 
here to understand what is going on here and where we are headed.
  First of all, to describe half a million acres as not adequately 
protected because it is only protected under an administrative plan 
does not mean that it is not significant and major protection.
  Secondly, let me tell a little story if I can to help give a sense of 
what this area means. A couple of years ago, I was invited to tour a 
facility of Intel in my district and little had I known that they ended 
up with 500 employees, it had grown virtually overnight and after I 
visited the facility, they asked me if I would like to speak for a few 
minutes to the employees, so I took a few minutes and talked about what 
was going on in Washington and then asked for questions. The first hand 
up was this question: What are you going to do about the Sam Rafael 
Swell? Not knowing exactly what I was into I said well, let me ask you 
all a question. How many of you have been motorbiking in the San Rafael 
Swell?
  Now, most of these people were new move-ins from other areas, came to 
Utah because it is a remarkably beautiful place where they can come to 
work in a high-tech environment but get out and enjoy the incredible 
beauties of my district. As I asked that question, how many of you have 
been motorbiking, I looked over at that audience, and everybody in that 
audience was making some multiple of $75,000 a year; these are high-
tech, high-paid people, and three-quarters of the hands went up.
  Now, we cannot just talk in the abstract about land that people are 
coming from all over the world to visit, to see, and to go four-
wheeling on and just say that we want a perfect wilderness bill with 
perfect wilderness protections when that is not going to happen, at 
least in the near term, and the amount of degradation that is going on 
by people who are not channeled into the right areas, into the areas 
that would probably be most interesting for them, but which would be 
the most robust; if you have a wash and you run down a wash on a four-
wheel drive, it does not do anything. But if you have people out 
wandering without the right signage out there, if you do not direct 
people where to go and let them know what they are doing when you get 
them off the roads, then you are going to have massive degradation; and 
that has been happening today.
  Now, the county and BLM have done some really dramatic things. They 
have changed the dynamic of how we are organizing things out there. But 
I urge my colleagues to remember this. In an area the size of the State 
of Connecticut, we have one BLM enforcement official. That man cannot 
possibly, without immediate, without current, without right-now help, 
he cannot possibly help solve the problems of the degradation that is 
going on. This bill immediately solves the problem. In fact, BLM and 
the county have already significantly reduced the ability of these 
people to get off in the wrong areas with signage and other things.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, a key concern that the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) and I share is continuing the protection of the 
so-called 202 lands. My amendment says that the 202 areas must continue 
to be managed at least as strictly as they are now.
  My concern about going further, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) does, is that it will destroy a very delicate and very carefully 
crafted agreement, and we will get nothing.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just point out, 
and I will be happy to yield if I have further time, the current 202 
process is on hold from an appropriations bill rider. This bill moves 
us beyond that and puts the 202 process; that is, the reinventorying of 
wilderness areas, back on track
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

[[Page H3948]]

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking clarification from the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), if the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon) would yield for a question.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to also yield to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to answer a question.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is talking 
about the protection of the 202 areas. Would that not only apply to the 
areas within the boundary that is designated under this bill and leave 
off all of the other areas that would have been included under the 
Udall bill?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, it would 
include the areas covered in this bill. It is the same as Udall, is my 
understanding.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me point out to the 
gentleman that we already included an extension of the area that would 
include the Factory Butte and other wilderness study areas to the south 
of this area.
  Let me just finish by saying then, Mr. Chairman, this bill goes a 
long, long way to take violent, strong forces and bring them together 
for current protection of this area, which will not happen in a more 
restrained environment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I really 
think what we have here puts in perspective that the gentleman from New 
York has crafted the middle ground. Here is what the bill says, here is 
what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) wants, and he has come up 
with a very moderate and reasonable middle ground that should solve 
this issue and take care of the problem.
  I ask my friends from Colorado, what more do you want? We have taken 
out mining, we have taken out mineral leaving, we have stopped OHV from 
going into the area, we just expanded the area. And I keep hearing this 
argument, well, what about the rest of the area? Listen, I am a native 
of that area, I have been through that area, I have camped in that 
area, my dad had mining in that area. I have even looked for cows where 
there is no grass to feed them in that area.

                              {time}  1200

  We get down there and say, what other area are they talking about? We 
have covered the area. That is the whole show. That is the whole 
shooting match.
  Now, if they want to go over to Nevada on one side, Colorado on the 
other side, go through those big rolling hills of sagebrush that maybe 
the President put in the national monument, that is fine. Go ahead and 
do that. We have covered the area. There is nothing more to do.
  When we get down to that, let us cover the area, and the last time 
these gentlemen were there, tell me what they are talking about; the 
last time they rode in that country, rode an ATV, put a back country 
pilot there. There is no other area. This is the whole shooting match 
that we have got in this bill.
  I think the gentleman from New York has come up with a fine way to 
handle this area. I support that amendment that he has made to the 
Udall amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah, for yielding.
  The gentleman asks me what I want. I appreciate all the good work 
that has been done. What I want is for the gentleman to support my 
amendment. I think it makes good sense. I want to just make the point 
that this is not about creating new wilderness, as my colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), might suggest. This is just about 
protecting these lands that are already in pristine shape in the 
wilderness study category.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I renew my offer to my 
good friend from Colorado. Let us go out and spend some time and look 
at it. We can work with these BLM professionals. Why do we not trust 
these BLM guys? That is what this whole bill is about.
  I feel kind of funny in this position, Mr. Chairman. The folks on the 
other side of the aisle are saying that to me. But I am just saying, 
okay, they have in good faith gone out there, they have spent hundreds 
of hours on it. They have shown us they are doing it right. I am 
willing to trust them to do it this time.
  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, come with us. 
Let us all go together and say, let us have our input into it, but let 
us not do it abstractly, off the top of our heads, without seeing the 
area, knowing the area, talking to the people. Those things are all 
important.
  For some reason, I have the opinion that the people who live on the 
ground should have some say in it. I think it would make a lot of sense 
that they have a say in it. They are our commissioners, our Governor, 
our legislators. They support this legislation. I think those people 
are kind of important, myself. I am sure the gentleman from Colorado 
would agree with that.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I agree. My question is, are we going to walk, 
ride, or float?
  I also would acknowledge that the local people ought to have some 
input in this, and I think they have. But as my colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) suggested, the West's economic 
structure is changing. People are coming to the West for different 
economic reasons. They want to have these open spaces. They want to 
have places in which to recreate.
  I think that is the intent of my legislation, my amendment, is to 
keep that option open in the long term. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Westerner, and not the near West, like my friends, 
the gentlemen from Colorado and Utah, but the real West, out there in 
the West Coast, I have some modest sense of what goes on in wilderness 
areas. I have spent a little time interacting with people over the last 
30 years as an elected official. I have watched the dynamic.
  I would not pretend to be an expert in the wilderness areas in Utah, 
but I would take some exception with perhaps lumping in my friend from 
Colorado with people who do not quite know what they are talking about. 
I would venture a bet that there is nobody in this legislative body 
that has spent more time on foot and on watercraft going through this 
area than the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). He is offering this 
up not as an extremist.
  Again, I am concerned about the rhetoric that is sometimes employed 
when talking about people who are concerned about the protection of 
these precious resources that belong to the American people as 
extremist.
  I am one of 160 cosponsors in this assembly of H.R. 1732, America's 
Red Rock Wilderness Act, which would go far beyond the amendment 
offered by my friend, the gentleman from Colorado. I do not think those 
160 people or the vast majority of groups and organizations and media 
outlets that are involved in supporting it could be characterized as 
extremists. Indeed, I come from a western State, and I think a lot of 
the people would be regarded pretty much as mainstream.
  Coming forward, I am supporting the Udall amendment and against my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York. Often I find I am on the same 
side on issues of protecting wilderness values. But the question that I 
posed to him in terms of what would be protected in terms of those 202 
lands, it is clear if we look at the map that what the Boehlert 
amendment would do would be to extend it to the portion that is in the 
bill itself.
  The Udall amendment would go far beyond that to deal not with a 
political fix that makes sense in terms of the local politics in Utah, 
in terms of county boundaries and where roads are. But looking at it 
from satellite, looking at it in terms of an ecosystem, the Udall 
amendment would provide wilderness study. It would not designate it as 
wilderness, but it would require that we

[[Page H3949]]

get on with the study, and it would reserve to this Congress the 
ability of making a wilderness designation, if that is what is 
warranted, over the whole area, and not having degraded it in the time 
being.
  These are areas that are under assault. I am sure that my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), would not like to see this area 
eroded away, that we would have an arbitrary fracture of the whole 
wilderness potential area; have damage, have people establish in their 
mind that it is severable, when in fact I think he would agree, based 
on his environmental orientation, that it is not.
  I have great sympathy for the problems of people who are in small 
States where these are very inflamed and sensitive issues. I know there 
are strong cross-currents. We need to respect them. There has been lots 
of opportunity in Utah, and that will continue.
  I respect what my colleagues from the Utah delegation have done, and 
Secretary Babbitt. But I think we ought not to foreclose the 
opportunity of doing this right by adopting the Boehlert amendment and 
undercutting what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is trying to 
do, protect the options of this Congress and protect the future of that 
area.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oregon 
for yielding to me.
  Just to set the record straight, my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), who is trying to do the right thing, and he is 
almost right but I think we need to do more, if we look at his 
amendment, it would leave out the following areas: The limestone 
cliffs, Jones Bench Rock Canyon, Molan Reef, Eagle Canyon, and the red 
desert and others.
  This is about wilderness study areas, not about creating wilderness. 
This is about maintaining areas in the wilderness study category so 
Congress can make those decisions when we deem fit.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
have a high regard for the gentleman, as he well knows.
  We are not foreclosing any options. We are saying, very simply, we 
are making it clear that lands within the conservation area are to be 
managed in at least as protective a manner as they are right now. 
Secondly, we are stating clearly Congress' intent that the management 
plan overall only strengthen existing land protections.
  This can be revisited later. We may well be on the same page when we 
do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my thoughts, but I just 
want stress to one and all that this is a very fragile, carefully 
crafted agreement which has been signed onto by the Secretary of the 
Interior, with whom we have been in touch just this morning.
  We are not foreclosing any options. Once again, we have worked so 
well in the past, and I look forward to working continually in the 
future as well. We are not foreclosing any options. We may revisit this 
and say we have to do more, but let us not put at risk this carefully 
crafted compromise. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my final minute, Mr. Chairman, the area 
that I take exception to what the gentleman is talking about is two-
fold.
  One is that it leaves out areas that have already been studied and 
virtually all rational people agree have wilderness characteristics. 
They are sensitive areas. His amendment would undercut what my 
colleague from Colorado is attempting to do.
  Second, these are areas that are in fact under assault. These are 
areas where there are extreme pressures, where there is growing use of 
recreation vehicles. It is extraordinarily destructive, in the public 
mindset. With all due respect, I do think there are problems. That is 
why I do not want to settle for the limited vision that is so 
uncharacteristic of my friend, the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) for addressing this important issue. I rise in opposition to the 
Boehlert amendment, and to offer support for the underlying Udall 
amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a 
commonsense approach to ensure that we do not have wilderness 
destruction by default. Like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) 
and many others, I believe that the entire area deserves the greatest 
protection we can offer.
  In a sense, I am from the West. I represent part of western New 
Jersey. I want to make the point that this is a national treasure that 
people in my district, as well as in the district of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), as well as in the district of the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall), as well as in the district of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), value strongly.
  H.R. 3605 does not provide the protection this area needs. Like many, 
like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and many others, I, too, 
am a cosponsor of H.R. 1732, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. I 
believe it is only prudent to add the lands in the San Rafael Swell to 
those areas designated in this act as wilderness study areas.
  I believe that by making all the lands in this region wilderness 
study areas, we can be certain that this land will be protected until 
Congress makes a permanent decision on classification. This amendment 
would preserve the land and preserve our options.
  This amendment thoughtfully addresses the inadequacies of H.R. 3605. 
I know no one who understands this issue better than the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), and I rise in support for his amendment. I urge 
all Members to support this reasonable compromise.
  Mr. BAIRD. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of profound importance to me. I 
actually grew up in the Slick Rock country of southwestern Colorado, a 
little tiny place called Fruita. There is also a Fruita, Utah, which I 
know well. I went to the University of Utah for undergraduate school, 
and the University of Wyoming for graduate school.
  I respect very much the efforts of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle today to try to resolve what is admittedly a complex and 
difficult issue. But I feel the need to put it into context.
  As we talk here on the floor of the House and as we look, if we walk 
back and forth from our offices with the cacaphony of noise, cars, 
taxis, whatnot, in southern Utah today there is profound silence. The 
areas we are talking about have a silence which most Americans cannot 
imagine. It is a silence that is breathtaking, a silence that is awe-
inspiring, a silence which must be preserved.
  When we take someone, as I have on several occasions, for hikes 
there, they are profoundly moved, moved in ways that we cannot describe 
in the debate on the floor, moved in ways that we cannot put in words 
in the language of legislation, but moved in ways which we must protect 
and preserve, because they touch at the very heart of our souls. They 
touch at the heart of our being. They touch at the heart of what is 
great about America.
  This legislation we are talking about, the Udall amendment, is 
designed to do fundamentally this: to preserve that option for current 
generations, and to study ways in which it can be preserved for future 
generations.
  The other thing that is happening in southern Utah today, even as we 
speak, is that ORVs and other activities are, in some cases willfully, 
in some cases inadvertently, intruding upon areas that by rights, by 
qualifications, should be designated as wilderness. We need to stop 
that.
  There are places, Mr. Chairman, where we are not allowed to tread, 
because to tread on something would be to tread on sacred ground. To 
intrude

[[Page H3950]]

the noise and the destruction that currently is happening in parts of 
this wilderness area or potential wilderness area should not be 
allowed.

                              {time}  1215

  I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall). I would like to take every Member of this 
body on a 3- or 4- or 5-day trip to understand what happens, how 
transformational it is to go to those lands. Not everybody here can do 
that, but I would invite them to do that. And I strongly urge support 
for the Udall amendment.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his 
moving description of my district. It is truly a wonderful breathtaking 
area, and we invite all of our colleagues and everyone in America to 
visit and to enjoy the experiences that the gentleman has obviously had 
there.
  Let me add that one of the deep concerns that I have here is that we 
do have uncontrolled and destructive off-highway vehicle use. I believe 
that if this body supports the Udall amendment, that this bill will not 
go forward, that destruction will continue, and we will not have even 
the opportunity to currently solve the growing problem that we have 
today.
  So sharing the gentleman's views and his sincere desire to see this 
continue, I suggest, is the best reason for opposing the Udall 
amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
comments of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). My concern is this: I 
appreciate the sincere effort to reduce the damage to the existing 
areas, but there are, however, very precious and unique lands that are 
currently left out of this legislation and that the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) would address.
  My fear is we do not address that. And my other fear, as I understand 
the legislation proposed, is it would manage areas at current 
management levels, but not at more potentially restrictive 
designations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to make sure that two things happen: we 
restrain and restrict and stop the destruction currently caused by ORVs 
in the existing and proposed areas and that we expand those areas 
recognized for their unique features.
  It is indeed the area that the gentleman represents, and I respect 
that very much. But it is also an area cherished and regarded by the 
entire country as a unique national resource. That is why we are here 
today to speak on their behalf, the U.S. Congress speaking on behalf of 
that.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert). The Members from the other side of the aisle 
from the West who have described in most eloquent terms the areas of 
silence, the areas that truly still represent the pristine nature of 
the mechanics of creation under which they have evolved for so many 
millions of years, are correct in their assessment to protect these 
lands that are public lands.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) feels, and correctly so, that if 
the amendment is offered and then is passed, it is likely that the bill 
will not pass and then the difficulty of trying to restore many of 
these beautiful areas, some of which are designated wilderness, many of 
which are not managed in that way but could be managed in that way, 
will not prevail.
  So in this interim step, we are moving in the direction, I believe, 
and certainly will work in that direction, for the preservation of 
much, if not most, if not all of this beautiful pristine area of Utah.
  Now, I have never been to Utah, but I lived in a designated 
wilderness area of northern Idaho in the Bitter Root Mountains. We 
lived, my family, in a little cabin on top of the mountains in a 
designated wilderness area the size of Massachusetts. Our nearest 
neighbor we could not see from the highest mountain because they were 
well on the other side of the horizon. So our respect for this 
magnificent land and restoring and keeping it in this pristine state is 
something that I think we all can work diligently for.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from the State of Maryland; and we do not have any 
designated wilderness study areas, except for a tiny little place 
called Assateague Island on the Atlantic Ocean. But every place else in 
Maryland, if we read the letter of the law, would not be suitable for a 
designated study area. Yet I think most of us know if we set aside a 
little land, and I have seen it happen by State law, if we set aside a 
little land, nature will come in and that silence will come back, only 
broken by the occasional migrating song bird or the yipping of a fox or 
a coyote or a bald eagle.
  So in the interim of the designation of this as designated wilderness 
land, I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has the bridge 
which we can construct, and we can cross it later on.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks, and he has been a wonderful supporter of the 
environment. This is different than the process that he might be 
familiar with, as the gentleman said, in Maryland or even in many parts 
of California any longer.
  The threshold for wilderness is very, very high. That is why we go 
through extensive studies.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for a second, I would 
like to work on legislation to change the threshold of the requirements 
to designate something wilderness. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
had an eastern wilderness bill that was percolating through legislation 
that would have designated certain areas east of whatever meridian it 
was, east of the Mississippi River, which I actually supported, which 
would have changed the classification for what could be designated as 
wilderness, because there were many areas in the east that would not 
meet that classification. I would like to see it change.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, I would invite the gentleman to read the Wilderness 
Act, because that threshold is quite properly set, because we cannot 
achieve the quality that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
talked about, and others have experienced, by simply changing 
designations.
  It is about a place. It is about the quality of the place. It is 
about a place that is untrammeled. And that is why, as we go through 
these areas in Utah or California or anywhere else and we look at them, 
they are taken in consideration with their surroundings. So if ORVs 
have gone crazy in the meantime, or people have punched in roads, or 
mining claims have been established, they are not qualified for 
wilderness because we cannot achieve the qualities in the Wilderness 
Act.
  As the West continues to fill up with people at the rate that it is, 
the preservation of these qualities is more and more difficult. I am 
not lecturing the gentleman, because the gentleman appreciates this. 
But my point is that the Boehlert amendment does not go to these areas 
that were cut out by an arbitrary county line and so we start to lose 
those qualities here, and they impact on the wilderness study areas on 
the other side of the line. That is the tragedy of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there other amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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


[[Page H3951]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 7, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following: ``(b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall 
     consist of approximately 1,288,570 acres of land in the State 
     of Utah, as generally depicted on the map prepared by the 
     Bureau of Land Management entitled ``San Rafael Western 
     Legacy District and National Conservation Area'' and dated 
     March 28, 2000.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in proper form, 
because it is drafted as an amendment to the wrong page and line of the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has placed a 
corrected form at the desk, and the Chair would ask the Clerk to report 
the corrected form.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 7, strike lines 19 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist 
     of approximately 1,288,570 acres of land in the State of 
     Utah, as generally depicted on the map prepared by the Bureau 
     of Land Management entitled ``San Rafael Western Legacy 
     District and National Conservation Area'' and dated March 28, 
     2000.''.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's correction. We 
appreciate that. We also appreciate the interest of the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) in this bill and his sincere effort to move forward 
in this regard, as well as the interest of the Secretary of the 
Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is necessitated by the simple fact that 
the bill as currently written falls considerably short of protecting 
the San Rafael Swell in its entirety. What our amendment would do, 
which is widely supported by those who are interested in the Red Rock 
area of this wonderful State, would essentially add about 14 percent of 
the San Rafael Swell that is not currently protected by the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think any of us who are familiar with this area would 
conclude that these hundreds of thousands of acres which we have not 
proposed to be protected in this bill need to be protected both because 
of their scenic splendor, and because of their virtue of silence and 
their ecosystem protection for various endangered and threatened 
species who live in the area.
  Let me address those issues if I may, Mr. Chairman. Basically, what 
happened to create the imperfection in this bill as it currently is 
situated is that the drafters, in attempting in good faith to obtain 
consensus, have drawn a boundary of the San Rafael Swell created by man 
with political boundaries and sometimes by small roads, rather than on 
the Creator's boundaries, the way the Creator made this land and these 
incredible rock formations.
  In that regard, boundaries as currently drawn would cut off a 
significant portion of the area which is so scenic and so important to 
the ecosystem in this area. Those include a number, and I want to talk 
about some of those areas because they are incredibly scenic. Those are 
the Eagle Canyon area, which is perhaps closest to the populated area 
in Utah; the Rock Canyon area; the Molen Reef area; the Limestone 
Cliffs area. Let me address why some of these areas are important.
  Let me address this Limestone Cliffs area. This is an area which is 
essentially a conduit for elk, deer, a number of wonderful critters 
when they go between the lower elevations and the higher elevations. If 
we do not protect these areas, we will not have done justice to the 
basic thrust of this bill.
  There is an area here too that I just cannot fail to mention. There 
is an area that would be protected under our amendment called the 
Mussentuchit Badlands, and I think that is the proper language that we 
ought to think about it. Because ``mustn't touch it'' should be the 
approach that this Congress takes to not allow development or spoiling 
of that area. It is an incredibly beautiful area. Those who have been 
there know, this is sedimentary rock, this Red Rock Canyon area. In 
this Mussentuchit Badlands, there are fins, vertical layers of igneous 
rock that come shooting up out of this sedimentary rock that are really 
spectacular.
  Why is that not protected in the bill? Why did the drafters not 
include Mussentuchit Badlands? The reason is sort of an artifact of 
political boundaries. Frankly, if we are going to protect this area, we 
have got to protect it the way the Creator made it, not due to 
political boundaries.
  The Limestone Cliffs area I addressed happened to be west of a 
boundary line of a particular county. It is in Sevier County. Now, why 
we should exclude an area simply because it is over a county line? I do 
not think that comports with the basic thrust of this bill, which is to 
protect wild areas, to protect scenic areas, and to protect these 
ecosystems.

                              {time}  1230

  I will tell my colleagues, the deer and the other animals who reside 
in this area do not respect these county lines. When we develop a 
boundary for a conservation area, we should not draw these boundaries 
the way man has on the map but the way they are created and laid out on 
the ground.
  Let me address, if I can, a basic, perhaps, argument here today 
between some who suggest that, I guess, if one does not live in Utah, 
one does not have enough sensitivity or care or knowledge of this land. 
I do not purport to have the knowledge of the representatives of Utah 
about this land.
  But what I would say is, when it comes to Federal land, when the good 
people of Utah come to Mt. Rainier in Washington, my home State, they 
take back a piece of Mt. Rainier back to Utah. It is something they 
never forget. It is the same of the people I represent. When my 
software engineers go down and hike the Red Rock Canyons, they take a 
piece of Utah back with them that is right here as much as in Utah.
  We will respect our constituents nationwide if we adopt this 
amendment and fully protect this incredible area.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respectfully point out, and let us go back just 
a little half hour ago when we had the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) cure the county line problem. This is not in Emery County. We 
are not following county lines. So now it goes into Wayne County.
  I thought we solved this problem on expansion because we took in the 
most beautiful areas. We took in that bottom part of Muddy Creek. We 
took in Factory Butte. That was done. So we have already cured that 
problem, if I may respectfully say to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Let me also point out one other thing. Who drew these lines? These 
lines were drawn by the Secretary of the Interior. Who is to say what 
is beauty to the eye out there? I find it interesting that folks keep 
standing up and saying it is not in the swell. Well, what is the swell? 
Will somebody please define that? Now, the local folks have defined it. 
The BLM has defined it. The Secretary has defined it. The State of Utah 
has defined it. All of a sudden, we are finding new definitions.
  Now, we get one that expands off to the west. Now, what is in that 
western area? That western area, I know some groups would like to 
include it; and in many of their proposals through the last 20 years, 
they have included that.
  But let us go back to the idea of saying, well, what is the 
definition of wilderness, which I think we are getting at here. The 
definition and what fell out of the definition is no roads, no sign of 
man, man was never there.
  Now, let me point out, the area that the gentleman is talking about 
has gypsum mines in it, a whole bunch of them in there that people 
mine, are currently doing that. The area the gentleman is talking about 
has roads through it. Not only are they just two tracks that we often 
debate on this floor, they are county roads that are graded and have 
got regulatory signs on them. What we are talking about is there are 
communities in that area. I mean, this just does not fit. It does not 
fit the definition.
  So I have great respect for the gentleman's argument. But as far as I 
am concerned, why did we go to all this work? Why is it BLM agreed on 
this? Why is it the Secretary agreed on this? They are not apt to give 
away grounds of the West. I have never seen this Secretary do that. If 
anything, he even expands them.
  So, in my mind, I have no problem with the intent of the gentleman. 
But

[[Page H3952]]

let me respectfully say that this does not fit the area. Let us go back 
to what BLM did. Let us go back to the professionals. Let us go back to 
the definition of words. Let us not put an area that does not fit, does 
not add anything to the swell at all, it would really be detrimental to 
it, and it would hurt the industry in that area and hurt the 
communities and hurt the employment. Therefore, I respectfully would 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure there is no 
confusion because my understanding is the amendment of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) added certain lands south of this 
particular county. However, it did not add areas that were subject to 
wilderness potential study and certainly which we believe is within 
this swell area in Sevier County. I am speaking specifically of the 
Limestone Cliffs area.
  Now, I just want to make sure that we understand the amendment of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Boehlert). This is our understanding on 
this side. I just ask the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to clarify 
that.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I misinterpreted the 
gentleman's earlier comments when he talked about where we were 
following county lines. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) went 
right through a county line with the agreement of people and went into 
Wayne County. Now the gentleman talks about Sevier County that is to 
the west, and that is where our argument comes down. We say it does not 
qualify. It hardly qualifies.
  But if I may respectfully say so, some of those organizations that 
some folks are looking at what they have come up with, in looking in 
the last 20 years, some of them go right over the top of everything but 
an interstate, right over little cities, right over other areas.
  I think this one, and I really wish the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) would come out with me and look at it, because I would 
sure like to show him a few of the people out there who live on that 
area, who mine that area, who live there, who have school buses go up 
and down it. I do not think we want to hurt those folks.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, if I might just say, my district, as I 
pointed out a little earlier, has really remarkably beautiful areas. 
The area the gentleman is talking about in Sevier County is actually a 
pretty nice area, but it is a long way away of what we are trying to 
deal with here. What we are trying to do is establish a process so we 
can, in fact, integrate all of the facets of public land management 
into one bill.
  So I oppose the current amendment on the basis that it goes way 
beyond what makes sense on the ground and does not add anything to the 
Boehlert amendment, which actually does bring this all together and in 
an integrated fashion.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say the 
Boehlert amendment very logically went into an area that is absolutely 
gorgeous. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) put up a picture showing 
one of the prettiest areas in southern Utah. It is a well thought out, 
well crafted amendment, and something we should all go with. I am glad 
to see we agreed on that. I am glad to see the two counties agreed on 
that. That took a long time to get those folks to the table.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
the Inslee amendment because I think, absent the Inslee amendment, we 
do not have the kind of package here that is necessary.
  The Boehlert amendment does not fully protect the lands to the south. 
In fact, some of the wilderness areas are, in fact, split by that 
amendment.
  The point here between the Udall amendment and the Inslee amendment 
is to, in fact, provide the kind of protection that is necessary to 
maintain the potential wilderness qualities of these areas by 
designating them as wilderness study areas and expanding the boundary.
  I appreciate apparently mining is okay, good enough for the 
wilderness areas inside the boundary study areas, but it is not good 
enough for the areas outside the study. Let us be consistent here. I 
would prefer we did not have mines in either one of them. The fact it 
exists, and that is why it is a study area to see whether or not it can 
meet the definition of wilderness.
  Wilderness is not something that we go back and we create. Wilderness 
either exists or it does not exist, and we designate it. We do not 
create it. It was created by the creator, if you will, at this point. 
The question is whether or not we have the ability to recognize it and 
to protect it.
  As I said, it is a difficult and a tough threshold. If one would read 
the definition of wilderness, in contrast to those areas where man and 
his own works dominate the landscape is hereby recognized as an area 
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where 
man himself is a visitor and does not remain, and it goes on with the 
characteristics. These areas are tougher and tougher to find.
  The gentleman from Utah raises a number of concerns that we obviously 
have as we look at these wilderness areas, as a number of them probably 
will not qualify. Although that particular area may have great 
environmental value, but when put into this definition, it may in fact 
not qualify because of preexisting activities that are there.
  That is why the current protection is so important because those 
activities will continue on. They continue on with a lesser level of 
protection, and then that is used as evidence to suggest why that area 
cannot be designated as wilderness because it is already fully 
trammeled by man. It is fully under restraints because of the 
activities of man. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is going to 
address one of those issues.
  We now see we have wilderness study areas under the bill that has 
preserved routes for ORV vehicles that run right through the middle of 
the wilderness study areas. So rather than even try to repair those 
areas, that is what happens, it becomes a process of boot strapping. 
This become a process of boot strapping in the West where a trail 
becomes a road, and a road becomes an impediment to wilderness.
  That is why these amendments are necessary. That is why the Boehlert 
amendment offered as a substitute to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) does not go far enough, and the 
boundary change is important so that these lands will be brought in 
under this protection. We will not continue this process of arbitrarily 
drawing these boundaries based upon roads, based upon political 
subdivisions.
  So, in fact, what we have here, and I would hope that my colleagues 
would pay attention to it, is a package of amendments that really, 
really protect this area in a manner in which it is entitled to. 
Between the Udall amendment, the Inslee amendment, and the Holt 
amendment, we, in fact, provide the kind of protection that, 
unfortunately, the BLM has not provided in the past and has been called 
to task for that. But in one case in the bill, we find ourselves 
reaffirming bad decisions they made by preserving those ORV routes.
  I appreciate the Secretary's involvement. I think the Secretary with 
all due respect made a bad deal here, made a bad deal. He made a bad 
deal in the Federal Reserve water rights. He made a bad deal in the 
protection of wilderness study areas. He made a bad deal on the ORVs.
  That is why the Congress of the United States is involved in this 
process. We can correct some of that, and we can provide the kinds of 
protections.
  So I would hope that people would support the Inslee amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for this opportunity to 
discuss the protection of the San Rafael Swell region of southern Utah.
  I want to turn the subject of the discussion to wilderness. I believe 
that we have not done enough to protect wilderness in the country. It 
is, in fact, a

[[Page H3953]]

diminishing resource especially in the San Rafael Swell region, which 
contains jagged cliff faces, narrow slot canyons, hidden valleys that 
swell 1,500 feet above the surrounding desert, there is much more that 
we need to do in terms of protecting these areas.
  As the sponsor of H.R. 1732, which is known as America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act, I have a keen interest in today's debate on this bill, 
H.R. 3605, and the amendments that are being presented to it.
  There are over 1 million acres of wilderness quality public lands in 
20 units in the San Rafael region that have been recognized by my 
legislation, and this includes places that are arbitrarily outside the 
boundaries of H.R. 3605, places including Factory Butte, Jones Bench, 
Limestone Cliffs, Red Desert, Rock Canyon, and Eagle Canyon that 
deserve to be protected as wilderness and are not protected in this 
bill. In fact, they would be discarded under this bill.
  There are 163 cosponsors of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act who 
support wilderness designation for these nationally significant areas 
that are public lands owned by all Americans.
  While 80 percent of the lands in H.R. 3065 are slated for wilderness 
protection by America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, there is no mention of 
protecting the wilderness qualities in these lands in the bill of the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). I see that and I hope others will see 
it, as they should, as a fatal flaw, a fatal shortcoming. Not only does 
it fail to protect these wild areas, but it will directly contribute to 
their further abuse and degradation.
  I have an amendment that I was going to offer which would designate 
the million plus acres of wilderness quality lands in the swell region 
as wilderness. These wild places deserve the protection that America's 
Red Rock Wilderness Act would confer upon them. But instead of offering 
this amendment, I am willing to make the bill wilderness neutral by not 
offering it.
  While the proponents of the present bill say that their intent is to 
make this bill wilderness neutral, they know and I know that that is 
simply not the case. This bill that we have before us, H.R. 3605, is 
anti-wilderness. It is anti-wilderness because it would continue the 
abuse of these lands, and its arbitrary boundaries divide or exclude 
several proposed wilderness areas.
  The chief local proponent of H.R. 3605 has said that this bill ``is a 
way of getting around wilderness,'' meaning pass this bill and then we 
never have to consider the wilderness question for the San Rafael Swell 
region again. If the House passes this bill, it could become a model of 
how to undercut both of this protection for our public lands.
  So I am asking the House to reject the bill, to pass the amendment of 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), pass the amendment of the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). These are constructive amendments 
which will give us an opportunity to understand these regions better 
than we do. Let us keep them in study as the Udall amendment, for 
example, would propose.
  The Udall amendment, the Inslee amendment make constructive 
contributions to the national debate about how to protect America's 
wild lands. The bill that we have before us, H.R. 3605, would, in 
effect, end that debate. It would end that debate by precluding the 
opportunity to include vast regions of the San Rafael Swell area 
particularly from any further consideration or inclusion in the 
wilderness category.

                              {time}  1245

  It would preclude further debate that would allow us the opportunity 
to protect those lands which so greatly deserve protection and, in 
fact, now need protection and will need it even more so if they are to 
succumb to the assault that would be inflicted upon them if 3605 were 
ever to become law.
  We have the opportunity here to make this a much better proposition. 
Let us pass the Inslee amendment; let us pass the Udall amendment and 
thereby make this a much more effective bill.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a point of 
clarification?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman quoted someone as saying this 
bill is a way to get around wilderness. Let me clarify what I think the 
intent of that quote was.
  The issue is not to avoid or get around wilderness but to get beyond 
the debate which has stagnated, which is not moving forward, and which 
is leaving these lands subject to the degradation that I think we are 
all concerned about here. It is not a matter of getting around 
wilderness or around the gentleman's bill; it is a matter of getting 
around the problem of not improving the area.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
respond to the gentleman's comment, which I think is a very important 
one. The fact of the matter is passing the bill would preclude debate 
on wilderness for those regions; passing the bill would obviate the 
ability to protect those areas.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in support of the Inslee amendment, 
and talk specifically for a minute about the Muddy Creek area. I have 
had the opportunity to float Muddy Creek, which runs out of Emery 
County and down into Wayne County. I appeal to my friends from Utah and 
say that I think this would be a great reason to include the Inslee 
amendment because those lands would be protected.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I think we have already included Muddy Creek in the first 
amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is 
excellent news; and I appreciate the chairman for working with me, as I 
had appealed to him in previous colloquy. We would like to get all of 
the watershed.
  But I wanted again to make the point that we are talking about in the 
Inslee amendment taking into account the natural features, the 
geographic features, of this beautiful area; and I think that is the 
important point that we ought to acknowledge in the Inslee amendment.
  My colleagues may remember John Wesley Powell, the first head of the 
geologic survey, the one-armed Civil War veteran who first ran the 
Grand Canyon, suggested we organize the West on a watershed basis. Had 
we had the vision to do that, I think we would have a much easier time 
of managing our precious water resources in the West.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Many of my colleagues have graciously invited me and others to come 
see this incredible property, and we want to come. This is just a 
picture of one area. This is a picture of the Jones Bench, which is an 
area that is not protected under the existing proposal but would be 
evaluated and protected under the Inslee amendment.
  Let me say sincerely and graciously that the reason for this 
amendment is to make sure that Jones Bench is there in its current 
position by the time I get there. And this amendment would simply say 
we are going to honor the gentleman's invitation, but we would like him 
to keep the place the way it is before we get there to evaluate the 
inclusion of this for wilderness status.
  Let me make sure people understand this, too, because perhaps there 
is some confusion. The area of Jones Bench is in Sevier County, not 
Emery County. It is in Sevier County. And because it is in Sevier 
County, and because it is on the wrong side of another little road 
somebody put in somewhere, by man not the Creator, we in the existing 
proposal would not protect it. And I think the proposition we are 
testing in Congress today is how are we going to decide what is worthy 
of protection. Are we going to decide just based on county lines and 
where man created roads, or are we going to give respect to the Creator 
and decide it where the Creator put the red rock?
  I stand here to say we ought to respect the Creator's handiwork and 
draw these boundary lines on the basis of where the Creator put these 
ecosystems and this red rock. If we do not do this, my colleagues, I 
will not be

[[Page H3954]]

able, because of the pressure down in this neck of the woods is 
tremendous in these areas, I believe we may not be able to honor the 
gentleman's invitation if we do not include this amendment. And I 
respectfully urge my colleagues to join us in adding about 14 percent 
to this amendment to include the Creator's handiwork.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I wanted 
to respond to the gentleman from Washington, if I may, about his saying 
that would not be protected. The gentleman realizes that is 10 miles 
from the boundary of the Swell. So we have a whole bunch of protection 
in between there.
  Now, let me add one other thing. The gentleman has a little problem 
there because it is protected now. It is called management plan which 
protects that area. So that area the gentleman is worried about, when 
he comes to see it, which we would love to have him do, it already has 
a pretty heavy restriction on what is protected and what is not.
  It is interesting to note that BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, 
even Reclamation has management plans that somewhat protect areas more 
than wilderness does. A classic example of that is the Grand Staircase 
Escalante, which is protected more under the management plan than it is 
under the national monument. But people think that makes them happy, 
and I guess that is what counts.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
make sure I understand and all my colleagues here understand what is at 
stake.
  Is it not true that what we are talking about is whether this 
protective area will include land that falls within natural boundaries 
that otherwise would not be included because they are on the other side 
of an arbitrary east-west latitudinal county line?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Udall of Colorado was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. So I want to make sure my understanding is correct: it is 
whether we include land that happens to be on the other side of an 
arbitrary east-west latitudinal county line.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. If I may be heard in answer to that question, Mr. 
Chairman, there are two artificial human lines that prevent protection 
of this resource and others like it. One is a county line, a human-
drawn boundary; and the second is some small roads up farther north. 
Both of these are human-drawn boundaries.
  The point we are making with our amendment is that those political 
decisions, that political history, should not be respected as much as 
the Creator's handiwork. And by the way, if there is any question about 
the Swell, I advise my colleagues that there are some great geological 
texts that clearly define this area and others as within the San Rafael 
Swell.
  And I want to address this Muddy Creek, if I can, because I know it 
is a favorite of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). Without the 
Inslee amendment, we do not, repeat, we do not protect the entire 
watershed of Muddy Creek.
  The one thing I know about arteries in our body is if we cut it off 
in one place it does not make it any good if we protect the other 98 
percent. We do not protect a significant percentage of the Muddy Creek 
watershed. And if we had gone back and redrawn the history of the West, 
we certainly would have protected watersheds rather than north-south 
lines and meridians. We would have protected watersheds.
  Now is the chance, today, for the U.S. Congress to start a new 
direction when we decide how we protect the West. Today we can decide 
to protect watersheds rather than historical documents that some 
surveyor punched a straight line through Utah on. And I think that is 
an advance for the U.S. Congress, and I hope that we will make it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) asked a question, and I would like to answer it in a different 
way.
  The little roads up to the north is actually a 2-lane highway.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Cannon, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Udall of 
Colorado was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  So as I was saying, there is a 2-lane highway that divides this area. 
And in addition to that, it is 10 miles and more distant from the outer 
edge of what people normally call the Swell.
  We can use definitions all day long, but if the gentleman travels the 
area it is obvious. And again I invite everyone in Congress and across 
America to visit my district. There are many, many places worthy of 
protection and designation. But we are dealing with the Swell here; and 
this is an area that truly is geographically, esthetically, and 
dramatically different and separate from the area we are dealing with 
in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Holt:
       Strike section 202(b) and insert the following:
       (b) Uses.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses 
     of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further 
     the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established.
       (2) Motorized vehicles.--Except where needed for 
     administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency--
       (A) no motorized vehicles shall be permitted in any 
     wilderness study area or other roadless area within the 
     Conservation Area; and
       (B) use of motorized vehicles on other lands within the 
     Conservation Area shall be permitted only on roads and trails 
     designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the 
     management plan prepared pursuant to subjection (f).

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
significantly improve the protections provided to the San Rafael Swell 
under H.R. 3605, and I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento), who initiated this work and who would like to be here today to 
advocate it.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) for his work as a champion of environmental protection and 
conservation, not just on this issue.
  The San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act 
utilizes a never-before-used so-called legacy district designation to 
protect the San Rafael Swell in eastern Utah. However, this legislation 
falls far short of providing the resource protections that the San 
Rafael region so richly deserves.
  The chief environmental threat, the chief environmental threat to 
these lands is off-road vehicles. This abuse of ORVs in Utah has 
exploded over the past 10 to 15 years; and as a result, ORV abuse has 
become much more common, with ORV'ers pushing new

[[Page H3955]]

trails into remote areas each year. In fact, this past March, the 
Bureau of Land Management was forced to make an emergency ORV closure 
of part of the Swell's wilderness study areas. The BLM found extensive 
damage to soil, to vegetation, and other resources caused by ORV abuse.
  With this kind of damage occurring in the most pristine areas of the 
region, my colleagues can be sure that other spectacular lands in the 
San Rafael Swell are at risk. Nevertheless, H.R. 3605 does nothing to 
deal effectively with these problems. Since 1991, the BLM has attempted 
to come up with a plan to regulate ORV use but has failed to do so. 
This failure has led to severe damage in the Swell.
  H.R. 3605 would essentially codify BLM regulations that have failed 
to protect the San Rafael region. The legislation stipulates a 4-year 
planning process with no guarantees that future ORV use will be 
controlled. In the short term, during the 4 years of further study, the 
Swell will continue to be at extreme risk.
  I am offering a simple amendment to manage ORV use and protect the 
vast geological and scenic wonders within the San Rafael Swell. My 
amendment does two things: one, it does not permit motorized vehicles 
in any wilderness study area or other roadless areas within the 
conservation area; and, two, it restricts motorized vehicles on other 
areas within the conservation area to roads and trails designated for 
such use.
  Now, I would like to make a distinction here. What I am trying to do 
is to prevent ORV abuse not ORV use. I am not trying to stop citizens 
and recreation enthusiasts from enjoying responsibly this spectacular 
region from their vehicle. More importantly, with my amendment, there 
would still be 1,000 miles of road marked and recognized for use that 
would still be open.
  Let met put this into perspective. A few years ago, the Grand 
Staircase Escalante, to which the gentleman referred a moment ago, was 
designated a national monument in southern Utah. This area consists of 
almost 2 million acres and has about 900 miles of road available for 
use.

                              {time}  1300

  The San Rafael Conservation Area is half the size and has a thousand 
miles of roads for open use. It is clear that there will still be 
enough roads for those who wish to visit and to use the region.
  In closing, I would just like to say that if ORV use is not managed 
to protect conservation area values, then the designation of a national 
conservation area is meaningless. If we do not put in these 
protections, the designation would be meaningless.
  So please help protect the San Rafael Swell with the protection that 
it needs. I ask support for my amendment.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                          offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       In section 202(c)(1)--
       (1) after ``shall be'' insert ``limited to roads and trails 
     that are designated for motorized vehicle use as part of the 
     management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (f), except 
     that motorized vehicle use shall be''; and
       (2) strike subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) and insert the 
     following:
       (A) prohibited at all times in areas where roads and trails 
     did not exist as of February 2, 2000;
       (B) prohibited in areas where roads and trails were closed 
     to motorized vehicles by the Bureau of Land Management as of 
     June 6, 2000, pursuant to Federal Register Document 00-6796 
     published on March 21, 2000; and
       (C) prohibited in any area in which the Secretary 
     determines at any time that motorized vehicle use is causing 
     or will cause adverse effects pursuant to section 8340 of 
     title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on June 6, 
     2000.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that on the original amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the Clerk 
designated the amendment numbered 2 in the Record and the gentleman 
offered a different amendment, which the Clerk will now report.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       In section 202, strike subsections (b) and (c) and insert 
     the following (and make appropriate conforming changes):
       (b) Uses.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses 
     of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further 
     the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established.
       (2) Motorized vehicles.--Except where needed for 
     administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency--
       (A) no motorized vehicles shall be permitted in any 
     wilderness study area or other roadless area within the 
     Conservation Area; and
       (B) use of motorized vehicles on other lands within the 
     Conservation Area shall be permitted only on roads and trails 
     designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the 
     management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (f).

  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee now has pending the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the substitute offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) may proceed under the 5-
minute rule.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, tries to seek 
the sensible middle ground. It protects the area. It does not foreclose 
options for the future. It also does not jeopardize a very fragile, 
carefully crafted agreement, which has been endorsed by the Secretary 
of the Interior.
  As we address the subject of off-highway vehicles, the amendment 
would make clear that the management plan cannot supersede existing 
prohibitions or Secretarial authority concerning motorized vehicle use. 
The amendment explicitly codifies the road closures and wilderness 
study areas that the Bureau of Land Management announced in March. And 
the amendment explicitly codifies the Secretary's regulatory authority 
to block motorized use that would degrade or is degrading environmental 
resources.
  Let me repeat that because it is worth emphasis. The amendment 
explicitly codifies the Secretary's regulatory authority to block 
motorized use that would degrade or is degrading environmental 
resources.
  These provisions will strengthen the BLM's ability to block off-
highway vehicle use in the conservation area.
  The amendment does not automatically close all roads to OHV use, as 
the Holt amendment would. The management plan required by the bill 
could close all the roads, but doing so today would undermine the 
agreement that brought forward this bill. That agreement is necessary 
to ensure that off-highway vehicle restrictions are truly enforced.
  So I urge support for my amendment that would strengthen OHV 
limitations but would not put in place restrictions that cannot yet be 
enforced.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, does the amendment of 
the gentleman allow off-road vehicle use in wilderness study areas?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, only where the BLM 
has allowed that.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this 
would be codifying the March decision?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here a map of the area of the wilderness study 
area and it shows the areas that were permitted for off-road vehicle 
use in March. They go right smack through the middle of the wilderness 
study area. There are four routes. They essentially bisect and hit some 
of the most scenic and, I believe, fragile parts of that area. Let me 
just point out that that is right smack in the middle of this 
wilderness study area.
  I have photographs here of the damage that is being done by these 
off-road vehicles in the wilderness study area. I mean, these 
photographs are in the wilderness study area. And it is exactly that 
that my amendment is intended to protect.
  If wilderness study area is going to mean anything, we have to 
protect it from the most damaging environmental effect; and, at least 
today, that is the most damaging force on the wilderness study areas.
  So to say this only codifies what has already been approved 
underscores exactly what I am talking about. If we do

[[Page H3956]]

not pass my amendment, if we do not defeat the Boehlert amendment, we 
will, in fact, suffer the kind of damage that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), was referring to earlier that 
will leave the place much diminished by the time those millions of 
Americans accept the invitation of my colleague to come from all over 
the United States and visit.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
aware that the roads that remain as well as, arguably, all of the other 
roads that have been closed preceded in existence the wilderness study 
designation and, in fact, have histories that go far enough back that 
they are probably not under the jurisdiction and control of this body 
to close?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe it is within 
the jurisdiction of this body to close. And I understand that they 
preceded this. But that is the point. We are trying to protect this 
region. And it does not mean that past abuses will be codified and 
accepted. It means that we want to preserve this area for the 
appreciation of today's and future generations of Americans.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
recognize the concern of the gentleman in preserving the areas. But if 
the county and the State have rights to those roads, the gentleman 
would not suggest that we pass legislation that simply overrides those 
rights without compensation without going through the constitutional 
process as required of us?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that 
there is anything in the March directive that cannot be overridden by 
our legislation here today.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of fact, let me point out 
that the March directive made a huge leap forward in progress in 
controlling the damage done by OHVs, but it was done with the county. 
In other words, the county that has the rights to these roads, the 
county that can assert those right-of-ways, has said, we will work with 
the BLM in the context of this bill to solve the problem that we agree 
is currently existing.
  We cannot as a body here, or together as a Federal Government, 
override what those interests in those roads are.
  What the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) would 
do is actually turn back the clock on the very degradation he is 
attempting to stop.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the BLM has tried to 
solve this for years; and it is partly out of frustration of their 
inability to do so that I am offering this amendment today.
  I would say that the point is not to codify past abuses but to put in 
place the protections that Americans want for this valuable resource.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
many people have been frustrated by the abuse that has happened in 
these wilderness study areas, including the BLM. I agree with the 
gentleman. The reason the BLM has been frustrated and not done anything 
is because unilaterally they did not have the ability to do anything.
  What this bill does is create a context where the rights of Emery 
County is understood and put in context and thoughtful decisions and 
conclusions can be made, like the decision that was made in March.
  We cannot do it unilaterally any other way, and that is why the 
frustration has been because of the legal problems the constitutional 
protections that the counties had, not because of any desire not to 
have these things solved. That is why this bill is so important and why 
I would urge that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would say the reason why this is so 
important that we defeat the Boehlert amendment is that there is 4 
years during which great destruction could take place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Holt was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that of the many, many routes 
included, only four, as the gentleman correctly observed, are covered 
here. But we specifically and explicitly codify the regulatory 
authority of the Secretary to block motorized use that would degrade or 
is degrading environmental resources.
  Moreover, in the Federal Register, I would point out this phrase: 
``These routes will remain open on a conditional basis. Motorized use 
of these routes will be allowed to continue contingent upon the success 
of a rehabilitation and monitoring plan designed to restore areas to 
nonimpairment conditions and prevent further travel off of these 
predescribed routes.''
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so this conditional basis 
means it would allow the BLM to protect this as well as they have 
protected it for the past 10 years?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
it says to the BLM to study it and if there is any indication it is 
degrading to the environment, they should proceed to close it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, we have to do more, I would say.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and against the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. Chairman, this really is not necessary what he is bringing up 
here. Because if he would go back and check this out, he would find 
that we all agree on OHV making a mess on public ground, that that 
should not be done. And we can see it in the San Rafael Swell, so much 
so that the Secretary, back in March, determined certain regulations 
that he would take over. And this bill we are talking about gives him 
those regulations.
  I guess the question in front of us today, Mr. Chairman, is this: Do 
we want to micromanage from Washington, D.C., or do we trust the 
Secretary and the BLM professionals to do it themselves? That seems to 
be the question.
  If I may have the attention of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), the gentleman correctly pointed out those four different areas 
there; and here is the information that came out on March 21, 2000, 
from the BLM, Department of Interior, addressing the same issue. Here 
is what they said: ``The BLM feels that motorized travel on these ways, 
most of which combine to form a popular loop trail, can continue in a 
manner that is compatible with resource protection as long as travel is 
restricted to the identified routes. Continued use, however, is 
contingent upon the curtailment of motorized travel off these ways and 
the completion of rehabilitation efforts to restore the areas. Over the 
next few weeks, the BLM price office will develop a set of standards 
and a monitoring protocol laying out what needs to happen to keep these 
vehicle ways open.''
  Now, I honestly think that I would much rather trust those folks on 
the ground who are doing it every day, who are in that area that the 
folks can talk to, the counties can talk to, the locals can talk to, 
they can trust it. So the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) fits perfectly with what was said there.
  So we find ourselves in a situation where the Secretary has moved in 
and made substantial restrictions in the Swell on where they can and 
cannot travel.
  Now, I would worry a little bit because I think the amendment of the 
gentleman goes way too far because there are a lot of areas in there, 
and I appreciate his saying that, where people should have the 
opportunity to have travel. I mean, there are certain areas in there 
that are pretty well traveled that have good roads in them and people 
have to have that access in those areas.

                              {time}  1315

  I would respectfully point out that this amendment is not needed, 
because

[[Page H3957]]

we already have protection going in there. We already have the 
Secretary fully advised of it. We already have BLM working on it. I 
cannot see a reason to restrict what little bit of traffic there is 
left and some of the recreation that some people get by the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, evidently my friend and the BLM think that 
this constitutes protection. That is the point. The BLM may say that it 
is compatible with use. It sounds like they are prejudging the results 
of their study. The fact of the matter is we should curtail this use 
now before further damage is done.
  This is in the wilderness study area. This is in the wilderness study 
area. If my colleague could see these, he would have to admit this is 
damaging. The BLM has pointed out that the number one damage to this 
area in vegetation, in topography is from off-road vehicles.
  Mr. HANSEN. I would concur with the gentleman from New Jersey that 
there are places in the Swell that people have violated and hurt it. 
There is no question about it. I am not sure they are in the Sid's 
Mountain area. I am a little familiar with that. It could be. I do not 
know. Some group could take those pictures. One can find those all 
through the West and the East where people violate. But on the other 
side of the coin we have professionals that are out there taking 
pictures, trying to find those areas, trying to work them. I would be 
happy to take the gentleman from New Jersey to some of those areas that 
at one time looked horrible look pretty good right now. Mother Nature 
is pretty good at restoring as long as somebody is standing there to 
help her. She is doing a good job. Frankly, I can see no reason for the 
gentleman's amendment. I know his heart is in the right place, but I 
think it would be more detrimental than it would be help to the area 
that we are working on. I think the gentleman from New York has come to 
that good middle ground that will solve this issue on OHVs.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield further, the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York does not address what my colleague was speaking 
about a moment ago, the allowed areas of use. We all agree that there 
are appropriate areas for use. But the wilderness study area is not. I 
would welcome the opportunity to come and tour the area with all of my 
colleagues. But when I get there, this is not what I want to see. I do 
not want to see this destroyed wilderness.
  Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman probably will not see that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, the Secretary is given the 
right to monitor these things. That is what we are doing here. I think 
he can probably do a better job than I can sitting back here in 
Washington, D.C., or anybody else. He has got people on the ground that 
are doing those things. He has agreed to do it. They have taken an 
extremely active part in this. The Secretary of the Interior buys into 
this legislation. He thinks it is a good idea; he feels we are finally 
resolving a very contentious issue. That OHV thing has been a thorn in 
our flesh for years. I agree with the gentleman. How do we handle these 
things? Little by little we are getting a good control on it, and I 
think in this bill we are getting the control.
  Now, we can do this, we can just say, Let's just throw this whole 
thing wide open, let's not pass this bill, let's have unrestricted 
mining, let's have unrestricted OHVs, let's just desecrate the area. 
That is basically what we are going to get if we do not pass this bill. 
We have had some interesting discussion here today, but let us get 
together, get this thing passed, and give this area some good 
protection. That is what we are really trying to do.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) know where those 
pictures come from? We are dealing with various kinds of areas in this 
bill. Part of it is already wilderness study areas. I know that those 
come from the wilderness study area. But does he happen to know if they 
come from the remaining roads that are open or if they come from those 
areas that are now closed?
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, one of them comes from the San Rafael Reef 
inside the wildnerness study area. The other comes from Red Wash inside 
Mexican Mountain. The point is, both of these are within the 
wildnerness study area, and that is what we are trying to protect.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, if I could just ask the question. The 
Secretary took action to close a large number of roads in this area, 
leaving four open. The question I am asking is, is this degradation? 
Are the pictures that we are dealing with from that massive area that 
has now been closed off, or is the gentleman suggesting that the 
remaining four roads are represented by the degradation in those 
pictures?
  Mr. HOLT. It is my understanding that these are areas that are not 
closed under the Secretary's action.
  Mr. CANNON. Let me point out that I think that those areas that the 
gentleman referred to in the pictures are now unavailable for access. 
Here is the problem, if I can just take a moment to help people 
understand this issue. It is a little complex but not very much so. We 
have an area that was crisscrossed with roads and has been for a long 
time. There is some controversy about whether or not the counties have 
ownership of those roads.
  In my mind there is no controversy. It is a matter of heavy-handed 
unilateral extreme groups trying to take advantage of vagueness in the 
law or a vagueness in the interpretation of the law in this current 
Department of the Interior to advance the idea that the rights to those 
roads do not exist. That debate has been terribly destructive to what 
is happening actually on the ground in the State of Utah. It has been 
very difficult. Now, because we have actually had this bill in the 
process of negotiation, the county has given an approval to the BLM to 
close roads that they have now closed that I think represent where that 
destruction has happened.
  Here is the problem. We have got an area the size of the State of 
Connecticut, and we have one BLM enforcement officer to control that 
whole area. They cannot do it. They cannot control all that degradation 
with that many roads because when somebody gets outside some of these 
roads that are historic roads and gets off the trail, they have to be 
there to find out who did it and then they have to ticket them. The 
problem with that is not only finding the people but the excuse that 
they may be not actually off a road. So what BLM has done now has 
limited the actual area where an off-highway vehicle can go so that 
they can keep much better track of what is happening. The degradation 
the gentleman is talking about is in fact eliminated already just in 
anticipation of this bill. It has been done.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say in response to what the 
gentleman from New Jersey was talking about, here is the emergency 
order here. It says, if I may read that: ``Under the emergency order, 
all public lands, including vehicle ways are closed to OHVs in the 
Muddy Creek, Devil's Canyon, Crack Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Horseshoe 
Canyon and Mexican Mountain WSAs.'' The issue is resolved.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time and finishing up here, it occurs to me 
that there is some confusion on your side. I would assume that it is 
not a matter of distortion or petty fighting here; but the degradation 
that the gentleman is concerned about has been dealt with in the most 
dramatic fashion. It has already been done. Under the Boehlert 
amendment, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior continues to 
have the authority to monitor what is happening on those remaining 
roads and see if there is going to be degradation. But the degradation 
he is concerned about, what he is saying essentially is we want not 
only no

[[Page H3958]]

abuse but no use of these dramatic areas that have had roads for a 
very, very long period of time.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield further, these are roadless 
wildnerness study areas. This has not been dealt with in the most 
dramatic fashion. The most dramatic fashion would put an end to this.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, when he says these are roadless 
wilderness areas, what does he mean? Is he talking about where the 
pictures are?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
referring to his amendment. This is not about precluding that as the 
gentleman characterized. The gentleman's amendment goes to wildnerness 
study areas and to roadless areas. There is obviously a reason for 
that. One, you should not be punching into these roadless areas; and, 
two, the other one is that the reason it is a wildnerness study area is 
because it is under study as to whether or not Congress in the future 
will so designate it. If you are running around it on ORVs, it is never 
going to be designated.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, the problem we have here is that we 
have wildnerness study areas around roaded areas.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is right.
  Mr. CANNON. The access by those roaded areas, these thousands of 
miles of roaded areas means that people can get off those roads and 
into areas where they cause degradation. That is what his pictures are 
of. What the BLM has already done is closed the vast majority of those 
roads so that the remaining roads, the major roads in the area can now 
be policed.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words. The point being, the gentleman from Utah is 
quite correct. This is the problem. This is why we worry. When we 
reject all these amendments and accept the bill or accept the bill with 
the Boehlert amendments, we are allowing additional wilderness areas to 
continue to suffer degradation by what goes on around them. As the 
gentleman points out, people go off, because this is not a place where 
it is clearly signed or it is fenced or it is any of these other 
things. People will go off sometimes because they innocently leave an 
area and sometimes because they are just simply irresponsible. But the 
fact of the matter is we know how this goes. I ride ORVs. My sons have 
done it. We race motorcycles. A trail becomes a road pretty soon. There 
is a new area and away people go.
  The fact of the matter is if we are going to prevent that, we have 
got to have a policy. At least then people can see you designate it on 
the lands, on the maps that they are wildnerness study areas, you 
cannot go in there. Because while the Secretary precluded and closed 
some roads in the wildnerness study areas, what he did not do was close 
the wildnerness study areas to future activity. That is not what these 
regulations do. The Boehlert amendment with all due respect is the 
current law. It is the current law that has got us into this situation.
  This Secretary, this BLM is the reason we are here today because for 
10 years they have not figured out how to do this. Now they are saying 
trust us. We are saying, fine, we will trust you; but we are not going 
to trust you in terms of continuing to degrade the wildnerness study 
areas. What the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment does is take 
those wildnerness study areas and say you can ride ORVs everywhere else 
that the Secretary will agree to and the BLM in the other adjoining 
areas that are not protected; but stay out of here until Congress makes 
the determination. The same is true with roadless areas.
  I think that that is a fair compromise. It is a fair compromise 
because it allows for the protection of these areas and allows for 
responsible continued ORV activities. That is why we should accept this 
amendment. With all due respect, the Boehlert amendment is the bill. 
The bill is the law, the current law. So we have not progressed at all 
except to leave it in the hands of the BLM, leave it in the hands of 
the Secretary; and with all due respect, it is that 10 years that has 
given us these photographs that have taken place.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman understands that part of the 
reason that the BLM has not been able to avoid this kind of degradation 
is because there is some very clear claim. Granted it is obfuscated by 
the county as to the ownership of those roads and that whether or not 
you agree to every road, many of those roads are RS-2477 roads and the 
county has the right to them.
  The gentleman would agree further, would he not, that in fact many of 
these roads have been shut down appropriately in conjunction with the 
county. The key factor here being that the county has worked with the 
BLM to solve the problem. Does the gentleman understand my question? In 
other words, the BLM has not been able to avoid this because of the 
rights of the county and the argument over that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. These are not designated wilderness. 
These are study areas. They can be withdrawn from study areas. That is 
how we resolve the conflict. But right now we leave those areas open 
and that is unacceptable.
  Mr. CANNON. But we are not talking about new roads here, as the 
gentleman has alluded to several times. These are roads, many of these 
roads, especially the ones that have been closed, are roads that have 
been there for a very long time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In all cases we are not talking 
about roads. We are talking about ORV activity that does not in all due 
respect rise to the occasion of a road, but it rises to the occasion of 
degrading the area. This is not a fight over the county roads and who 
owns these roads. This is about a lot of activity that takes place like 
in the term off-road vehicle.
  Mr. CANNON. We are not talking about asphalted roads here. We are 
talking about county right of ways.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand what the gentleman is 
talking about, but there is a clear distinction. We can go back to the 
photographs. The gentleman has seen it. I have been out in the area. I 
have witnessed it. This does not rise to the occasion of a trail or 
road. This rises to the occasion of random activities and riding 
through areas that are repeated time and again. That is the kind of 
protection that we are trying to provide in this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cook:
       In section 101(E)(2), before the period insert ``, but 
     shall not be used for commercial advertising and/or 
     commercial bill boards''.

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy 
District and National Conservation Act as currently written could 
inappropriately spend Federal funds. The bill would appropriate Federal 
funding for various activities and administration for a total of $1 
million a year, not to exceed $10 million total over the life of the 
project.

                              {time}  1330

  My fellow colleagues, I am concerned that the broad and loosely 
defined language in section 101 would allow for money to be used to 
purchase commercial billboards and other commercial advertising. 
Federal taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize commercial 
advertising, commercial billboards that will benefit only a small area.

[[Page H3959]]

  I realize that by voice vote and on suspension this Congress has 
supported similar measures in the past; but appropriators will tell you 
that despite our prosperous economy, we are still faced with tight 
budgets and tight budget caps and we need to be very diligent as we 
appropriate these Federal funds and make sure they are managed 
properly. Therefore, I am offering an amendment that would prohibit any 
funds being used to promote commercial advertising or commercial 
billboards.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans deserve better management of Federal funds 
used on the Nation's public lands, and H.R. 3605 can be made, I think, 
a sound conservation measure without any unnecessary Federal funding of 
these kinds of commercial promotions. To do otherwise, I think, would 
be poor economics and a bad usage of taxpayer money. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this side has reviewed the amendment of the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) and has no problem with it. This side 
would accept the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have problems, but 
they do not rise to this occasion, so we support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section;

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act (including any amendment made by this Act), it is the 
     sense of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance 
     should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
     made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act (including any amendment 
     made by this Act), the head of each Federal agency shall 
     provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds 
     under this Act shall report any expenditures on foreign-made 
     items to the Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, it is a buy-American amendment. It is 
the sense of the Congress that any money expended be used where 
possible to buy American-made goods, there be a notice made to the 
people who get this money, and after it's all over and they do the 
buying, they tell us what they bought. Finally, one last provision I am 
adding that is new, if they violate the law, they will get a rare bird 
disease that is ``untweetable.''
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). We feel it is a good amendment. We accept 
it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the ranking 
member.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we accept the 
amendment, tweetable or not.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: substitute amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the underlying 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall); amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee); substitute 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); and 
the underlying amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                    offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 211, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               AYES--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee

[[Page H3960]]


     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     English
     Franks (NJ)
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Markey
     Nethercutt
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Sweeney
     Vento

                              {time}  1404

  Mrs. CAPPS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, 
and Messrs. SAXTON, CONYERS, STENHOLM, HALL of Texas, and TANNER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BAKER, HERGER, HEFLEY, HUTCHINSON, SANFORD, SHAYS, GILMAN, 
and LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
516, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


         Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado, as Amended

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 194, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--194

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     English
     Franks (NJ)
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Markey
     Nethercutt
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Sweeney
     Vento

                              {time}  1414

  Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                          Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as a substitute for the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.

[[Page H3961]]

  The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 214, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--210

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     English
     Franks (NJ)
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Markey
     Nethercutt
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Smith (MI)
     Sweeney
     Vento

                              {time}  1431

  Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, LUCAS of Kentucky and HALL of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. THOMAS, RADANOVICH, and GILMAN and Mrs. KELLY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3605) to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in the State 
of Utah, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________