[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 37 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1993


                           Motion to Proceed

  The Senate continued to consider the motion.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I have come to the floor to speak very 
briefly on the California Desert Protection Act. I almost feel as 
though this is my legislation because it comes out of my subcommittee, 
the Energy Committee, and, if I am not mistaken, we held our first 
hearing on this bill in 1987. There were 2 days of hearings to a packed 
committee room on a very hot day. We had at least one, and maybe two 
other hearings since then. They were lengthy hearings.
  Since I have been chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
National Parks and Forests since 1987, I think this legislation--with 
the possible exception of the mine law reform bill--has easily taken 
more time and generated more controversy than any other legislation 
that has come before this subcommittee.
  S. 121, the bill now under consideration, marks the fourth 
consecutive Congress that we have considered this bill, or one similar 
to it. We have had literally tens of thousands of cards and letters 
from people--mostly in California but also throughout the country--
expressing their views on both sides of the issue. Any time you are 
setting aside 3.7 million acres for national parks and wilderness, you 
are going to create a firestorm.
  This particular bill by Senator Feinstein has not generated quite as 
much heat as those previous. The previous bills were never even 
reported out of committee. And the reason they were not is because we 
could never get both California Senators on track. Senator Wilson, now 
Governor Wilson, was always adamantly opposed to the bill. Senator 
Cranston, the chief architect and mover of it, was never able to 
overcome Senator Wilson's objection.
  But now both California Senators, Senators Feinstein and Boxer have 
both introduced this legislation, and that is the reason we have been 
able to get it out of committee and onto the floor for consideration. I 
would like to commend Senator Feinstein for all of her efforts in 
trying to address the many controversial issues that have come up with 
this bill.
  Last year the committee held 2 days of hearings, and I think Senator 
Feinstein was there every minute. Before we marked the bill up, she had 
a number of changes, trying to address the legitimate concerns of her 
constituents in California for which she is to be commended. Since we 
marked up the bill, she has continued to work on some boundary 
modifications, and other amendments in an effort to address even more 
concerns. Nobody can ever accuse Senator Feinstein of bad faith, 
because nobody has ever worked harder than she has, not only to pass 
this bill but also to do it in a way that would accommodate as many 
people as possible.
  I think this is a good bill. It provides protection for one of the 
most fragile areas of the United States. The 3.75 million acres to 
which I alluded a moment ago is BLM wilderness expansions to Death 
Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments, and redesignation of both 
areas; that is, Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments. It 
redesignates them national parks. And it designates a new national 
park, the Mojave National Park.
  One of the few aspects with S. 21 that I am highly disappointed in 
concerns the boundary adjustments made by the committee to the Mojave 
National Park and to some of the wilderness areas. Against the wishes 
of the two California Senators, the committee decided to delete 290,000 
acres of what is called Lanfair Valley from the bill, and to delete our 
cherry stem--that is, exclude a short stem area--for certain four-
wheel-drive trails within four of the wilderness areas. I am not an 
expert on the specific characteristics of these areas, nor is any other 
Member of the Senate other than the two California Senators.
  While I think this is a very good bill, Madam President, it has taken 
7 years to bring it to the floor. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed legislation that I sponsored to reform the 
concessions policies of the National Park Service. That bill took 15 
years. I held the first hearing on that in 1978.
  So, compared to that bill, this bill is on a fast track. I do not 
know what it is about the bills that come before my subcommittee, they 
always take forever. Maybe it is a lack of leadership, but they take 
forever to get to the floor and get them passed. Everybody in the U.S. 
Senate knew that our concessions policy was an abomination. Everybody 
knew that the leasing of lands of the Federal Government for oil and 
gas for $1 an acre was an abomination. Everybody knows the mining laws 
of this country are an absolute abomination. Yet it takes years and 
years to do things. And once you get them done, not one Member of the 
Senate would ever stand still for undoing them. So it is in the 
California desert bill. It protects an area that badly needs to be 
protected.
  I again salute the Senators from California. I want to say I do not 
know what amendments are going to be offered. There are going to be 
several. But I am informed, happily, that there will not be a 
filibuster. So, presumably, Senator Feinstein will be able to finish 
this bill sometime this week. I know that is going to be a red letter 
day for her, and it certainly is for me, to know that I will never have 
to hold another hearing on this bill.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 21, the 
California desert protection bill. I think it is important that we 
recognize the realities of what legislation such as this will do to the 
California desert. I think it is noteworthy that we also recognize the 
management expertise shown by the Bureau of Land Management that has 
managed this area for many years. The area has been open to multiple 
use, and now we face a restriction that will classify these lands 
resulting in the loss of their high resource values and values for 
citizens' recreation use.
  I think it is the reality, if we were to reflect on whether this bill 
is needed or not, to recognize that we already have a desert plan, a 
workable management plan under the BLM that was developed with the 
input of desert user groups and the public. The BLM spent some $8 
million developing this desert plan. The plan is now guiding the 
management of the desert and it is a plan that is working.
  This bill would designate areas of the desert as national parks that 
are really not national park caliber. It will create new national park 
acreage equal to nearly two Yellowstones. But it is rather interesting, 
like so many things we do around here, there is no provision for 
authorizing any new funding. Funding would have to come from the 
already overburdened National Park Service budget. This is a particular 
concern of mine because I bear the responsibility as ranking member of 
the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over the National Park 
System. We simply do not have the funds to oversee the responsibilities 
we have now, and this bill would include a huge addition.
  The bill would create national park and wilderness units that would 
contain a total of about 700,000 acres of private inholdings. This is 
something that is far too often overlooked. There are no provisions in 
the bill to address the acquisition of these inholdings. The bill is 
simply silent.
  Many of the wilderness areas proposed for designation contain greater 
than 50 percent private inholdings. So we are going to have to go out 
and buy this private property. That may sound like something we could 
address in a relatively simple appropriations process. But recognizing 
there is already a backlog of national park inholdings amounting to $8 
billion, Mr. President, we have already, over an extended period of 
time, acquired inholdings, but we have not paid for them.
  This bill would add 700,000 more acres to the unfunded backlog. It is 
estimated it is going to take 20 years just to fund the existing 
inholdings. So how are we, with the  authorization of 700,000 acres, 
affecting this backlog? How will it affect the acquisition of 
inholdings and proposed park expansion in other States?

  The Department of the Interior has underestimated the cost of 
implementation of this legislation, in the opinion of the Senator from 
Alaska. It will cost $40 million to $70 million in the first 3 years, 
and there is no estimate of the cost of acquiring the inholdings. But 
there is an estimate that it could approach $1 billion. We already have 
$8 billion in backlog and we are talking about another $1 billion.
  Now, I know the Senator from California has worked very hard on this 
bill, and I know that her intentions with regard to creating this area 
have a real ideology in the sense of setting up this area in its 
wilderness capacity, which a portion of this legislation would 
authorize. But I think it is important to recognize that this bill also 
would close millions of acres of the California desert from mining 
exploration and development. There are a lot of resources there. We 
know it is an area of world class mineral potential.
  California Gov. Pete Wiilson wrote a letter in opposition to the bill 
for the ``unfavorable impact on the California economy, both now and in 
the future.''
  The bill, in my opinion, ignores the changing economics of the 
mineral industry and the relationship of that industry to the future 
validity of existing mining claims.
  Finally, the bill closes hundreds of miles of roads, trails, and ways 
that provide access to inholders and opportunities for motorized 
recreation in the California desert. Without roads, access is limited 
to the distance a person can walk or ride a horse when carrying all 
necessary water. That is a requirement in the desert. Let me assure my 
colleagues that this would be a very limited access for potential 
visitors.
  So what we are doing here is setting up these areas for people who 
can afford to hire, if you will, a guide to take them on a wilderness 
experience because you just do not walk off in the desert for a 
wilderness experience without considerable planning to allow you to 
enjoy your wilderness experience.
  Why have so many wilderness areas been proposed for designation that 
include roads? Well, because in this case the definition of a road as 
used in this bill does not include those roads created and maintained 
simply by the repeated passage of vehicles. The desert has many areas 
where that is all that is needed to create a road. Dragging the blade 
of a Caterpillar or grading a road would be the worst thing that could 
be done. But these are not true wilderness areas, Mr. President. Many 
of the areas are crisscrossed with old roads; some of the structures 
are still there, old rights of way, old train tracks, and they contain 
huge amounts of inholdings. Some have even been used for military tank 
training.
  These roads are used by families on picnics, camping, by rockhounds, 
archeologists, geologists, folks driving out to look at ghost towns, 
and these are legitimate and important uses of the desert. These are 
activities that can be conducted safely in the desert and would be 
under continued BLM oversight.
  Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, in closing, we have a tradition 
around here of respecting the wishes of a united Senate delegation on 
Federal land designations within the State. It does not necessarily 
apply to my State of Alaska, but that is neither here nor there. It 
should. And that tradition is subject to the caveat that the land 
designation has no impact outside the State.
  But I would strongly suggest this bill will have in fact a very 
profound impact outside the State of California. The possible 
expenditure of billions of dollars of Federal taxpayers' money will 
affect the rest of the United States. It will severely compromise the 
maintenance and management of the 367 other units of the National Park 
Service, and it will set back the acquisition of inholdings already 
authorized in other States by many, many years.
  As I said, at current funding rates, it is going to take over 20 
years and several billion dollars to purchase existing inholdings.
  It sets a bad national precedent that the Federal Government will 
trample on the private property rights of Federal inholders by 
authorizing restrictive Federal land classifications which includes 
private inholdings, yet includes no provision to address the 
acquisition of these inholders.
  Mr. President, is it not ironic that we go ahead and initiate 
authorizations and no appropriations? And that is just what we are 
talking about here. In S. 21, we are talking about taking a huge area 
of the desert, and making it into national parks, taking areas that 
have been classified for multiple use, and putting them into wilderness 
designation. It all sounds very, very fine, but we are making no 
provision to pay for it.
  Mr. President, I would like to see this body reflect on its 
obligation to not mislead the American people by suggesting that we can 
create in the California Desert Protection Act a new park and new 
wildernesses. Reality dictates, Mr. President, we are talking about 
acquisition of huge amounts of private land, and we are not meeting the 
responsibility of figuring out how to pay for it.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, as I indicated, I must oppose the 
legislation. I would hope that my colleagues will recognize that 
pursuing this legislation and supporting it as it is laid down is 
really unrealistic in the sense of meeting the obligation of providing 
for those inholders who are going to be waiting a long, long time for 
an appropriation to take care of their particular interest. They are 
entitled to better than that from this body.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to make 
additional remarks on Senate bill, S. 21, the California Desert 
Protection Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I note from concerns that have been raised by the 
Senator from Alaska, and most probably by others, that the question of 
the economics of this bill is causing some concern. I thought I might 
add to the Record this letter. Mr. President, this is a letter from the 
Secretary of the Interior dated April 11. May I read it?
  It reads:

       This historic opportunity to provide environmental 
     protection to the California Desert is not to be missed 
     simply because we are operating in an era of fiscal 
     constraint. The Department has the fiscal and personnel 
     resources to make this bill work. Assuming FY 1995 is the 
     transition year, the Department can implement the bill within 
     its existing FY 1995 budget request now pending before the 
     Congress. I have approved a proposal developed by the Bureau 
     of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS) 
     to manage desert resources cooperatively, sharing facilities 
     and equipment. Claims about excessive implementation costs of 
     the bill are exaggerated and ignore the long term savings 
     that will accrue because of this implementation strategy.
       As you know, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimated the long term operational costs and land 
     acquisition costs for S. 21. CBO estimated land acquisition 
     costs at $100-300 million. However, as their report states, 
     ``CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of these land 
     acquisition activities with any certainty.'' There are 
     several important points to consider.
       First of all, these lands were already targeted for 
     acquisition in BLM's protection plans for the California 
     Desert. The land acquisition envisioned in S. 21 is less than 
     that originally planned by the BLM. Thus, these acquisition 
     costs are now new; in fact, the potential cost to the Federal 
     treasury will be less.

  The point I am going to make is that according to the Secretary of 
the Interior the cost of this bill will be less than costs incurred 
without the bill by BLM acquisition. Let me go on and explain and quote 
from the letter again.

       Second, land acquisition costs are discretionary to the 
     extent that they can be spread over a long period of time. 
     For instance, whenever any new unit of the NPS is created 
     there are land acquisition costs which are requested and 
     funded as budget limitations permit.
       Third, let's put these estimates into prospective: In the 
     1995 budget alone, the four land managing agencies of the 
     Federal government (BLM, FWS, NPS, and USFS) requested $257 
     million for high priority land acquisition projects. Even at 
     $15 million a year for the California Desert, that is less 
     than 6 per cent of the annual Federal budget request. That is 
     very realistic to protect this spectacular natural resource.
       In terms of operational costs, CBO estimates that costs 
     will range between $6 to $9 million annually for five years. 
     The Department estimates these costs between $5.8 and $7.4 
     million. Our estimates are based on BLM's actual experiences 
     with the Arizona wilderness. It is important to note that 
     these are optimal estimates for a five year period; we 
     certainly have the option to work with Congress to phase them 
     in over a longer period of time.
       I anticipate that the Department of the Interior will be 
     able to fully implement S. 21, and will do so more 
     efficiently and in a more cost effective manner than ever 
     before by managing the California Desert as one ecosystem. 
     Enactment of S. 21 will assist us in introducing a new 
     standard for public lands management that will benefit us all 
     in many ways. I appreciate your leadership in securing 
     passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As the California Desert Protection 
     Act (S. 21) comes to the Senate floor today, I want to 
     commend you on your tireless efforts to pass this 
     legislation. If enacted into law, this bill assure protection 
     of the valuable desert wilderness ecosystem.
       This historic opportunity to provide environmental 
     protection to the California Desert is not to be missed 
     simply because we are operating in an era of fiscal 
     constraint. The Department has the fiscal and personnel 
     resources to make this bill work. Assuming FY 1995 is the 
     transition year, the Department can implement the bill within 
     its existing FY 1995 budget request now pending before the 
     Congress. I have approved a proposal developed by the Bureau 
     of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS) 
     to manage desert resources cooperatively, sharing facilities 
     and equipment. Claims about excessive implementation costs of 
     the bill are exaggerated and ignore the long term savings 
     that will accrue because of this implementation strategy.
       As you know, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimated the long term operational costs and land 
     acquisition costs for S. 21. CB0 estimated land acquisition 
     costs of $100-300 million. However, as their report states, 
     ``CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of these land 
     acquisition activities with any certainty.'' There are 
     several important points to consider.
       First of all, these lands were already targeted for 
     acquisition in BLM's protection plans for the California 
     Desert. The land acquisition envisioned in S. 21 is less than 
     that originally planned by the BLM. Thus, these acquisition 
     costs are not new; in fact, the potential cost to the Federal 
     treasury will be less.
       Second, land acquisition costs are discretionary to the 
     extent that they can be spread over a long period of time. 
     For instance, whenever any new unit of the NPS is created 
     there are land acquisition costs which are requested and 
     funded as budget limitations permit.
       Third, let's put these estimates into perspective: in the 
     1995 budget alone, the four land managing agencies of the 
     Federal government (BLM, FWS, NPS, and USFS) requested $257 
     million for high priority land acquisition projects. Even at 
     $15 million a year for the California Desert, that is less 
     than 6 per cent of the annual Federal budget request. That is 
     very realistic to protect this spectacular natural resource.
       In terms of operational costs, CBO estimates that costs 
     will range between $6 to $9 million annually for five years. 
     The Department estimates these costs between $5.8 and $7.4 
     million. Our estimates are based on BLM's actual experiences 
     with the Arizona wilderness. It is important to note that 
     these are optimal estimates for a five year period; we 
     certainly have the option to work with Congress to phase them 
     in over a longer period of time.
       I anticipate that the Department of the Interior will be 
     able to fully implement S. 21, and will do so more 
     efficiently and in a more cost effective manner than ever 
     before by managing the California Desert as one ecosystem. 
     Enactment of S. 21 will assist us in introducing a new 
     standard for public lands management that will benefit us all 
     in many ways. I appreciate your leadership in securing 
     passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like this opportunity to clear 
up some concerns about mining that I believe are really misperceptions. 
Let me go over them once again. Let me give you the correct facts.
  This bill excludes all producing mines. The bill recognizes valid 
existing mining claims. There are 14 minerals considered strategic by 
the Office of Technology Assessment. There are no known mineral 
resources anywhere in California desert areas designated by the bill of 
these 14 minerals. The 14 minerals identified by the Office of 
Technology Assessment as having strategic value are chromium, cobalt, 
manganese, platinum, bauxite/aluminum, beryllium, columbium, diamond 
(industrial), graphite (natural), rutile, tantalum, tin, titanium 
sponge, and vanadium. None of these minerals is produced in the 
California Desert.
  When the committee marked up the desert bill, I proposed 11 
amendments to modify boundaries of the parks and wilderness areas to 
eliminate potential mining conflicts and areas of high mineral 
potential. As a result of the changes in the bill, mining companies 
that opposed earlier versions of the desert bill have withdrawn their 
objections. This includes Viceroy Gold Corp., U.S. Borax, Unocal, North 
American Chemical Co., and Canyon Resources.
  I do this to set the record straight. All existing mines are 
protected. All valid existing mining claims are protected. As a result 
of the amendments we have made, information provided by the California 
Department of Mines and Geology indicates that no mines are within the 
legislation's wilderness proposals, and only 5 of the over 400 mines in 
the 5 desert counties are within park additions or expansions. The BLM 
expected three of these to end operations during 1993, regardless of 
action on the California Desert Protection Act. The remaining two mines 
are likely to have valid rights, which will allow them to continue to 
operate.
  So I hope we have set the mining myth straight. I have worked very 
hard to see that no jobs are lost from existing mining operations, and 
I believe we have achieved this in S. 21.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from California [Mrs. 
Boxer] is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join the senior 
Senator, Senator Feinstein, in strong support of her bill, the 
California Desert Protection Act. I am very proud to be her original 
cosponsor on this legislation.
  Mr. President, when we pass this bill, we will protect the California 
Desert and prove once and for all that strong environmental policy 
makes good economic sense. Recently, Mr. President--and I am sure you 
will remember--Senator Feinstein and I stood on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and we asked our colleagues for help. We asked them to look at 
photographs and scenes of the California earthquake. We wanted them to 
help us rebuild our State and repair the damage the earthquake left in 
its wake.
  I want to take this opportunity to again thank all of our colleagues 
who overwhelmingly supported quick assistance to our State. We are 
rebuilding and we are coming back, and many people owe a great debt of 
thanks to the U.S. Senate, to this administration, and to all those on 
both sides of the aisle who joined hands to help us.
  Well, Mr. President, today I have brought along some very different 
pictures. I know Senator Feinstein has shown some beautiful ones, as 
well. But we are going to show another kind of power of nature--its 
power to inspire, to provide recreation. You do not have to be a 
scientist, a geologist, or even an environmentalist to appreciate the 
beauty of our natural resources. All you need to do is open your eyes.
  Many of us have had the good fortune to visit Yosemite, Shenandoah, 
and the Everglades. Millions of Americans have stared across beautiful 
mountaintops, and artists have captured their beauty for the benefit of 
future generations.
  The relationship between nature and the people of this Nation is 
certainly a two-way street.
  Just as we need the U.S. Senate to step in after a flood or a 
devastating earthquake or fire, it is our responsibility to protect and 
preserve and defend nature's most splendid gifts today so that we never 
have to mourn their destruction.
  California's unique and precious resources belong to this entire 
Nation. The people know it, and they come there in droves to see the 
ocean and mountains, the wetlands, the plains, the rivers, and the 
deserts. Let us look at some of those resources, Mr. President.
  Here is a photograph taken of Yosemite, the soaring, snow-capped 
mountains that so many millions of Americans enjoy. The incomparable 
rivers here at Nevada Falls and the Merced River. We must also protect 
the rivers for all time. The magnificent wetlands that we are losing at 
such a terrible rate, Mr. President--we have lost 50 percent of them in 
this country, and 90 percent of them in California--another wonder of 
nature.
  Here is the ocean. I was very pleased to see that the State 
legislature in California passed an Ocean Protection Act which would 
protect the first 3 miles, from the coast out into the ocean, not 
allowing any oil rigs or destructive activities on that coast within 
that first 3 miles. We must protect the ocean. Here is another view of 
the power of nature.
  Finally, thanks to my colleague and all of the work that has gone 
into the Desert Act, we have a picture of an oasis at the Mojave, an 
underwater spring that makes this incomparable and very fragile.
  This is a photograph of the Lanfair Valley--my colleague is working 
hard on that particular area--where we can see the ponds that come up. 
There is hardly any water. It is extraordinary to see this. Here are 
the badlands, and here are the palm trees.
  So, Mr. President, a picture is worth a lot of words, but I am a 
Senator, so I have a few more. Just 3 days ago, I stood in awe of the 
California desert environment. I am a little person as it is; I barely 
reach 5 feet. I stood among those cliffs of the desert, and I really 
felt the power and the spirit of nature. It is an unbelievable feeling, 
surrounded by these soaring mountain ranges marked by literally 
millions of years of evolution. It really is a transforming experience, 
Mr. President, to be that close to raw nature. And again it is our 
responsibility to preserve nature as it is so we can understand just 
who we are.

  After 8 years of hard work, very hard work, first by Senator Alan 
Cranston, and now by my talented and hardworking colleague, Senator 
Dianne Feinstein, we finally have an opportunity to pass meaningful 
desert protection.
  I want to say that I remember when a young legislative assistant 
named Kathy Files was working night and day for Senator Cranston. Now 
she has a different name. So many years have gone past. She is Kathy 
Lacey, and she has worked for Senator Feinstein and for Senator 
Cranston before that. And I say for Senator Feinstein and for this 
Senator and for all those who worked so hard, and especially for Kathy, 
I hope we can pass this before she is retired and before many of us are 
in the nursing home or are a part of history.
  Eight years is much too long when you are talking about a resource as 
fragile as the desert. Eight years is much too long in a State that 
depends upon its natural resources to increase tourism and strengthen 
the economy. And it is too long in a State that counts on these unique 
ecosystems to give us beauty, recreation, and solitude.
  So today we have an incredible opportunity, today, tomorrow and the 
few days after that. With our vote, the National Park Service estimates 
that California can bring in an estimated $200 million in revenues, 
create up to 2,000 new jobs, and add almost 3 million acres to the 
National Park System.
  With just one vote, we can protect these soaring mountain ranges you 
saw, the volcanic spires, the cactus gardens, bighorn sheep, desert 
tortoises, golden eagles, and spectacular dune systems. With just one 
vote, we can preserve a wealth of cultural and historic sites--from our 
12,000 archeological sites to our 1,500 historic sites and from our 
prehistoric pictographs, petroglyphs, and rock shelters to the ghost 
towns and historic military outposts from the more recent past. And, 
perhaps more important than anything else, we can offer real leadership 
by looking down the timeless road before us and creating something 
permanent and beautiful for all those who follow.
  The legislation will create a beautiful Mojave National Park on the 
1.9 million acres of desert land lying east of Barstow. People from 
every region of our Nation will travel to this park to see the 
spectacular mountain ranges, sand dunes that stand 600 feet tall, the 
world's largest Joshua-tree forest, archeological sites and more than 
300 animal species, including the endangered desert tortoise and the 
desert bighorn sheep. They will come to this beautiful park, and they 
will have an incredible experience and they will help our State of 
California because, along with the increase in tourism, healthy, good 
tourism, that will create jobs that are sorely needed--respected jobs 
and permanent jobs.
  This legislation will increase the prestige and protection and 
revenue of the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments by 
redesignating both of them as national parks.
  Currently, the Death Valley Monument provides 885 jobs and generates 
roughly $57 million in tourist and tax income. When we redesignate it 
as a national park, we will be protecting a total of 3.4 million acres 
of land and increasing our ability to attract more tourists.
  It will be the same with the Joshua Tree National Park. Currently, 
the monument provides 1,140 jobs and generates approximately $58 
million in tourist and tax revenue. This legislation will help build on 
these successes by creating a national park that protects a total of 
784,000 acres of land.
  Mr. President, my colleague deserves a tremendous amount of credit.
  This legislation strikes the critical balance between protecting our 
fragile desert ecosystems, creating economic growth, and preserving the 
legitimate uses of our public and our private lands. Listen to the San 
Diego Union Tribune. Now they are very often critical when we try to 
overreach when it comes to the environment. This is what they say that 
this bill achieves a ``balance between environmental and economic 
concerns.'' The San Bernardino Sun agreed, explaining that the bill not 
only protects natural habitat, but ``also aims to protect jobs.''
  So, Mr. President, this bill is fair, it strikes that critical 
balance, and it makes sense. And that is why polls show that over 
three-quarters of all Californians want the desert protected and why 
conservation groups across the Nation, including the Sierra Club, the 
Wilderness Society, and the National Audobon Society all support this 
bill; and it is why city and county governments throughout California 
have endorsed this important piece of legislation--from Los Angeles to 
San Diego and from Sacramento to San Francisco.
  Mr. President, it is rare to have that kind of broad support, and yet 
Senator Feinstein has gotten that kind of support for this bill.
  Now, unfortunately, we will always hear those who will try to distort 
and misrepresent the Desert Protection Act. For example, the National 
Rifle Association claims this bill hurts hunters by not allowing them 
to practice their sport in the newly created Mojave National Park. What 
they fail to mention is that this is standard policy. The National Park 
Service prohibits hunting in all but 1 of its 51 national parks. And 
with good reason. Hunting threatens visitor safety, creates both real 
and de facto exclusions for visitors, and inevitably leads to fearful 
tourists avoiding the area entirely. This bill does not eliminate 
hunting in the desert. Let me repeat. This bill does not eliminate 
hunting in the desert. They will still have free range in nearly 10 
million acres of Federal desert land and several million acres of State 
and private land--10 million acres of Federal land on which hunting 
will still be permitted.
  Finally, the NRA fails to mention something that the hunters of the 
region have known for years: hunting in the East Mojave area is just 
not that good. Each year, only 20 to 30 deer and 5 bighorn sheep are 
taken by hunters in that entire area. This means that, each year, more 
deer are killed by cars on the George Washington Parkway than the 
entire East Mojave.
  The NRA is out of touch with the people of California and even with 
the group they claim to represent: the hunters. A 1993 field poll found 
that 70 percent of all desert residents and two-thirds of all desert 
households with hunters support barring hunting from the proposed 
Mojave National Park.
  Then, there are those who will say that this legislation will hurt 
the recreational vehicle users. I know how they feel. I had community 
meetings all over the State, and they came to all my meetings dressed 
in orange and that symbolized they were bike riders and they were 
opposed to this bill.
  Let me just say almost 500,000 acres of public land--an area 10 times 
the size of Washington, DC--will remain open for trail bikes, for all-
terrain vehicles and for other types of off-road vehicles.
  So, Mr. President, when you hear those arguments about hunting and 
riding motorbikes, please know that Senator Feinstein has a bill here 
that really responds to their needs.
  Next, there are those who will argue that this legislation will 
weaken private property rights. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. This bill simply creates national park and wilderness areas out 
of already existing Federal lands. Private land within those boundaries 
will remain in private hands. The owners can sell the land to the 
Government if they want to, or they can use it in any way that does not 
damage the surrounding Federal land.
  Finally, there are some who will argue this bill will cost California 
jobs. And as I have said continually through my statement, on the 
contrary, this bill will create jobs because of the increased tourism, 
and it will help shatter a myth--the myth that says you cannot have a 
healthy environment and a strong economy.
  This bill will protect current mining claims, as Senator Feinstein 
has painstakingly explained, will allow all existing mining operations 
to continue. So we are looking at a bill again that has been very well 
thought out. It just does not come to us out of the air. It has been 
worked on for 8 long years, and Senator Feinstein knew what she had to 
do to preserve the desert and yet respond to the needs of her 
constituents and mine in California, who have come to our meetings, who 
have spoken to us at length, and have written us letters and asked us 
to respond.
  So, Mr. President, I again want to commend my colleague to piece 
together this legislation was really a very difficult job and we should 
act on it now.
  When we pass this Desert Protection Act, we will give a healthy shot 
of adrenalin to the environment and the California economy, and we will 
preserve our desert for all Americans from every State in the Union and 
for all the world for generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to 
oppose all weakening amendments. Let it be said of this Senate that in 
1994 we finally stepped up to the plate and preserved the California 
desert for all times.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
Senator from California, for those remarks and that very strong 
statement.
  I would also like to point out that her support has been there from 
the very beginning. It has been true, it has been steadfast, it has 
been consistent. She has been my primary cosponsor.
  I am fully aware of the fact that, as the chairman of the committee, 
the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, pointed out and the chairman 
of the subcommittee, the Senator from Arkansas, pointed out, this bill 
would not be where it is today if it were not for the support of both 
of the Senators of the State. And so for this kind of assistance and 
support, I say to the Senator thank you very much.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague.
  Of course, this was a great pleasure to work with her on this bill. 
We will not rest until it becomes law. It has a lot of hurdles yet 
ahead.
  But I think we told the people of California very clearly that it 
would make a difference when the California Senators can work as a 
team, and I think nowhere could we show this more than on this bill. We 
also showed it on the earthquake bill, and we will have other 
opportunities to show it as well.
  But I say to my colleague, it has been an honor and a privilege and 
we will certainly celebrate when this bill becomes law.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________