[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.
____________________