[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 38 (Tuesday, April 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1993

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, first of all, what is the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. S. 21.


 Amendments Nos. 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 
                          1617, 1618, and 1619

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, S. 21 is the California desert park 
bill. I can announce to my colleagues that we have made some progress 
overnight, having worked out a collection of amendments by agreement.
  So, therefore, Mr. President, at this time, I send a group of 
amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 
     1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, and 1619, en bloc.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1608

 (Purpose: To delete the Great Falls Basin Wilderness designation and 
              retain the area in wilderness study status)

       1. On page 101, beginning on line 11, strike all through 
     line 17 and renumber succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
       2. On page 121, after line 6, add a new paragraph:
       ``(6) certain lands which comprise approximately eight 
     thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled `Great Falls Basin Wilderness--Proposed', dated 
     February 1986.''


                           amendment no. 1609

(Purpose: To amend the boundary of Owens Peak wilderness to delete 580 
                                 acres)

       On page 108, beginning on line 1, strike paragraph (47) in 
     its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(47) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area and the Bakersfield District, of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, which comprise approximately seventy-four 
     thousand and sixty acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled `Owens Peak Wilderness--Proposed 1', dated February 
     1986, a map entitled `Owens Peak Wilderness--Proposed 2', 
     dated March 1994, and a map entitled `Owens Peak Wilderness--
     Proposed 3', dated May 1991, and which shall be known as the 
     Owens Peak Wilderness.''


                           amendment no. 1610

 (Purpose: To amend the boundary of the Santa Rosa Wilderness to allow 
 for the construction of a road to provide access to private property)

       On page 112, beginning on line 12, strike paragraph (61) in 
     its entirety and in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(61) Certain lands in the California Desert Conservation 
     Area, of the Bureau of Land Management, which comprise 
     approximately sixty-four thousand three hundred and forty 
     acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled `Santa Rosa 
     Wilderness Additions--Proposed', dated March 1994, and which 
     are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be 
     part of, the Santa Rosa Wilderness designated by Public Law 
     98-425.''


                           amendment no. 1611

(Purpose: Technical amendment to retain portions of Owlshead wilderness 
                  study area as wilderness study area)

       On page 121, after line 6, insert a new paragraph as 
     follows:
       ``(5) certain lands which comprise approximately seventeen 
     thousand two hundred and eighty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Death Valley National Park Boundary and 
     Wilderness 17--Proposed'', dated July 1993.''


                           amendment no. 1612

(Purpose: To amend the boundary of the Mojave National Park Wilderness 
                  to exclude a road to mining claims)

       On page 147, beginning on line 11, strike paragraph (3) in 
     its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(3) Mojave National Park Wilderness, comprising 
     approximately six hundred ninety-five thousand two hundred 
     acres, as generally depicted on ten maps entitled ``Mojave 
     National Park Boundary and Wilderness--Proposed'', and 
     numbered in the title one through ten, and dated March 1994 
     or prior, and seven maps entitled ``Mojave National Park 
     Wilderness--Proposed'', numbered in the title one through 
     seven, and dated March 1994 or prior, and which shall be 
     known as the Mojave Wilderness.''


                           Amendment No. 1613

   (Purpose: To delete the Cady Mountains wilderness designation and 
              retain the area in wilderness study status)

       1. On page 96, after line 2, delete paragraph (9) in its 
     entirety and renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
       2. On page 121, after line 6, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) certain lands which comprise approximately eighty-
     four thousand four hundred acres, as generally depicted on a 
     map entitled `Cady Mountains Wilderness--Proposed', dated 
     July 1993.''.


                           amendment no. 1614

  (Purpose: To permit grazing to continue in the Mojave National Park)

       1. On page 138, line 6, strike ``may'' and insert 
     ``shall''.
       2. On page 138, line 8, strike ``regulations,'' and all 
     that follows through line 15 and insert in lieu thereof, 
     ``regulations.''.


                           amendment no. 1615

 (Purpose: To permit grazing to continue in Death Valley National Park)

       1. On page 129, line 19, strike ``may'' and insert 
     ``shall''.
       2. On page 129, line 21, strike ``regulations,'' and all 
     that follows through page 130, line 2, and insert in lieu 
     thereof, ``regulations.''.


                           amendment no. 1616

  (Purpose: To establish the Mojave National Park Advisory Commission)

       On page 146, after line 7, add a new section as follows:

     SEC. 517. ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) There is hereby established the Mojave National Park 
     Advisory Commission (hereinafter in this section referred to 
     as the ``Advisory Commission'').
       (b) The Advisory Commission shall be composed of fifteen 
     members appointed by the Secretary for terms of three years 
     each.
       (c) Any vacancy in the Advisory Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner in which the original appointment was 
     made.
       (d) Members of the Advisory Commission shall serve without 
     compensation as such, but the Secretary may pay, upon 
     vouchers signed by the Chairman, the expenses reasonably 
     incurred by the Commission and its members in carrying out 
     their responsibilities under this Act.
       (e) The Secretary, or his designee, shall from time to 
     time, but at least annually, meet and consult with the 
     Advisory Commission on general policies and specific matters 
     related to planning, administration and development affecting 
     the park.
       (f) The Advisory Commission shall act and advise by 
     affirmative vote of the majority of the members thereof.
       (g) The Advisory Commission shall cease to exist ten years 
     after the enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1617

(Purpose: To clarify that Immigration and Naturalization Service, Drug 
 Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs Service, and State and local 
 law enforcement activities may continue within the Coyote, Fish Creek 
                Mountains, and Jacumba wilderness areas)

  Mr. JOHNSON offered amendment No. 1617 for Mrs. Feinstein, for 
herself and Mr. Wallop.

       On page 118, beginning on line 5, revise section 103(g) to 
     read as follows:
       (g) Law Enforcement Border Activities.--Nothing in this 
     Act, including the designation as wilderness of lands within 
     the Coyote, Fish Creek Mountains, and Jacumba wilderness 
     areas designated in section 102 of this Act, the Wilderness 
     Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to 
     such areas, shall restrict or preclude continued border 
     operations within such areas, including the use of motor 
     vehicles and aircraft by the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United 
     States Customs Service, or State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in such manner and subject to such restrictions as 
     may be determined by the Attorney General of the United 
     States, in consultation with the Secretary.


                           amendment no. 1618

            (Purpose: To ensure access to private property)

       On page 157, after line 8, insert the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 708. ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

       The Secretary shall provide adequate access to nonfederally 
     owned land or interests in land within the boundaries of the 
     conservation units and wilderness areas designated by this 
     Act which will provide the owner of such land or interest the 
     reasonable use and enjoyment thereof.


                           amendment no. 1619

(Purpose: To make technical corrections to section 705 to clarify that 
            the section does not affect Federal tax policy)

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered amendment No. 1619 for Mr. Akaka.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 152, line 1, strike ``shall be'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof, ``utilizing''.
       2. On page 152, line 8, strike ``income''.
       3. On page 152, lines 9 and 10, strike the words ``that the 
     determination is not appropriate'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof, ``about the appropriate methodology''.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the consideration of 
the amendments en bloc? There is no objection. They will be considered 
en bloc.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, these amendments are as follows:
  First of all, there are boundary modifications as follows: We delete 
the Great Falls Wilderness designation and retain that area in 
wilderness study status.
  The second amendment modifies the boundaries of the Owens Peak 
Wilderness to delete 580 acres.
  The third amendment modifies the boundaries of the Santa Rosa 
Wilderness to delete 320 acres.
  The fourth amendment retains the portions of the Owlshead and Avawatz 
areas in wilderness study status.
  The fifth amendment modifies the boundaries of the Mojave National 
Park Wilderness to delete 16 acres for an access road.
  The sixth amendment deletes the Cady Mountains Wilderness designation 
and retains that area in a wilderness study status.
  The seventh amendment clarifies that grazing shall be allowed to 
continue within the Mojave National Park.
  The eighth amendment clarifies that grazing shall be allowed to 
continue within the areas added to the Death Valley National Park.
  The ninth amendment establishes the Mojave National Park Advisory 
Commission.
  The 10th amendment provides and clarifies that the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. 
Customs Service, and State and local law enforcement activities may 
continue within the Coyote, the Fish Creek Mountains, and the Jacumba 
Wilderness areas.
  The 11th amendment clarifies that the owners of private property 
within wilderness and park areas designated by S. 21 shall be provided 
with reasonable access to their properties.
  And the 12th amendment, which was suggested by Senator Akaka, is a 
technical amendment to clarify that a provision in the committee-
reported bill does not affect Federal tax policy. I might add that 
amendment has been cleared also with the Finance Committee, which is in 
agreement with that amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I offer these amendments en bloc.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop].
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, let me express my thanks to the Senator 
from California and her staff for accommodating us in conversations 
last evening on some of the less vexing, but, nonetheless, significant 
portions of this bill. I appreciate a willingness to listen to these 
things from a public lands management standpoint.
  There are two little statements that I wish to make. One is on the 
sixth amendment. I just want to say that I am very happy that the 
Senator from California has agreed to drop the Cady Mountains area from 
the wilderness designation. Doing so will allow the Hidden Valley 
residual repository to continue to seek regulatory approval. While it 
does not guarantee--and I stress that I understand that it does not 
guarantee--that the repository proposal can go forward, it leaves the 
project in the same situation that it is in today. I thank Senator 
Feinstein for accommodating this concern.
  On the issue of access to non-Federal property, I again want to 
commend the Senator from California for accommodating a concern 
regarding access to the private property of Americans. My amendment 
seeks to give some assurance that private property owners will have 
adequate access to their property, whether they are awaiting 
acquisition by appropriate Federal authorities or, should they desire, 
to remain an inholder.
  My amendment assures that not only will access be provided, but it 
will also be adequate for the reasonable use and enjoyment of that 
owner's property. We do not intend that access be constrained to 
unicycles. It is adequate access for the use and enjoyment of the 
property, and it is my understanding that the amendment is acceptable 
to the Senator from California and the chairman. I am very grateful to 
both of them for it.
  On the grazing amendment, I again say thank you. I think it was 
within the Senator's original intent that grazing be allowed. Our 
experience with the National Park Service has been something different 
than one might imagine, and they have used authorizations in the past 
primarily as authorizing them to do what they wish rather than what the 
sense of the Congress seems to have been. So instead of authorizing the 
Secretary to allow grazing, this one directs the Secretary to allow 
grazing, subject to applicable laws and National Park Service 
regulations.
  I do not have a great deal of confidence that the Department of the 
Interior, even with this, will honor your intention to allow grazing to 
continue in Death Valley and East Mojave, but I believe that the change 
to ``shall'' should give the message that it is our intent on both 
sides of this issue and within the Congress that grazing does continue 
in these two areas. I thank you very much for that as well.
  With regard to the advisory commission, the Senator from California 
has proposed this amendment to establish an advisory commission for the 
next 10 years to advise the Secretary on planning, development and 
administration of the Mojave National Park.
  I had been concerned about the specific composition of the 
commission.
  I wanted to assure that the commission would have representatives of 
local economic interests--mining, grazing or other user groups, 
including representatives of the communities surrounding and within the 
desert. In this way, the proposed advisory commission would be very 
similar to that in the California Desert plan which was established in 
1976. That plan had an advisory commission which was carefully crafted 
to include local interests.
  I wish to ask, if the Senator would indulge me, through the Chair, is 
it the intention of this language that the commission be a similar 
composition to that in the California Desert plan to provide public 
input?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. That is the 
intention.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Senator very much.
  With regard to two wilderness study areas, Owlshead Mountain and 
Avawatz, bordering the Fort Irwin National Training Center on the north 
and east, it is so, that after considering several options over the 
last few years, the U.S. Army has concluded that they have a need to 
expand the national training center to the north and east.
  It is my understanding it is the Senator's intent to allow these two 
areas to remain in BLM wilderness study status with the idea that 
someday we may have the opportunity to consider legislation to allow 
the Army to expand in this direction.
  Does that understanding comport with the ideas of the Senator from 
California?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say to the Senator from Wyoming, my understanding 
of the amendment is that this amendment does not preclude the 
Department of Defense review of expansion of Fort Irwin or the future 
expansion or future designation of wilderness. It is meant, as I 
understand it, to be neutral in this regard.
  Mr. WALLOP. That is my understanding of this as well.
  Last, Mr. President, I very much wish to thank the Senator from 
California for accepting the law enforcement provisions. I think it is 
in all of our intent that we do not provide a pipeline in the 
interstate highway system out of Mexico through which illegal 
immigrants and drug traffickers could operate, but the law enforcement 
people could not. I think that was her intention. I think it is now 
clear that it does not, and I thank her for that.
  I wish to insert three letters into the Record at this time, one from 
Mr. Ray Johnson, executive director of the Office of Criminal Justice 
Planning in the Office of the Governor in California, one from the U.S. 
Border Patrol to Congressman Vento, and one from the attorney general 
of California, Mr. Lungren, to me. I ask unanimous consent to do so.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Office of the 
           Director,
                                    Sacramento, CA, July 14, 1993.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I want to take this opportunity to 
     express grave concerns about what I presume would be an 
     unintended side effect of your Desert Protection Act, S. 21. 
     My concerns center around the provisions of the bill which 
     would place certain areas of land in California under the 
     Wilderness Protection Act and thereby render those areas 
     inaccessible to immediate motorized access. In its present 
     form, I am afraid that the bill would do severe damage to law 
     enforcement's attempts to wage a successful war against the 
     drug cartels which are funneling illegal drugs across our 
     state's borders, both on the southern border with Mexico and 
     on the eastern border with Nevada and Arizona. As you are 
     aware, at present we are having a difficult enough time 
     dealing with the constant flow of narcotics coming across our 
     borders. Any attempt to restrict law enforcement's 
     capabilities to pursue drug traffickers in these areas would 
     be disastrous.
       The nature of the war on drugs is such that we could not 
     effectively operate under the constraints of either having no 
     access to certain areas or of having to first obtain 
     permission from some Park Service official to gain access for 
     purposes of pursuit. We have heard that there has been some 
     discussion about providing some kind of limited corridor 
     through the intended wilderness areas. As a practical matter, 
     that concept will simply not work. The drug smugglers we are 
     dealing with are extremely clever and resourceful; they would 
     understand very quickly the logistical benefits which S. 21 
     will currently provide for their illicit activities. We have 
     enough to deal with without providing them with what would 
     constitute a ``safe haven'', a haven of which they would take 
     full advantage.
       There would seem to be a very simple solution to this 
     problem. We would appreciate your placing an amendment in the 
     bill which would simply provide an exemption from the 
     provisions of S. 21 for all law enforcement officials at the 
     local, state, and federal levels. This would allow these 
     agencies to continue to be able to effectively fight the war 
     on drugs as well as allow access for emergency search and 
     rescue operations. This amendment would not have any 
     significant effect upon the environmental purposes for which 
     the bill was designed. Failure to enact this amendment would 
     seriously jeopardize anti-drug activities.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please 
     feel free to call me at 916-324-9140 if you have any 
     questions or if we can provide any further information.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ray Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

         U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization 
           Service,
                                     El Centro, CA, June 15, 1993.
     Hon. Bruce Vento,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 
         Lands, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Vento: I would like to take this 
     opportunity to provide you with information which sets forth 
     the El Centro Sector's concerns regarding Senate Bill S. 21, 
     especially in the areas of general law enforcement, drug 
     interdiction, and search and rescue.
       In the way of a little background, the El Centro Sector of 
     the United States Border Patrol has responsibility for 
     approximately 72 miles of international border between the 
     United States and Mexico, the southern boundary of Imperial 
     County. We have stations in Calexico, El Centro, Indio and 
     Riverside, California and our area of responsibility extends 
     into most of Riverside and some of San Bernardino Counties as 
     well.
       In Fiscal Year 1991, we arrested 30,450 deportable aliens 
     and seized a little over 11 million dollars in narcotics 
     (wholesale value). In Fiscal Year 1992, we arrested 29,852 
     deportable aliens and seized 164.4 million dollars in 
     narcotics. As of May 1993, we have arrested 15,932 deportable 
     aliens and seized an all time record of 519.6 million dollars 
     in narcotics. Again, I stress this is a wholesale value. I 
     can't begin to imagine how many youngsters on the street this 
     amount of drugs would supply. You may have noticed the 
     decrease in arrests between Fiscal Year 1991 and Fiscal Year 
     1992, this was not because there was a lesser number of 
     people entering the country illegally, but because we had 
     fewer officers with which to do our job, which brings us to 
     the potentially disastrous situation with S. 21.
       We are concerned about all the proposed areas in Imperial 
     County, however, we are especially concerned about the 
     proposed Jacumba Wilderness area and the Fish Creek area. As 
     you know, a wilderness designation means no motorized 
     vehicles, only foot traffic or horseback. This would make 
     an already difficult job almost impossible in view of the 
     desolation and summertime temperatures of the areas in 
     question. This, along with a short response time mandated 
     by the close proximity of Highway 98 and Interstate 8 to 
     the proposed Jacumba Wilderness area; which is utilized by 
     smugglers to pick up their loads both aliens and 
     narcotics, demands that our officers be allowed to utilize 
     motorized vehicles for operations in these areas. Within 
     the proposed Jacumba Wilderness area is an area know as 
     Davies Valley. There is a road through this area which 
     runs from the Mexicali/Tijuana Highway in Mexico, all the 
     way to Highway 98 near Ocotillo, California. This Highway 
     has been a major thoroughfare for smugglers for years and 
     speaking from experience I can safely state that closing 
     this area will not stop a smuggler from utilizing what 
     would be left of the road to make good his entry into the 
     United States. They will simply ignore the fact that 
     motorized vehicles are not allowed. There are also five 
     (5) other well documented smuggling corridors through the 
     proposed Jacumba area. On one of these corridors, an 
     existing road on the east edge of the Jacumba area, we 
     seized 1277 pounds of cocaine valued at $41,000,000.00 
     during January of this year. A few months prior to that, 
     we seized 427 pounds of marijuana worth $600,000.00. This 
     seizure was made near Interstate 8, right square in the 
     middle of the proposed Jacumba area. Thus far, in 1993, we 
     have accounted for 197 entries made by people on foot and 
     19 vehicle entries in our west desert which includes the 
     proposed Jacumba and Fish Creek areas. In 1992, there were 
     776 human entries and 18 vehicles entering through this 
     same area.
       We are in the Jacumba and Fish Creek areas almost daily 
     with either 4 x 4 vehicles or aircraft. The purpose being to 
     detect the illegal entry of aliens and drug smugglers. We do 
     this by looking for tracks of both people and vehicles and by 
     utilizing electronic detection devices which have to be 
     checked and serviced on a regular basis. You can see that if 
     we could not utilize low flying aircraft or had to walk into 
     these areas or even utilize horses, the cost in manpower and 
     response time would be increased to the point that we would 
     probably just have to ignore the activity in these areas and 
     hope that we could make the apprehension after the smuggler 
     reached the highway. This, in turn, puts our operations in a 
     different legal arena, subjecting our arrests to different 
     court decisions and in general making a successful 
     prosecution more difficult. In simple terms the creation of 
     the Jacumba Wilderness area will only create a no-mans land 
     between the Mexican border and Interstate 8 and Highway 98 
     where an illegal alien or smuggler will be free to roam at 
     will or hide on United States soil until conditions are right 
     for them to safely make their way further into the United 
     States.
       There is also a safety factor involved for our officers as 
     well as numerous rescue operations of people caught in this 
     desolate terrain without proper food and water, as is often 
     the case. We did not keep statistics on the number of 
     deaths occurring in the desert prior to 1985. At that time 
     with the cooperation of the Mexican officials we attempted 
     to educate the potential entrant(s) as to the dangers of 
     attempting to cross into the United States through the 
     deserts. We also altered our operations to ensure timely 
     responses to any indicated traffic through the desert. The 
     proposed Jacumba and Fish Creek wilderness areas have 
     proven to be the most popular for use by aliens entering 
     and attempting to walk around our Highway 86 traffic check 
     operation. Since 1985 there have been 31 deaths in these 
     desert areas. Our officers have rescued 81 people that 
     would have died had our officers not rescued them when 
     they did. These people were already dehydrated and in bad 
     shape. During this same time frame, we made about 900 
     other apprehensions, all of which had the same potential 
     for disaster. I might add that a number of these rescues 
     were made by our pilots who located the people and were 
     able to land and administer first aid until a mobile unit 
     arrived.
       We understand that someone had proposed to change the 
     language of the bill to give us access to a 60 or 100 foot 
     strip along the border. I, think, you can see from earlier 
     discussions in this letter how in reality this would be of 
     only very limited benefit. For a successful interdiction 
     program we must have total and unlimited access to these 
     areas. We gave gone on record stating that we will assist any 
     law enforcement agency in enforcing whatever restrictions are 
     finally arrived at for these areas. We feel that our presence 
     will enhance and help to ensure the safety of the public that 
     will be utilizing these areas. We must have motorized access 
     to these areas to perform our duties and ensure the integrity 
     of our borders.
       I hope this information will be of help to you. If we can 
     provide anything more we will be pleased to do so.
           Sincerely,
                                              Manuel Cazares, Jr.,
                                        Deputy Chief Patrol Agent.
                                  ____

                                              State of California,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Sacramento, CA, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Re: S. 21, California Desert Protection Act.
       Dear Senator Wallop: In response to your request, I am 
     writing to voice my support for your proposed amendment to S. 
     21, the California Desert Protection Act, which provides for 
     unimpeded law enforcement activities by local, state and 
     federal law enforcement agencies within this proposed 
     wilderness area.
       The current language of S. 21 only allows the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, or the United States Custom Service, all 
     federal law enforcement agencies, to continue to perform 
     ``border operations'' within the proposed wilderness areas, 
     subject to interagency agreements; and then only consistent 
     with the management of the wilderness areas for the purpose 
     for which such wilderness areas were established. These 
     policies preclude aerial or motor vehicle access within 
     wilderness areas. Under this language, state and local law 
     enforcement agencies, including our bureau of Narcotics 
     Enforcement, would be completely excluded from pursuing 
     criminals that enter the proposed wilderness area. In fact, 
     the language appears to offer a safe haven for criminal 
     activity.
       We have carefully analyzed Senator Feinstein's amendment 
     and preferable is your amendment which specifically allows 
     the use of vehicles traditionally used by both federal, state 
     and local law enforcement agencies during the course and 
     scope of their law enforcement activities within such 
     wilderness areas. it is particularly critical given the 
     proximity of the International border, and its well 
     publicized illegal immigration and drug smuggling problem, to 
     these proposed wilderness areas. As Attorney General of the 
     State of California, I strongly urge the Senate to adopt you 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Daniel E. Lungren,
                                                 Attorney General.

  Mr. WALLOP. Now, Mr. President, I am prepared to embrace these 
amendments en bloc, again with my thanks to the Senator and her staff.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1608-1619) were agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I understand now that we will be ready 
to take up a Wallop amendment which would redesignate the Mojave 
National Park as a BLM national monument. I might say to my colleagues 
that this is really the most important amendment probably to be 
considered among all of these. It will take some debate. I understand 
the Senator from Wyoming believes it will take at least until after 
lunch. I am wondering whether we could set a time certain after lunch 
for a vote on that amendment.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that it would be my 
intention to arrive at that. I am not quite certain at this moment in 
time what time certain, but it will not be long after the two parties 
return from their annual weekly luncheons.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is fine.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, with the concurrence of the Senator 
from California, I would be prepared to offer a unanimous consent 
request that the Wallop amendment redesignating the Mojave National 
Park as a BLM national monument, when offered, if offered, would be 
considered for a vote at 2:45 or 2:46, and that the time between 2:30 
and 2:46 be equally divided between the Senator from California and the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  If that is suitable, I will be prepared to offer that unanimous 
consent request.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the Senator from Louisiana, as I 
understand it, would ask that there be 16 minutes equally divided, 8 
minutes on each side, to discuss this question?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I understand that we come back in at 
2:15 and not at 2:30. So I would still ask that the vote occur at 2:45 
and that the 30 minutes between 2:15 and 2:46 be equally divided 
between the Senator from California and the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The only reason I ask this question is this is a 
pivotal amendment. You cannot be for S. 21, in my view, and support 
this amendment. So I want to make as cogent and passionate a case 
against the amendment as I possibly can, and it may very well take more 
than 15 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, if we could have between now and 
12:30, and then come back----
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is excellent; that is fine with me. I did not 
realize that. So the discussion will take place from now until the 
recess at noon.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is right, and then come back with another 30 
minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is acceptable. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WALLOP. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, this is 
in the usual form. That would include the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not think the usual form would necessarily 
preclude it. Would the Senator like to preclude them?
  All right.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I would therefore ask unanimous 
consent that the Wallop amendment redesignating the Mojave National 
Park as a BLM national monument, when offered, if offered, be voted on 
without second-degree amendments, unless agreed to by both the Senator 
from California and the Senator from Wyoming; that that amendment be 
voted on at 2:45 p.m.; and that the time between 2:15 and 2:45 be 
equally divided between the Senator from California and the Senator 
from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I would like just for the moment to ask 
the indulgence of the Senator from California. The sitting Governor of 
my State has announced yesterday that he would be the Democratic 
nominee for Senator to replace me.
  I have a press conference that is scheduled at 2:15 with the Wyoming 
press unrelated to the California Desert Protection Act, if the Senator 
will be kind enough to try to indulge me and take some of her time at 
least in the beginning of that 2:15 p.m. time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be most happy to, I say to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. I appreciate that.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 1620

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1620.

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate Mojave National Park a Mojave National 
     Monument.
       Page 134, line 17 delete ``PARK and insert ``MONUMENT''
       Page 135, lines 5-6, delete ``unit of the National Park 
     System;'' and insert in lieu thereof ``National Monument;''.
       Page 135, line 9, delete ``Park;'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Monument;''
       Page 135, line 21 delete ``PARK and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``MONUMENT.''
       Page 135, line 22 delete ``Park,'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Monument,''
       Page 135, line 23, delete ``park and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``monument''
       Page 136, line 4, delete ``National Park Service''  and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``Bureau of Land Management''
       Page 136, beginning on line 5, delete section 503 and 
     renumber succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 136, line 14 delete ``park and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``monument''
       Page 136, line 22 delete ``National Park Service and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``Bureau of Land Management''
       Page 137, line 5, delete ``PARK.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``MONUMENT.''
       Page 137, beginning on line 7, delete all after ``law'' 
     through the end of section 506 and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``law otherwise applicable to such lands including, but not 
     limited to, the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act (90 Stat. 2743) as amended.''
       Page 137, line 14, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 137, line 22, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 138, beginning on line 5, revise subsection (a) of 
     section 509 to read as follows: ``(a) Within the monument, 
     the Secretary shall permit the grazing of domestic livestock 
     to continue, subject to applicable laws, at no more than the 
     current level.''
       Page 138, line 23, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 138, line 25, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 139, line 12, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 139, line 14, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 140, line 23, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 141, line 3, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 141, line 6, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 141, line 21, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 141, line 24, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 142, line 11, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 142, line 14, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 142, line 23, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 143, line 2, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 143, line 9, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 143, line 12, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 143, line 16, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 144, line 3, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 144, line 15, delete ``units of the National Park 
     System'' and insert in lieu thereof ``such lands''
       Page 144, line 24, delete ``units of the National Park 
     System'' and insert in lieu thereof ``such lands''.
       Page 145, line 3, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 145, line 5, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 145, line 9, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 145, line 11, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 145, line 17, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 145, line 24, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 146, line 5, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``monument''
       Page 147, line 11, delete ``park'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Monument''.

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, this California Desert Protection Act is 
not questioned in the Senate, so far as this Senator is concerned, and 
insofar as other Senators I know are concerned, as to whether or not 
the desert should be protected. It is rather a question of: Through 
what means and by what agency?
  The Senator from Wyoming is not picking on California by questioning 
the designation of a piece of territory in that State for national park 
status. I have been raising this same issue with the Senate with 
increasing intensity and frequency over the last 12 years.
  It is safe to say that the Congress of the United States has an 
enormous appetite for parks. But it has no stomach at all for paying 
for them; neither for paying for the operation of them, nor for the 
acquisition of them, nor the maintenance of them.
  The Secretary, while we speak, is on a tour of the National Park 
System of America. In that tour, he says that he is off to inspect the 
degradation of the parks.
  Why would a nation which has the world's finest National Park System, 
the envy of the world, allow its parks to lapse into a state of 
degradation? It is because politically, parks are the sexiest thing 
going. It is because everybody wants a national park, and nothing will 
do for the supreme geology of the land but to give it the status of 
``national park.''
  But we have done nothing, Madam President, to maintain the National 
Park System.
  I said yesterday that there is a 9-percent increase in the budget of 
the National Park Service for this coming fiscal year; more generous 
than some agencies are going to get. But guess what? That increase does 
not pay for normal salary and retirement benefit increases that are 
scheduled within the Park Service.
  So even just to maintain salary and retirement benefits, the National 
Park Service is going to have to take money out of the operation and 
maintenance of the parks. To be sure, the Secretary and the Director 
have said that the National Park Service could afford these things. But 
in the same breath, in testifying on other parks costing far less, they 
said they could not be afforded.
  If you look at the 5-year budget plan of the President of the United 
States, and Mr. Gore's ``reinventing Government,'' there are 3,700 
positions scheduled to be taken out of the National Park Service over 
the next 5 years. But does that slow Congress in its headlong rush to 
establish new parks and new obligations? Certainly not. This California 
Desert Protection Act is the ``National Park Service Degradation Act'' 
in disguise--not just with this park, but with all of the other parks 
that are going on.

  It is not as though people in the land management business have not 
recognized for a long time that the California desert is a special 
place. Over the years, the Federal Government has spent millions and 
millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of manhours developing 
a comprehensive desert management plan. That plan is in place. That 
plan is working well under the direction of the Bureau of Land 
Management and its multiple-use program.
  Under the provisions of S. 21, along with the acreage set aside for 
desert tortoise critical habitat, there can only be significantly less 
multiple use, and in its place a significant number of large areas that 
are set aside for other restricted uses. But keep in mind that the 
desert management plan that is in place was concocted by the Federal 
land managing agencies, and the environmental groups who praised it 
widely when they endorsed it and embraced it. It has not changed.
  You will see, as you have seen yesterday, extraordinarily beautiful 
pictures of this extraordinarily beautiful piece of land. You cannot 
claim in the same mouth that on the one side it is being badly managed, 
and on the other side, that it contains this beauty. It is not a 
possible thing to do. It defies the logic of the ordinary mind to say 
that because it is beautiful, it cannot be entrusted to those who have 
kept it that way.
  Why do I argue this? Because it is now and has been within the budget 
of the Bureau of Land Management. It can have virtually the same status 
as ``national monument'' as it has as ``national park'' but yet stay 
within the budget of an agency that is already budgeted to maintain it. 
But there is not a park in the State of Washington, in the State of 
Louisiana, in the State of Wyoming, or any other State that has one; or 
any other territory that has one, whose citizens will not pay to have 
this park come on line. And they will pay by having the parks in their 
State have shorter hours, curtailed interpretive programs, curtailed 
park services and, most specifically, curtailed overdue maintenance.
  Just to put some perspective on this, Yellowstone National Park in my 
State of Wyoming, the oldest park in the world, just to bring its roads 
up to standard condition, not to improve them, not to expand them, but 
just to put them where they ought to be for the traveling public, is 
estimated at in excess of $300 million. That gets put off, Madam 
President, for well into the next century by actions such as this. I 
will say to my friends that this is not the only park designation I am 
going to confront that comes before this Congress this year. But I 
particularly confront this one which falls within the budget of another 
agency that is doing a darned good job of protecting it, as will be 
witnessed by the extraordinarily beautiful pictures the Senator from 
California will bring to the attention of the Senate in a while. Its 
fragility is not damaged by the color of the uniform of the people 
managing it. Its fragility is not protected by the color of the uniform 
of the people managing it.
  As you look around America, especially in the great western parks, by 
and large, the condition of the land within the parks is nothing like 
as adequate as the condition of the land outside the parks, partly 
because of the constraints of operation under which the National Park 
Service operates. You take the rangeland in Yellowstone National Park, 
and it is in a state of considerable degradation. There are too many 
elements working around there--buffalo, elk, and other things--and the 
rangeland is damaged inside that park. They cannot be hunted or 
controlled, and the land continues to subside in its level of 
condition.
  If anybody wants to look at the condition of fragile desert, have 
them go to the Grand Canyon and see what uncontrolled feral--not 
``wild'' burros--are doing to that desert environment. So it is not 
ipso facto that moving it out of the Bureau of Land Management and into 
the hands of the National Park Service you are going to get this 
upgraded enlightenment and capability to protect a land that all of us 
agree needs to be and should be protected.
  Under the provisions of S. 21, there is acreage set aside for parks 
and acreage set aside for wilderness. One of the things that we have 
not paid attention to, because Congress is nifty at navel gazing, is 
the fact that under the Endangered Species Act, you have another area 
and level of protection that takes place in the California desert now, 
and that is called the desert tortoise critical habitat. It is the 
truth, if you want to look at management of public lands--and most 
people do not; they just want to hear nice tales about green dreams. 
But if you want to look at the management of public lands, one of the 
things you have to look at is what people--Americans, good solid, 
honest Americans--want to do on that land, and the number of them that 
want to do it.
  The desert is a big place for Americans' recreation. There are 
approximately 12 million acres in the California desert. There are 
approximately 8 million acres under this bill that go into park and 
wilderness areas. There are approximately 3 million acres that are for 
tortoises.
  This is S. 21. All the light brown areas are new parks, wilderness 
areas, that are established by this legislation. This is the area down 
here along the Mexican border where the Senator so kindly allowed us 
back into the business of law enforcement. But look at this. This is S. 
21. The desert is essentially this area here going over to the Nevada-
California border, 12 million acres.
  These dark brown areas are critical habitat for the desert tortoise. 
Those, when superimposed upon the areas of S. 21, leave just slightly 
fewer than a million acres for Americans in their numbers to have 
multiple use on. And what that means is that 1 million acres will bear 
the brunt of use that approximately 6 or 7 million acres now are 
taking. So use will be concentrated heavily and starkly on that 1 
million acres. Make no mistake about it, there is going to be an 
environmental consequence of that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield for a question, this issue of 
the desert tortoise is a very interesting one. It seems to me--and this 
is sort of unrelated to the park--but I am wondering, in the thousands 
upon thousands of square miles of desert in the American Southwest, why 
would there be an endangerment of the desert tortoise?
  Mr. WALLOP. Some would argue that it is not. But they have been 
unable to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Service and they have declared 
these to be critical habitats and, therefore, have curtailed virtually 
all uses in those lands.
  So what happens now is this is one of the consequences, Madam 
President, of wilderness designation. One of the things that happened 
is that wilderness designation has concentrated the use in forests in 
America where there are no longer any areas where there are limbs for 
campfires or other kinds of things.
  We do nothing about taking away Americans' desire to enjoy the 
bounteous gifts of God in the deserts or the forest, or the mountains 
of this country.
  What worries me is that the use of these lands is going to become 
starkly concentrated. But, in effect, Madam President, this is only one 
of my areas of concern.
  My biggest area of concern is what we are doing to the National Park 
Service. Can we not get the attention of the Senate, which over the 
last 6 years has put in 22 new parks and paid for none of them? Can we 
not get the attention of a Congress that continues to lay down park 
after park after park without doing anything to establish a new ability 
of the National Park Service to deal with its obligations?
  In the Senator's own State, I made mention yesterday of the Channel 
Islands which have still to be paid for while being operated as a park. 
The Park Service has so little money that the ranger in charge of Santa 
Cruz Island lives in an abandoned refrigerator shipping container.
  There are, I am told, serious problems to that habitat with wild 
goats and pigs.
  We saw yesterday a variety of statements as to the economic benefits 
that come with national park designation. In the Senator's home State, 
I hope she will take time to see what happened when Redwoods Park was 
established and what happened to the surrounding communities there. The 
economic benefit was, in fact, significant economic harm. None of the 
projections of the Park Service came true in those instances.
  Americans rightly care for the natural gifts of the landscape of this 
great country. Again, I say that this is not a question or an argument 
as to whether or not this land is worthy of protection. But to select 
parks solely on the basis that there is a political sophistication in 
the National Park Service that does not exist within the Bureau of Land 
Management is a mistake, a big mistake. It has significant ``green 
appeal,'' I know. But at the same time we have an obligation to 
concentrate on the consequences to the National Park Service. We do not 
live in a little set series of glass bottles of formaldehyde on the 
shelf that we can take each of these votes and actions in isolation and 
hold no accountability whatsoever for the consequences of those 
actions.
  The consequence of this action is a tax on every park in America, a 
tax on their maintenance budget, a tax on their operational hours, a 
tax on their interpretive efforts.
  If it were the only way, then we would have an obligation at the same 
time, I think, to provide for the funding of them. But we all know we 
cannot do that because of the budget circumstances that exist today.
  We all know that we will not do that. Because we have seen we have 
not done it in the 22 other parks, of which I have spoken, over the 
last 6 years. And we all know that you get a lot of credit for voting 
for a park and someone in the administration or the previous 
administration or somewhere down the road will get a lot of blame 
because the parks are in bad condition.
  I am stating today that the parks are in bad condition not because of 
a variety of Secretaries of the Interior or Presidents of the United 
States but because of the actions of Congress which continues to add 
parks to the system, obligations to the service, without resources in 
any way.
  And again we have in place a management structure that properly 
drafted--and this amendment properly drafts national monument status--
provides the same level of protection without degrading the National 
Park Service.
  The impact of S. 21 on the integrity of the National Park System is 
substantial. We will have to transfer funds. Clearly we are going to 
have to transfer personnel.
  Is anybody going to explain to me how we are going to continue to 
provide adequate personnel in the national parks when we take 3,700 
personnel out of the system over the next 5 years and add parks to it 
at the same time? Can anybody explain to me the logic in that? How are 
we going to get it? Where are the people going to come from? From the 
sky? Are we going to have forced transfer of personnel out the Bureau 
of Land Management in order to operate the park? Is there not some way 
to be more efficient?
  The answer is ``yes.'' Leave it under the Bureau of Land Management 
and leave it under a budget that already accommodates it.
  This congressional appetite for new parks is astonishing, even 
understandable. But what we are doing in this Congress is taking the 
very best national park system in the world, the model by which all our 
countries try to run and devise their system of parks, we are trying to 
kill it with a thousand hugs. We love it so much that we just add 
little obligations to it and we add little things.
  We are at this moment trying very hard to get the administration and 
others just to provide some money for ranger housing, and the Park 
Service has testified that the status of ranger housing is unbelievably 
deplorable, and a service which had taken pride in its longevity of 
personnel is now beginning to lose young rangers and finding it 
difficult to attract them because we, Congress, will not fund the Park 
Service, even ranger housing.
  The budget for the parks have increased over the past decade but not 
in real terms. They are subsiding underneath the rate of inflation.
  At Yellowstone, for example, the budget has increased by less than 
$10,000 in real money between 1980 and 1990, according not to some 
redneck report of the Senator from Wyoming but according to the 
Wilderness Society. The budget of the great first national park of 
America increased by $10,000. During that same period, the numbers of 
annual visitors shot up by nearly 1 million. One million people a year 
more are going into that park which over a decade has had an increase 
in its budget of $10,000.
  Is that stewardship? Is that sense?
  We have deferred maintenance for so long that there is not now a park 
in America that does not have road repair requirements, sewerage 
requirements, water requirements, electrical systems that need entirely 
to be replaced. A lot of them were built back at the turn of the 
century. They are going down, and all of a sudden we are taking $125 
million out of the National Park Service budget over the next 5 years 
to put it in S. 21.
  We have become model slumlords. We have become protectors of the 
degraded public lands, and the priorities of this Congress and the ones 
that have preceded it, both sides of the aisle--I make no claim this is 
a Democratic or Republican thing; I have been arguing this right 
along--they are in absolute disarray.
  Madam President, prior to last summer, each of us had the opportunity 
to read newspaper reports and editorials and to view television 
programs which explained that the visitor centers in our parks would be 
opening later and closing earlier. A lot of us had the opportunity to 
respond to constituents who found that a travesty.
  It is not about having been responsible. It is about having been 
irresponsible.
  Throughout the park system last summer, a number of campgrounds were 
closed--not their hours curtailed, but closed-- and many of the others 
operated for shorter periods of time. Fewer entrance stations were 
staffed.
  That was another big trick the Congress played on the National Park 
System. We raised visitor fees so that the parks collecting them could 
have 50 percent of those fees dedicated to their park operations and 
the Park Service would get the other 50 percent. But the Appropriations 
Committee raided that, took it away, and now the parks cannot afford to 
man the entrance stations because the rangers are needed for the safety 
of the public elsewhere. So we are losing money in the National Park 
System by what we do here in our little glass bottle.
  There are no consequences to this act except protection of the 
California Desert.
  That is simply not the case. If it were the case that this is the 
only way in which the desert could be protected, this would probably be 
worth doing anyway. We would have a responsibility to Americans to 
figure out a way to pay for it. But we are not going to do either of 
those.
  There is another way to protect it, and that is national monument 
status. There were fewer patrol rangers protecting visitors from crime 
and assisting with automobile problems. And crime in the parks went up 
last year, Madam President.
  At beaches, the number of lifeguards was cut. There were fewer 
ranger-led nature walks, evening programs, and educational activities. 
Critical trail maintenance continued to be deferred, causing a hazard 
to the public that wishes to get out of the populated centers in the 
national parks.
  Maintenance of buildings, vehicle fleets, roads and other parts of 
the infrastructure were cut back and deferred until another day.
  To meet basic day-to-day needs, many parks saw no alternative but to 
divert funds from needed and important cultural and natural resource 
projects and research. Research in the national parks went down and 
will go down further.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
several excerpts regarding just some of the budgetary problems that are 
encountered from a random selection of parks. These are taken from the 
1993 report by the Wilderness Society, entitled ``Shortchanging the 
National Parks.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Shortchanging the National Parks


                          acadia national park

                                (Maine)

       Established in 1916 (as Sieur de Monts National Monument), 
     Acadia was the first national park east of the Mississippi 
     and remains the only one of the 51 full-fledged national 
     parks that is located in the Northeast. This 40,000-acre 
     unit, best known for its rugged coastline, includes Cadillac 
     Mountain, the highest point on the Eastern Seaboard, and 
     provides habitat for some 275 bird species. The park also 
     encompasses Isle au Haut. Much of Acadia's land was 
     bequeathed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
       Visitors.--1992: 2,382,113 (1982 figure not provided here 
     as means of comparison because of a major change in the 
     computing method).
       Budget impacts.--The number of seasonal employees has been 
     reduced from 150 to 144 since last summer. Because there will 
     be two fewer patrol officers, response time will be slower. 
     One of the park's museums will be open only five days a week 
     instead of the usual seven. To keep the interpretive programs 
     from being scaled back during the summer months, nothing is 
     being offered in May. During the peak season, all programs 
     will be offered less frequently than in the past.
       The park lacks the money to deal with breakdowns of sewage 
     facilities and has brought in portable toilets in some areas 
     as a stop-gap measure. The replacement of the sewage system 
     at Bear Brook Pond picnic area has been deferred. Trail 
     maintenance, however, has improved in recent years and 
     progress is being made on the backlog of work. Help has come 
     from a variety of sources.
       Acadia was slated to receive $631,000 from the economic 
     stimulus legislation. The money would have enabled the park 
     to maintain its seasonal ranger staff and its interpretive 
     program at 1992 levels, tackle sewage system problems, step 
     up efforts to help endangered species, and undertake other 
     projects that have been put off in recent years.
       Phone: 207-288-5456.


                         big bend national park

                                (Texas)

       Named for a big bend in the Rio Grande River, 118 miles of 
     which lie in this 801,000-acre park, Big Bend sits on the 
     Mexican border. In fact, the park manages 13 percent of the 
     border. Big Bend features dramatic canyons, desert, the 
     Chisos Mountains, and some 400 bird species. Established in 
     1935, Big Bend was designated a Biosphere Reserve in 1976.
       Visitors.--1982: 180,144, 1992: 294,535.
       Budget impacts.--The interpretation program has been scaled 
     back again. Four years ago, for example, Big Bend offered 
     four or five evening programs a week at each of two 
     amphitheaters. This summer, only one of the facilities will 
     operate, providing six evening programs a week. There used to 
     be two or three nature walks a day, but this summer the park 
     expects to offer only one or two. In contrast, Big Bend has 
     managed to step up its outreach to local schools and 
     communities, including some in Mexico.
       While the Panther Junction Visitor Center will operate as 
     it has in the past, three other centers (Rio Grande Village, 
     Persimmon Gap, and Chisos Basin) will close or will be open 
     only intermittently this summer.
       Funding for trail maintenance has failed to keep up with 
     the need. Work focuses on the most heavily used trails, 
     which, unfortunately, tends to lead to even more use of them 
     and less use of the trails in more remote areas. A number of 
     the trailheads have become difficult to find.
       There will be no fee collection this summer at the park's 
     three campgrounds, and fewer rest rooms at these sites will 
     be open. Grounds maintenance will be reduced, as well.
       Larger than Rhode Island, the park faces major law 
     enforcement challenges, including drug interdiction. Big Bend 
     has experienced sniping along the river and a double 
     homicide. With a staff of eight law enforcement rangers, Big 
     Bend can muster only four at a time. Seasonal law enforcement 
     hiring has been ``severely reduced.''
       Superintendent Robert L. Arnberger said that numerous 
     maintenance projects involving roads, buildings, and housing 
     were being deferred in order to meet day-to-day needs. To 
     save money, he has not filled some maintenance positions.
       Phone: 915-477-2251.


                    cape hatteras national seashore

                            (North Carolina)

       Cape Hatteras was the first of the ten national seashores. 
     Located along the Outer Banks, this park is a narrow, 70-
     mile-long strand that offers first-rate beaches, a variety of 
     wildlife, and historic Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, at 208 feet 
     the tallest in the country. The lighthouse overlooks what 
     sailors have called ``the Graveyard of the Atlantic.''
       Visitors.--1982: 1,698,543, 1992: 2,047,103.
       Budget impacts.--The park's managers have had to cut 
     services broadly. Wherever possible, they have tried to 
     maintain their programs at past levels during the busiest 
     periods.
       Instead of offering three protected beaches, each with a 
     four-lifeguard staff, Cape Hatteras will have lifeguards at 
     only one of those beaches, Ocracoke Island. Swimming is 
     allowed at the rest of this national seashore, but strong 
     littoral currents, rip currents, and shifting sand create 
     inherent risks.
       One of the five campgrounds, 90-site Salvo, will be closed 
     the entire summer. Three of the other four close on Labor 
     Day, instead of in October or November. Campground fees have 
     risen from $8 to $11.
       The interpretive schedule had to be scaled back from 250 
     guided programs a week to 150. Only because they were able to 
     recruit volunteers will the Park Service be able to provide 
     tours of 123-year-old Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Two of the 
     main visitor centers, at Bodie and Ocracoke Islands, will be 
     open only five days a week rather than the usual seven.
       There will not be a reduction in the number of law 
     enforcement positions, but hours will be cut back. The 
     maintenance staff will shrink from 52 a year ago to 48.
       Phone: 919-473-2111.


                cuyahoga valley national recreation area

                                 (Ohio)

       Established in 1975, this park links Cleveland and Akron, 
     protecting the meadows, wooded hillsides, and trails of the 
     river valley. Congress authorized this 20-mile-long narrow 
     NRA to grow to 32,400 acres, and right now about half that is 
     owned by the National Park Service. Features include Cuyahoga 
     Valley Line Railroad, remnants of the Ohio and Erie Canal, 
     and the Hale Farm and Village, representing rural Midwestern 
     life during the 19th century. Cuyahoga Valley attracts a wide 
     variety of birds.
       Visitors.--1982: 717,815, 1992: 1,430,382.
       Budget impacts.--With costs and visitation growing rapidly, 
     Cuyahoga Valley has had to scale back its operations in a 
     number of areas to stay within budget. The park staff now 
     employs ten fewer people than it used to: ``When a permanent 
     position becomes open, in many cases we do not fill it due to 
     a lack of funds,'' said Superintendent John Debo. Among those 
     left vacant: a wildlife biologist and a GIS specialist.
       Trail maintenance is falling behind. ``We're down to bare 
     bones on our foot and equestrian paths,'' Debo said. Upkeep 
     on historic structures is being deferred, too.
       Two or three positions have been cut from the interpretive 
     program, so there are fewer rangers at park facilities to 
     talk to visitors.
       Nor can the park provide the law enforcement coverage it 
     would like. From 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. there is no one on duty, 
     and arson has been a problem during those hours.
       Cuyahoga Valley NRA is slated to absorb the Ohio Toe Path 
     Trail, which will stretch resources and staff even more.
       Phone: 216-650-4636.


                         glacier national park

                               (Montana)

       Covering more than one million acres on the Canadian 
     border, Glacier is the U.S. portion of Waterton-Glacier 
     International Peace Park. The popular park features nearly 50 
     glaciers, 200 lakes, rugged peaks, forests, waterfalls, and 
     meadows rich in wildflowers. Among the wildlife are 
     grizzlies, bighorn sheep, and moose. Glacier was our eighth 
     national park, established in 1910, and it is one of the 
     world's Biosphere Reserves.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,666,114, 1992: 2,199,767.
       Budget impacts.--Glacier is a ``hot'' park. Between 1986 
     and 1992 visitation increased by nearly 40 percent, and the 
     latest survey by the American Automobile Association 
     indicated that its popularity is continuing to climb rapidly. 
     The result is an even greater strain on limited funds.
       Campgrounds are opening a week or two later and will be 
     closed September 7, which is two or three weeks earlier than 
     usual. The park has had to cut maintenance significantly. For 
     example, trail maintenance is only ``marginal,'' according to 
     Superintendent Gil Lusk. That is a special concern at 
     Glacier, home to the Lower 48's most viable grizzly bear 
     population. Bears are most likely to take on humans when they 
     are surprised, and poorly maintained trails generally limit 
     visibility and thus increase the likelihood that a hiker will 
     suddenly encounter a grizzly. Some of the trails have had to 
     be closed off to visitors.
       Interpretive programs are being offered less frequently, 
     despite the swelling visitation. At the Canadian border, 
     hikes and tours have been eliminated. Instead, there are 
     brochure racks.
       Altogether, Glacier will have 250 to 270 seasonals, about 
     the same number as last summer, but they will work fewer 
     weeks. In the mid-1980s there were 330 to 350. Those figures 
     somewhat overstate the drop off because the growing 
     popularity of the shoulder seasons has forced the park to 
     convert some seasonal positions to permanent status. Even 
     with that conversion, however, the number of permanent 
     rangers has remained roughly the same.
       Staffing at entrance stations has been cut considerably. 
     The Glacier station will not be open at all. Those that are 
     open will be staffed only nine hours a day this summer.
       Other signs of the budget times are reduced training for 
     employees and deferment of vehicle replacement, which has 
     created a $1 million backlog. The average vehicle is 14 years 
     old. Lusk has tried hard not to let everyday needs completely 
     undermine the science and resource management budgets. ``It 
     gets tiring,'' said Lusk of the cuts he has had to make over 
     the past five or six years. Glacier was to have received $1.7 
     million under the economic stimulus package.
       Phone: 406-888-5441.


                  great smoky mountains national park

                      (Tennessee, North Carolina)

       Encompassing one of the oldest uplands on Earth, this park 
     is extraordinarily diverse. Northern and southern forest 
     types meet here, and the park has 130 tree species, more than 
     can be found in all of northern Europe. The park also 
     sustains the greatest acreage of old-growth forest in the 
     East. Now a World Heritage Site, Great Smoky Mountains 
     provides habitat for bobcats, black bear, and more salamander 
     species than any other place in the world. Seventy miles of 
     the Appalachian Trail run through the park, which was created 
     by Congress in 1926.
       Visitors.--1982: 8,177,869, 1992: 8,931,690.
       Budget impacts.--The backcountry trail system continues to 
     deteriorate. Ten years ago there were two trail maintenance 
     crews, each with ten to 12 people. Today the two crews are 
     down to four people each. To help compensate, the park has 
     found volunteers to do some of the light maintenance. 
     Volunteers also are being plugged in to the visitor center 
     staff to keep it operating the usual hours.
       Besides reliance on unpaid help, the park has tried to 
     maintain services by skimping on programs that are less 
     visible. ``Today you won't see a ranger in the backcountry,'' 
     said a park spokesman. There are a few out there, but only 
     rarely will visitors encounter them.
       Perhaps the largest cutback has been in the campaign to 
     control the wild boars, brought into the area from Germany in 
     the 1920s for sport hunting. These pigs have multiplied and 
     are uprooting wildflowers and rare plants. Spending on hog 
     hunters has been slashed by two-thirds. By this time a year 
     ago, 200 pigs had been eliminated, but this year the tally is 
     just 120. ``This will cause big trouble next year if we don't 
     get more money,'' said the spokesman.
       Great Smoky Mountains was hit hard by the March blizzard 
     and is hoping to receive funds to clean up the damage. If the 
     money is not provided, park managers may have to move dollars 
     from the budgets for seasonal rangers and other programs to 
     pay for the cleanup.
       Phone: 615-436-1200.


                       hot springs national park

                               (Arkansas)

       Considered a sacred place by the Indians, and first set 
     aside by the Federal Government as Hot Springs Reservation in 
     1832, this unique national park covers 4,836 acres in the 
     resort town of Hot Springs. There are 47 thermal springs, 
     with the water at 143 degrees all year. The park also 
     features eight historic bathhouses, undisturbed woods, and 24 
     miles of trails.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,015,580, 1992: 1,504,073.
       Budget impacts.--Funds are so limited at Hot Springs that 
     the seasonal staff of 28 has been cut by 50 percent. The 14 
     who were hired may be let go before the end of the summer. 
     The park is trying to bridge the gap with volunteers, who 
     give thermal tours, work at the information desk, help with 
     repairs, and provide other services.
       There are basically only ``two and three-quarters'' staff 
     positions assigned to building repair. ``They simply can't do 
     all the work,'' said Superintendent Roger Giddings. Six of 
     the famous bathhouses need major rehabilitation, but Hot 
     Springs can afford to do only minimal work on them. Leaking 
     roofs on two of the bathhouses and uncontained basement 
     spring waters have led to significant structural damage. 
     Altogether, the park has more than 100 historic structures. 
     The hot springs water collection and distribution system 
     needs continuing maintenance and repair. ``This is an old, 
     old park,'' said Giddings. ``We have many projects to do.''
       The trails also are suffering from a lack of maintenance. 
     Landslides and erosion resulting from a 1990 rain storm and 
     subsequent heavy rains have caused damage that has yet to be 
     repaired in some areas.
       Hot Springs has been able to maintain its law enforcement 
     staffing levels, but Giddings does not consider those levels 
     adequate. ``We are dealing with the concerns of a city. We 
     don't have round-the-clock enforcement, and only one person 
     patrols at critical times,'' he said.
       The park had hoped for help from the economic stimulus 
     bill. Giddings planned to hire 70 to 90 seasonals and mount a 
     major rehabilitation effort. ``We would have done a ton of 
     work on the trails, buildings, landscaped grounds, utility 
     system, and scenic drives,'' he said.
       Phone: 501-624-3383.


                    indiana dunes national lakeshore

                               (Indiana)

       ``The Dunes are to the Midwest what the Grand Canyon is to 
     Arizona and Yosemite is to California,'' Carl Sandburg once 
     wrote. ``They constitute a signature of time and eternity.'' 
     Authorized by Congress in 1966, Indiana Dunes National 
     Lakeshore lies along the southern shore of Lake Michigan 
     between Gary and Michigan City. The unit includes dunes that 
     rise 180 feet above the lake, sandy beaches, marshes, prairie 
     remnants, and historic buildings. The park provides habitat 
     for more than 220 species of birds. A major goal of Indiana 
     Dunes is environmental education, and the park hosts some 
     70,000 school children a year.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,066,573, 1992: 1,973,098.
       Budget impacts.--The main cutback has been in law 
     enforcement. Last summer there were ten law enforcement 
     officers, but this year the park will try to make do with 
     seven. To compensate for the loss, they vow to ``work 
     harder.'' Naturally, they will have to concentrate on the 
     high-priority needs, described as ``life-and-death situations 
     and cases involving serious property damage.'' Last summer 
     there were five ranger assistants, who focus on traffic 
     control; this year there will be two. Creating even more of a 
     strain on these employees will be the operation of a 79-unit 
     campground, which opened at the end of last summer.
       Indiana Dunes also will save money by reducing the hours of 
     the Paul H. Douglas Center for Environmental Education. Other 
     centers for visitors will not be affected, however.
       Park Superintendent Dale Engquist said that Indiana Dunes 
     came very close to having to close one of the beaches this 
     summer so that a lifeguard could be put somewhere else. The 
     park contracts out the lifeguarding and has had to absorb 
     increases in the contract price.
       A major budgetary challenge for Indiana Dunes has been the 
     addition of new land and facilities, like the campground. For 
     Fiscal Year 1994, the park has requested an additional 
     $100,000 to cover at least part of the expenses. If that 
     money comes through, along with the 7 percent across-the-
     board increase requested by the National Park Service, ``we 
     hope it will get us back to the point where we were five or 
     six years ago,'' said Engquist.
       Phone: 219-926-7561.


                       mammoth cave national park

                               (Kentucky)

       This park contains the world's longest recorded cave 
     system. More than 330 miles have been mapped, and underground 
     streams are still at work, extending the network. Discovered 
     by settlers in the late 18th century, the caves became famous 
     as a place for actors and singers to perform. This 52,000-
     acre park is located roughly halfway between Louisville and 
     Nashville and also contains picturesque river valleys and 
     some of the hilly country north of the Green River. Mammoth 
     Cave National Park was authorized by Congress in 1926, fully 
     established in 1941, and designated a World Heritage Site in 
     1981 and a Man and the Biosphere Reserve in 1990.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,526,676, 1992: 2,392,858.
       Budget impacts.--A year ago the park had 60 seasonal 
     rangers, but this summer there will be only 40 or so. One 
     consequence will be a cutback in the number of above-ground 
     tours. One of the most popular, the Echo Hill River tour, 
     will not be offered at all. These options are considered 
     important in part because the park likes to be able to 
     provide an organized activity for the many visitors who are 
     beyond the carrying capacity (2,800 people a day) of the 
     guided cave tours.
       Though there were campground closures during the winter, 
     Mammoth Cave expects to have all campgrounds open as usual 
     during the summer.
       The summer seasonal maintenance staff has shrunk from eight 
     to five persons, forcing the park to do routine maintenance 
     at longer intervals.
       Phone: 502-758-2251.


                      north cascades national park

                              (Washington)

       Now celebrating its 25th anniversary, this northwestern 
     Washington park protects what some call ``the American 
     Alps.'' The 505,000-acre park contains three units, including 
     Lake Chelan and Ross Lake National Recreation Areas. North 
     Cascades features not only jagged mountain peaks but hanging 
     glaciers, waterfalls, and lush forests. Wildlife includes the 
     black bear, wolverine, cougar, and moose.
       Visitors.--1982: 395,476. (Because of a change in the 
     tabulation method, there is no comparable figure for 1982.)
       Budget impacts.--``All areas have been cut,'' 
     Superintendent Bill Paleck reported. There will be fewer 
     rangers at Ross Lake. For the first time in many years, no 
     ranger will be stationed at Copper Ridge or Lightning Creek, 
     two backcountry areas.
       The interpretive programs are down to bare bones. Last 
     summer there were evening activities five nights a week; this 
     summer there won't be any, unless the rangers volunteer. The 
     daytime programs have been eliminated at Hozomeen campground 
     and reduced at Colonial and Newhalem campgrounds.
       Only one of the campgrounds has opened, although others are 
     expected to open soon. The park will have to cut back on 
     bathroom cleanup and trash collection. The pit toilets at 
     Ross Lake may not be cleaned at all this summer.
       Trail maintenance has been deferred, with most of the work 
     concentrated on the most heavily used areas. ``If we have to 
     continue maintaining trails the way we are now, very soon a 
     decision will have to be made to close some or let them 
     deteriorate,'' said Paleck. ``In the backcountry, if you 
     don't brush a trail, it's lost in a few years.''
       The park also plans to reduce visitor center staffing and 
     control of invasive plants. Paleck estimates that North 
     Cascades needs an additional $1.4 million ``to do what we 
     should be doing.''
       Phone: 206-856-5700.


                         Olympic National Park

                              (Washington)

       Olympic National Park contains active glaciers, 50 miles of 
     coastline, mountains, alpine meadows, and the finest remnant 
     of Pacific Northwest rain forest. Among the wildlife are 
     Roosevelt elk, cougars, black-tailed deer, and spotted owls. 
     Established in 1938, Olympic has been designated both a 
     Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site.
       Visitors.--1982: 2,478,739, 1992: 3,030,195.
       Budget impacts.--Last December, the park's managers found 
     they would have to slice more than $400,000 from the balance 
     of the fiscal year's spending plans to stay within the $6.5 
     million budget. They spread the cuts as widely as they could. 
     Maintenance funding for the more than 600 miles of trails was 
     reduced $80,000. The remaining amount will allow work on two 
     front-country trails that receive the most use and one trail 
     running across the park. ``In the long run, this deferred 
     maintenance will cost us more,'' said Assistant 
     Superintendent Roger Rudolph.
       The interpretation program will be running $22,000 short. 
     As a result, there will be fewer nature walks and campfire 
     programs. For example the program at the Fairholm 
     amphitheater, which averaged 120 people a night, will be 
     conducted on wheeknights this number. There will be fewer 
     rangers stationed at busy spots to field questions. At 
     Hurricane Ridge, for instance, there will not be a uniformed 
     person to guide interaction between visitors and black-tailed 
     deer, whose sudden hoof strikes can hurt.
       Currently, seven percent of the park's budget is devoted to 
     interpretation, a sum that Rudolph calls ``an absolute 
     embarrassment.'' About half of the public contact stations 
     are not staffed. Those that are depend mostly on volunteers. 
     There will be 24 seasonal interpretive rangers this summer, 
     compared to 34 just a few years ago. To save money, Olympic 
     will start some of those 24 later and end their employment 
     earlier.
       Backcountry rangers number only 12, compared to the 16 that 
     the park believes are needed. Again, volunteers are being 
     used to help compensate. The seasonals will start June 5, 
     instead of May 23, and finish up in late August, instead of 
     September.
       During the height of the summer season, the 17 campgrounds 
     should offer the same services they did a year ago. In the 
     shoulder seasons, however, Olympic is now cutting the number 
     of sites and reducing sewer and water service. Olympic will 
     pare its expenses by about $100,000 by slashing fee 
     collection at entrances and campgrounds. Of the four entry 
     stations, only Heart O'the Hills (providing access to 
     Hurricane Ridge) will be in operation. The park staff 
     considers the booths an important way to inform visitors and 
     to deter those who come to Olympic to break into cars.
       The number of people working on natural resource management 
     at Olympic is ``woefully inadequate,'' Rudolph said.
       Phone: 206-452-4501.


                      rocky mountain national park

                               (Colorado)

       Located on the Front Range of the Rockies and only 65 miles 
     from downtown Denver, this popular park contains 59 peaks at 
     least 12,000 feet high, including Longs Peak. Established in 
     1915 as the ninth national park, Rocky Mountain provide 
     habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, golden eagles, and other 
     species. Famous Trail Ridge Road takes motorists to the 
     highest point (12,183 feet) that a car can reach in the 
     national parks.
       Visitors.--1982: 2,578,902, 1992: 2,942,743.
       Budget impacts.--There will be only 60 interpretive 
     programs a week this simmer, compared to 100 a year ago. The 
     Lily Lake Visitor Center, operated jointly with the U.S. 
     Forest Service, will not open until June 1, instead of May 1. 
     It will close Labor Day, rather than October 15.
       The hours of operation at the entrance stations will be 
     reduced. The east-side hours will be 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., in 
     contrast to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. last summer. The west-side hours 
     will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., versus 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. in 1992. 
     Not only does this reduce revenue, but it precludes many 
     visitors from getting the information they need upon arrival 
     at Rocky Mountain.
       The east side will have two fewer seasonal law enforcement 
     positions, while the west side will have three fewer.
       Upkeep of Rocky Mountain's 355 miles of trails has lagged 
     due to lack of staff. There are more than 40,000 horse rides 
     a year on these trails, increasing the need for maintenance.
       The park had hoped to hire five seasonal people to 
     rehabilitate the rock walls along Trail Ridge Road, build by 
     the Civilian Conservation Corps. But the money to hire them 
     is not available, so the work will be put off. Other 
     infrastructure projects left unfunded were the widening and 
     upgrading of road shoulders and the reroofing of the Alpine 
     Visitor Center.
       Rocky Mountain had hoped to receive enough money from the 
     stimulus package to hire 30 seasonal employees. That would 
     have restored staff levels to the more adequate levels of two 
     or three years ago.
       Phone: 303-586-2371.


                        shenandoah national park

                               (Virginia)

       This park is located along the Blue Ridge Mountains and 
     offers beautiful views of the Shenandoah Valley and the 
     Piedmont. In 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated 
     Shenandoah (meaning ``Daughter of the Stars''), it was the 
     beginning of an experiment to determine whether an overused 
     area be returned to its natural condition. Today 95 percent 
     of the park is forested, and there have been major comebacks 
     by the turkey, black bear, deer, and bobcat. Thirty-five 
     warbler species have been seen in Shenandoah, which contains 
     105-mile-long Skyline Drive.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,751,972, 1992: 1,850,000.
       Budget impacts.--Shenandoah made headlines in December with 
     its proposed closing of portions of Skyline Drive. That plan 
     was shelved, but the episode indicates the seriousness of the 
     park's budget squeeze. The staff cutbacks may be the most 
     extreme in the national park system. Forty positions were 
     either eliminated or will be left vacant until the end of 
     this fiscal year. The positions include assistant 
     superintendent, district ranger, two sub-district rangers, 
     interpretive rangers, and a fire management official. This 
     summer there will be only 20 seasonal rangers, compared to 28 
     a year ago, and they began work in mid-May rather than March. 
     Since 1989, said Chief Ranger Larry Hakel, the ranger staff 
     has been reduced by 50 percent since 1989.
       The staff shortage has forced the closure of two 
     campgrounds: Mathews Arm and Dundo (used by groups). Big 
     Meadow family campground has just opened, almost three months 
     later than usual.
       There was no interpretive program at all this spring so 
     that the summer program could be retained. The final summer 
     schedule is not yet ready, but even with help from 
     volunteers, it will have to be scaled back. All visitor 
     centers are open fewer hours, and the North End center opened 
     a month late. Entrance stations, where visitors get much of 
     their information, have been open a maximum of five days a 
     week, but the park hopes to have them open every day during 
     the peak season.
       Dealing with law enforcement duties and searches has become 
     more of a challenge than ever. ``We're having difficulty with 
     the day-to-day stuff,'' said Hakel. ``We've had some major 
     auto accidents and searches this year.''
       Two big March storms had a major impact on the trails, many 
     of which remain too covered with debris to be usable. The 
     maintenance crews have concentrated on clearing Skyline Drive 
     and the most heavily used trails. Those storms made an 
     already difficult fiscal situation even worse. Skyline Drive 
     cleanup cost $250,000.
       Normally Shenandoah replaces five to ten vehicles a year, 
     but this year only one has bee replaced, and the backlog adds 
     up to $2.6 million.
       Phone: 703-999-2243.


                 sleeping bear dunes national lakeshore

                               (Michigan)

       This park protects 31.5 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, 
     as well as North and South Manitou Islands. The most striking 
     features are enormous sand dunes. Authorized in 1970, 
     Sleeping Bear Dunes also features beaches, rugged bluffs 
     towering as high as 480 feet above Lake Michigan, dense 
     forests, and inland lakes. The park is in the northwest 
     portion of Michigan's lower peninsula, near Traverse City.
       Visitors.--1982: 664,945, 1992: 1,237,181.
       Budgets impacts.--All maintenance of Sleeping Bear Dunes' 
     100-mile trail network has been eliminated. ``We have no one 
     to maintain them,'' explained Superintendent Ivan Miller. 
     Having cut six maintenance positions this year, the park also 
     has had to defer maintenance and cleaning of new facilities, 
     including a boat launch, campground, and picnic areas.
       Nor can the park clean up hazardous waste on lands that 
     have been added to Sleeping Bear Dunes in recent years. The 
     main concerns stem from underground storage tanks. Other 
     budget casualties were non-mandatory training, purchases of 
     supplies and materials, and backcountry patrols.
       Shortchanging these activities enabled Sleeping Bear Dunes 
     to hold the line in other areas.
       Phone: 616-326-5134.


                       Yellowstone National Park

                       (Wyoming, Montana, Idaho)

       The world's first national park, established in 1872, 
     Yellowstone is the largest in the Lower 48 (2.2 million 
     acres). Home to the world's greatest geyser system, which 
     includes Old Faithful, Yellowstone provides habitat for 
     grizzlies, elk, trumpeter swans, bison, and many other 
     species. It has been designated both a Biosphere Reserve and 
     a World Heritage Site.
       Visitors.--1982: 2,368,897, 1992: 3,144,405.
       Budget impacts.--Yellowstone has been forced to cut its 
     seasonal staff dramatically in recent years, despite a surge 
     in visitation. In 1988 there were 136 seasonal rangers; this 
     summer there will be just 73. The impact is even greater than 
     those numbers suggest, said Chief Ranger Dan Sholley, because 
     most seasonals are working for a shorter period, generally 
     June 20 to September 7. ``The visitor parking lots are 
     already full here,'' Sholley said on the third Friday in May. 
     Moreover, he explained, because these employees' total 
     earnings will shrink, many of the veterans are not returning.
       One of the key responsibilities of Yellowstone's rangers is 
     patrol of 2200 frontcountry campground sites each night to 
     make sure food is stored properly so that grizzlies are not 
     attracted. Because cuts cannot be made in this coverage, 
     reductions must be focused elsewhere.
       Though final schedules are not ready, the interpretive 
     staff expects to scale back on a wide range of ranger-led 
     activities, including nature walks, evening campfire talks, 
     workshops, and demonstrations. Visitor centers will tend to 
     shut down an hour or two earlier. Entrance stations will not 
     be staffed until May 29. Only two years ago the north 
     entrance was staffed nearly year-round. Daily hours at these 
     spots will be more limited.
       Law enforcement staff will be stretched even more than in 
     the past. Responding to emergencies will leave rangers little 
     time to help visitors who run out of gas, lock their keys in 
     the car, or need jump starts. A spokesman said, ``People may 
     have to call someone from outside the park.'' That is a 
     daunting prospect given Yellowstone's large size. Also cut 
     back is maintenance of trails, roads, and vehicle fleet. 
     ``We're running 100,000 miles on our patrol cars,'' said 
     Sholley. ``The wheels are rolling off them, literally.''
       Phone: 307-344-2013.


                         YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

                              (California)

       ``I know of no single wonder of Nature on earth which can 
     claim a superiority over the Yosemite.'' Horace Greeley said 
     in 1859. El Capitan, Half Dome, Bridalveil Falls, giant 
     sequoias, and Yosemite's other great features led to its 1890 
     designation as the third national park and attract nearly 
     four million visitors a year. Yosemite is at a pivotal point 
     in its history as debate continues over: (1) which firm 
     should succeed the Curry Company as the concessioner October 
     1 and (2) how to ease the congestion that is choking Yosemite 
     Valley.
       Visitors.--1982: 2,506,241, 1992: 3,957,642.
       Budget impacts.--Various steps have been taken, or are 
     planned, to deal with the budget crunch at Yosemite. 
     Campgrounds at Bridalveil Creek and Yosemite Creek will be 
     closed all summer. Combined, they contain 185 of the 1,928 
     conventional (or ``family'') campsites available in the park. 
     Bridalveil also has one of Yosemite's horse camps and group 
     campgrounds. Hodgdon Meadow campground, which normally 
     operates year-round, will not open until July 2. It has 105 
     standard sites and four group sites, giving it a total 
     capacity of 750 people.
       Hours at entrance stations will have to be reduced because 
     there are fewer rangers to staff them. For example, at the 
     Big Oak Flat entrance on Route 120 along the park's west 
     side, the number of patrol rangers has dropped from ten a 
     year ago to seven, while the number of fee collectors has 
     declined from 16 to eight.
       Nature walks, evening talks, and other parts of the 
     interpretive program are likely to be scaled back, but the 
     schedules are still being drawn up.
       The combined impact of too much snow and too little money 
     has slowed the clearing of Tioga Road, an east-west road 
     across the heart of Yosemite and the route to Tuolumne 
     Meadows. There is only one crew working, instead of two, so 
     the park predicts Tioga Road will not open until mid-June. 
     The late opening is forcing even more of the visitors into 
     congested Yosemite Valley, and on both May 22 and 23 the park 
     halted traffic into the park for three hours. This was the 
     first time in the park's history--except during a natural 
     emergency--that such action had to be taken. The staff may 
     have to seal off entrances on other weekends this summer, for 
     up to five hours at a time.
       Crime at Yosemite, as at most parks, has risen. The park's 
     1992 police blotter included five reported rapes. There were 
     836 arrests, up from 794 the year before, and 742 motor 
     vehicle accidents. But the budget squeeze has forced a 
     reduction in law enforcement staff. A year ago there were 16 
     permanent rangers and 10 seasonals on the job; this year 
     there will be ten permanent and 9 seasonal rangers. The 
     result will be thinner coverage.
       Phone: 209-372-0248.


                           Zion National Park

                                 (Utah)

       Part of the Southwest's famous Canyon Country, Zion 
     National Park protects the geologic wonders of the Mesozoic 
     period, spanning the time between the geology preserved in 
     Grand Canyon and in Bryce Canyon National Parks. Featuring 
     brilliantly colored rocks and hanging gardens in the cliffs, 
     this 147,000-acre park provides habitat for 250 bird species 
     and a variety of mammals, including bobcats and gray fox. 
     Zion was made a national park in 1919.
       Visitors.--1982: 1,246,290, 1992: 2,390,626.
       Budget impacts.--Despite Zion's rapidly growing popularity, 
     the visitor center did not begin operating 12 hours a day 
     until May 16. There has been enough demand to justify longer 
     hours since March 1. ``The visitor center is a basic 
     responsibility,'' said Denny Davies, Chief of Interpretation 
     and Visitor Services, but the park simply lacked the funds to 
     run longer hours.
       Trail maintenance has become a major concern. Three 
     maintenance positions have gone unfilled this year, 
     exacerbating an already serious problem. Rocks, water, and 
     other natural forces degrade the trails, as do people taking 
     short cuts. ``Ten years ago you would have seen a lot less 
     litter, a lot less wear and tear on the trails, and less 
     damage to the resources,'' Davies said.
       ``Trails are really hammered in the backcountry,'' said 
     Davies. Even in the frontcountry, maintenance has not kept 
     pace. One mile-long trail was hiked by some 700,000 people 
     last year.
       Zion also has been unable to maintain fences needed to 
     prevent livestock from grazing in the park and damaging 
     resources.
       The park expects visitation to continue its rapid growth. 
     Last month there were 25 percent more visitors than there 
     were the previous April. Most of the increase is coming 
     during the shoulder seasons.
       Phone: 801-772-3256.

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, it is not often that the Wilderness 
Society and the Senator from Wyoming are on the same side of an issue. 
It may be that they would even change their side of the issue if they 
knew I was going to insert their impacts.
  But in the majority leader's park in Maine, Acadia--which I, 
incidentally, helped the majority leader expand a few years back--it 
was slated to receive $631,000 from the economic stimulus legislation. 
The money would have enabled the park to maintain seasonal ranger staff 
and its interpretive program at 1992 levels, tackle sewage problems, 
step up efforts to help endangered species, and undertake other 
projects that have been put off in recent years. It did not happen.
  We have Acadia in Maine; Big Bend in Texas; Cape Hatteras National 
Seashore in North Carolina; Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio; Glacier National 
Park in Montana; Great Smokey Mountains in Tennessee, the Presiding 
Officer's State; Hot Springs in Arkansas, the President's home State; 
Indiana Dunes in Indiana; Mammoth Cave in Kentucky; North Cascades 
National Park in Washington State; Olympic National Park in Washington 
State; Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado; Shenandoah in 
Virginia; Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan; Yellowstone in Wyoming, 
Montana, and Idaho; Yosemite in California, and Zion National Park in 
Utah.
  This is a limited number, and that is what I have asked to have 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, with or without this park, this summer we will observe 
additional closures, program curtailment, and maintenance deferral, 
along with cuts in seasonal and temporary personnel.
  This Congress and this administration must be, but are on the way not 
to be, responsible for protecting the existing park and service 
programs--we missed being this level of responsible--before we add more 
unfunded burdens to a system that is clearly at a breaking point.
  One of the great issues in America today is unfunded mandates. What 
we are doing to the local communities is heaping obligations on them 
that we in Congress are unwilling to fund. Guess what we are doing 
right here? This is, make no mistake about it, an unfunded mandate on 
the National Park System--unfunded with personnel, unfunded with 
resources, except those that have to be taken from other parks in order 
to make it take place.
  Someday, somewhere along the line, somebody will be responsible and 
take the initiative, and I suggest to you that it should be this 
Congress. No one else is going to stand up for a system that calls out 
for help and assistance, in a system that is so bogged down that it 
cannot even report to the Energy Committee its prioritization of lands 
authorized nor any ideas as to how much it might cost; their excuse 
being that how much it might cost depends on how long in the future you 
defer it, and they cannot tell how much more it would cost in 10 years 
than they would today because they have no intention of doing it today. 
Where else but Congress is that going to come from?
  And, again, it is not a tradeoff between protecting the desert or 
failing to. It is a tradeoff between protecting the National Park 
Service or failing to.
  My guess is we certainly cannot count on this administration. I was 
appalled and nearly became despondent when I heard of the recent 
comments of the Secretary of the Interior the other day. He already has 
another park waiting in the wings.
  According to an associated news report, after what he described as a 
spectacular helicopter survey of the coast north of San Francisco, 
Interior Secretary told a cheering crowd he would lobby Congress to 
preserve its beauty.
  ``I surrendered'' Babbitt told a group of environmentalists and area 
residents. ``As we move to the end of the 20th century, it is not 
enough to just set aside a few million acres. We've learned that 
everything relates to everything,'' he said.
  He has not learned everything relates to everything. Something 
relates to the health of the National Park Service.
  But what this supposedly responsible Cabinet member is talking about 
is adding another 40,000 acres to Point Reyes National Seashore. It 
would run from just about Bolinas in Marin County, 20 miles north to 
Bodega Harbor in Sonoma County. The junior Senator from California has 
already introduced similar legislation to accomplish the same 
initiative. Do you have any idea what the taxpayers could end up paying 
for this property?
  We spoke with the tax assessors office in Marin County. Given a point 
in time when the lands become developable, $100,000 per acre is well 
within the ball park.
  That is $4 billion. If you took the average of funds allocated to the 
National Park Service from the Land and Water Conservation fund, say 
$100,000,000 per year, it would take 40 years to purchase this acreage. 
That is assuming there is zero inflation. If there is 1 percent 
inflation on these California lands, it will take 110 years; 2 percent 
inflation will take 1,000 years. At 2\1/2\ percent, it will never get 
funded. And of course in the interim, no other lands could be acquired 
including the more than half a million acres in the State and private 
lands within the California Desert. Even if you only purchased easement 
and development rights the price tag would still be 90 percent of the 
total cost of acquisition.
  The case is not between protecting the deserts and failing to protect 
them. The case is looking after the National Park System.
  This creation of new parks and expanding existing ones just has to 
stop. It is like a shark feeding frenzy. The problem is there is no 
fresh meat--so we are literally eating ourselves alive. We are eating 
alive what Americans have grown to trust us to protect.
  Mr. President, funds and personnel have already had to be absorbed 
from existing areas to finance the 27 new areas that the Congress has 
added to the System during the last five congressional sessions.
  I said before that within the National Park Service, an estimated 
3,700 positions will be eliminated over the next 5 years under 
President Clinton's proposal to reinvent Government.
  We face a backlog of deferred but needed rehabilitation projects in 
the billions of dollars.
  The backlog of authorized but unaquired park service lands is in the 
billions of dollars.
  We cannot afford to operate and maintain what we are already 
responsible for.
  We have just said let it go downhill, let Americans, whose property 
has been condemned to parks, bear the brunt of it. Let all our park 
system that exists today bear the brunt of it and decline in quality 
and decline in maintenance and decline in personnel and decline in 
hours of operations.
  My amendment Mr. President, would retain the management of the East 
Mojave National Scenic Area with the Bureau of Land Management and 
upgrade the land status from a scenic area to that of a national 
monument.
  There are opponents who say this is only a name change, it does 
little else. I encourage Members to read the amendment.
  My amendment contains the identical findings, directions, and 
provisions that are currently in S. 21. The only difference is it will 
be a BLM national monument and not an ``NPS'' park.
  The only other difference is it will fall within an agency whose 
authorization already contemplates it. It will not be a tax on the 
National Park System.
  The BLM is already in place. Its personnel are in place. It makes 
very little sense to change management just for the sake of change and 
to the detriment of other Park Service sites.
  Mr. President, at the committee's last business meeting, I had no 
alternative but to oppose my chairman in his quest for a new park in 
New Orleans. The rationale for creating that park had more than 
sufficient significance and merit.
  I do not enjoy opposing the chairman, Senator Johnston. We have a 
good history of friendship, of working together on tough issues and of 
reaching compromise and consensus on a number of complex issues. So 
this is not an argument between myself and the Senator from California. 
This is an argument between myself and the Congress for the life of the 
National Park Service. There is no means by which the Senator can 
suggest we will be able to add additional funds. She knows that. I know 
that. Congress knows that. The funds will come out of the hide of the 
existing park structure and system.
  I felt compelled to oppose the chairman because the Director of the 
Park Service testified at a hearing on the matter that he did not 
oppose it, he just could not afford it.
  Mr. President, I submit that if we cannot afford a new park costing a 
few million dollars, we unfortunately cannot afford a new Mojave Park 
for $125 million.
  The National Park Service System is much too valuable a worldwide 
resource to have us dismantle existing parks in order to create new 
areas.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in responsible action and 
sensible legislation. By voting for this amendment this Mojave will be 
fully protected by the Bureau of Land Management as a national 
monument.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wyoming for a 
very powerful statement on the subject of the starvation, from a 
budgetary standpoint, of the national parks. He is surely, surely 
correct on that issue. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues, and 
the people in the executive branch, will listen to his very strong plea 
on what we have done to the National Park Service, because we are 
starving the National Park Service. And whatever happens to this bill, 
the National Park Service on today's budgetary timeline is due to be 
starved. This bill is not going to, really, add very much to that one 
way or the other. What the Congress needs to do is respond and more 
generously fund the National Park Service, because little by little it 
is in fact being starved.
  I submit to my colleagues that at less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the Federal budget, the National Park Service is hardly contributing to 
the Federal deficit. If you put it to the American people, ``do we want 
to adequately fund the National Park Service,'' I believe in 
overwhelming numbers they would say yes, we want to fund the National 
Park Service. They do not have any doubt about that. That is one reason 
why I proposed legislation which would grant to the National Park 
Service additional funds for acquisition of parks way beyond just this 
individual park--way beyond that.
  I hope we will be able to bring to the attention of Senators and of 
Members of Congress, that the National Park Service is in bad shape.
  The reason we have these huge deficits is not this less than one-
tenth of 1 percent for the National Park Service. It is--and we all 
know it--because of entitlements. If the American public wants 
entitlements increased they need to face up to that. But I can tell 
you, Mr. President, the American public does not want to starve--from a 
budgetary standpoint--the National Park Service and see our lands that 
are the jewels of the Park Service, through mismanagement, through lack 
of management, through lack of funds, deteriorate and not be properly 
taken care of.
  I favor the bill as reported by the Energy Committee, reported on a 
bipartisan vote of 13 to 7. I hesitantly oppose my colleague from 
Wyoming on this particular amendment because, really, this amendment, 
indeed this bill, does not contribute that much to the question of cost 
of the National Park Service. If we look at the total number of acres 
affected by this bill, some 6.3 million acres, it is almost 
breathtaking in its scope. If you look no further than that you can 
say, ``How can we afford 6.3 million acres to add to the Federal 
management, wilderness and park areas?''
  Mr. President, the real question is: How much of that 6.3 million 
acres is not now owned by the Federal or State government? The answer 
is that only 6.3 percent of this total area is not presently owned by 
the Federal or State government.
  So the additional burden for the Federal Government is--I will not 
say slight--but not a huge amount. Most of this is already owned by 
Government.
  I appreciate what my colleague says about the question of whether it 
ought to be in one Federal budget or another Federal budget. We can fix 
that, Mr. President. We can just transfer those funds from the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, from the Department of Interior or BLM, to the 
National Park Service. They are all Federal dollars. So that argument 
is one that is easily fixable.
  Granted what he says about the National Park Service, we can fix the 
argument about who gets the money to manage these properties.
  The incremental amount will not make that much difference in this 
Federal budget. I can tell you, Mr. President, it will simply not. 
There is a longstanding tradition in the Senate and in our committee--
very, very seldom breached--which is that if the two Senators from a 
State are in favor of a bill relating to a national park, we almost 
always endorse that bill and go along with those two Senators. That is 
the case in this instance. Both Senators strongly support this bill, 
and both Senators strongly support the designation of East Mojave as a 
national park.
  I say that is very, very seldom breached. So let us look behind the 
fact that both Senators are for this.
  Is it a good idea? Mr. President, I can tell you we have had over 10 
committee hearings, both here and in California, over a period of 8 
years. This is the most thoroughly considered bill that we have almost 
ever had. I guess there have been some others that have had this many 
hearings, but not many. Everything there is to be known and developed 
in committee hearings we have developed in this case. The record is 
very clear.
  BLM has recognized the special characteristics of this area by 
designating it administratively as the East Mojave National Scenic 
Area. That was not done under this administration. That was done under 
previous administrations.
  In 1979, a BLM staff report to the Park Service concluded that 
``cultural and natural resource values of the East Mojave study area 
are so diverse and outstanding that the area readily qualifies for 
national park or monument status.''
  In 1987--I guess that was during the Bush administration--after 
reviewing the Mojave National Park proposal, the professional staff of 
the Western Regional Office of the National Park Service reported that 
the area met the required criteria specified in the National Park 
Service management policies and recommended that the area would be ``a 
worthy and valuable addition to the National Park System.''
  Our present Director of the National Park Service, Roger Kennedy, 
stated ``that the Mojave National Park unquestionably merits national 
park status. The resources of the proposed Mojave National Park meet 
the high standards required for a national park. This remarkable place 
is of unquestionable significance biologically, culturally, 
recreationally, scenically, and scientifically.''
  Secretary Babbitt testified for this park as a ``very special 
addition to the National Park System.''
  I will not go into the beauty of the park, which is considerable, 
because, frankly, my colleagues from California do that so well, and 
they have those wonderful pictures which tell such a complete story 
about this area.
  Let me simply say that this land, for the most part, is 
governmentally owned. The whole thing needs to be put together. Some of 
this land is owned by a company called Catellus, which is the successor 
in interest to the Santa Fe Railroad.
  As my colleagues know, there was a checkerboard pattern of ownership 
by railroads in the West owing to legislation passed in the 19th 
century which granted to the railroads sections of land which are 
interspersed throughout the whole area.
  From a management standpoint, we need to acquire some of that 6 
percent that is the privately owned land in order, from a management 
standpoint, not to have the checkerboard--in some instances, to grant 
access; in other instances to grant wildlife passageways--so that we 
can string this parkland together and this wilderness area together in 
a way that it can be properly managed for the wildlife, for the 
cultural and the environmental values, and for the good of those 
thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands of people, who will be 
using the park.
  It makes sense, Mr. President. It is not a great addition to the 
Federal budget, and we can fix the question of who ought to have the 
budgetary drain, whether it ought to be the Park Service or the 
Department of Interior budget or BLM budget, by simply transferring the 
money from BLM, which presently has the largest budgetary drain for the 
management of this area, to the National Park Service.
  The park makes sense. The amendment of my friend from Wyoming does 
not make sense. I hope we will, however, listen to the main thrust of 
his argument, which is that we are starving the National Park Service 
from a fiscal standpoint. I hope when we get around to the 
appropriations process that we will listen in the Senate and do more 
justice to the National Park Service because, as the Senator so well 
points out, it does not make any sense to have ill-housed, ill-managed 
national parks which are underfunded and, therefore, not available to 
the extent they ought to be to the American public.
  So, Mr. President, I reluctantly oppose the amendment of my friend 
from Wyoming and support the position of the Senators from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I thank the Senator from Louisiana 
and the committee chair for his comments. I would like to comment on 
this amendment. Let me begin by saying that the bill, as introduced, 
for the 1.2 million acres that are East Mojave, would make it a 
national park. Not to do so is antithetical toward the intent of this 
bill.
  This national park is the centerpiece of this bill, and to make it a 
BLM monument is, in fact, a bill killer in the eyes of this author. The 
people of California do not want this. Both Senators from California do 
not want this.
  This amendment was proposed in the committee. It was defeated in the 
committee. It was defeated by the votes of Senators Johnston, Ford, 
Bumpers, Akaka, Bradley, Bingaman, Wellstone, Mathews, Campbell, and 
Dorgan, and I am hopeful that it will be defeated this afternoon by a 
vote of this body, as well.
  Let me say that the people of California, 70 percent of the people 
living in the desert counties, support park status for the Mojave. This 
was a Field Institute poll done in 1992. A full sample of 1,300 people 
showed 70 percent support for park status for the Mojave.
  Then the question of a BLM monument status began to emerge. The 
reasons it began to emerge were twofold, and let us talk right about 
basics: One was mining interests wanted it; and, two, hunting interests 
wanted it. So the Field Institute went back into the field and did 
another poll in California.
  They found that 75 percent of those Californians questioned supported 
creating the Mojave National Park with no hunting. That clearly was 
aimed to see if BLM monument status was acceptable to the people of 
California. The answer clearly is no; 75 percent of the people want no 
hunting.
  Now, let us look a little bit behind the rationale. Only 1.5 percent 
of Californians hunt in the State. This percentage is lower than all 
other States except Hawaii and Rhode Island. Virtually every other 
State has a much higher percentage of its population that hunts. 
California hunters have access to more than 60 percent of the State's 
land area--60 percent of a huge State is available for hunting. This 
includes 20.4 million acres in 21 national forests, 17.1 million acres 
of BLM land, and nearly 3 million acres of Department of Defense lands.
  S. 21 would still allow hunters access to approximately 10 million 
acres of BLM land in the desert region.
  If we could put that other chart up again, all throughout this 
desert, all through here--here is Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Barstow, 
the Joshua Tree, Death Valley up here and East Mojave here. All around 
this area hunting is permitted, and there is 10 million remaining 
desert acres where hunting is permitted.
  Californians as well as people from other States are far more likely 
to visit the Mojave to hike, to camp, and to enjoy the scenery and 
wildlife than to hunt. That is one of the reasons for wanting to make 
this a national park, so people can visit the area without fearing a 
bullet.
  In 1991, only 9,000 out-of-State visitors came to California to hunt 
anywhere in the State. In contrast, 640,000 people visited California 
for the primary purpose of wildlife viewing, according to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
  California is one of the top three States in the Nation for out-of-
State trips for the purpose of wildlife viewing. That is one of the 
reasons both Senator Boxer and I feel so strongly about the national 
park status.
  Hunting animals such as bighorn sheep and deer make people wary of 
humans and thus diminishes viewing opportunities for the public even 
during a nonhunting season.
  The amount of hunting in California also has declined significantly 
over the past two decades. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 446,000 
people hunted in California in 1991. This is nearly a 50 percent 
decline over the last 20 years. Let us put the hunting aspect of this 
to rest. The people do not want it, the committee voted against it, the 
two United States Senators are opposed to it, and it is clear that 
there is strong support for an East Mojave National Park.
  Let me talk for a moment on the arguments of cost that have been 
raised. The Senator from Wyoming pointed out that the National Park 
Service had taken a loss of about 3,700 people. I am informed by the 
Park Service that this is in error; that 3,700 people have been 
reassigned from central offices to the parks, not out of the agency. In 
other words, they are being taken out of the central office and put 
into park areas.
  Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator yield for a correction?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I certainly will.
  Mr. WALLOP. I did not say 3,700 people had been taken out. I said if 
you look at budget projections, it is 3,700 people. Personnel by which 
the National Park Service will be reduced over the next 5 years. I did 
not say they had been.
  What has taken place in this year is that 401 people have been 
removed from the National Park Service and put into the Office of the 
Secretary. But the 3,700 personnel is a projection under the 
President's Reinvention of Government. I did not claim it had taken 
place.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much.
  I trust then the Senator would not disagree that 3,700 people are 
being reassigned from central offices to the parks so the national 
parks will have 3,700 people added to them.
  I also want to say that comments were made about the Redwood National 
Park and the fact that there was an economic loss when that park came 
into being. I would like to point out that when that park came into 
being, there was a legislative taking of about 47,000 acres of land 
immediately. That threw people out of jobs. There is no legislative 
taking of land with this bill. No jobs will be lost with this bill.
  I also would like to correct the comments on the desert tortoise, at 
least indicate my understanding.
  There may need to be some mitigation, but activities can occur even 
in land where the desert tortoise is in danger. Let me give you one 
example. The Viceroy Gold Corp. received approval of a plan to operate 
to mine and today has an active gold mine in desert tortoise habitat. 
Mitigation, in fact, was provided. So what is increasingly happening is 
when there are problems, people are getting together and trying to 
solve those problems by providing mitigation.
  If I might, let me move now to the cost argument. Yesterday, I read 
into the Record a letter by Secretary Babbitt, which was dated April 
11, and indicated how the Secretary and Interior would fund this bill.
  The Secretary's letter, I would like to restress, points this out, 
and let me quote:

       These lands--

and we are referring to lands that would require acquisition--

     were already targeted for acquisition in BLM's protection 
     lands for the California Desert. The land acquisition 
     envisioned in Senate bill 21 is less than that planned by the 
     BLM. These acquisition costs are not new. In fact, the 
     potential cost to the Federal Treasury will actually be less.

  And then he goes on to spell out these lands. He points out that land 
acquisition costs are discretionary, to the extent they may be spread 
over a long period of time. He states that in the 1995 budget alone the 
four land managing agencies of the Federal Government requested $257 
million for high priority land acquisition projects. Even at $15 
million a year for the California Desert, that is less than 6 percent 
of the annual Federal budget request. He believes it is realistic to 
protect this natural resource. In operational costs, it is believed 
that they will be able to be met because the plan for meeting them is 
simply to transfer existing BLM people into the area. I have visited 
places--for example, there is a beautiful Kelso Railway Station in the 
heart of the desert that could be used for a headquarters with very 
little cost. It is vacant. It has been remodeled. It is kind of in the 
middle of nowhere, but it could be utilized. It is in a very major 
central area of the California Desert.
  The other point that is aimed at is to permit mining in some of these 
areas. As I pointed out yesterday, there are none of the 14 designated 
strategic minerals within any of these desert areas. There are other 
mining aspirations. There are mining claims. All active mines are 
protected. All mines that have been approved to proceed and mine will 
be able to do so. And so I believe that the heart of this amendment is 
aimed to permit mining and to permit hunting within what is a beautiful 
resource. Let me just once again stress----

  Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.
  Mr. WALLOP. Is the Senator aware that my amendment adopts all her 
findings and, therefore, the mining issue, to the extent it exists, 
exists in yours as well as mine? We do not permit mining, just valid 
existing rights, which yours does. So mining is really a bogus issue, I 
say.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. But you would permit hunting; is 
that not correct?
  Mr. WALLOP. I would. But there is no reason it has to be. They hunt 
in the Grand Teton National Park. It does not stop anything from going 
on there. Hunting can be eliminated under that status, as well. It is 
not an issue between hunting and mining. Our issues of protection are 
not all that different.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to hear that. Nonetheless, the people that 
have worked so hard for this bill for so many years believe that the 
National Park Service is a much better, well equipped, understanding 
unit to be able to protect and preserve the beautiful resources of the 
area.
  Let me show you for a moment what some of those resources are. You 
have here Castle Peak, which is a very unique peak in the Mojave 
National Park. You have an unusual dune, Kelso Dunes, which is near the 
town of Kelso, where actually the headquarters could be in the Mojave 
National Washing. You have a pinyon forest in winter. You have the 
largest Joshua tree forest anywhere in the Mojave National Park. You 
also have an unusual soda lake in this national park.
  The park will be just an incredible place. There will be mountain 
ranges, dry lakes, cinder cones, badlands, washes, mesas, buttes, lava 
beds, caves and, as we said, one of the most complex sand dune systems 
anywhere. One of the reasons why East Mojave is so significant is 
because it is at the junction of three of the major desert ecosystems, 
the Sonoran, the Mojave, and the Great Basin. So its biological 
resources are extremely varied.
  I want to point out that in 1979 the Bureau of Land Management staff 
report found that there was no finer grouping anywhere of wildlife 
habitats, and that the East Mojave embodies the finest scenery in the 
entire California desert.
  In 1987 the National Park Service concluded that the East Mojave 
meets all of the criteria for inclusion in the national park: national 
significance, suitability, feasibility, management. It was recommended 
that the East Mojave be added to the national park.
  May I indicate that the President supports the East Mojave as a 
national park. The Secretary of the Interior supports the East Mojave 
as a national park. Both California Senators support the East Mojave as 
a national park. And a dominant majority--three quarters of 
Californians polled 1 year ago--support the East Mojave as a national 
park.
  It would seem to me that if you combine this with the present 
Director of the National Park Service, Roger Kennedy, who believes that 
these natural resources can best be protected by national park, and if 
you believe what the Secretary of the Interior has said in his letter 
to me dated yesterday, that by transferring BLM resources to the 
National Park Service and by utilizing the present program of land 
acquisition already scheduled for this area, we can minimize these 
costs substantially. I believe you will have a cost-effective national 
park that will be truly unique.
  If this amendment is defeated, it is my intention to also move to put 
the public lands of Lanfair Valley, one of the most pristine areas of 
the East Mojave, back into the bill. So I am hopeful that this 
amendment in fact will be defeated.
  In summary, this amendment, for everyone who has worked so long, is a 
killer amendment for the bill. It strikes at the heart of the bill, 
which is the creation of a new national park. I recognize that the 
Senator from Wyoming does not believe new national parks should be 
created. But let me speak as a Californian. Californians are huge 
taxpayers to the Federal Government. One of the things that my people 
believe the Federal Government does well is run national parks, such as 
Yosemite, the Point Reyes National Seashore, the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area. I am a native Californian, and I saw the Golden Gate 
national recreation area before it became a national park. It is 
incredibly improved as a product of the National Park Service. It is so 
widely utilized by people.
  California has become a dead State. You have people who do not have 
personal gardens, and they do not have the ability to partake in an 
outdoor experience. So, increasingly, trips to national parks are the 
be-all and end-all. Yosemite is lined up for sometimes years ahead of 
time to get into campgrounds to be able to camp. These are the 
treasures that we create and that we protect for the future.
  What I have been trying to say here is that in this centerpiece of 
the bill, there are areas that are so fragile: 90 cinder cones, 
volcanoes below ground and with peaks above the ground, magnificent 
flowers, the big-horned sheep, the desert tortoise, wild burros 
running; and individual volunteers bring water guzzlers and put them 
out there to be able to water the animals. It is just an incredible 
place. If you have been there in the morning when the Sun is rising, or 
in the evening when the Sun is setting and you see the table top 
mountains in the distance, when you look out at the Joshua trees, the 
pinyons, when you see the mystique that is the California desert, I 
really believe and intend to follow that this will be a revenue money 
maker for the Park Service. I believe people will come, they will 
sample, they will utilize, they will be discrete, and these incredible 
resources will be protected for all time.
  Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be defeated so that S. 21 
can proceed as it was intended; that a great new national park known as 
the East Mojave be created for our children and our grandchildren to 
use and to adore.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I had not planned on speaking to S. 21 
today, but in coming by the floor and listening to the debate, I 
thought I would enter a couple of comments. I am not an original 
cosponsor of S. 21, basically because I wanted to give it much study. 
It has been debated here in the Congress for I guess about 10 years, 
off and on, before Senator Feinstein provided the leadership to get it 
this far this year.
  But having been born and raised in California and having spent many 
years there, I still am vitally interested in what happens in that 
State. I recognize that, in many instances, whatever happens to 
California sooner or later happens to the rest of this country.
  I find myself in very reluctant opposition to the amendment of my 
friend from Wyoming. He has been a terrific leader in the American 
West, and we have worked on many issues together. On this particular 
one I will reluctantly oppose his amendment.
  I had a great many questions and reservations and found, through a 
number of meetings with my colleague, Senator Feinstein from 
California, that she was very willing to listen to all of my concerns. 
They basically were in two areas.
  One was the concern of what will happen to the many small communities 
around this massive area that will be put into the park system if there 
were a decline of tourism and people were locked off from the use of 
those public lands.
  The other concern was that many have used the areas in there for 45 
or 50 years, and I was concerned about what the effect would be on 
mining, offroad recreation, grazing permits, and somewhat on hunting, 
too.
  I found in every instance in working with Senator Feinstein that she 
was willing to moderate the bill and willing to take considerations 
into the process.
  For example, in the original bill there were no areas that I could 
find that were going to be grandfathered in for offroad-vehicle use, 
and many of the small towns, they tell me, that are around this area, 
around the new park area, are dependent on those offroad-vehicle users 
for weekend sales in grocery stores and camping goods, and so on.
  But Senator Feinstein was good enough to grandfather in a number of 
areas, 16 different areas comprising about 500,000 acres, to continue 
to be used for these offroad-vehicle people. One of them, the Algodones 
Dunes area, was 45,000 acres in itself. She also grandfathered in a 
number of what are called corridors so people can go from area to area 
without loading up and going back out on public highways and thereby 
causing a traffic hazard to go from one to the other.
  Surely, if we can find money for other very needy worthwhile things 
that we have in the mix, we can find money for this. I am just as 
concerned as my colleague from Wyoming that we are not doing a good 
enough job with the Park Service, and I understand that people want us 
to curtail spending. But, my gosh, we not very long ago found $50 
million for Russia to help in their economic development. If we can do 
that, certainly we will be able to find money to enhance our park 
system to be used by millions of Americans in the future.
  I have never really been known as a flaming environmentalist, as my 
colleagues know, but very frankly I think this bill is good business. 
Everyone knows the economy of California is suffering. One of the real 
bright spots in that State is tourism, and I think this could go a long 
way in helping tourism.
  I wanted to stand in support of my friend and colleague from 
California, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank my 
friend from Colorado, Senator Campbell, for his comments. I know that 
he worked closely with Senator Feinstein. He has been a very positive 
force in developing a bill that can get through this Senate.
  I was very honored to be able to address this issue of the bill last 
evening following Senator Feinstein's remarks, praising her for the 
efforts that she has put forth on an 8-year odyssey to make this bill 
law. Eight years is a very long time to wait, I say to my friends, when 
we have such a fragile environment to protect.
  I know that the good Senator from Wyoming is opposing the national 
park designation because he believes it is not the right thing to do 
for the country, and I totally and completely respect his right to 
disagree with the two Senators from California.
  But I really have to say, if you step back and give this issue the 
long view, I think you would agree with Senator Feinstein and with me 
that if we really want to protect the desert for all time, if we really 
want to make sure it is there for future generations from all over the 
world to come and see and behold, Senator Feinstein's approach is the 
right approach, and I have been most proud to be her teammate in this 
fight.
  I understand that the Senator from Wyoming is offering this amendment 
because he feels that the Bureau of Land Management can run this area 
just fine. He asserts that, look, it is so beautiful now; they have 
been manning it all these years; let us leave well enough alone.
  We want to have a national park, I say to my friend, because it makes 
sense to have a national park for the East Mojave scenic area, for the 
Death Valley area, for the Joshua tree area. When you upgrade to a 
national park, I say to my friend, it is a very important act. The land 
will be preserved better in the long run.
  As my colleague has stated, the funding is there now with the BLM, 
and it will merely be transferred to the National Park Service. It is 
all within the Interior Department. As a matter of fact, I would assert 
to my friend that, if you follow his lead in this amendment and not 
allow the desert to become a park but to remain within the BLM, it will 
cost more. It will cost more to maintain that area because, under BLM 
control, hunting would be allowed and, as my friend knows, when you 
allow hunting, it takes more intensive management in many ways than 
when you do not.
  We know that the Park Service has been set up to provide services 
that people need in an area as magnificent as the desert. I showed some 
photos yesterday, and Senator Feinstein showed some magnificent photos 
today, and as I said yesterday, just on Friday I had the thrill of 
being in the desert country in the park area, and it is a humbling, 
ennobling experience to stand in these unbelievable areas. I know the 
Senator from Wyoming agrees with that. He is, after all, a man from the 
land. It is an awesome thing, indeed.
  So when you have that kind of a gift from God, which I call it, I 
think you need to do the most you can do to assure that it stays 
preserved. And when the Park Service has it, they know how to do 
interpretive services and visitor services, and it is their role to 
preserve natural resources. And, I say to my friend, the Bureau of Land 
Management has a function, really, to develop resources. Yes, they do a 
good job in protecting them, but their ultimate objective is the 
development of resources, not conservation. That is the Park Service, 
and the Park Service has a trust to open up these lands to all the 
people for their enjoyment.
  As we look out into future years when we are no longer here--we know 
that our country is growing and developing--it seems to me it is our 
very grave responsibility to leave environments behind that are 
untouched so that our grandchildren and our great grandchildren and 
their children can say: You know, back then at the end of that 20th 
century that U.S. Senate and House of Representatives saw fit to 
preserve this for us.
  Mr. President, yesterday there was an editorial in USA Today. I ask 
unanimous consent to print it in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Preserve More Public Land--Don't Be Shortsighted, Sensitive Land Should 
                  Be Protected for Future Generations

       Even in the blast and heat of high summer, the deserts of 
     southern California percolate with beauty and life. Amid the 
     scarps and dunes and cinder cones and lava flows, there are 
     forests of Joshua tree and cacti. Lizards bask and snakes 
     creep. Bighorn sheep and desert tortoise prowl beneath 
     ancient creosote rings and petroglyphs.
       So what gives in Congress?
       Tuesday, the U.S. Senate will be asked to break a 
     filibuster over the California Desert Protection Act, which 
     would fold millions of acres into three new national parks 
     and wilderness areas. Despite the region's fragile beauty and 
     ecological significance, the vote's outcome is uncertain.
       This fight has been going on for eight years now--mostly 
     because some lawmakers oppose restricting use of public land 
     that isn't already in the park system. It's an old debate. 
     How much land should be set aside for preservation? How much 
     for economic development?
       The argument reaches far beyond the California outback. 
     Scores of pending bills would create or expand wilderness 
     areas and wildlife refuges across the country. In each case, 
     there are sticky local issues--grazing rights here, mineral 
     rights there, water rights thither, hunting rights yonder.
       Yet these very pressures argue for the new parks in 
     California and expanded protections elsewhere.
       One reason is just practical: Attendance in the parks 
     continues to set records.
       Another is ecological: In remote public lands outside the 
     parks, the lack of restrictions poses a plain threat. The 
     desert tortoise, for example, is threatened in part by 
     grazing policies and off-road motoring.
       Now, you may not think much of a lowly tortoise. But its 
     plight is symptomatic of the gradual erosion of environmental 
     integrity that is taking place in many places around the 
     nation. The desert would be less splendid without the 
     tortoise, just as Yellowstone Park would without the bison.
       Moreover, broadening federal protection of the nation's 
     scenic and environmental legacy need not be a budget-buster.
       A $10 billion acquisition fund, financed by offshore oil 
     development, sits largely untouched. Many expansions are 
     gradual and rely on swaps rather than purchases.
       Beyond that, national parks are good business. They attract 
     tourists and boost economies wherever they are situated. In 
     part, that's why most Californians, including both senators 
     from that state, favor the desert parks.
       When public interest comes into conflict with the desires 
     of miners, ranchers, woodcutters and other land-abuse 
     lobbies, there's really no choice. Expand the protections of 
     park and wilderness. In California, as elsewhere, that's the 
     smart investment.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to quote from that USA Today 
editorial because I think it really, in a very succinct way, sums up 
this whole argument, and I would agree with my friend and leader on 
this issue, Senator Feinstein, that this is a killer amendment that we 
are facing here from the Senator from Wyoming.
  I hope that he perhaps can listen to the words of this editorial. It 
is entitled ``Preserve More Public Land--Don't Be Shortsighted. 
Sensitive Land Should Be Protected for Future Generations.''

       Even in the blast and heat of high summer, the deserts of 
     southern California percolate with beauty and life. Amid the 
     scarps and dunes and cinder cones and lava flows, there are 
     forests of Joshua tree and cacti. Lizards bask and snakes 
     creep. Bighorn sheep and desert tortoise prowl beneath 
     ancient creosote rings and petroglyphs.

  And then they ask the question:

       So what gives in Congress?

  And they talk about a possible filibuster of this bill.

       This fight has been going on for eight years now--mostly 
     because some lawmakers oppose restricting use of public land 
     that isn't already in the park system. It's an old debate. 
     How much land should be set aside for preservation? How much 
     for economic development.
       The argument reaches far beyond the California outback. 
     Scores of pending bills would create or expand wilderness 
     areas and wildlife refuges across the country. In each case, 
     there are sticky local issues--grazing rights here, mineral 
     rights there, water rights thither, hunting rights yonder.
       Yet these very pressures argue for the new parks in 
     California and expanded protections elsewhere.
       One reason is just practical: Attendance in the parks 
     continues to set records.

  Now, Mr. President, this is an important point. Yes, the parks are 
under heavy pressure because people love national parks. Does that mean 
that we stop supporting them and creating them? We do a lot of things 
with our tax dollars where there is a lot of controversy. There is not 
much controversy about creating parks. People in this country pride 
themselves on our parks.

       Another is ecological: In remote public lands outside the 
     parks, the lack of restrictions poses a plain threat. The 
     desert tortoise, for example, is threatened in part by 
     grazing policies and off-road monitoring.
       Now, you may not think much of a lowly tortoise. But its 
     plight is symptomatic of the gradual erosion of environmental 
     integrity that is taking place in many places around the 
     nation. The desert would be less splendid without the 
     tortoise, just as Yellowstone Park would be without the 
     bison.

  And I think this is an important point, Mr. President. When we talk 
about species such as these, it is about all of life, it is not just 
about the one species. It is about our obligation to preserve and 
protect what God created. It is almost a spiritual thing, it seems to 
me.

       Moreover, broadening Federal protection of the Nation's 
     scenic and environmental legacy need not be a budget-buster.

  And then USA Today makes a very good point--

       A $10 billion acquisition fund, financed by offshore oil 
     development sits largely untouched.

  That is a good point. We have a fund meant for park expansion, but 
because of the deficit it just sits there untouched. That is another 
debate for another day. But I think that is unfair, Mr. President, 
because I do want to see more parks created and I do want to see 
existing parks better taken care of and there is money available which 
sits in a trust fund because of the deficit.

       Beyond that, national parks are good business. They attract 
     tourists and boost economies wherever they are situated. In 
     part, that is why most Californians, including both Senators 
     from that State, favor the desert parks.

  I want to make this point, Mr. President. For years, we had Senators 
in this Chamber who fought each other on this bill. When that happens, 
it is very difficult to get anything passed.
  But I say to my colleagues today that both Senators are behind this 
bill. When we ran for office--it was an unusual situation; we ran in 
the same year and were elected on the same day--each of us was asked 
how we felt about the desert bill and each of us said that when we get 
to the U.S. Senate, one of us will introduce that bill and the other of 
us will support that bill, and we will do everything we can as a team 
to get it through.
  So USA Today makes that point. They conclude and say:

       Expand the protection of parks and wilderness. In 
     California and elsewhere, that's the smart investment.

  Mr. President, they call it an investment, and that is what it is. It 
is an investment in our future. It is an investment in our environment, 
and it is not only an investment, but it is a responsibility, really a 
solemn responsibility for us.
  Once in awhile an opportunity comes along like this one to preserve 
something as beautiful as the California desert for all time and for 
all people, and this is the moment. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
oppose the Wallop amendment which will destroy this bill, and please 
make S. 21 the law of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from California 
that there is not $10 billion in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
that is not being spent because of deficit reduction. That is only a 
trust fund in the congressional sense. All of America does not realize 
what that is, but that is a fancy name we put on things that are paper 
transactions. It is a fund, the money for which has always had to be 
appropriated. It is a bookkeeping thing. But it was never a fund, it is 
not now a fund, and it will not in the future be a fund. It has always 
been appropriated. And Congress did not appropriate even in palmier 
days when we thought nothing of budget deficits.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for me to respond briefly?
  Mr. WALLOP. I yield for that purpose without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
  I would just make the point that this is certainly a matter of 
controversy, but I have been on the Budget Committee both in the House 
and now in the U.S. Senate and there is a fund. It is not treated like 
a fund, and there is an argument about it, that is clear. Some of us 
think it should be treated as a fund, and others feel it should just 
stay in and offset the deficit.
  Yes, it is an accounting procedure. But when those taxes were laid 
on, they were laid on for a specific purpose of acquisition.
  So the Senator and I have a disagreement on how this fund is viewed. 
Obviously, USA Today agrees with this Senator in terms of the way they 
interpret it. It is a debate, however, for another day.
  But I read that out of USA Today because they are of the view that 
there is a fund there and literally can and should be used to expand 
acquisition.
  I know the Senator from Louisiana, from time to time, presses that 
issue, and I happen to agree with him that we ought to spend for park 
acquisition.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would just say that USA Today is as 
confused by the budget process of Congress as are most Americans. They 
are dead wrong. There is not a little drawer down in Treasury inside of 
which lies land and conservation funds waiting for us to come and play 
with them. It does not exist. It has never existed from the first day 
that that took place.
  Mr. President, the Secretary of Interior and I do not get along on a 
lot of issues, and this one would be different if I did not get along 
with him either. But he has, for whatever reasons, chosen to ignore the 
studies of his own department as to how much this would cost; his own 
study produced in 1993 in the month of October, in which they state 
that this is going to cost $125 million over 5 years, without including 
any construction, without including any development, without including 
any housing, without including any facilities, just for operations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to have 
printed certain conclusions from this report in the Record. It is too 
long to have printed in the Record in its entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 The California Desert in Transition: The Opportunity for Bioregional 
                               Management


                           executive summary

                               Background

       The proposed California Desert Protection Act calls for 4 
     million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness, 
     a new Mojave National Park created from BLM land now 
     designated as the East Mojave National Scenic Area, and the 
     expansion of Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Monuments 
     and their redesignation as national parks. The California 
     Desert Transition Work Group was established by the secretary 
     of the interior to effect a smooth and orderly transition of 
     responsibilities and to identify opportunities for cost 
     efficiencies in the event the legislation is enacted.

                     Opportunities for cooperation

       Pasage of the California Desert Protection Act will offer 
     an opportunity for the National Park Service (NPS) and the 
     BLM to completely rethink how they manage resources in the 
     California desert. A bioregional management strategy can be 
     developed to manage resources across agency boundaries. A 
     Transition Management Team, comprised of both agencies, can 
     be established to further refine the recommendations and 
     begin the planning necessary to effect the bioregional 
     management concept. This team can explore options to combine 
     planning efforts for the integration of BLM's California 
     Desert Plan with the park General Management Plans and 
     management options including a single ecosystem manager for 
     all departmental programs. Together, the two agencies' 
     different but complementary management policies and mandates 
     can protect sensitive desert resources and provide 
     opportunities for sustainable economic development in the 
     region.
       The work group identified a number of issues that will be 
     important to the two agencies if legislation is enacted. 
     These issues range from how best to manage wilderness and 
     similar resource issues, to how to most efficiently transfer 
     public use facilities and inform the public of new changes.
       The cost of accomplishing this transition can be reduced if 
     the joint management efficiencies identified in the report 
     are adopted. In the first full fiscal year following 
     enactment, BLM will need $9 million to adjust to new 
     management objectives on the 71 wilderness areas the bill 
     will establish. During that year, Mojave National Park and 
     the additions to Death Valley and Joshua Tree will cost $2 
     million for operations and $1.3 million for planning. At the 
     fully operational level with full staff, which will be a 
     minimum of several years following establishment, the Mojave 
     National Park operational budget is estimated to be $3.3 
     million. BLM will continue to need $4.3 million annually for 
     wilderness management. The greatest cost will be for land 
     exchanges (estimated by BLM to be $40 million) and for 
     acquisition of private lands in wilderness (in excess of $100 
     million) and Mojave National Park ($30 million), which will 
     be spread over five or more years.
       While the work group identified areas in which cooperation 
     can lessen short-term expenses and ease a transition in 
     management from one agency to the other, the real 
     accomplishment has been the recognition that BLM and NPS can 
     reinvent the way desert lands and resources are managed. The 
     potential long-term benefits of fiscal savings and 
     enhancement of the regional economy, coupled with the 
     protection of a fragile desert ecosystem, are inestimable.


                            Recommendations

       The California desert is a magnificent resource worthy of 
     protection. If legislation is enacted we recommend the 
     following to not only ease the transition of resources from 
     one agency to another, but also to act as a catalyst for 
     instituting a broader, interagency management regime.
       BLM and NPS should develop a bioregional management 
     strategy without regard to agency boundaries that maximizes 
     protection of sensitive desert resources and minimizes 
     duplication of effort. Further, such a strategy can include 
     other state and federal agencies under existing statewide 
     agreements for bioregional management to which BLM and NPS 
     are already party.
       The Department of the Interior should make a monetary 
     commitment to implementation of the legislation at least 
     through the first full fiscal year of operation, and to add 
     the new areas to the department's budget request for 
     operations, management and research. One source for new funds 
     is savings that may result from the recommendations from the 
     National Performance Review.
       The NPS Western Region and the BLM California State Office 
     should be directed to establish an interagency transition 
     management team to manage the transition and any further 
     refinement of this plan.
       The initial management teams for both agencies should be 
     comprised of individuals knowledgeable of the resources and 
     sensitive to area issues, since first impressions of the 
     public are critical.

         Recommendations specific to the National Park Service

       Once it appears passage of S. 21 is assured, the Mojave 
     National Park staff should be identified and readied to 
     mobilize on short notice to establish an immediate management 
     presence in the new park.
       For continuity, the Mojave National Park staff should be 
     comprised of permanent employees identified or reassignment 
     in advance. We believe using special events or all-risk 
     management terms who would only be available for a few weeks 
     at most is unwise, except for perhaps in initial protection 
     roles until permanent staff arrive.
       The initial Mojave National Park headquarters should be 
     located in Baker, California because of its proximity to the 
     primary resource and the presence of existing visitor 
     services and facilities.

       Recommendations specific to the Bureau of Land Management

       BLM should reevaluate the organization, staffing and 
     funding based on changing management objectives for public 
     lands in the California desert.
       BLM should reevaluate existing agreements and relationships 
     with other agencies within the desert to determine their 
     effectiveness based on new landownership patterns.
       BLM should take action to become a leader in the management 
     of arid land wilderness.
       The following report provides significant detail on the 
     above recommendations.

                                             S. 21 COST PROJECTIONS                                             
                                            [All figures in millions]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Agency and management        Transition                                                                    
       responsibilities             year\1\       Year 1     Year 2     Year 3     Year 4     Year 5     Year 6 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM:                                                                                                            
    Wilderness management.....  ..............        5.4        5.8        4.9        4.8        4.3        4.3
    Wilderness and park                                                                                         
     Boundary survey..........  ..............          4          4          4          4     \2\3.6  .........
    Land acquisition..........  ..............          5          5          5          5          5          5
    Land exchange (includes                                                                                     
     NPS) ....................                         Not determined ($40 million total)                       
    Update desert plan\3\.....  ..............        0.5        0.3        0.2  .........  .........  .........
NPS:                                                                                                            
    Mojave....................             0.5      (\5\)      (\5\)      (\5\)      (\5\)      (\5\)      (\5\)
    Joshua Tree...............            0.05      (\6\)      (\6\)      (\6\)      (\6\)      (\6\)      (\6\)
    Death Valley..............            0.08      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)
    Reimbursables (Except                                                                                       
     fire) ...................                                  Built into above                                
    General management                                                                                          
     plans\3\\4\..............  ..............        0.5        0.4     \2\0.4  .........  .........  .........
    Land acqusition...........  ..............          5          5          5          5          5       \2\5
    Minerals management.......  ..............        0.7        0.7        0.7        0.5        0.5        0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From existing funds.                                                                                         
\2\Ends this year.                                                                                              
\3\Construction costs not included (dependent on planning).                                                     
\4\Planning coordinated between both agencies.                                                                  
\5\From $1.9 million to $3.3 million.                                                                           
\6\To $0.3 million.                                                                                             
\7\To $1.1 million.                                                                                             

                        managing the transition

       The work group made several assumptions in order to insure 
     continuity and make the report useful regardless of the final 
     version of the legislation:
       The analysis is based on S. 21 legislation as introduced in 
     the current session.
       We assumed there would be no additional funding for the 
     transition year (the fiscal year in which the legislation may 
     be enacted).
       We assumed a transfer of the East Mojave National Scenic 
     Area to the National Park Service and the additions to Death 
     Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments.
       Both agencies have a high level of specialized skills 
     available to address the issues.
       There are some actions that will require immediate 
     attention, while others can be phased in over time.
       There are numerous joint actions that can result in cost 
     efficiencies.
       There are opportunities for a short-term transition which, 
     if managed jointly, can establish a foundation for long-term 
     cooperative management of desert resources across unit 
     boundaries.
       The transition management strategy identifies in detail the 
     various actions needed to resolve the most important issues. 
     These issues were identified through meetings between the 
     transition work group and the field staffs of both agencies, 
     plus meetings between the two monument staffs and the BLM 
     Desert District and resource area managers. The issues are 
     grouped into the following categories:
       Visitor services,
       Wilderness management,
       Visitor and resource protection (includes special uses),
       Rights-of-way (includes roads claimed under RS 2477),
       Grazing,
       Hunting,
       Mining,
       Water rights (includes availability),
       Fire management,
       Wild horses and burros,
       Land protection (includes acquisition and exchanges),
       Cultural resources,
       Facility management,
       Natural resources (includes wildlife and endangered 
     species), and
       Solid waste management (includes hazardous materials).
       The action items needed to ensure a smooth transition 
     regarding these issues are divided into three phases:
       A ``transition year'' in which it is assumed both agencies 
     would work within existing budgets;
       A first full fiscal year of operation, noted as ``first 
     full year,'' in which budget adjustments would be needed; and
       A ``full operation'' phase, in which the areas are assumed 
     to be completely staffed and functioning, but will require 
     full funding. This would be a minimum of at least three years 
     (and possibly more) beyond establishment, which would be the 
     earliest that budget increases can be added as a result of 
     each agency's normal budget cycle.
       Immediately upon designation the agencies must establish a 
     management presence in the new areas. Law enforcement 
     personnel must be detailed to areas of greatest need. Signs 
     must identify the new status at key entry locations. The 
     public needs to be informed of the changes in the new law. 
     Administrative facilities must be secured and staffing begun. 
     Many of these items can be initiated using this document as a 
     guide in order to minimize costs, transition problems, and 
     public confusion.
       A considerable number of skilled individuals in both 
     agencies are available to help ease the transition and carry 
     it out with fiscal and management efficiencies. BLM has for 
     example, indicated some of their maintenance staff in the 
     Mojave might be interested in lateral transfers to the 
     National Park Service.
       What follows are the details of the transition in an issue-
     by-issue format. Where the work group has identified 
     opportunities for management efficiencies and cost savings 
     through joint management or adaptive use of existing 
     resources the items have been listed in bold type.

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, so $125 million is a lot more than the 
Secretary says is needed.
  And I have found with the Secretary that times are fluid; that he can 
say whatever is necessary to be said to achieve whatever result is 
necessary to achieve without regard to the studies of his own 
department.
  Mr. President, let me lay to rest some issues. I would say to both 
Senators from California, inasmuch as they are here, that they are dead 
wrong about my intentions on hunting and mining. I think they have a 
point. A ban on hunting is not included in the amendment, as drafted, 
but that would clearly be easily done. So it is not an issue.
  And neither is the mining issue, because my findings are precisely 
the findings of S. 21. BLM does not operate for the purpose of doing 
anything except what it is charged with doing. And under the provisions 
of national monument status, they would have to manage it essentially 
as the Park Service will manage it but for a couple of things.
  Talk about transferring resources from the BLM, the Secretary is not 
God. The Secretary requires the actions of Congress. He cannot just, 
willy-nilly, flip the funds around among line items in the Department 
of the Interior. And he will find some who are on the Appropriations 
Committee who object to taking money from the BLM and transferring it. 
He cannot do it unless Congress does it. I would be for doing it, make 
no mistake about it, but this is not just some dinky little paper 
transaction of shifting resources around within the Department of 
Interior. It has to have congressional approval.
  One of the Senators from California said trips to the national park 
are the be-all and end-all. Trips to the national park are important. 
But not to go and see a sign at the entrance that says ``National 
Park.'' It is to go and see what is inside it, and that does not change 
with monument status or park status. It is not a more pleasurable 
experience to see the desert because the sign when you go in has 
National Park Service written on it instead of Bureau of Land 
Management.
  If the desert means anything, and surely it does to this Senator, it 
means what it means because of what it is and not because of some 
status or symbolism that Congress bestows upon it. If we are serious 
about protecting this land, we ought to provide the protection through 
the agency which has the resources to do it.
  One of the California Senators was talking about water guzzlers and 
how that makes it so charming and attractive for the visitors to see 
wildlife. Under national park status, the water guzzlers go because 
they are not natural and the management proposals and schemes of the 
National Park Service are that only things natural are allowed. 
Guzzlers are not natural. They are enchanting, they are delightful, but 
they go. So make no mistake about it.
  Come back for a minute to the status of a piece of land. When Mount 
St. Helens blew up, the Senator from Washington established Mount St. 
Helens National Monument. It is my guess that the people of Washington 
and the people of America who have visited there are not crushed 
because it is not a national park. They would not divine some mystical, 
different kind of management scheme because it is a national monument. 
The question goes back to accountability. I make the argument once 
again. It is not an argument between the California Senators and the 
Senator from Wyoming about protecting the desert. That is a given in 
either amendment. That is a requirement in either amendment. The 
difference lies in whether we are going to continue to confound 
ourselves and say it is so sexy to be a park that we are willing to add 
to the burdens of an overburdened agency, the National Park Service, 
which does not have the money for adequate maintenance, for adequate 
personnel, and for adequate acquisition.
  I do not know where this 3,700 figure comes from but I would say to 
the Senator, I will not argue with her, but it is different information 
than we have. They are transferring people out of the National Park 
Service into the Office of the Secretary and not into the field. In 
this current budget, that is the case--404 people removed from the 
rolls of the employees of the National Park Service, 301 of whom go 
into the Office of the Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. President, the Senator from California believes that tourism 
dollars will flow from the new proposed Mojave Park.
  I have reviewed the Park Service estimates and although interesting, 
I feel they lack any basis in fact or reality.
  As an example, the same type of forecast was projected for Redwoods 
National Park. Park advocates insisted that waves of tourists attracted 
to the newer, bigger park would more than compensate for the lost jobs 
in the woods and mills.
  In fact, tourists have never arrived in anything like the promised 
numbers. Far from the projected million and a half, tourist visits last 
year were estimated at 388,000--in a year when Yosemite, about 700 
miles to the south was visited by well over 3 million.
  Redwoods National Park, like the proposed Mojave is not a destination 
park. You drive through it to get somewhere else.
  In the Mojave, tourism dollars will never compensate for the economic 
losses brought about by this desert lock down, if past experience is 
any judge.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an October 24, 1993, 
Sacramento Bee article be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      This Time Redwood Trees Won

                        (By Edwin Kiester, Jr.)

       The trees are house-tall now, reaching toward the 350-foot 
     heights they may eventually attain. On once cutover slopes 
     below the Tall Trees Overlook in Redwood National Park on the 
     North Coast, the young redwoods now march downhill, to the 
     bend in Redwood Creek where the world's tallest trees rise 
     out of the mist. Green stripes of grasses and hardwoods mark 
     where old logging roads have been bulldozed and the hill 
     graded back to its natural contours. In the rushing waters 
     below, salmon and steelhead trout can again head upstream to 
     spawn.
       Art Eck, deputy superintendent of the park, looks about him 
     approvingly. The overlook's display of before-and-after 
     photographs contrasts the scene with the hillside as it 
     looked a few years ago: an ugly battlefield of stumps, slash 
     and chewed-up earth crisscrossed by the gashes of roads and 
     skid trails. Now thanks to the restoration effort, the forest 
     is returning to its past appearance, before the saws and axes 
     came. ``The land is healing,'' Eck says proudly. ``But, of 
     course, some scars still show.''
       Yes, the scars of Redwood National Park do show, and not 
     only on the greening hillsides above Redwood Creek. Twenty-
     five years after the establishment of the nation's first 
     billion-dollar national park, 15 years after an expansion 
     more than doubled its size, the trees are coming back, but 
     the painful wounds left by a bitter battle over the park 
     formation remain raw in the lives of the people.
       Loggers and former loggers, businessmen selling to loggers, 
     and local officials of California's two northernmost coastal 
     counties insist that establishing the park with 78,000 acres 
     of prime timberland triggered a downward economic spiral that 
     stole good-paying jobs, savaged the timber industry and 
     sentenced the area to chronic hard times and heartbreak: ``We 
     are fast becoming the Appalachia of the West,'' one ex-logger 
     maintains.
       Environmentalists and champions who fought for the park 
     maintain that the jobs would have been lost within a few 
     years anyway, whereas the park saved magnificent and 
     irreplaceable trees for generations to come. ``The 
     redwoods,'' says Lucille Vinyard, the Sierra Club's energetic 
     North Coast representative, ``are the pride of the nation.''
       John Dewitt of the Save-the-Redwoods League, which has 
     spent $75 million in 75 years to preserve ancient trees, is 
     uncharacteristically emphatic about who is at fault in the 
     argument. ``Thousands of people are now being laid off in the 
     computer industry in the Western United States because they 
     just happened to have the misfortune of working on defense 
     projects. Timber workers have had a habit of acting as 
     crybabies for the last 100 years, anytime anything interfered 
     with the simple task of cutting down trees. They lost 
     jobs, but the taxpayers compensated them handsomely for 
     it. People are tired of listening to their complaints.''
       To which Chris Rowney, resource manager for the timber 
     company Louisiana-Pacific, replies, ``The park cost 2,500 
     jobs. I know, the defense industry is laying off 70,000 
     workers. But for those 2,500 up here, and their families, the 
     jobs were just as important as they are for defense workers. 
     Losing them was just as painful.''
       At a time when much of the country is suffering lost jobs, 
     layoffs and recession, and the spotted owl showdown has 
     brought timbering in the Pacific Northwest almost to a 
     standstill, it is difficult to picture how much a park 
     dedication in 1968 may have contributed to a moribund local 
     economy in 1993. At first glance, California's beautiful and 
     lonely North Coast, with its thick forests, rich pastureland, 
     hidden valleys and spectacular surf-pounded beaches scarcely 
     looks like a hardship case. Yet both the economic statistics 
     and the mood in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties are grim.
       In Del Norte County, between 14 percent and 16 percent of 
     the 9,600-person work force was unemployed in 1992. At 
     $22,917, Del Norte's average household income stood 56th 
     among 58 California counties. In adjoining Humboldt County, 
     the fastest-growing source of local income comes from 
     transfer payments, such as welfare and Social Security. 
     Inflation-adjusted household income in 1991 was lower than 
     five years before, and 25 percent lower than the California 
     average.
       Federal, state and local government payrolls--highlighted 
     by the new Pelican Bay maximum-security prison in Del Norte 
     County and Humboldt State University in Humboldt--have 
     replaced forest products as the major employer. Del Norte, 
     which once resounded to the whine of 52 sawmills, is down to 
     its last mill, the Miller Redwood Company, which last fall 
     reduced operations to a single shift and now employs fewer 
     than 125 people. During the 1992-93 rainy season, one of two 
     remaining pulp mills in Humboldt County shut down, throwing 
     another 262 persons out of work.
       Drive along U.S. Highway 101 through the once thriving 
     community of Orick and you see economic distress at its 
     absolute worst. Set in a lush valley and surrounded by 
     parklands, the little logging town was pictured by park 
     proponents as a potential tourist mecca, sure to profit from 
     hordes of visitors who would flock to the nearby park. ``They 
     said we were going to have so many people up here in 10 years 
     that this little town wouldn't be able to handle them,'' 
     recalls Pat Dorsey, a former county supervisor and owner of 
     the town's social center, the Lumberjack Lounge. ``Well, the 
     park hasn't brought in a penny of business.''
       Meanwhile, all but one of the town's sawmills closed. 
     Population dropped from 1,500 to about 600--``and most of 
     them are on welfare,'' Dorsey says. No tourist facilities 
     were opened. In a final twist of irony, the park's visitor 
     center was constructed on the site of one of the closed 
     mills.
       From the Lumberjack Lounge's front door, Dorsey, now a 
     grizzled 83, looks out on sagging, paint-peeling houses and 
     shops peddling redwood sculpture. ``People call it `the 
     chain-saw massacre,''' Dorsey says. Even the Western Ancient 
     Forest Campaign's director Jim Owens acknowledges, ``The town 
     was just left to wither and die.''
       Yet continue a few miles north and you can appreciate all 
     the glory and magnificence of the great trees for which the 
     original battles were waged. Bald Hills Road leads past 
     Orick's last sawmill, then climbs steeply uphill to Lady Bird 
     Johnson Grove. An easy foot trail winds among giants hundreds 
     of years old, many as tall as a 20-story building and bigger 
     in diameter than an oversize banquet table. Sunlight filters 
     softly through the lattice-work of boughs overhead, dappling 
     the forest floor below. The atmosphere is hushed; evergreen 
     needles muffle every footfall. The grove has all the feeling 
     of a Gothic cathedral, with pillars soaring to a vaulted 
     ceiling. You half expect to hear the Angelus.
       Beyond the grove, you reach the park of tomorrow--the 
     National Park Service's proud restoration project. 
     Rehabilitation has removed 180 miles of logging roads and 
     skid trails, planted 684,363 trees and returned 26,330 acres 
     to their natural state. Removal of logging debris and 
     sediment has brought fish back to the streams, and wildlife 
     to the woods and grasslands.
       The results to date are impressive. John A. Campbell, CEO 
     of Pacific Lumber and one of the environmentalists' favorite 
     villains, says admiringly, ``Eventually, that's going to be a 
     magnificent stand of timber up there.'' The project attracts 
     foresters and environmentalists from all over the world. The 
     park has been designated a World Heritage Site and an 
     International Biosphere Reserve.
       One criticism is undisputed: Redwood National Park is 
     almost invisible to visitors. Highway signs welcome you to 
     ``Redwood National and State Parks,'' but, says John Dewitt, 
     ``Redwood National Park is like a ring without the setting.'' 
     The real ``gems''--``the finest redwoods that ever existed,'' 
     Dewitt calls them--are in Prairie Creek Redwoods, Del Norte 
     Redwoods and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks.
       The state parks are also more easily accessible from 
     Highway 101, so few sightseers venture beyond them, 
     preferring to meander among the giant trees of the state park 
     groves and to admire the herds of Roosevelt elk.
       Assembling the national park in two stages 10 years apart 
     prolonged the acrimony. The post-World War II building boom 
     fueled a huge demand for redwood decks, paneling and picnic 
     tables. By the 1960s, even locals became alarmed at the speed 
     with which the ancient forests were disappearing. ``Arcata 
     Redwood was clear-cutting right down to Highway 101, near 
     Prairie Creek (State Park),'' recalls Lucille Vinyard, who 
     promptly became an environmentalist activist. ``It was 
     hideous,'' she says.
       In 1963, a National Geographic Society team discovered what 
     it proclaimed the tallest tree in the world, measuring 367.8 
     feet, on timber-company land along Redwood Creek. The 
     environmentalist movement, just beginning to gain strength, 
     raised a cry to protect the tall tree and its neighboring 
     giants, as well as additional old-growth redwoods, before it 
     was too late.
       Over the next five years, half a dozen proposals were made 
     to carve a new national park out of old-growth redwood 
     forests. Congress compromised on a park of 30,000 acres plus 
     the state land and incorporating Tall Trees Grove. The final 
     price paid to timber companies was $210 million. Some federal 
     land was swapped for private old-growth timber.
       Instead of dying, the controversy worsened. As timber 
     companies continued to clearcut the hillsides above Tall 
     Trees, environmentalists protested that erosion, landslides 
     and logging debris were threatening Tall Trees and choking 
     the streams, and lobbied Congress to vastly expand park 
     borders.
       The timber people erupted. Expansion, they argued, would 
     remove some of the region's best timberland from production 
     and take it off the tax rolls, with devastating effects on 
     the timber industry, the local economy and local government--
     not to mention that it would throw large numbers of loggers 
     out of work. In the end, however, a park expansion bill was 
     passed by Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter, 
     adding another 48,000 acres to the park and establishing a 
     30,000-acre protection zone upstream from the big trees.
       To placate the anguished locals, Congress sprinkled the 
     bill with sweeteners. The U.S. Forest Service was directed to 
     study increasing the timber harvest in nearby national 
     forests to keep loggers at work. A revolving fund was set up 
     to develop new businesses; federal funds underwrote a marina 
     and an improved airport. The two counties were given 
     compensating payments to make up for loss of taxes. A new 
     freeway bypass was to be built around Prairie Creek Redwoods 
     State Park, to divert heavy highway traffic from ``Blood 
     Alley'' where rubbernecking tourists and speeding logging 
     trucks shared a road through redwood groves, and thus create 
     construction jobs. The Park Service was directed to give 
     priority to displaced timber workers in hiring.
       The centerpiece of the bill was the Redwood Employees 
     Protection Program (REPP), set up to ease the financial pain 
     for workers whose jobs were taken away. Under a complicated 
     formula that kept lawyers busy for 10 years, displaced 
     workers could receive severance pay, weekly benefits about 
     equal to their paychecks, a combination of both or a 
     retirement program.
       ``Short-service'' workers who had spent five years or less 
     in the industry received only severance packages.
       Undeniably, REPP poured money into the troubled economy--
     lots of money. At its height in 1980, REPP was paying out 
     $250,000 a week in Humboldt County alone, making it by far 
     the county's largest payroll. But even though young workers 
     received nice nest eggs, and older ones a paycheck as large 
     as if they were still working, many weren't happy about it--
     and they still aren't.
       Charles Rankin, who worked for Arcata Redwood, was one of 
     those immediately affected by the park expansion. Now a 
     sprightly 75, Rankin was 59 then and had worked in the woods 
     since he was 15. He had become a ``faller,'' a chain-saw 
     specialist who could expertly drop 300-foot trees precisly on 
     a given spot with minimal damage to the valuable timber--one 
     of the most skilled, dangerous and therefore highest-paid 
     jobs in the industry. When the park expansion took Arcata's 
     old-growth forests near Redwood Creek, Rankin found himself 
     out of a job.
       ``Arcata offered to send me to their land up by Klamath,'' 
     he says, mentioning a town some 60 miles north of his home in 
     Eureka. ``That would have meant two hours' drive each way, a 
     lot of it over logging roads and through the tourist traffic 
     in the state parks.'' Rankin took his benefit check until he 
     was 62, then ``severanced out.'' He has held a few part-time 
     jobs since, but has resigned himself to puttering around the 
     house and playing seven-handicap golf.
       Another former logger, who spoke on condition of anonymity, 
     still spits out the word ``park'' angrily. ``I went down to 
     the unemployment office and they suggested I should go into 
     retraining,'' he says bitterly. ``They said, take a two-year 
     course in computers. And then what would I have done? Hell, 
     there probably weren't 10 computers in all of Humboldt 
     County.''
       After nine years of litigation, the federal government paid 
     out $688 million to three timber companies for land taken in 
     the expansion. Interest and payments to small landowners 
     drove the final purchase price above $1 billion--three times 
     the original estimate. Depending on whose figures you accept, 
     the total bill for Redwood National Park was somewhere 
     upwards of $1.4 billion.
       As for benefits to the local economy, only a few displaced 
     loggers joined the Park Service payroll, which today amounts 
     to just over 170 employees. The freeway bypass contract went 
     to a San Diego firm, which imported its own work crews. The 
     increased cut in the national forests never materialized, and 
     in fact quotas have dropped steadily, from 144 million board 
     feet in 1985 to less than 11 million in 1993.
       Tourism has been the biggest disappointment, however. In 
     the rosy scenario of the 1970s, the timber industry cutbacks 
     were only to be a period of adjustment ushering in a new 
     flood of tourism prosperity. Park advocates insisted that 
     waves of tourists attracted to the newer, bigger park would 
     more than compensate for the lost jobs in the woods and 
     mills. Arthur D. Little, a management consulting firm, 
     predicted a gain of 1.6 million visitors by 1983, and a total 
     of 950,000 visitor-days above the numbers recorded by the 
     state parks.
       In fact, tourists have never arrived in anything like the 
     promised numbers. Far from the projected million and a half 
     tree lovers a year, tourist visits last year were estimated 
     at 388,000--in a year when Yosemite, about 700 miles to the 
     south, was overrun by well over three million.
       The average visitor spends less than 50 minutes in the 
     park. ``What they get are park-and-pee visitors,'' sniffs 
     John Miles of the Natural Resources Management Corporation, 
     and adviser on several early park proposals. ``People stop, 
     look up at the trees, go to the bathroom and drive on.'' 
     Visitation is not helped by the park's lack of facilities. It 
     has no tourist lodging and no drive-in campgrounds. Campsites 
     can be reached only by strenuous backpacking.
       Although Humboldt County tourism has gradually inched 
     upward and is now the county's fifth-largest industry, the 
     park is not the primary lure. The big tourist draw is 
     Eureka's restored Old Town and the gingerbread mansions of 
     the timber barons, souvenirs of the conservation-be-damned, 
     cut-and-run logging days of a hundred years ago.
       Tourism has created a few jobs, but even Jim Owens 
     acknowledges, ``It's hard to convince a man who made $15 or 
     $20 an hour in a sawmill that he'll be better off working at 
     Burger King.'' The average Humboldt County timber worker last 
     earned $21,300. The average motel employee received $11,500.
       As if the downturn in the timber industry weren't enough, 
     the two counties have been hurt by a decline in what was once 
     the second-biggest money earner--fishing. ``Commercial salmon 
     is all but dead around here,'' John Pritchett says. Sport 
     fishing, which used to attract hundreds of vacationing 
     fishermen, has declined precipitously too. Offshore salmon 
     are in dramatically short supply and severe restrictions have 
     been placed on fishing. Environmentalists and commercial 
     fishermen say the two problems are interrelated: Fish 
     can't get upstream to spawn because the streams are 
     clogged with logging debris, so their numbers are 
     dwindling.
       The two counties have been further victimized by the go-go 
     business atmosphere of the 1980s. All three of the major 
     companies in the park expansion--Simpson Timber, Arcata 
     Redwood (now part of Simpson) and Louisiana-Pacific--have 
     gone through mergers, buyouts and privatizations that have 
     resulted in consolidation and closing of mills. Louisiana-
     Pacific alone closed nine mills in five years (although 
     officials say the closings were partly caused by logging 
     restrictions).
       Pacific Lumber, which was not affected either by the 
     original park or the expansion, owns the largest stand of 
     old-growth redwoods still in private hands. It was taken over 
     in a hostile action by the corporate raider Charles Hurwitz 
     and his Maxxam Corporation. The new owners speeded up cutting 
     of old-growth, ostensibly to make up for undercutting in the 
     past. They insisted they were benefiting the troubled economy 
     too by providing more jobs. Environmentalists saw a different 
     reason. They said cutting was increased to raise money to 
     bail out Hurwitz' failed savings and loan institution.
       Not much of the $889 million the first three companies 
     received for their redwood holdings found its way into the 
     local economy. A few smaller local mills were bought up, and 
     Louisiana-Pacific opened one new (now closed) automated mill. 
     Instead, investment went to other parts of the country and 
     Mexico. Company spokespersons insist that between the park 
     expansion reducing the redwood supply, and the spotted owl 
     controversy shutting down the national forests, California 
     was not the soundest place to invest. John Cumming, an 
     attorney who handled many of the severance cases, and John 
     Dewitt of the Save-the-Redwoods League, contend, however, 
     that the companies pitted their workers against the 
     environmentalists, then took the money and left the workers 
     high and dry.
       To local residents, their plight can be explained as a 
     simple matter of numbers. The 150,000 people of Humboldt and 
     Del Norte Counties comprise less than one-half of 1 percent 
     of California's 30 million population.
       ``You have to understand,'' says John Dewitt ``that this 
     area was truly America's last frontier. Until the late '30s, 
     they were almost completely cut off. There wasn't even a 
     decent connecting highway. It was really the last hurrah of 
     Western migration and exploitation of resources. They had to 
     whack down forests to get enough sunshine to settle and 
     survive, and they think anyone from the outside doesn't 
     understand their hardships. There's a real us-versus-them 
     mentality.
       The area's isolation has also hampered attempts to revive 
     the economy by attracting new nontimber businesses. By the 
     coastal highway, half of it frenetic two-lane, the nearest 
     big cities of San Francisco and Portland are eight hours 
     away. The route east, through the Coast Range to California's 
     Central Valley, switches back 150 times in 50 miles. The only 
     connecting railroad is subject to frequent washouts, and 
     airline service is limited.
       Most of all, locals resent their image as rednecks who want 
     to chop down every last tree and turn it into bookends. 
     Loggers say they love the outdoors, and spend every possible 
     minute among the trees, fishing, hunting and camping; indeed, 
     they say they know the forests better than anyone.
       The $115-million highway bypass, which was finally opened 
     in 1992, was an ecological disaster, locals contend. Sixteen 
     old-growth redwoods--the very trees the highway was built to 
     save--were cleared from the state park's right-of-way. 
     Streams were rechanneled, disturbing fish migration, and 
     winter rains washed out excavation and caused landslides.
       Feelings about the park have been unusually intense because 
     redwood-growing land, as opposed to that of Douglas fir and 
     other species, is sharply limited. In the United States 
     redwoods grow only in a very narrow 500-mile-long strip of 
     coastal California and extreme southwestern Oregon, nurtured 
     by heavy winter rains and by drip from the fogs that shroud 
     the coast in summer.
       Gary Rynearson of the Natural Resources Management 
     Corporation adds, ``People want to lock up the forests and 
     expect them to stay just as they are. But forests don't stay 
     just as they are. They are always changing. Trees blow down, 
     they are struck by lightning, they topple over from old age. 
     In 1991 the Dyersville Giant, one of the most famous trees up 
     here, fell over. It took several other trees with it. Young 
     shoots will sprout up where those fell, and we will have a 
     forest mosaic--young trees and older trees together. That's 
     the life cycle of the forest.''
       But others maintain that the area's future lies in 
     preserving trees, not cutting them. Laminated-wood technology 
     makes the monster redwood beams and girders of the past 
     obsolete. Steel, plastics and composite materials are taking 
     the place of wood. According to this point of view, trying to 
     keep the timber industry afloat is like subsidizing the buggy 
     whip industry. The big trees are the North Coast's greatest 
     asset--but as an attraction. If they are cut, the area will 
     have neither timber workers nor tourists.
       ``Our interest is in protecting the antiquity of these 
     forests and their uniqueness as an object that came down from 
     160 million years of evolution to the present time,'' John 
     Dewitt says. ``It's an approach quite different from the 
     economic approach. But we think beauty, esthetic value, 
     uniqueness and environmental quality are important.''
       For all the bitter words, there are a few encouraging signs 
     that the old animosities may be subsiding and the sides 
     coming together. The Save-the-Redwoods League is attempting 
     to serve as a bridge between the groups. ``Of course, the 
     definition of a bridge is something everybody walks on,'' 
     Dewitt says. ``But I think the idea is getting across that 
     the objective is to solve a problem, not win a debate.''
       Some loggers have also come around. Earl Roberts is a 
     former faller and logging contractor who now works for the 
     Park Service. ``A lot of my friends are bitter,'' Roberts 
     says. ``I tell 'em, the world changes and we have to change 
     with it. The timber industry is dying. There aren't enough 
     trees to be cutting at the rate we've been cutting. We've 
     been using our resources must too fast. Anybody who's been 
     around timber knows better.''
       The park's current superintendent, Bill Ehorn, hopes he can 
     build up Redwood Park's appeal. Recently, Ehorn distributed a 
     solicitation to investors for a 75- to 100-bed lodge and 
     conference center. ``One of the problems here is that the 
     park has no center,'' he says. ``People never feel they have 
     arrived.'' Having a comfortable place within walking distance 
     of the trees would also attract groups and persuade visitors 
     to lengthen their stays.
       Ehorn explains: ``I tell people here frankly, ``Look, the 
     park's been here 25 years, and it isn't going to go away. The 
     timber industry will never be the same again, fishing is 
     hurting, what is there for the future except tourism? The 
     sooner we work together, the more we market together, the 
     better off everyone will be. If we put the past behind us and 
     cooperate, we can make Redwood Park a win-win situation.'''
       Driving home past the decaying houses of Orick, and 
     commiserating with the former loggers at the Lumberjack 
     Lounge, however, it is not easy to see a rosy future. One can 
     only conclude that, for the unhappy neighbors of Redwood 
     National Park, a winning situation cannot arrive one moment 
     too soon.

  Mr. WALLOP. The article describes some of the good resource work that 
has been accomplished by the Park Service and it goes into some detail 
on how and why tourism never materialized.
  There is a lot of similarity between Redwoods and the proposed 
Mojave. I believe that the Senator from California will find that the 
Mojave projected tourism figures will never materialize.
  So as I understand it--I do not know how long the majority leader or 
others wish to go on; I assume until around 12:30. I will reserve my 
remaining arguments until that time. But let me conclude with this, 
again. It is important to understand this is not an argument about 
preserving the desert. It is very important to understand that. Either 
status protects it. One status violates the condition of the National 
Park Service substantially and, not withstanding the willy-nilly 
comments of the Secretary, who does not believe in the Congress, he 
cannot transfer this money. He must have the authorization of Congress 
to do that. He has, of course, in other instances, made the statement 
if Congress wants to authorize him to do what he does, well and good; 
but if they did not, he would just go do it anyway. But in this 
instance, he cannot.
  So make no mistake about it, we are arguing about taxing the rest of 
America's parks and parkland in order to establish a park that could 
serve the public as well as a national monument. It is not a question 
of whether or not it is to be protected.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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 for the 
purpose of additional comments on S. 21.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on the issue of cost, I would like to 
make these points.
  Opponents of the bill argue that designation of a national park will 
adversely affect the ability of the Park Service to operate and fund 
other parks in the National Park System. In fact, the 1995 budget, I am 
told, reflects a shift begun last year to meet increasing operational 
needs of the National Park Service. The request of $1.45 billion is 
unchanged from 1994. It includes, however, a $65.5 million increase in 
operational funding that offsets decreases in National Park Service 
construction and acquisition budgets.
  In addition, the 1995 budget includes an across-the-board 2-percent 
increase for all park units.
  So the point is that within this park budget, there is additional 
flexibility and additional ability to provide service. As I said 
earlier, about 3,700 people, according to the National Park Service, 
are being moved out of central offices into the parks. That also will 
add to park management and supervision.
  The other point I want to make is that the Mojave will be primarily 
managed for primitive and wilderness-related experiences and values so 
that neither its staffing nor management will be as great as parks 
where other kinds of activities are permitted.
  You cannot compare the East Mojave with Yosemite, and you cannot 
compare it with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which are 
much more intensively managed because of the types of resources they 
have, the types of ingress and egress to the facilities, and the 
numbers of people that go through those facilities.
  Also, according to Interior, they have already begun to plan a 
transition from BLM to National Park Service management. They hope that 
this transition will serve as a model for future changes in management 
between bureaus. Budgets, staffing needs and planning for other needs, 
including office space and patrols have already begun within the 
confines of existing budgets.
  They also, as I said, believe that planning for cooperative 
management with the State of California will further reduce the need 
for any new staff; that cooperative agreements with State agencies, 
including the Department of Natural Resources, will enable optimizing 
the use of both Federal and State employees.
  I wanted to make those clarifying points. I thank you, Mr. President, 
and yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer].
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming addressed the 
issue of the land and water conservation fund. He stood up and said--
and I am paraphrasing--there is no fund and there is no surplus, 
notwithstanding the comments I have made.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965\1\--Part I--Parks and 
                               Recreation

 An act to establish a land and water conservation fund to assist the 
   States and Federal agencies in meeting present and future outdoor 
  recreation demands and needs of the American people, and for other 
                               purposes.

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


            TITLE I--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION PROVISIONS

                 Short title and statement of purposes

       Section 1. (a) Citation: Effective Date.--This Act may be 
     cited as the ``Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965'' 
     and shall become effective on January 1, 1965.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to assist in 
     preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all 
     citizens of the United States of America of present and 
     future generations and visitors who are lawfully present 
     within the boundaries of the United States of America such 
     quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may 
     be available and are necessary and desirable for individual 
     active participation in such recreation and to strengthen the 
     health and vitality of the citizens of the United States by 
     (1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal assistance to 
     the States in planning, acquisition, and development of 
     needed land and water areas and facilities and (2) providing 
     funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain 
     lands and other areas.

                Certain revenues placed in separate fund

       Sec. 2. Separate Funds.--During the period ending September 
     30, 2015, there shall be covered into the land and water 
     conservation fund in the Treasury of the United States, which 
     fund is hereby established and is hereinafter referred to as 
     the ``fund,'' the following revenues and collections:
       (a) Surplus Property Sales.--All proceeds (except so much 
     thereof as may be otherwise obligated, credited, or paid 
     under authority of those provisions of law set forth in 
     section 485(b)(e),\2\ title 40, United States Code, or the 
     Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1963 (76 Stat. 725) or 
     in any later appropriation Act) hereafter received from any 
     disposal of surplus real property and related personal 
     property under the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, as amended, notwithstanding any 
     provision of law that such proceeds shall be credited to 
     miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Nothing in this Act 
     shall affect existing laws or regulations concerning disposal 
     of real or personal surplus property to schools, hospitals, 
     and States and their political subdivisions.
       (b) Motorboat Fuels Tax.--The amounts provided for in 
     section 201 of this Act.
       (c)(1) Other Revenues.--In addition to the sum of the 
     revenues and collections estimated by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to be covered into the fund pursuant to this 
     section, as amended, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     annually to the fund out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated such amounts as are necessary to make 
     the income of the fund not less than $300,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1977, and $900,000,000 for fiscal year 1978 and for each 
     fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.
       (2) To the extent that any such sums so appropriated are 
     not sufficient to make the total annual income of the fund 
     equivalent to the amounts provided in clause (1), an amount 
     sufficient to cover the remainder thereof shall be credited 
     to the fund from revenues due and payable to the United 
     States for deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts 
     under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) Provided, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 3 of this Act, moneys covered into the 
     fund under this paragraph shall remain in the fund until 
     appropriated by the Congress to carry out the purpose of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 3. Appropriations.--Moneys covered into the fund shall 
     be available for expenditure for the purposes of this Act 
     only when appropriated therefor. Such appropriations may be 
     made without fiscal-year limitation. Moneys made available 
     for obligation or expenditure from the fund or from the 
     special account established under section 4(i)(1) may be 
     obligated or expended only as provided in this Act.

         Admission and Use Fees; Establishment and Regulations

       Sec. 4. (a) Admission Fees.\3\--Entrance or admission fees 
     shall be charged only at designated units of the National 
     Park System administered by the Department of the Interior 
     and National Recreation Areas administered by the Department 
     of Agriculture. No admission fees of any kind shall be 
     charged or imposed for entrance into any other federally 
     owned areas which are operated and maintained by a Federal 
     agency and used for outdoor recreation purposes.
       (1)(A) For admission into any such designated area, an 
     annual admission permit (to be known as the Golden Eagle 
     Passport) shall be available, for a fee of not more than $25. 
     The permittee and any person accompanying him in a single, 
     private noncommercial vehicle or alternatively, the permittee 
     and his spouse, children, and parents accompanying him where 
     entry to the area is by any means other than private, 
     noncommercial vehicle, shall be entitled to general admission 
     into any area designated pursuant to this subsection. The 
     annual permit shall be valid during the calendar year for 
     which the annual fee is paid. The annual permit shall not 
     authorize any uses for which additional fees are charged 
     pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) of this section. The 
     annual permit shall be nontransferable and the unlawful use 
     thereof shall be punishable in accordance with regulations 
     established pursuant to subsection (e). The annual permit 
     shall be available for purchase at any such designated area.
       (B) For admission into a specific designated unit of the 
     National Park System, or into several specific units located 
     in a particular geographic area, the Secretary is authorized 
     to make available an annual admission permit for a reasonable 
     fee. The fee shall not exceed $15 regardless of how many 
     units of the park system are covered. The permit shall convey 
     the privileges of, and shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as, the Golden Eagle Passport, except that it 
     shall be valid only for admission into the specific unit or 
     units of the National Park System indicated at the time of 
     purchase.
       (2) Reasonable admission fees for a single visit at any 
     designated area shall be established by the administering 
     Secretary for persons who choose not to purchase the annual 
     permit. A ``single visit'' means more or less continuous stay 
     within a designated area. Payment of a single visit admission 
     fee shall authorize exits from and reentries to a single 
     designated area for a period of from one to fifteen days, 
     such period to be defined for each designated area by the 
     administering Secretary based upon a determination of the 
     period of time reasonably and ordinarily necessary for such a 
     single visit.


                               FOOTNOTES

     \1\The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4--460l-11), as set forth herein, consists of 
     Public Law 88-578 (Sept. 3, 1964) and amendments thereto.
     \2\The reference in the text is set forth as it appears in 
     the original public law. The reference was probably intended 
     to refer to subsections (b) through (e) of section 485.
     \3\Section 402 of the Act of October 12, 1979 (16 U.S.C. 
     4601-4665) provided as follows:
     ``Sec. 402. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall not charge any entrance or admission fee in 
     excess of the amounts which were in effect as of January 1, 
     1979, or charge said fees at any unit of the National Park 
     System where such fees were not in effect as of such date, 
     nor shall the Secretary charge after the date of enactment of 
     this section, user fees for transportation services and 
     facilities in Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska.''
     Public Law 99-591 contained the following: Provided further, 
     That to advance the mission of the National Park Service, for 
     a period of time not to extend beyond fiscal year 1987, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to charge park 
     entrance fees for all units of the National Park System, 
     except as provided herein, of an amount not to exceed $3 for 
     a single visit permit as defined in 36 CFR 71.7(b)(2) and of 
     an amount not to exceed $5 for a single visit permit as 
     defined in 36 CFR 71.7(b)(1): Provided further, That the cost 
     of a Golden Eagle Passport as defined in 36 CFR 71.5 is 
     increased to a reasonable fee but not to exceed $25 until 
     September 30, 1987: Provided further, That for units of the 
     National Park System where entrance fees are charged the 
     Secretary shall establish an annual admission permit for each 
     individual park unit for a reasonable fee but not to exceed 
     $15, and that purchase of such annual admission permit for a 
     unit of the National Park System shall relieve the 
     requirement for payment of single visit permits as defined in 
     36 CFR 71.7(b): Provided further, That all funds derived from 
     National Park Service entrance fees during fiscal year 1987 
     and all funds collected during fiscal year 1987 under 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 4 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     4601-6a), shall be transferred to the General Fund of the 
     Treasury of the United States: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no admission 
     fee may be charged at any unit of the National Park System 
     which provides significant outdoor recreation opportunities 
     in an urban environment and to which access is publicly 
     available at multiple locations, nor shall an admission fee 
     be charged at any unit of the National Park System which has 
     a current, specific statutory exemption: Provided further, 
     That where entrance fees are established on a per person 
     basis, children 12 and under shall be exempt from the fees: 
     Provided further, That if permanent statutory language is 
     enacted during fiscal year 1987 establishing National Park 
     System entrance fees, the provisions of that language shall 
     supersede the fee provisions contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided under this head, 
     $15,000,000 shall be distributed to units of the National 
     Park System, to be available for resource protection, 
     research, interpretation, and maintenance activities related 
     to resource protection, to be distributed in the following 
     manner: 50 percent shall be provided to all units of the 
     System based on each unit's proportion of park operating 
     expenses, and 50 percent shall be provided to units with 
     entrance fees based on each collecting unit's proportion of 
     total entrance fee collections.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to read in part section 1:

       This act may be cited as the ``Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund Act of 1965'' and shall become effective on January 1, 
     1965.

  Mr. President, this act is still the law of the land.

       The purposes of this act are to assist in preserving, 
     developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the 
     United States of America of present and future generations 
     and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries 
     of the United States of America such quality and quantity of 
     outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are 
     necessary and desirable for individual active participation 
     in such recreation and to strengthen the health and vitality 
     of the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds 
     for and authorizing Federal assistance to the States in 
     planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and 
     water areas and facilities and (2) providing funds for the 
     Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and 
     other areas.

  Now it talks about certain revenues placed in a separate fund.
  Section 2, entitled ``Separate Fund'':

       During the period ending September 30, 2015, there shall be 
     covered into the land and water conservation fund in the 
     Treasury of the United States, which fund is hereby 
     established and is hereinafter referred to as the ``fund'', 
     the following revenues * * *

  Mr. President, it places inside that fund revenues from surplus 
property sales, from motorboat fuels tax and other revenues, including 
Outer Continental Shelf lands revenues.
  Then in section 3 it says:

       Appropriations.--Moneys covered into the fund shall be 
     available for expenditure for the purposes of this act only 
     when appropriated therefor.

  We understand that. I understand that the funds have to be 
appropriated, but the truth of the matter is, there are billions of 
dollars that have not been spent for this purpose. People can stand up 
here and say it is just a matter of bookkeeping all they want. But the 
fact is, there is a law of this land setting up this fund. If we wanted 
to, Mr. President, we could appropriate those funds.
  I would like to say for the record that I support higher 
appropriations for this fund because we do a lot of things around here 
that do not last as long and do not make as positive a contribution as 
when we maintain and operate our parks in the right way. I agree with 
the Senator from Wyoming, we certainly have to do that; and, yes, when 
we expand our parks.
  I have been going back into the Record, and I found a very 
interesting part of the Congressional Record from the year 1940 in 
which a Senator from Nevada at that time objected to the creation of 
Kings Canyon National Park, a park that is near Yosemite, very similar 
arguments to the Senator from Wyoming.
  His argument was, the Forest Service does a better job than the Park 
Service. Let us leave this park with the Forest Service. This is 
Senator Pittman in 1940:

       So far as I have observed, the Forest Service is as great a 
     conservation organization as we have in this Government. It 
     has done more to preserve the forest, the watersheds than any 
     other agency. It has done more toward scientific 
     reforestation than the Park Service could ever do, because 
     the Park Service does not contain a scientific organization 
     capable of handling the problem.

  And he bemoans the fact that we keep creating these parks. This is 
1940. If there had been a majority of Senator Pittmans, there are a lot 
of parks we would not have today and a lot of people would not have the 
joyous experiences that they have in our Nation's parks.
  If there are a majority of Senator Wallops today, and there may be--
and I pray not--we are not going to have a national park at the East 
Mojave, which would be a very sad day, indeed, because as surely as it 
seems a long time ago, 1940, there will be someone on this floor in a 
few years, and a few years after that saying, ``Gee, look what Senator 
Wallop said about how we could have kept this in BLM hands, and look 
what those Senators from California said, that it should be in the 
National Park Service,'' because that is a statement for all 
times. That is a status for all times. It elevates the beauty of this 
area that the Senator from Wyoming agrees with us exists and wants to 
preserve.

  So I say to my friend, I hope he would withdraw this amendment. Of 
course, he is going to press it. But I think we need to have some 
vision. And when we look back in history, here it is 1940, we see 
Senators in the past who said we have too many national parks; why do 
we need all these parks? We do not need any more parks. No one wants 
any more parks. And yet because of the vision of this Senate and the 
House and Presidents of both political parties, we have created 
national parks for all times, so that our children can enjoy them, our 
grandchildren, and after that.
  That is what it really is all about. When we are here in the moment, 
we get caught up in the debates of the moment. But what an opportunity 
we have today to stand up for the beauty of this incomparable area, to 
place it into the hands of those who are the right ones to protect it 
for all time. The National Park Service is going to run this park for 
the people, the people who want to preserve it, the people who want to 
use it, the people who will visit it. And that is what we should be 
doing.
  So, again, I urge all of my colleagues to please support the two 
Senators from California. Please do that and show the vision that we 
are asking you to show so we have a national park for all times.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would urge the Senator from California 
to go as well and get the copies of the airport trust fund and the 
highway trust fund and the Social Security trust fund and all the other 
trust funds that are around. These are not--and her own language says 
precisely that--these are not what the public thinks of when it thinks 
of ``trust fund.''
  I believe I quote correctly when the Senator says, ``that we must 
appropriate more to it. That is the only time in which money exists in 
the funds.'' It does not. And we fool ourselves and Americans by 
telling them that this is anything more than an accounting gimmick 
which is designed to do just precisely that, to persuade Americans that 
there is a little door somewhere down in Treasury and we can go in it 
and we can build airports, and we can go in it and we can build 
highways, and we can go in it and we can build parks.
  It does not work that way. Many of us wish that it would, but it has 
not and it will not. And the Appropriations Committee will not allow it 
to, for starters, because that is an infringement on their authority.
  So when we say these things, it sounds as lovely as the title, but I 
would say to my friend from California as well that a national monument 
is just as permanent as a national park. There is no distinction except 
the sign on the door when you walk in. If the land on the inside is 
worthy of protection, the land on the inside is and whoever has it will 
be bound by the requirements of the act. We do not differ one from the 
other.
  It is, again, a question of whether there can be willy-nilly, sort of 
flipping around of personnel by the Secretary. He cannot.
  The announced statement of the senior Senator from California was 
that there is a 2 percent increase, which is what the figure of $65 
million amounts to. I would point out to Americans that the cost of 
living last year was somewhere around 4 percent, so we are in decline 
notwithstanding the increase. That is the point the Senator from 
Wyoming has been trying to make from the very beginning: Where do we go 
to be responsible in this?
  One, we go to the protection of the desert, no question, no argument, 
no difference. Then the thing is what do you do about the National Park 
Service? Do we add to its burdens in order to sustain the political 
reputations of folks or do we operate responsibly within the structure 
that we know exists and give it to the people who now responsibly 
manage it and give them new management instructions, the one side of 
which does not differ from the other.
  My belief is that the responsible way to go is to leave it in the 
hands of an agency, the funding of which is already authorized and 
whose personnel are already in place and on the ground. But I would say 
again that the Secretary's own figures show that this is a $125 million 
additional cost just in operations over the next 5 years. That is his 
own study. I would say to the Senator, I entered in the Record the 
study of October 1993 conducted by the Department of the Interior, Mr. 
Babbitt, and the National Park Service. He can deny that that is how 
much it is going to cost, but that is what his study tells him it is 
going to cost.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________