[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


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to grant 
floor privileges to Judy Lee and Joe Jackson for the purposes of this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add John 
Glenn as a cosponsor of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, that would raise our cosponsors of 
this legislation to 48.
  The issue before the Senate to be voted on very shortly is whether 
this area, the centerpiece of the bill, the East Mojave--hopefully, 
national park--will be able to become a national park or will become a 
BLM monument.
  It is my very strong view, and I know you share this view, Madam 
President, that the bill will not be complete unless the East Mojave is 
in fact a national park. There are reasons.
  First of all, the Mojave qualifies as a national park. The Department 
of the Interior evaluated the Mojave in 1979 and in 1987, and I quoted 
from officials of the Interior Department both in 1979 and 1987 where 
they found that the Mojave should be added to the National Park System 
based on the sensitivity of the area, based upon the resources of the 
area, and based on the fact that it is a point of confluence between 
three major ecosystems.
  This administration supports park status of the Mojave. That means 
the President supports park status and the Secretary of the Interior 
supports park status. In addition, the Committee supports park status 
and rejected an amendment to turn it into a BLM monument.
  Californians, as I have now pointed out three times, support park 
status for the Mojave. By independent poll, 75 percent of those polled 
said they would favor the Mojave National Park without hunting. The BLM 
monument status would provide a lesser level of protection.
  And let me say it really is a question of mission. The mission of the 
National Park Service is to run a national park, to have a coordinated 
approach to see that the park is protected and that the resources are 
managed for public understanding and enjoyment. There would be a 
visitor center. The mission of the Bureau of Land Management is a 
totally different mission. Its protective status is less.
  The points I have tried to make with all of the charts that I showed 
yesterday--the beautiful and tender flowers, the Joshua trees, the 
pinion trees, the wild animals--is that all of those things are 
sensitive resources. All of us who support park status for the Mojave--
the 9 major environmental organizations, the 36 cities, the 18 
counties, the 15 major newspapers who have editorialized in support of 
this legislation--we all believe the mission of the National Park 
Service is much more conducive to managing the resources in this area 
than is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management.
  The distinguished Senator from Wyoming, and I respect the Senator, 
and he has been here for a long time and has had a great deal of 
experience with parks, certainly more so than I have nationally, 
although I would like to believe I have more experience in California 
than the Senator from Wyoming, has stated that he retains the mineral 
withdrawal for the Mojave subject to valid existing claims. However, it 
must be pointed out that BLM regulation of mining of valid existing 
mining claims would not be as stringent as under the National Park 
Service. Large open pit mines could occur, and this would scar this 
very sensitive landscape and destroy scenic vistas. The original 
Cranston legislation did not do this, but my amendments specifically 
protect every active mine and every mine that has secured approval to 
mine. Those are protected by the legislation.
  So I contend that if we want to protect the Mojave, the best agency 
to provide that protection is in fact the National Park Service. The 
BLM has the mission to manage for multiple use, many different uses. 
The Park Service's mission is protection of resources for the enjoyment 
of future generations, and that is where a Mojave national park would 
play a role. Sensitive resources, tender resources, resources subject 
to oblivion could be protected for our children and our grandchildren.
  Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, what is the time status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11 minutes and 28 seconds for the 
proponent; 5 minutes and 20 seconds for the opponents.
  Senator Wallop has 11 minutes.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, there are a couple of things that need 
to be said. I again stress that the argument between ourselves and the 
Senators from California and others is not about whether the desert 
should be protected. That must be nothing but a shibboleth, to suggest 
otherwise.
  It has been, from the beginning, my purpose, my statement, that we 
have followed precisely the devices and the desires of the Senator from 
California by using her language; our findings are her findings; her 
findings are our findings. So it is not a question of whether or not it 
should be protected.
  Now, the National Park Service manages other things besides parks. 
They manage national seashores, national monuments, national historic 
sites, scenic areas, and in their mind, there is no distinction between 
the management requirements of one over the other depending upon its 
title.
  So the point that the Senator from Wyoming has been trying to make is 
that that desert, which all of us agree deserves protection, in the 
East Mojave is not going to have a rosy light shining on it if the Park 
Service manages it and a yellow light shining on it if the BLM manages 
it.
  The Senator was speaking of the mission of the BLM. The mission of 
BLM or any other land managing agency is to do what Congress tells it 
to do. And in this instance, we would be telling it how to manage it.
  The question is, and it goes back--and I will state it again and 
again and again and again--to whether or not we, for our own political 
reasons, are willing to jeopardize the rest of America's National Park 
System in order to add one new national park to it just for the name 
``park''; or whether or not our purpose is sincere, within the budget 
constraints that exist in America, in protecting a piece of ground that 
all of us say, yes, deserves protection.
  There is an agency under whose budget auspices this now falls, whose 
personnel are now experienced with it and trained on it, who have 
managed it to the extent that those pictures can be taken. There is an 
agency which has the money to do this.
  There is another agency in which the money does not exist, and the 
money is going to have to be taken out of Yellowstone Park, Yosemite 
Park, Point Reyes, Redwoods, Glacier, Great Smoky Mountains, 
Shenandoah, Indiana Dunes, and all the rest of the National Parks in 
the 49 States and the territories. There is no money, Madam President.
  And the Secretary of the Interior, notwithstanding, is not capable of 
willy-nilly transferring funds within his agency. That is an 
authorization that this Congress must do, that this Appropriations 
Committee must allow. It has not, and there is no reason to suppose 
that they might, because traditionally they have not and have refused 
to.
  So what you have here is not an argument over the value of the desert 
or the experience in the desert, but an argument over whether or not, 
for political reasons we pry loose resources from the rest of America's 
national parks to take care of a new park, the protection of which 
would be assured, notwithstanding if we were to allow it to remain in 
the hands of the BLM as a national monument.
  The sign on the gate makes no difference to the extent of the 
experience inside the gate.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the time to be equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the bill 
and in opposition, reluctant opposition, to the amendment of my friend 
from Wyoming.
  As I said this morning, his point, which is that the National Park 
Service is underfunded at this time, is a very appropriate and valid 
point. I expect to support him in every arena on increasing the 
resources for the National Park Service, which make up collectively 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget. And I believe the 
American public would support adequate funding for the National Park 
Service, and I am with him on that issue.
  But, Madam President, adding this park and these wildlife areas, some 
94 percent of which are already in public ownership, is not going to 
burden the National Park Service. It is simply something that not only 
can be done within present resources, it should be done.
  Every Secretary, every public official in America today who has 
examined this park says, yes, it is appropriate; it is needed; it is 
vital to make a national park out of the California desert.
  Madam President, I hope all Senators will join together not only in 
support of this bill, but to kill this amendment. But, in killing this 
amendment, I hope we will join with the Senator from Wyoming in giving 
in later arenas, in later times, support for the National Park Service 
to maintain the great park system which we have in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, if the Senator will withhold. I thought 
she had wanted to speak further, and she probably does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, let me talk just a couple of minutes 
about the studies. There is a lot of wingding that goes on around this 
thing. The two studies mentioned in 1979 and 1987 have no management 
review. They are not traditional studies that the Park Service does 
when asked to study the qualifications of a given area. That much is 
true.
  They were what the Park Service calls sort of quick and dirty. The 
poll that the Senator quoted, that 75 percent of the people in 
California favored a park, is not what the question was in the Field 
poll. The Field poll asked: ``Did the desert deserve protection?'' 
Seventy-five percent of the people said, ``Yes, the desert deserves 
protection.'' They did not ask if it ought to have park status. The 
Field poll question was about whether or not the desert deserves 
protection.
  I am not quarreling with those 75 percent of Californians who say 
that the desert deserves protection. But the fact of it was that they 
were not asked the question about park status.

  At any rate, I say to my friend from Louisiana, who says this is not 
going to burden the Park Service, the Secretary's own report says that 
it burdens it to the tune of $125 million, short of spending for 
construction, short of the design of programs and everything else. Just 
for maintenance, $125 million over the next 5 years; that is what 
Secretary Babbitt's Department of the Interior says. Madam President, 
it is going to burden the Park Service. It is not going to undo the 
Senator from Wyoming if it goes into a park; it is going to undo the 
Park Service. That is the point.
  The question again arises not over whether or not the desert should 
be protected. The question arises under whose auspices that protection 
should take place and how do we protect the National Park Service from 
the willy-nilly raid of Members of Congress from both parties who 
believe the only living sign of commitment happens to be a NPS sign on 
the gate instead of a National Monument sign on the gate. The 
protection of the land within those boundaries and inside the gate will 
not be distinguishable one from the other. What will be 
distinguishable, one from the other, is whether or not the National 
Park Service has the resources, manpower resources and financial 
resources, to undertake the willy-nilly obligations we continue to heap 
upon it.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator will yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, simply to reply to the statement of my 
friend that it would cost $125 million to administer this by the 
National Park Service, I think that figure is correct. It is a 5-year 
figure. The thing that was not mentioned, however, is the fact that the 
majority of that is BLM activities which would have to be carried on 
anyway. The figures we have are that the additional funding needed to 
manage the Mojave, which is the national park part of this, is, for 
1995, $911,000; $1.8 million for 1996; $2 million for 1997; or a 6-year 
total of $13 million. While it is a sizable amount of money, the 
management of the total system, which is some 6.3 million acres, most 
of that is a cost that is already incurred because it is already BLM 
land, as I mentioned. Some 94 percent of this is already owned, most of 
that, by the Federal Government, in part by the State government. So it 
is already being managed.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I will not use the 2 minutes. Just 
to summarize, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. A 
vote ``no'' on the amendment would say S. 21 will go ahead, create the 
East Mojave as a national park. As a rationale, I point out, by actual 
poll and question asked, 70 percent of the people living in the desert 
counties support park status for the Mojave and 75 percent of the 
people statewide support the Mojave National Park.
  With respect to the cost, as Senator Johnston has just said, we 
believe and the Department of the Interior confirms that they can 
handle that cost. The two Senators from the State, for the first time 
in 8 years, are together on this question. The committee voted on this 
question and approved park status for the Mojave. The President 
supports the park status; the Secretary of the Interior supports the 
park status; and the head of the National Park Service has said that 
this area is totally meritorious and deserving of park status. The 
question is one of mission. The mission should be that of the National 
Park Service, not the Bureau of Land Management.
  I thank very much both the committee chairman and ranking member for 
their very civil discourse on this subject. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 1620 offered 
by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] and 
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Coats
     Shelby
  So the amendment (No. 1620) was rejected.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
legislation before the Senate.
  This is an issue that the full Senate has waited to consider for a 
number of years.
  With the diligence and perseverance of the Senators from California, 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, the full Senate now has the 
opportunity to consider this bill.
  I commend my colleagues from California and thank them for their hard 
work in bringing this important bill before the Senate.
  However, I feel it is only appropriate that we also pay tribute to 
our former colleague from California who introduced legislation on this 
issue back in the 99th Congress.
  Almost 10 years ago, Senator Alan Cranston recognized the need to 
provide greater protection for the California desert.
  Interior Secretary Watt had shown great reluctance to protect the 
fragile desert ecosystem from the harms of commercial activities, 
hunting, and off-road vehicle use.
  Working with a number of conservation groups, Senator Cranston 
drafted legislation, S. 2061, to place 9.4 million acres of the 
southern California desert under the protection of the National Park 
Service.
  Needless to say, this was a controversial bill.
  Numerous interest groups ranging from off-road vehicle enthusiasts to 
the National Public Lands Advisory Council opposed this bill.
  After reelection in 1986, Senator Cranston reintroduced the 
California Desert Protection Act, S. 7, in 100th Congress.
  Judging from the bill number alone, it is clear that this legislation 
was a high priority for the Senator from California. However, the 
opponents of this bill mounted a campaign to defeat it. Mining 
interests charged that the bill was ill conceived. The Department of 
the Interior officials testified in opposition to the bill.
  At the end of the 100th Congress, S. 7 was not enacted. However, our 
former colleague from California would not back down.
  In the 101st Congress, the California Desert Protection Act was 
reintroduced as S. 11. This time around the opponents of this bill 
changed tactics. They alleged that Senator Cranston was trying to play 
politics with our national defense and our natural resources.
  This time defense Secretary Cheney weighed in, complaining about the 
impact of the legislation on military overflights.
  At the end of the 101st Congress, S. 11 was still in committee.
  So, after three Congresses, and a variety of campaigns to kill the 
California Desert Protection Act, some might consider the issue dead.
  Why bother reintroducing it?
  This bill was a clear casualty of the gridlock that had consumed the 
legislative process under the Reagan and Bush administrations.
  And yet, when the Senate reconvened for the 102d Congress, Senator 
Cranston introduced S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act.
  He was undaunted by the past inaction on his bill and remained 
committed to providing greater protection for the fragile desert 
ecosystem in his State.
  It was apparent that he would not back down in the face of opposition 
from a number of interest groups, and yet, he remained willing to 
negotiate a compromise and address legitimate concerns with the bill.
  Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached before our former 
colleague retired.
  S. 21, as introduced in the 102d Congress, was not reported out of 
committee.
  Fortunately, the fight for the protection of the California desert 
resumed in the 103d Congress.
  Senator Feinstein introduced the California Desert Protection Act, S. 
21, the bill we are considering today.
  Senator Feinstein deserves a tremendous amount of credit for her 
efforts in moving this legislation along.
  She has negotiated among various affected groups and so far has 
prevailed in the face of opposition posed by interest groups such as 
the National Rifle Association.
  While both Senators Feinstein and Boxer have helped bring this bill 
before the full Senate, undoubtedly, the debate on this issue today has 
been shaped by previous debates in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee in prior Congresses.
  This is a bill that has been pending in the Senate since 1986 because 
former Senator Alan Cranston recognized an intrinsic value to 
protecting the California desert.
  He knew that mining, grazing, and other interests would oppose his 
efforts, yet he had a vision for the California desert that transcended 
the immediate financial gain from exploiting the natural resources in 
the area.
  When he introduced the first version of his California Desert 
Protection Act on February 6, 1986, he stated that his legislation 
would provide permanent, lasting protection for the beauty and wildness 
of the California desert.
  Moreover, he stated that ``Our goal has been to establish in law the 
most appropriate pattern of protection to assure that all Californians 
and visitors to the desert will have the full value of these lands.''
  Although it is over 8 years later, I am pleased that the Senate now 
has the opportunity to take one step closer to accomplishing that goal.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Gary Ziehe of my staff be 
granted floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, we are trying to get this bill ready 
for final passage. We have a number of amendments to deal with, but we 
would like to get a unanimous consent agreement so as to deal with all 
of those amendments. If I may state to Senators the amendments we have 
heard about until now, so that when we eventually propound our 
unanimous consent request, we would include these amendments. I hope 
some of these amendments will go away. I am asking all Senators at this 
point to let us know if they have an amendment.
  The amendments we know about at this time are an Inouye amendment 
with respect to the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, which has been agreed to; 
a Feinstein amendment to allow construction of single family homes 
within the Mojave National Park; a Wallop second-degree amendment to 
the Feinstein amendment to apply that provision to all parks 
nationwide; a Feinstein amendment to restore all Federal lands within 
the Lanfair Valley to the Mojave National Park; a Wallop second-degree 
amendment to that; a Bennett amendment to require that 90 percent of 
private lands within the wilderness in park units be acquired within 10 
years or else the authority to designate such areas would expire--that 
would be without a second-degree amendment; a Craig amendment to 
exclude 1,920 acres of the Pleuss-Stauffer mining claims from the 
Mojave National Park; two Brown amendments--one on trails and one on 
fees; three Murkowski amendments--one on hunting, one on access to the 
park lands, and one on private property; a Hatfield amendment on PILT, 
that is, payment in lieu of taxes; a Hatch amendment on law 
enforcement; and a Johnston amendment with respect to the Delta bill 
already passed the Senate.
  Madam President, those are all of the amendments that I have been 
told might possibly be offered. I think most of those will not be 
offered.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I am asking Senators to let us know as quickly as 
possible about their amendments so that we might wind this bill up this 
evening, hopefully early this evening.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Excuse me. I did have a Warner amendment as well.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator. To inform the Senate 
of the subject matter, it is to create again parks legislation with 
reference to a series of Civil War battlefields in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Have these already been passed in the Senate?
  Mr. WARNER. They have not. This is a new concept, a new piece of 
legislation which my colleague, Senator Robb, and I are offering to the 
Senate. It has had a hearing in the committee, very brief hearing, and 
it is ready to proceed.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. All right. And that is one Warner amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I think it should be designated Warner-
Robb amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Warner-Robb amendment.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, the Senator from Oregon has informed me 
that the PILT amendment will not occur.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. There is one down.
  Mr. WALLOP. The Lanfair amendment, if offered by the Senator from 
California, who said that I would potentially have a second-degree 
amendment, and that should be more properly phrased ``second degree'' 
or ``substitute.''
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Second degree or substitute. If that is offered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Yes. At this moment, I have no way of knowing of any 
others.
  I urge my colleagues to tell me if there are others and, if so, what 
they might be. I state to my friend that that does not sound like it 
arrives before the correspondents' dinner this evening, but perhaps by 
early tomorrow.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I say to my friend that I expect most of these to go 
away. Regarding the two principal amendments, the Bennett and the Craig 
amendments, I will shortly ask unanimous consent to limit each of those 
to 1 hour of debate equally divided, and it is my guess that they can 
probably finish faster than that. I think most of these will probably 
go away or will be dealt with by agreement. At least that is my hope.


                           Amendment No. 1621

   (Purpose: To protect Indian tribal lands, and for other purposes)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Inouye and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1621.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. 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:

       On page 152, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       (c) Study.--
       (1) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Timbisha Shoshone Tribe and relevant Federal agencies, shall 
     conduct a study, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, to identify lands suitable for a reservation 
     for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe that are located within the 
     Tribe's aboriginal homeland area within and outside the 
     boundaries of the Death Valley National Monument and the 
     Death Valley National Park, as described in title III of the 
     California Desert Protection Act of 1993.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the California Desert Protection Act of 1993, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives on the results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).
       Section 707(b)(3) on page 155 is amended to read as 
     follows: ``(3) Any other Federal land, or interest therein, 
     within the State of California, which is or becomes surplus 
     to the needs of the Federal Government. The Secretary may 
     exclude, in his discretion, lands located within, or 
     contiguous to, the exterior boundaries of lands held in trust 
     for a federally recognized Indian tribe located in the State 
     of California.''

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, this is an amendment submitted on 
behalf of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] who is chairman of the 
Indian Affairs Committee. This deals with a study concerning the 
Timbisha Shoshone tribe, and it has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1621) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WALLOP. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1622

    (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake 
  initiatives to address certain needs in the Lower Mississippi Delta 
                    Region, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1622.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, this amendment amends this bill to 
include portions of a bill already passed by the Senate, reported out 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and passed on the floor 
of the Senate by unanimous consent earlier, dealing with the Delta 
Commission. What it does, in effect, is take that part of the bill that 
relates to the Department of the Interior over which our sister 
committee on the other side--that is the Natural Resources Committee--
has jurisdiction and includes as part of this bill. That has been 
cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1622) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WALLOP. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, there are two amendments previously 
referred to, a Bennett amendment and a Craig amendment. In both 
instances, we have agreed to have 1 hour of debate, equally divided, 
with no second-degree amendments in order and the first amendment to be 
the Bennett amendment and the second in order to be the Craig 
amendment.
  If I have correctly stated that, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Bennett amendment pertaining to a requirement for 90 percent of private 
lands to be acquired, have 1 hour of debate equally divided between 
Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein, with no second-degree amendments 
in order, to be followed immediately, without intervening business, by 
the Craig amendment relative to the exclusion of 1,920 acres of the 
Pleuss-Stauffer mining claims, also to be considered under a 1-hour 
time agreement, equally divided between Senator Craig and Senator 
Feinstein, with no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment no. 1617, as modified

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hatch be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1617 offered by the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], and myself this morning and 
that the amendment be modified with the following language, which I 
will now send to the desk. This language is technical in nature and has 
been agreed to by the committee staffs on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1617), as modified, is as follows:

       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 law 
     enforcement and 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 or Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     appropriate, in consultation with the Secretary.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
the Wallop-Hatch amendment to the California Desert Protection Act of 
1993. We believe the bill fails to adequately address the legitimate 
needs of Federal and State law enforcement. In short, the bill could 
unduly hamper significant law enforcement activities in the desert and 
along the border. It could enhance the flow of illegal drugs and aliens 
into the United States by subjecting Federal law enforcement activities 
to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
  I am concerned about the potential conflict which may arise between 
the duties of the Immigration and Nationalization Service [INS], the 
Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], and the Customs Service 
[Customs] and the designation of certain lands in the desert as 
wilderness. In order for these Federal law enforcement agencies to 
perform their congressionally mandated duties and complete their 
mission in a responsible manner, they need unlimited access to lands 
protected by this bill. A wilderness designation significantly 
restricts the use of motorized vehicles and aircraft. Such a 
designation only allows foot traffic or horseback. As the Department of 
Justice wrote in its letter to the Energy Committee--

       [Wilderness designation] would make an already difficult 
     job almost impossible in view of the desolation and 
     summertime temperatures of the areas in question. In light of 
     the short response time mandated by the close proximity to 
     major highways to one of the areas used by smugglers to pick 
     up their loads, both aliens and narcotics, our officers need 
     to use motorized vehicles for operations in these areas.--
     Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Letter 
     to Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, August 4, 1993.

  In an effort to address the needs of law enforcement, the bill 
permits continued border operations by the INS, DEA, or Customs within 
the desert area provided they are in accordance with existing 
interagency agreements. However, should Customs and DEA want to modify 
or amend their activities or agreements, the bill requires the approval 
of the Secretary of the Interior. I believe this is inappropriate. The 
potential exists for significant conflict between law enforcement 
agencies and the Department of the Interior. Requiring the acquiescence 
of the Interior Department before any new or amended law enforcement 
activities take place could unduly hamper our law enforcement 
activities.
  The southwest border is a major transshipment point for illicit 
narcotics. According to the Customs Service, tons of marijuana and 
cocaine are seized each year as a result of law enforcement activities 
along the border. According to the INS, over several thousand illegal 
aliens are captured each year along the southwest border. Congress must 
not irresponsibly compromise the success these agencies enjoy in the 
name of wilderness protection.
  The Wallop-Hatch amendment removes Interior's veto authority over law 
enforcement activities. It ensures law enforcement agencies will retain 
needed authority to determine applicable law enforcement policies 
within the wilderness area.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1623

  (Purpose: To provide that certain designations will not occur until 
    substantially all inholdings have been acquired by the Federal 
                              Government)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1623.

  Mr. BENNETT. 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:
       At the end of the bill insert the following new section 
     902:

     SEC. 902. AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE AREAS.

       (a) The designation of Joshua tree National Park, Mojave 
     National Park, the expansion and designation of Death Valley 
     National Park, and the designation of any area as Wilderness 
     or its retention under this Act, together with any other 
     provisions of this Act or any other Act, to the extent they 
     are applicable to each such area as a result of the passage 
     of this Act, shall not take effect until the Secretary has 
     required not less than 90 percent of the private lands within 
     the exterior boundaries of such area (referred to as 
     ``inholdings'' for the purpose of this section) and has 
     placed a notice in the federal register to that effect. If, 
     subsequent to having received notification as provided under 
     subsection (b), any owner notifies the Secretary in writing 
     that he does not wish to be acquired his land shall not be 
     considered to be an inholding for the purposes of this 
     section. If acquisition and notice has not been made within 
     ten years from the date of enactment of this Act with respect 
     to any of the areas referred to in this section, the 
     designation of such area and the application of any other 
     provisions of this Act or any other Act, to the extent they 
     are applicable as a result of the designation of the area by 
     this Act, to such area shall expire and such area shall be 
     administered thereafter under the laws applicable to such 
     area in the absence of this legislation.
       (b) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall ascertain the ownership of each 
     inholding and shall notify the owner thereof in writing of 
     the passage of this Act and the effect of the proposed 
     designation on continued use of such parcel, including, but 
     not limited to, any limitations or restrictions on access to 
     such parcel across federal lands. The notice shall be 
     specific and detailed with respect to any limitations or 
     restrictions which the Secretary would impose or enforce upon 
     the formal designation of the area, including, but not 
     limited to, construction of facilities or the operation of 
     the inholding for commercial activities.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment deals with an issue of 
basic fairness. The Federal Government has, for years, acquired lands 
for the purpose of national parks, national monuments, wilderness 
areas, other national park uses and national land uses, which lands 
surround private lands that have come to be known as inholdings. That 
is, lands that are held by private individuals inside lands that are 
owned by the Federal Government.
  Obviously, these inholdings are of little or no economic use to the 
individuals who have them most of the time. I suppose there are some 
situations where an inholding can be considered of some value. But, 
overwhelmingly, the majority of these inholdings are robbed of their 
economic value and, many times, of their recreation or scenic value, 
simply because they are completely surrounded by Federal lands.
  The Federal Government has embarked on a program to acquire these 
inholdings, and we have seen as park after park has been created, as 
wilderness area after wilderness area has been created, Federal 
promises to acquire these inholdings and pay fair market value for 
them. The Constitution requires nothing less. If you take land for a 
public purpose, under the Constitution, you have to pay for it.
  The fact of the matter is, however, that the Federal Government has 
not paid for these lands. The promise has been made, but it has not 
been fulfilled. Again and again, the Federal Government says, well, we 
will pay for it next year, or a name that I have turned into a verb, 
the Federal Government has decided to Scarlett O'Hara this problem--
think about it tomorrow.
  Well, we are doing the same thing with S. 21. We are acquiring lands 
that would create inholdings. And we promise, eventually, to pay for 
them. I think it is time to put a little teeth in that promise. In the 
committee, I proposed an amendment that said that we cannot call this a 
national park until these inholdings are paid for, and I put on a time 
limit of 5 years, saying the Federal Government has 5 years in which to 
acquire these inholdings and pay people their fair market value, or it 
cannot call this a national park.
  I think that is enough of a spur to get this done.
  I was told: No. You are being unreasonable. The Federal Government 
cannot move that far. Please withdraw your amendment.
  I did. And I come to the floor today with this amendment that says 
not 5 years but 10, not 100 percent, not all of the inholdings but 90 
percent. That means the small landholder who would hold up the whole 
process by holding out his little farm house is now ruled out of his 
command situation that he would have if we called for 100 percent.
  So, I believe the bill meets the objections that were raised in 
committee. I think it qualifies for consideration on the floor, and I 
think, as I said at the outset, it is a matter of basic fairness.
  Ten years is sufficient time for the Federal Government to inventory 
and purchase these lands. In many cases they will not have to purchase 
them outright. Land swaps are available, and the Federal Government 
could say to an inholder: We will trade you X number of acres over here 
of BLM land or other Federal land for your lands. And as a result we 
will not have to come up with any cash.
  But one way or another, within a 10-year period, the Federal 
Government will have to make good its word and meet its constitutional 
responsibility to pay for that which it takes or this particular area 
will lose its designation as a national park.
  That is not catastrophic, Madam President. That really will not 
change the way these lands are managed. As the senior Senator from 
California has made clear, most of these lands are under Federal 
control right now. So they would stay under the Federal control they 
are currently under. They would simply no longer be designated a 
national park.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I preface the question by saying the Senator from Utah 
has been a star on the committee giving leadership in so many areas and 
we consider him to be not only a very capable Senator but our best 
business adviser on the committee, someone who has real business 
experience.
  In the spirit of someone who has real business experience, I want to 
ask him what he thinks is the effect of this amendment on the Catellus 
Corp. where there are some 430,000 acres of inholdings that is in East 
Mojave of which some 300,000 acres are owned by Catellus. If we adopted 
the amendment of the Senator from Utah and there was a requirement that 
in effect the national park would go into effect only if you acquired 
90 percent of the inholdings, then what is the Senator's judgment. The 
first question is, would that constitute, in effect, a veto power to 
Catellus?
  Mr. BENNETT. In my opinion that would not constitute a veto power. 
Even though Catellus is large, they have not abdicated their 
constitutional rights to be compensated for that which constitutes a 
taking. I know there will be argument they still own the land but they 
cannot use it if it is in the park designation.
  I yield further to the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. My question is if in order to have a national park you 
must acquire 90 percent of the private lands and if almost two-thirds 
of the private lands are owned by one corporation, could not that 
corporation by withholding its consent to sell, keeping in mind there 
is no eminent domain authority here, by refusing the consent to sell 
would they not then have a veto over the whole National Park System 
designation?
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I agree that under one set of 
circumstances it would appear that they would have a veto. Congress 
continues to meet. If they would refuse to sell, I believe we could sit 
down then and draw up a national park that could exclude those 
inholdings in such a fashion as to allow the park to proceed in a 
proper fashion. I do not have any indications that they would be that 
recalcitrant with respect to this particular piece of land.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask the Senator a second question and maybe even a 
more salient question which is, as a businessman if the Senator from 
Utah was in the position of the Catellus Corp., keeping in mind they 
would have this ability to veto this national park, which in turn is 
supported by 70 or 75 percent of the people of California, does the 
Senator from Utah not agree with me that it would considerably enhance 
their ability to negotiate with the Federal Government over the price 
of the land which would be essential to make this national park? Would 
he agree with that?
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, if the Senator will yield to me for a 
second, I ask unanimous consent that--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Let me respond briefly.
  Mr. WALLOP. I want to get the time equally divided here because the 
time is being run by the other side.
  Mr. BENNETT. I see. I thank the Senator.
  Let me respond very quickly to my chairman. I believe in national 
parks. I believe that the national park designation is a better 
designation, frankly, than the wilderness designation because it allows 
people into it while the wilderness designation usually does not.
  I think that the two Senators from California have worked very hard 
to create a logical solution here. I may not agree with their ultimate 
decision, but I believe they have acted in good faith.
  At the same time, I still believe in private property rights, and I 
believe that people who own private property, even private property 
that is surrounded by land the Government covets for a national park, 
should not be treated in a cavalier fashion even if they are large and 
by virtue of their large land holdings have a degree of advantage 
thereby. I believe that we have to recognize some basic fundamental 
rights that people have, and I know from personal experience that many 
members of the Interior Department who administer Federal lands in 
which there are inholdings regardless of their size treat those 
inholdings as Federal land and as the private fiefdoms of the Federal 
bureaucrats. And the only way I can see to see to it that that does not 
happen with this land is to offer the amendment I have offered.
  I yield further to the chairman.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I understand the Senator's answer to be yes, that he 
does agree with me that this would enhance the bargaining power of 
Catellus if the amendment of the Senator from Utah passes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I think that is self-evident, Madam President.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. And I say I do not find any heartburn in that.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. WALLOP. I say the other side of that coin to the chairman of the 
committee is Secretary Babbitt who had said that he would force them to 
accept whatever offer he makes or remain inholdings forever. The other 
side of that coin is the arrogant abuse of the power not to pay a fair 
market value.
  What we are trying to get at here is directly the basis of what the 
Senator from Utah is trying to say.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am reminded by my staff also that my 
amendment deals with this issue on an area-by-area basis. Therefore, 
there are areas where there are no Catellus holdings at all, and indeed 
if a large Catellus holding in one area held up the designation there, 
it would not affect the designation in other areas.
  I do not believe that this amendment would be one, as it has been 
characterized, that it would gut the bill. I think, to the contrary, it 
would establish some public confidence in the Federal Government's 
stability in terms of its promises.
  The amendment, I believe, provides the Government with the incentive 
to offer fair prices because there is a time limit on it.
  We all know the experience of having a seller who is in some distress 
and a buyer who is perfectly willing to wait him out, and that is the 
circumstance we are in with respect to inholdings all across the 
country. I do not want that situation to occur here.
  I want the Federal Government to have incentive to offer a fair 
price, if not to Catellus, who has a degree of leverage, to every 
inholder that is there.
  Madam President, there are billions of dollars of private lands 
across the country that the Department of the Interior has promised to 
purchase. Many of these landowners have been waiting for years to have 
the Government pay for the land that they have agreed to purchase. But 
there is no spur anywhere to get the Federal Government to act. I am 
trying to use this bill as a device to create such a spur because I 
think our citizens deserve it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time in response to whatever arguments 
may come forth.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I make an inquiry. I think the 
Senator's amendment has not yet been offered. Is the time nevertheless 
running on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator did offer his amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It has been offered?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.
  Will the Senator from California yield me 2 minutes?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I share the concern of the Senator 
from Utah for private property rights and may in another context and on 
another bill join with him in that concern.
  However, Madam President, this would be a particularly harmful 
amendment. First of all, it would grant superior bargaining power to 
the inholders. If they knew that in order to designate the park the 
Department of the Interior would have to acquire 90 percent of the 
private lands within the area, then the withholding of that which it 
takes to achieve 90 percent would defeat the whole park, thereby 
increasing their bargaining power immensely. That is the first thing, 
and that is just bad business.
  Second, Madam President, it would put these inholdings ahead of all 
other inholdings all over the country.
  I would like to get more money for inholdings and more money for park 
land. I put in a bill which substantially increased that level, up to 
$1 billion a year. I think we ought to have that amount of funding. But 
we do have limited resources for acquisition of inholdings.
  Suppose we have another threatened area where they are getting ready 
to build a big subdivision within an inholding. And suppose it is the 
considered judgment of Congress that we needed to acquire such a piece 
of property. I have in mind, for example, the Virgin Islands National 
Park, where they have a couple of areas down there where they are 
getting ready to build subdivisions.
  Does that mean that we would have to acquire this particular property 
before any other, that we put these inholders at the head of the list? 
It does mean that, Madam President. And I do not think it would be the 
intent of this body to put these inholdings ahead of all others in the 
National Park Service.
  I think we ought to deal fairly with these people. I think, frankly, 
that many of them would like to sell their property to the National 
Park Service, because it is very hard to get access to many of these 
areas. That is my guess.
  But the Constitution, first of all, protects these people. No private 
property can be taken for public purposes without just compensation. 
Moreover, the inholdings are not affected, in the sense that you could 
continue to do on these inholdings most anything you want to do, and 
that would be proper to do, from the building of homes or whatever, 
until and unless they are acquired.
  So, Madam President, I think this would be a particularly bad 
amendment. Not only would it be bad, it would defeat the purpose of 
this bill, but it would also be just a terrible precedent for other 
parks that have already been created around the country.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes and 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President
  Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I must say, I hate to oppose the Senator from Utah. He has been very 
decent on this bill. He helped us get it out of committee and I very 
much appreciate that support and the counsel and advice he has 
provided.
  Nonetheless, in a sense, what this amendment would do is strip 
Congress of its authority to designate national parks and wilderness 
areas proposed in this bill, and it would give individuals owning lands 
in the bill, veto power over both the Congress and the President.
  Essentially what it does is subject the fate of millions of acres of 
park lands and wilderness to a small minority of individuals who refuse 
to sell or delay the acquisition process beyond 10 years.
  This bill has no legislative taking of private property. I, too, 
believe in private property rights. In 9 years as mayor of San 
Francisco, despite all of the importuning, I never, ever used the right 
of eminent domain, because I basically, philosophically, believe that 
there should be a willing seller and a willing buyer.
  However, the failure here to acquire as little as 10 percent of the 
inholdings would nullify park or wilderness designations and wilderness 
study areas.
  I think this amendment would also set a very dangerous precedent. In 
the 121-year history of national parks, Congress has never made the 
designation of parks or wilderness areas contingent upon the 
acquisition of inholdings.
  Let me give you a scenario that could occur if the Bennett amendment 
is adopted as part of S. 21 and passed by Congress and signed by the 
President.
  The act designates a wilderness area of approximately 52,000 acres. 
This includes 30 acres of private land out of 52,000, less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of the area.
  The model for this example is the proposed Sacatar Trail Wilderness. 
At the end of 10 years, the Department of the Interior has completed 
acquisition of 26 of the 30 acres--87 percent--of private land. But the 
Bennett provision is in place and would require acquisition of 90 
percent of the land owned by willing sellers. The congressional 
designation of the 52,000-acre wilderness would not go into effect, 
even though all but 4 acres would belong to the public and even though 
considerable effort had gone into acquiring 26 acres of the 30 acres. 
Clearly, one of the very real problems is that the existence of the 
park beyond 10 years is tied to the acquisition of lands from owners 
who are willing sellers.
  If you put a time limit on it, virtually all--and I believe all--
owners may be willing to sell at some price. The fact is, that very few 
would be willing to sell at fair market value. They would instinctively 
know that there would be no such thing as fair market value. The roof 
could be the basement because, in fact, they would have control. They 
would be able to sink a whole designation if they refused to sell.
  So I really think that it is an amendment that would give unusual 
power to one small inholder who quite possibly could either hold up an 
entire park or wilderness designation for a very high amount of money. 
I do not believe we would want to give that right to any single 
individual anywhere in the United States.
  It is also my belief that there would be very few national parks in 
the history of this country if such an amendment had been in place. As 
a matter of fact, I do not believe there would be any parks at all on 
the east coast if this amendment had been in place.
  So I agree with the chairman of the committee, Madam President, that 
this amendment should be rejected.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments by the 
distinguished Senator from California and I repeat my admiration to her 
for her work on this bill.
  I must, however, disagree with her comments about history. In the 
early days of the national parks, no national park was created until 
all inholdings had been acquired. The legislation was not brought to 
the floor of the Congress until such action had been taken.
  I am told a historic example of that, among others--she referred to 
the east coast--is the Everglades National Park was created after 100 
percent of the inholdings had been acquired. That was the pattern in 
national parks historically through the 1920's and 1930's when the park 
system was growing.
  We changed the pattern as a Nation. In the 1950's and 1960's, the 
pattern was the national parks would be authorized and then in the 
authorizing language it would say, ``contingent upon acquiring all of 
the inholdings.'' So that the parks were authorized in advance of the 
acquisition, but it did not become effective until 100 percent of the 
inholdings had been acquired.
  If we are going to take the historical argument, Madam President, my 
amendment is in the historical pattern and it is the pattern we have 
followed in the last 15 or 20 years that violates this. My amendment 
goes back to the historical precedent that was set when the National 
Park Service was created.

  So, I thank the Senator from California for raising the issue of 
history but I call her attention to the comments in my minority views 
in the report from the committee that lists all of the national parks 
that historically were not acquired until the inholdings had, in fact, 
been picked up by the Federal Government. I am in the proper, I 
believe, historical perspective of taking us to where we historically 
have been as a Nation rather than moving in a new direction.
  Madam President, I am happy to yield such time as he may require to 
the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, Senator 
Wallop.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, there is something really important in 
play here. Senators should be aware of it.
  The Senator from Louisiana, the able chairman of the committee, was 
talking about that hammer that is put in the hand of the landholder. 
The other side of that coin is: Do you wish the Government to have the 
hammer over the citizen? Who is serving whom in this Government? Is the 
citizen responsible to his Government or is the Government responsible 
to the citizen?
  The reason that point becomes so compelling is because Secretary 
Babbitt, on this bill, talking about Catellus, said that he could force 
them to accept whatever offer he makes or allow them to remain in 
inholdings forever. That is an arrogance of Government that this 
country should tolerate at no level. It is not a question of whether it 
is a big corporation or a small individual, no one should tolerate that 
kind of behavior from a Government. And that is not a philosophy which 
Congress should endorse, though we have, I grant you, in the past. This 
Congress, both parties, have become more and more statist; have given 
more and more power to Government, more and more often seeking to 
satisfy the convenience of governing rather than service to the 
governed.
  Under this amendment, the Department will have 10 years to acquire at 
least 90 percent of the private inholdings which we want to be 
acquired. If the areas are not important enough for that to happen, 
then the authority to designate them will lapse. That is not a big and 
threatening event. There is no threat to any Federal lands posed by 
this amendment. The desert is already being managed in an exceptional 
manner and Secretary Babbitt does not need any additional authority to 
protect and preserve it. The massive intrusions on private property 
posed by the legislation--even though I grant the Senator there is no 
taking that is implicit here, the fact of it is that people cannot 
function with their property when it is surrounded by the Government. 
The Government has the last say. If they do not want to pay you, you do 
not get paid. All over America we are doing this. At some point in time 
maybe citizens serving in this Chamber will recognize that citizens 
outside of this Chamber have a right to property as part of this 
democracy.
  It is a very important point that is being made here. If we cannot 
deal honestly and fairly with the citizens of America who own property, 
then we cannot deal honestly and fairly with the citizens of America in 
any other dimension of governing, whether in the taxation of them or 
the health care of them or any other kinds of thing. If we cannot say 
to people that if your property is in the interest of all Americans and 
that all Americans have an obligation to acquire it and that we will do 
this fairly and openly, then we do not deserve to be Members of the 
U.S. Senate. It is very simple. Democracy is pinioned upon property, 
and property is pinioned upon fairness in treatment of the Government.
  The question goes back to who should hold the hammer? The Secretary 
of the Interior or the citizen? Have we come to the point that our 
trust in Government is so implicit that one man can say these people 
can take my price or remain inholdings forever? Or are we still at the 
point where we say this Government is actively seeking to serve the 
people that it says it wishes to represent?
  I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 9 minutes and 45 
seconds.
  The Senator from California has 21 minutes and 53 seconds.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, with respect to the statement that the 
Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, was described as making to the 
effect that if they do not sell to us at the price we want, then we 
will let them remain in inholding forever, the context of the 
statement--and the statement, as I understand it, was in questioning 
before the committee. Mr. Babbitt was asked whether or not the Catellus 
Corp., which owns about 300,000 acres within the areas designated by S. 
21, would be likely to accept a land exchange with the Department of 
the Interior which would give Catellus some other good land which they 
could use. And I think what the Secretary said, and what he meant, was 
that they were likely to accept a fair deal because as an inholder they 
were not likely to be able to use that land as well as they could the 
land for which they would exchange for, in other words, lands outside 
the park.
  The key here is that Catellus is now an inholder within the BLM 
lands. If this bill passes they would be an inholder in national park 
land, still surrounded on all sides by Federal property. So if they 
wanted to build a subdivision and build a road to the subdivision, then 
they could be frustrated in that demand by the fact that they are a BLM 
inholder just as surely as if they were a national park inholder.
  There was no intent of the Secretary of the Interior to, in effect, 
be abusive in this power of acquisition. To the contrary, I think the 
whole sense of what the Secretary was saying is Catellus would be much 
better off being within a national park and with an exchange of land 
than they are today. In effect, he was saying that Catellus would be in 
no position to make exorbitant and extravagant demands on the National 
Park Service.
  There is only one way that Catellus would have the ability to make 
extravagant and disproportionate demands on the National Park Service 
and that is if the amendment of the Senator from Utah is agreed to. 
Then you would have no national park unless they agreed. So you could 
acquire all the other land, all the other inholdings, spend millions of 
dollars on them, and then come to Catellus and, on bended knee, say, 
will you accept? And they would have the authority, the power to 
prevent this national park from being designated simply by withholding 
a fair price.
  It would give them an enormous power to negotiate an extraordinary, 
extravagant, disproportionate, and improper price because it would give 
them a veto over this national park and, in fact, it would put this 
national park and the inholders ahead of every other national park 
inholder in the whole country. In all of the 50 States and the 
territories, they would be No. 1. That would be an extraordinarily bad 
thing to do, Madam President, and I hope we will defeat the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, in response to the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, in trying to understand this problem a little bit 
more cogently, I would like to read into the Record a portion of a 
memorandum from Mr. Will Kriz, the chief land acquisition officer of 
the National Park Service, and I quote:

       Had a provision such as the Bennett amendment been included 
     in acts creating other park units, there would be no National 
     Park System as we know it today. The few park units that 
     would exist today are the national monuments that were 
     declared on Public Lands pursuant to the Antiquities Act, 
     national parks such as Great Smoky and Shenandoah that were 
     acquired by States and donated to the Federal Government and 
     small units, such as presidential birthplaces, where the 
     essential lands were donated to the Government by the owners. 
     Most other park units contained private land to a small or 
     large extent, but acquisition of a significant amount of that 
     private land was essential to the optimum existence of the 
     unit. Had the acquisition of those lands been dependent on an 
     indication of the owners' willingness to sell in advance of 
     some 10-year-hence drop-dead date, the parks simply could not 
     have been established.

  I would point out that even in the Everglades situation, it is my 
understanding that 110,000 acres were added to the Everglades Park in 
1987. Those lands were not purchased up front.
  Madam President, I believe that this amendment on this bill would 
really set an ominous tone for national parks in the future. I do not 
really understand why it is on this bill because this national park and 
the wilderness areas are very different from other national parks. They 
are, for the most part, wild. They are remote. They have incredible 
natural resources, as I have pointed out. The flowers, the big horn 
sheep, the golden eagles, the burros, the desert tortoises, the deer, 
the lava beds, the table-top mountains, the hundreds of petroglyphs 
that go back thousands of years, dinosaur tracks--all of those things 
make this area unique. It is not in a dense urban area. It is not in an 
area where there are a lot of private inholdings.
  There is one area which we looked into that the Senator might be 
interested in, which was exempted by the bill, called Lanfair Valley, 
which is right here on the map. I would like to share with the Senator 
what we found when we went to the San Bernardino County assessor's 
office for information on this nearly 300,000 acres.
  According to the San Bernardino assessor's reference books, there are 
less than 20 structures on the private lands in all of Lanfair Valley. 
Property taxes are being paid on only 10 single-family residences, 3 
mobile homes and 5 miscellaneous structure-like cabins. This is just 
one small part of the desert, but you can see how really ``unbuilt'' 
the areas are.
  Now it is true, there are some large inholdings owned by Catellus. 
What the chairman said is absolutely correct, but I have been through 
most of those areas and you will not find major subdivisions or big 
estates. Probably the largest private inholdings, aside from Catellus, 
would be some of the ranches in the area. We have, by prior unanimous 
consent agreement, provided that those ranches be able to continue 
their grazing in perpetuity, subject to appropriate regulation by the 
Park Service. But, nonetheless, those are probably the largest single 
inholdings where there is grazing on both public and private land.
  I must say, I find this a very difficult amendment because I believe 
it would end up killing the bill. I have no doubt that even in this 
area where you have just 20 buildings, you could find someone who would 
say, ``Aha, I'm not going to sell. I'm going to hold out,'' and then 
the whole area is jeopardized because of it; the price is the limit. I 
do not look at that as the private individual or the Government giving 
preference to one or the other. I think it creates an unfair situation 
where you give one individual unusual bargaining power that is not 
afforded, really, to a single individual in any other piece of 
legislation that has produced wilderness or national park designation.
  So I believe very strongly that this amendment, respectfully, should 
be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, my friends on the other side of this 
argument raise a series of important points that need to be responded 
to. I will leave Mr. Kriz to his examination of history and be 
satisfied with my own. We, obviously, disagree as to what the past 
history of national parks has been. I believe, as I stated earlier, 
that the past history was that you acquired inholdings first and the 
park later, and it has only been in the last 20 years that we have 
strayed away from that view.
  However, let us go to some of the more important issues that have 
been raised.
  The distinguished chairman, Mr. Johnston, talked about putting these 
inholdings ahead of all others. He said that would be unfair to the 
others, and I agree with him.
  The Senator from California says, Why is this on this bill? It really 
is not that relevant to this bill, and I agree with her. But the 
distinguished chairman said something else, too, that I agree with. He 
said, ``I'd like more money to pay for the inholdings. I'd like to see 
the inholdings get taken care of across the country.'' And I agree with 
that, and that is why this amendment is being offered and that is why 
it is being offered to this bill.
  It is being offered to this bill because this is the only vehicle we 
can find at this point and it is being offered to put these people 
first because that is the only hammer we can find to deal with the 
issue of inholdings. The attitude of inholdings on the part of the 
Federal administrators of land has been to treat them as if they were 
Federal land and to postpone forever the issue of trying to pay for 
them.
  At some point, the Congress has to stand up and say ``forever has 
finally come.'' At some point we have to start doing the right thing. 
So if not this bill, which bill? If not putting these people first, 
which people do we put first? Where do we start? I decided to start 
here because the matter of simple fairness says we have to get this 
done.
  Reference has been made to Secretary Babbitt's statement. There have 
been quotations about it both ways. I would like to quote from the 
hearings verbatim what Secretary Babbitt did say with respect to this 
matter. And I quote:

       One way to do trades on a predictably equal value basis is 
     to look at the rest of the BLM base outside of these areas 
     and say to Catellus: We would like to block you up; the lands 
     are roughly of equal value, and if you do not want to do it 
     we would be happy to let these inholdings just sit in this 
     area as inholdings forever.

  That is exactly what Secretary Babbitt said, not paraphrasing one way 
or the other.
  In my own State of Utah, we have seen examples where people have been 
trying to get some relief from the pressure of inholdings, and again 
and again, they run into the bureaucratic attitude that says: We do not 
have to listen to you; we do not have to pay you, and we have the right 
to deal with your land as if it was our land, and we are going to act 
in that fashion.
  I believe somewhere, the elected representatives of the people have 
to say to those bureaucrats: This is not your land, it is our land; you 
have promised to buy it from us; you have made a deal with us. The time 
has come for you to live up to your obligations.
  And if there is no other vehicle for me to get that point across than 
this one, I am going to take this one because it is the vehicle 
available. I thank the Chair.
  (Mr. JOHNSTON assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if the senior Senator from 
California would yield me 4 minutes at this time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might inquire, Mr. President, how much time do I 
have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 11 minutes 39 
seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, my friend, 
our leader on this very important issue, to give this desert the 
protection that it deserves.
  I want to speak very strongly against the amendment of a Senator for 
whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I do understand why he 
would offer it at this time. What the Senator is saying is, he does not 
like the way the Federal Government goes about buying these national 
parks. He wants to change things, and he is going to start with the 
Desert Act. I totally understand that.
  I have to say to the Senator that I served in the House of 
Representatives for 10 years. I was very fortunate that right before I 
got my seat in the House, the House and the Senate passed the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area, which is a unit of the National Park 
System, and the Point Reyes National Seashore and there were 
significant inholdings in those areas. As the Member of Congress from 
that district, I set about to get the funding for those parks, and we 
have done very well, but it has taken a while to do it.
  I say to my friend I share his concern that we should move faster. I 
am very pleased to support the chairman's bill that would allow us to 
go further into the land and water conservation fund and have more 
funds available for parks and make acquisitions more quickly.
  But I wish to make a point to my friend. In the law, it is very clear 
that if there is hardship, you can move forward with acquisition. In 
the law, it is very clear that you have to have a fair appraisal of the 
land. I say to my friend that over all that period of time there was 
great excitement in my district about these parks, which attract 
millions and millions of visitors, and we always had the cooperation of 
the inholders, the landholders within the park. If they had a problem 
and they wanted to get out sooner, we were able to move forward if 
there was hardship involved.
  Most of the time they were happy because they were able to continue 
their farming, continue their work on the property as long as it did 
not interfere with the activities of the park.
  So I think the Senator makes a very good point. I think he is 
raising, if you will, a red flag and saying to us, listen, Members of 
the Senate, we really owe it to these people to come in and buy them 
out.
  I do not have any problem with that. But I say to my friend, if this 
passes today, the first thing you will be doing is giving one property 
owner, really, a way to blackmail the Park Service, because imagine, as 
the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman, has stated, what would happen 
when everyone knew that that particular landholder could actually 
destroy the park, just bring it down, if he did not get the price he 
wanted.
  So I think it is bad public policy to go that way. I have here a list 
I have received from the Park Service, I say to my friend, of the 
various national parks and the inholdings still left in many of these. 
I have to tell you there is even one in Utah. Golden Spike is one where 
there are still inholdings, and I do not know that the Senator would 
want to take away the national park designation. I doubt it. Perhaps he 
could add to this debate on that. But there is the Valley Forge area, 
there is the George Washington Birthplace National Monument, there is 
more land still in the Golden Gate----
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment would not take away the national park 
designation of any other park.
  Mrs. BOXER. I totally understand. What I am saying to the Senator, it 
would take the designation away from this park if in a certain number 
of years all the inholdings had not been bought. And I am just 
suggesting to the Senator, since he is willing to do it to this park in 
California, what if I got up and offered an amendment on a park in 
Utah? I think the Senator might object.
  So I am just suggesting to the Senator that when you move an 
amendment like this on a bill that is definitely concentrated on this 
park, no other park, not a park in Utah, I understand, I still think it 
is important for us to note that there are other inholdings all across 
the country, including one in Utah and in California and other places. 
If it is good for one park, one might reach the conclusion that it 
might be the Senator's intention to move for other parks if, in fact, 
he thinks it is good for this park.
  I know he is not singling out the desert. I know that. I know he has 
been most helpful in helping us get to this point. So I just wanted to 
say as someone with a lot of experience, fortunately, for me, in 
representing national parks and seeing them come together----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for yielding me 1 additional minute. We 
all bring to the table our experiences, and I wish to say to my friend 
from Utah I share his view that we need to move as quickly as we can 
with fair appraisals and not let people twist in the wind when they are 
placed in a park.
  On the other hand, I do not want to see us give one property owner 
undue leverage and be able to, if you will, extort us as we put this 
park together. I certainly do not want to pass anything in this Chamber 
that would jeopardize this national park for future generations. I do 
not want to be here and have my friend, Senator Feinstein, after all 
this work, and Senator Cranston before her, and all of us who have 
worked so hard for this moment, have to wait for 10 years to see if we 
really get a national park. I just do not think it makes too much sense 
for us to go that route.
  So it is with great respect that I will oppose this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and 
call for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of her 
time.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am sorry. I beg your pardon. I thought the 
Senator's time had expired. If it has not, I will withdraw my----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 28 seconds. But the 
regular order would be to ascertain whether there is a sufficient 
second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI and Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have concluded my arguments. The Senator from Alaska 
would like some time. Therefore, rather than yielding back the 
remainder of my time, I would yield my time to the Senator from Alaska. 
And I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from Utah, 
who is the author of the pending amendment.
  This body has heard some very compelling arguments that obviously 
address the manner in which the California desert should be managed 
from the standpoint of the interests of the sponsors of the legislation 
before this body.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we have the Bennett amendment on which 
time will soon expire, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, to 
be followed by the Craig amendment, on which there is a 1-hour time 
limitation. Senator Bennett has stated he is willing to have the vote 
stacked for the convenience of our colleagues. If there is no 
opposition, I ask that the vote on the Bennett amendment and the Craig 
amendment occur at the conclusion of the debate on the Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me advise the floor manager that we 
have no assurance at this time on this side as to the actual intention 
of the Senator from Idaho with regard to the Craig amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We already have unanimous consent that he has 1 hour 
reserved.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. But I wanted the Record to note that 
he is not committed at this time with regard to his intention to bring 
up that amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask that I might continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So, Mr. President, the point I want to make in defense 
of the Senator from Utah, who has brought to bear, I think, a crucial 
responsibility that we all share, is the recognition that we are 
creating a liability as a consequence of the anticipated passage of S. 
21.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the Chair asked whether there was any 
objection to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from 
Louisiana, the Senator from Alaska reserved the right to object and 
then spoke. The Chair was not sure whether the Senator was objecting.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent 
request is granted.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if my time may start now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Regarding the amendment offered by Senator Bennett 
concerning the backlog of land acquisitions facing the Department of 
the Interior, this amendment is not only responsible in its effort to 
address a responsibility that we all share, but it is critical from the 
standpoint of Federal land management and from the standpoint of simple 
fairness to private property owners that are going to be affected by 
this legislation.
  I really do not think those that are critical of the amendment 
offered by Senator Bennett have reflected adequately on what this does. 
Let me speak as the junior Senator from Alaska, who has personally 
experienced the injustice done to inholders by this process. My State 
of Alaska has been a State now for 35 years. In all of the efforts to 
address fairness to the inholders in my State, there has only been one 
inholder that has seen remuneration by the Federal Government for the 
inholding that was taken by the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, there are hundreds of inholders in Alaska that are 
still waiting for the Federal Government to step up and provide them 
with a fair settlement. In the meantime, their land is tied up. It is 
impossible to borrow on it; it is impossible to develop. What the 
Senator from Alaska understands is that the backlog, currently, of 
inholders waiting for adjudication by the Federal Government exceeds 
several billions of dollars. What we are doing here today is suggesting 
that the Federal Government acknowledge, through this authorization, 
another billion dollars of liability that the Federal Government would 
have to put somewhere out there behind the other billions of dollars 
that are due property holders, inholders that have not been paid. The 
justice of that just escapes the Senator from Alaska.
  This is what Senator Bennett is trying to get at in his amendment. It 
is not an original idea, but his purpose is to recognize that for most 
of this century, the approach of the Federal Government when they were 
designating conservation units, which included private inholdings, and 
when we established the National Park System, such as the Everglades or 
Big Ben, we delayed the actual designation of the area until the 
Secretary had acquired all of the private inholdings. We did that in 
fairness to the landowners and also because we recognized that the 
Federal Government needed to require the inholder to properly manage 
the area for the purposes for which we were designating it. We are not 
addressing that adequately in this debate, other than by the Senator 
from Utah in his sense to try to drive some responsibility as we 
address the disposition of S. 21.
  In the late 1960's and early 1970's, areas such as the Boston 
National Historic Parks, Sleeping Bear Dunes, and others were delayed. 
They were delayed, Mr. President, until the Secretary had acquired 
sufficient lands to properly manage the units. Our emphasis had begun 
to shift away from this fairness to the landowner and was directed at 
what was necessary for effective management. We have developed for the 
landowners what is known as the Cape Cod formula, which allows the 
owners to retain the right of use and occupancy during their lifetimes.
  Those considerations now have been abandoned in a rush to designate 
any proposal which any person manages to introduce. We now measure our 
success in how many acres we add--and we really do, Mr. President. That 
is why this legislation is going to pass, because we measure our 
success in how many acres we add and how many new units we designate, 
not in terms of what we are doing to the National Park System or, 
importantly, the affected landowners. We are just saying we are going 
to authorize this, but we are not saying that we have the 
responsibility of determining how we are going to appropriate to pay 
for it. That is what I find unacceptable about the bill that is before 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed another 
3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, wilderness is another measure which has 
lost any sense of judgment. It is now only a function, again, of 
acreage, and it is a function of press releases in the media. We do not 
worry about whether there is any ``wilderness'' character at all. Much 
of this is not in the minds of those who judge wilderness in the state 
of a natural wilderness area. We have seen this. We have seen 
checkerboarded lands without the possibility of a wilderness 
experience, unless we use the heavy hand of the Federal Government to 
make life unbearable for the inholders at the same time, and that is 
not fair.
  As I said before, I can testify what the heavy hand of the Federal 
Government has done to my constituents in Alaska. During the hearing 
before the committee, the Secretary described his approach to dealing 
with land exchange for the extensive holdings of the Catellus Corp.. We 
recall that. His precise words were:

       If you do not want to do it, we would be happy to let these 
     inholdings just sit in these areas as inholdings forever.

  Is that a responsible statement for the Secretary of the Interior to 
make? In other words, you either take our offer, or you can rot. I do 
not think it is fair. It is not the way the Federal Government should 
deal with the citizens of this country.
  Finally, Senator Bennett's amendment brings a measure of sanity to a 
process that has run amok, and his amendment would allow every one of 
the proposed designations to go forward if--and only if--the Federal 
Government has a will to carry out the legislation, only if we are 
willing to acquire 90 percent of the private lands which the owners 
want to sell within a unit that will be designated. If there is no will 
to acquire the lands, either because of funding limitations or because 
there has never been a real Federal interest in the lands in the first 
place, the area will not be designated.
  Finally, I think we should consider seriously placing this type of 
sunset amendment on all park measures. It is simply irresponsible to 
keep designated areas that do not have the slightest qualification to 
be considered as a unit of the National Park System.
  So I congratulate the Senator from Utah. His proposal, I think, 
mirrors the way the Congress should do business. I support the 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe this now constitutes the end 
of debate on the Bennett amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, we have 1 hour 
now on the Craig amendment. I understand that Senator Craig may use 
substantially less than the 1 hour. So I want to tell our colleagues 
that a vote is likely to occur in much less than an hour. If Senators 
are counting on a full hour, they should be disabused of that thought 
because I am hoping that we can go to a vote very soon.
  Mr. President, we are making great progress on the number of 
amendments. There are two Feinstein amendments which may or may not be 
offered and second-degree amendments to those.
  Other than those, the principal amendments remaining if they are 
going to be offered are: Senator Brown has two amendments on trails and 
on fees. Senator Murkowski has three amendments on hunting, access, and 
private property. We have a placeholder for Senator Metzenbaum. I am 
advised that that may not require a vote. Senator Warner has a 
placeholder, and that may not require a vote.
  So, in effect, Mr. President, the two Senators who will have 
amendments are Senator Murkowski and Senator Brown.
  I ask Senator Murkowski if he knows at this time whether he will have 
the amendment and, if so, if he is willing to enter into a time 
agreement at this time or will he be.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to confer. I have yet to 
see whether Senator Craig is coming to the floor, but it is my 
understanding that he would, and I believe Senator Brown's amendment 
may be subject to a question as of yet to allow us a little time. I am 
sure we can resolve this very soon.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I hope we can confect a hotline to send 
out right after this vote whereby we could get a unanimous consent 
which would have all the amendments in order which are to be offered 
and, if possible, get time agreements on those amendments. If so, we 
could finish up tonight, depending on what Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Brown wish to do, and, if not, we ought to be able to finish up 
at a reasonable time tomorrow.
  I would ask, particularly Senator Brown and Senator Murkowski, during 
the debate on the Craig amendment and during the vote on the Bennett 
amendment to determine whether they will need a placeholder, and the 
same is true of Senator Metzenbaum and Senator Warner.
  As I understand it, Senator Feinstein has a minor boundary 
modification. Is that amendment ready to go and has that been cleared?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator is ready, we would like 
to do that at this time while we are waiting for Senator Craig. Is the 
Senator ready on that?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We need a moment more on this amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Pluess-Staufer Claims

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it was my intent at this time to offer an 
amendment to the California desert wilderness bill as we debate it here 
today on the floor, S. 21. But because I had hoped that this would be 
an amendment that would pass and attempted to acquire the cooperation 
with the Senator from California and have not been able to do so, it is 
not my intent to offer this amendment at this time but for a few 
moments this afternoon, prior to pulling the amendment, to discuss the 
essence of it and the importance of this legislation and the kind of 
impact that I believe it would have on wilderness, the California 
Desert, and the existing operations of this marvelous piece of public 
property in our Nation.
  Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment in behalf of Pluess-
Staufer of California--a calcium carbonate company with claim holdings 
in the Lanfair Valley section of the California desert.
  The purpose of this amendment is very straightforward--it would 
extend the Lanfair Valley exclusion to three more sections, sections 
containing approximately 35 placer claims and 10 millsite claims of the 
Pluess-Staufer holdings. While this additional exclusion would comprise 
1,920 acres, it is very small in comparison to the 8 million acres of 
new parks and wilderness areas contained in S. 21. Yet these three 
sections contain the purest of what are very rare deposits of calcium 
carbonate. I am told there are more gold mines in California than there 
are calcium carbonate deposits in the entire North American continent.
  This commodity is very unique and very rare; it takes quite a few 
geological occurrences, including volcanic activity, to make it pure 
and, yes, even edible in the form of antacids and calcium supplements. 
Calcium carbonate can also be used as whiting--a nontoxic filler and 
extender used in a large number of products--ranging from carpet 
backing, plastics, PVC pipe, paint, paper, and other building products. 
It is much stronger and more durable for construction purposes than 
limestone--a fact that should not go unnoticed by the Senator from 
California, particularly given the need to replace billions of dollars 
worth of homes and office buildings in the aftermath of the recent 
earthquakes in her home State.
  But more importantly, Mr. President, this deposit has an estimated 
mineral value of approximately $6.2 billion and a mine life of more 
than 100 years. Once this operation has been permitted, over 400 high-
paying jobs will be created in the Lanfair Valley area.
  This amendment does not provide Pluess-Staufer an automatic right to 
mine; it simply allows them to seek permission to mine the claims that 
the company has spent nearly $500,000 to develop. I should also point 
out that just across the valley from the Pluess-Staufer operation is 
another mine--the Viceroy Gold Mine--which I commend the Senator for 
carving out of the proposed East Mojave National Park. While the 
Viceroy mine is operational, Pluess-Staufer is not; it simply asks to 
be given the same treatment, to be taken out of the proposed park and 
have an opportunity to become operational.
  In her remarks to the Senate yesterday, the senior Senator from 
California said that she had addressed all the mining industry 
concerns. But as I have pointed out, that is not strictly the case. In 
fact, several months ago, the California Desert Institute asked the 
Senator to exclude roughly 600,000 acres of mining claims from the 
proposed park and wilderness designations contained in this 
legislation. Regrettably, for the most part, the Senator could not 
accommodate that request.
  My amendment would exclude a very small part of that suggested 
acreage from S. 21 and salvage some extremely valuable calcium 
carbonate deposits. This amendment is one of fairness and common sense. 
It will create, and keep, jobs in California and produce a much needed 
commodity for a variety of important industries nationwide.
  Mr. President, it was my intent to offer an amendment that would have 
exempted 35 placer claims and 10 millsite claims of Pluess-Staufer Co. 
holdings, or about 1,900 acres out of this some 8 million acres of 
public land that I thought were important for the future of our 
country.
  I say that although you and I might not understand the importance of 
a calcium carbonate deposit. Clearly, the land that I am talking about 
that the Senator from California refuses to exempt from wilderness 
classification would involve about 6.2 million dollars' worth of 
potential assets, some 100 years of mine life, and over 400 high-paying 
private jobs if this property were allowed to go forward for 
development.
  Well, I also understand that this is in California and, although it 
is public land, we worked very closely in the committee on which I 
serve, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to try to resolve 
this issue. And I must say, in all fairness, that the Senator from 
California was very cooperative in making a lot of the changes that 
many of us felt was necessary to make on some of these important 
issues.
  I have now three times been to the California desert. I have had the 
privilege to see much of this marvelous property. And I must say, in 
all fairness, that as the Bureau of Land Management through the decade 
of the 1970's brought all of the interests of California together to 
strive for a responsible management plan, there was at that time a 
phenomenal give and take recognizing both the mineral assets and 
resources of that public land, while at the same time recognizing the 
importance of some, if not major portions of it, for environmental 
protection. And out of that was a tremendous public process which 
resulted in a lot of the protection that is already in existence today 
and that I thought was a reasonable approach toward the management of 
these lands.
  In fact, when I was in the House, I worked very closely with the 
Congressman whose district largely embodies the California desert area, 
Congressman Jerry Lewis. It was our intent at that time to take the BLM 
management plan and the wilderness recommendations of that plan and put 
it into place.
  But the bottom line was, that was not good enough for urban 
California. For some reason, they got caught up in the mystique that 
you could just spread the boundaries, protect the land, and somehow the 
future would be better. Well, we all know that is not quite the case. 
The future will not change because the desert today is substantially 
protected.
  But what will change in the future is the opportunity to use some of 
the phenomenal mineral resources of what many geologists would call the 
last great treasure house of America. Public land mineral resource is 
now being locked away in S. 21. That is a disappointment. Because, 
while it remains inside the boundaries of the State of California and 
it can clearly be argued to be a California resource, it is a national 
resource both from the standpoint of protecting this beautiful desert 
or portions of it or the environment and, for environmental reasons, 
for future generations. You and I agree on that.
  But I think what we also agree on is that we have enough foresight 
that we do not lock away the resources from which our industrial base 
will have to continue to operate on for all of the years to come.
  The Los Angeles basin yesterday touted the miraculous recovery that 
it is experiencing coming out of a major earthquake that devastated the 
Los Angeles area. Much of the aggregate that is rebuilding the Santa 
Monica Freeway flowed from the desert of California. It did not come 
from Los Angeles County. It came from outside the area. It was the 
wealth and the resource of the desert that rebuilt the devastated Los 
Angeles basin from this earthquake.
  What about the next earthquake and the next one that will ultimately 
come in an area as geologically unstable as that whole region of the 
Pacific coastline? That is of concern today.
  That is why I, serving as the ranking Republican on the Mining 
Subcommittee, worked very closely with the Senator from California, 
Senator Feinstein, to assure that many of these properties, for 
purposes of future use beyond just the environmental protection 
purposes, would be saved. Many of them were, and I thank her for that 
kind of foresight.
  But I was disappointed that she could not agree that in this 
particular area the great opportunity of 400 jobs would simply be 
walked away from; a 1,900-acre area out of an 8 million-acre complex of 
parks and protected lands and preserves and reserves all in the name of 
the environment, all in the name of the unique wildlife resource that 
comes in the desert of our southwestern part of the United States.
  Well, that is the bottom line. That is part of the debate. It is an 
important ongoing question.
  I know the Senator has the votes to pass her wilderness bill, and I 
congratulate her for the tremendous effort she has put forward in this. 
Because, in all fairness, I will tell you she has worked very hard to 
educate and to better understand the issues of the California Desert.
  Many of us had worked with this piece of legislation for over a 
decade now, trying to resolve some of these disputes. But I will tell 
you that not all has been resolved. And, of course, not all can be 
perfect when one attempts to make compromises between what will and 
will not be used or protected in our public land resources.
  I have before me and would like to make a part of the Record a 
variety of responses from tremendous groups of Californians. I ask 
unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                California Outdoor


                                      Recreation League, Inc.,

                              Newberry Springs, CA, April 7, 1994.
     Re S-21 the California Desert Protection Act.

     Hon. Larry Craig.
       Dear Senator: Certainly, there is not a senator from any of 
     the other forty-nine states who would do to your state and 
     your constituents that which you are asked to do to 
     California and our residents. That is, vote ``aye'' on S-21, 
     The California Desert Preservation Act. This will take 8.3 
     million acres of the nation's most mineralized area out of 
     any present and future mineral extraction potential. The 
     fifty amendments are a farce, a smoke screen, and 8.3 million 
     acres is true.
       I have no mining interests but I do have an avid interest 
     in the well being of our San Bernardino County, the state and 
     nation.
       According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines there are 701 
     existing mine sites in only the 1.5 million acres listed for 
     the East Mojave National Park. There are many more throughout 
     the desert. It is also a fact that any one of our frequent 
     windstorms and flash floods, in summer, moves more desert 
     lands in an hours than all of the land disturbed by mining in 
     the last hundred years. (We had such a sand storm yesterday, 
     April 6th., enough to take the paint off an auto in minutes.)
       We, who live here, have long recommended 1.5 to 2 million 
     acres of appropriate land be put into wilderness, the 
     remainder does not qualify for wilderness designation. There 
     are power lines, railroads, pipeline corridors, and ranches 
     in the valleys, as well as the many mineral deposits. There 
     is one eighty mile by approximately one mile strip of 
     deposits that indicate Rare Earths running directly across 
     the strip of deposits that indicate Rare Earths running 
     directly across the 1.5 million acre proposed National Park. 
     (See enclosure for its uses.)
       Furthermore, the National Park Department should not be put 
     upon for the outlandish cost to develop such harsh and 
     dangerous lands. Taking out the mines and putting in usable 
     roads, alone, would be prohibitive. At my location, 
     temperatures range from 14 deg. to 124 deg.. The record for 
     Death Valley is 134 deg.. This is not a hospitable climate 
     for tourists.
       In addition to the Rare Earths, with it's many new uses, 
     there are forty-five minerals currently available. Much of 
     California's economy and employment comes from the building 
     materials, such as cinder for blocks, dolomite, cement, 
     limestone, sand and gravel. Please consider the economic 
     disaster when these commodities are no longer domestically 
     available.
       Do not let the uninformed urban environmentalists, whom 
     have rarely seen the desert, make the decision for you. Very 
     few have ever visited our desert. If they had we would have 
     seen them.
       I do not wish history to be able to look back and blame the 
     1994 U.S. Congress as the body who hindered the well being of 
     our great nation.
       Please vote ``no'' on S-21.
       The bulk of the 8.3 million acres to be closed to multiple 
     use by S-21 is in San Bernardino County. This means total 
     disaster to jobs and economic stability. As a fellow 
     Republican please vote ``No.'' My deepest gratitude to you.
       Thank you.
                                                   Hildamae Voght.
       See enclosures.
                                  ____


        [From the Land Rights, Gloversville (NY), November 1993]

  Economic Importance of East Mojave Desert's Industrial Minerals in 
                             Everyday Life

                          (By Hildamae Voght)

       Minerals, the basis of our everyday life, come from the 
     earth. Mineral deposits are found where they exist, not where 
     we want them to be. They are usually found in treeless, rough 
     terrain, with harsh torrid temperature, and so it is on the 
     California Desert. It is one of the most mineralized areas of 
     the world, a fact widely accepted by professional engineers 
     and geologists.
       Eighty-one mineral commodities are mined, have been mined, 
     or have the potential to be mined here. According to the U.S. 
     Bureau of Mines, 34 separate mineral commodities are 
     currently produced from the California Desert. California 
     ranks second in the nation with an annual production of non-
     fuel minerals with an estimated value of $2.839 billion in 
     1989. California led all states in the production of borate, 
     portland cement, diatomite, calcined gypsum, construction 
     sand, cinder, and gravel, tungsten, yttrium and rare earths. 
     California ranked second in the production of natural 
     calcium, chloride, feldspar, gemstones, industrial sand and 
     gravel, sodium compounds, mercury, magnesium compounds and 
     gold. Production of sodium borate and calcium borate from the 
     California Desert during 1989 accounted for 100 percent of 
     the U.S. production and rare earths 97 percent.
       And all this happens on only 9.7 million acres of the 25 
     million acres of the California Desert. However, 8.3 million 
     acres of the 9.7 million acres would be closed to any 
     industrial use by the proposed California Desert Protection 
     Act, Senate bill, S. 21 and House bill, H.R. 518.
       The urbanites, who carry the votes, and the legislators, 
     who pass the laws, do not realize that of the 25 million 
     acres, the military has 3.1 million acres and are petitioning 
     for expansion; 7.4 million acres are in private holdings, 
     cities, communities, homes, and industry; and 4.8 million 
     acres are contained in Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 
     Monuments and in State Parks, leaving only 9.7 million acres 
     of the highly mineralized lands for the needed products.
       Today, we tend to think Tums, toothpaste and cosmetics come 
     from the drug store, sidewalks and house foundations from 
     cement trucks and watches from Japan. According to the Bureau 
     of Mines, each American uses approximately 40,000 pounds of 
     new materials each year. You say, ``Oh, that can't be.'' You 
     step out of bed onto the carpet (calcium carbonate limestone 
     is used in the carpet backing). You go into a ceramic 
     bathroom, with tile floor (clays and other minerals), faucets 
     of metal are kept shiny with cleansers (silica, pumice, 
     diatomite, feldspar, and limestone). You use toothpaste 
     (calcium carbonate/limestone/sodium carbonate), powder 
     (talcum), other minerals. How about the dishes and glassware 
     you use for breakfast? Clay, sand, and potash. You glance at 
     your gold watch to see if you have time to read the morning 
     news. Think about the metals used to bring that paper to your 
     yard. Maybe you stop to change the kitty litter; it takes six 
     minerals. You step out onto the cement driveway to get into 
     your car. There, you really are into metals and perhaps it 
     has a heavy plastic body. That takes much boron to give it 
     tensile strength needed to be sturdy. Borates are found in 
     only two areas in the world--a small supply in Turkey and 
     throughout California's Mojave Desert. Boron has hundreds of 
     other valuable uses.
       Are you beginning to get the picture? Most people pass 
     their days with no thought of the role mining plays in their 
     lives. They know where to buy things they need but seldom 
     consider the origins. It even takes minerals to fertilize the 
     fields that grow the vegetables we eat. Organic grown 
     vegetables do best in a mineralized soil. Without minerals we 
     could not till our soil, build our machines, supply our 
     energy, transport our goods or maintain our everyday life 
     beyond the primitive.
       It all starts with a hole in the ground. We are in trouble 
     if we forget that, and we cannot dig minerals except where 
     they are in the earth. California's East Mojave Desert is 
     where there are some 81 known minerals, and who knows how 
     many yet undiscovered ones?
       Mining is just one economic product of the desert and it is 
     being rigidly regulated with mandatory reclamation laws. Also 
     don't believe the story that miners may own federal lands for 
     $2.50 an acre. Very few acres are patented today. Most are 
     leased and development of a mine runs into thousands and 
     often millions of dollars, plus several years to get all of 
     the permits and mitigation in place.
       Senate bill S. 21 by California's U.S. Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein, and the House companion bill H.R. 518 by 
     Representatives Richard Lehman and George Miller, call for 
     8.3 million of the 9.7 million acres of mineralized East 
     Mojave lands to become national parks and wilderness lands. 
     As a result of the proposal, the acreage would be off the 
     state tax rolls, and the creation of jobs would be halted.
       While the bulk of the desert lands are bare rough mineral 
     laden terrain, there are grassy valleys in between where some 
     sixteen ranching families homesteaded five generations ago. 
     These are the true stewards of the East Mojave. Over the 
     years, the Taylor Grazing Act has allowed ranchers to develop 
     water use on the federally leased rangeland. These ranchers 
     have developed hundreds of miles of pipelines to transport 
     water for their stock and wildlife alike. The proliferation 
     of the Big Horn Sheep on the rangelands is evidence of these 
     efforts. If ranching is forced out in twenty-five years, as 
     S. 21 contemplates, wildlife will deteriorate as it has in 
     Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments on either 
     side of the East Mojave.
       S. 21 would also adversely affect existing recreational 
     uses. Recreation is a third major use of the California 
     Desert. Only one hundred and fifty miles from Los Angeles and 
     Orange County the area is an outlet for families seeking 
     weekend recreation away from the crowded city. Then there are 
     the sand dunes, 500,000 acres (2 percent of the desert) that 
     are open for the off-road users. Much of the economy of the 
     desert cities along I-15 and I-40 depend upon this trade.
       There is a basic fallacy being perpetrated by supporters of 
     S. 21--namely that the Desert is a ``fragile'' ecosystem. 
     However, the Desert is not ``fragile.'' It is tough. The 
     cloud bursts of summer and the sandstorms throughout the 
     years move more of the landscape than all of the mining that 
     has ever occurred in the East Mojave. Given the significant 
     adverse effect S. 21 will have on the nation's mineral 
     production, wildlife, and current recreation patterns, we ask 
     our national legislators to come see for themselves before 
     making any decisions for the area.
                                  ____


 The Lanthanides in Your Life--Mined at Molycorp Inc.'s Mountain Pass 
                        Plant, Mountain Pass, CA

       Exemplified by these 46 products--rare earths:
       1. X-ray image intensification (La and Gd phosphors).
       2. Colored glassware (Nd/Se pinks and reds, Pr greens, Ce/
     Ti yellows).
       3. Melting crucibles (Y-stabilized silicon nitride).
       4. Automobile wheel spider and rim (Re-silicide treated 
     steel).
       5. Styrofoam items (Ce in styrene production catalysts).
       6. Bathroom tile (Pr provides the yellow).
       7. Cigarette lighter flints (\2/3\ re metal: \1/3\ iron).
       8. Color TV (The red is Eu-activated Y-oxysulfide).
       9. Blood sample tubes and ampoules (Ce glass blocks 
     ultraviolet).
       10. Rocket nose cone (Si3N4 heat-stabilized with 
     Y2O3).
       11. Microwave waveguides (Y-iron, Y-aluminum and Y/Al-Gd 
     garnets).
       12. Hydrogen storage systems (LaNi5 is the reversible 
     ``sponge'').
       13. Clear container glass (Decolorized by the cerium 
     process).
       14. Gasoline by cat cracking (Zeolite catalysts are La/Ce 
     activated).
       15. TV faceplates (Ce in glass prevents browning).
       16. The new 3-prime fluorescents (Eu+2 & Eu+3 
     phosphors for blue and red).
       17. Corn-growing fertilizers (Ce in shift catalysts for 
     ammonia process).
       18. Exhaust gas catalysts (Ce stabilizes gamma-alumina 
     beads).
       19. Camshaft and follower (High strength re-nodularized 
     cast iron).
       20. Electrical capacitors (Nd controls temperature 
     coefficient).
       21. Precision laser rod (Of Y5Al6O12 
     crystal--YAG).
       22. Silicon nitride grinding media (Y in mix for strength 
     and hardness).
       23. Watt-saving screw-in fluorescent lamp (Eu and Tb 
     phosphors).
       24. Welder's mask with eye-protecting glass (Both Pr and Nd 
     needed).
       25. Flat, enlarging and inverting fiber-optics windows (Hi-
     index la glass).
       26. Drive motor of tape deck (Powerful SmCo5 magnet 
     armature).
       27. Fastest glass polishing compound (CeO2).
       28. Ophthalmic glasses (High index la glass, Ce polished).
       29. Optical lenses and prisms (Low dispersion in high-index 
     la glass).
       30. Photographic filters (Nd, Pr and Er tinted; Ce to block 
     UV).
       31. Miniaturized walkman earphone speakers (Sm-cobalt 
     magnets).
       32. Simulated diamonds (Y-stablized cubic zirconia; also 
     YAG).
       33. Glass laser rod (Nd is the optimum energized Ion).
       34. Window for space and furnace sighting (Ce versus UV: 
     Hollow versus IR).
       35. Ceramic turbine impeller (Y-stablized silson nitride, 
     HIP formed).
       36. Automobile crankshaft (Of ductile iron, necessarily Re/
     Mg treated).
       37. Transformer oil-level gage glass (Ce-glass stops UV 
     degradation).
       38. Rare earth silicide (As added to linepipe and oil-
     country steels).
       39. Single-crystal boule before slicing (Y-orthoaluminate 
     electronic devices).
       40. Engine combustion control O2 sensor (Y-stablized 
     ZrO2 with Pt electrodes).
       41. Railroad and airport signal lenses (Nd and Pr colored 
     glasses).
       42. Bubble-memory crystal substrates (With Gd/Ga boule 
     before cutting).
       43. False teeth (Eu gives that slight iridescence to make 
     them ``natural'').
       44. Motor armature and stator without windings (Re/Co 
     permanent magnets).
       45. Aerospace turbine blades (Protected by FeCrA/Y 
     coatings).
       46. Line printer mechanism (Potted SmCo5 magnets drive 
     the type line).
                                  ____

                                                  Western Building


                                         Material Association,

                                       Olympia, WA, April 8, 1994.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: On Tuesday, April 12, 1994, the Senate 
     will be voting on the California Desert Bill (S-21). S-21 
     would be the largest withdrawal of Federal land in history in 
     the lower 48 states. It will involve the invasion of millions 
     of dollars of private land and private rights.
       There is a reported cost of $300 million to the Federal 
     government. With President Clinton talking savings in 
     government, where will these dollars come from?
       The continuing trend and the amount of property being taken 
     from private ownership and the tax rolls is of mounting 
     concern. This bill appears to be another case of the 
     government being unwisely influenced by special interest 
     group pressure.
       We would be interested in your position on S-21. We urge 
     you to vote NO on S-21.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Mary E. Murphy,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                California Mining Association,

                                    Sacramento, CA, April 8, 1994.
     Re: S. 21 (Feinstein)--Oppose.

     Hon. Larry Craig,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: The California Mining Association (CMA) 
     continues to oppose S.21 and appreciates your efforts to this 
     extent. Senator Feinstein has indicated that she has 
     satisfied the mining industry by the amendments she has 
     proposed to S.21 and that the bill will not cost jobs.
       This is not true. Senator Feinstein has placated a few in 
     mining and has reduced the impact on current jobs. She has 
     not, however, reduced the long range impact of jobs in 
     California or potential jobs from mineral exploration in the 
     California desert.
       Within 20 years there will be few, if any, active mines in 
     the desert. Senator Feinstein has not taken the role of a 
     representative who is sensitive to an entire industry. S.21 
     has had no substantial changes since its introduction. The 
     result of its passage will be to close the desert to mining, 
     an industry so vital to the economic stability of the state 
     and the nation.
       CMA commends you for your efforts to oppose provisions of 
     S.21 and we respectfully request your continued opposition to 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Carolyn Clark,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                                Smith's Ranch,

                              Twentynine Palms, CA, April 8, 1994.
       Dear Senator: We are begging you: Oppose S. 21 and its 
     companion H.R. 518. We are told by government employees of 
     every agency that this is a ``done-deal''. California's two 
     rookie Senators Feinstein and Boxer refuse to enter the 
     California desert and hear us.
       The California Desert Conservation Act is working. Bureau 
     of Land Management multiple-use is working.
       S. 21 blatantly ignores criteria and legal definitions of 
     true ``Wilderness''. Our county--our state--this nation 
     cannot afford such a massive closure.
       Please, please, stop this waste. We are fourth-generation 
     Californians, we know our desert. S. 21 must be stopped. 
     Joshua Tree National Monument deserves national park status, 
     but certainly not at the cost of the entire East Mojave 
     Desert.
       If a filibuster is our only defense, so be it. Please show 
     this nation the power which rests in our nation's Capital. We 
     are on our knees begging. Stop S. 21.
         David and Pat Smith, Mike and Patty Smith, Bill and Vi 
           Klink, Dana and Richard Casey, Kelsey Smith, Billy 
           Smith, Samantha Casey, Andrew Casey.
                                  ____



                                            Santa Barbara, CA,

                                                   April 10, 1994.
     Re: S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act.

     Hon. Larry E. Craig.
       Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for your opposition to this 
     bill. I heard on one of the Sunday political talk shows that 
     western senators are likely to filibuster this bill. I hope 
     so. I am an amateur geologist and a taxpaying California 
     Republican who has lived the last 30 years of my life in 
     Santa Barbara, Ca. and spent most of my free time exploring 
     our beautiful desert. I am all for preserving it--but this 
     bill is a lockout. My husband and many of my friends are 
     totally frustrated with our California Senators Feinstein and 
     Boxer. We have appealed to them regarding the Desert Bill; 
     however, all appeals are totally ignored.
       We feel the bill in its present form will further damage 
     our already crippled economy by eliminating businesses and 
     jobs that have been operating for years in the desert with no 
     ecological damage.
       Thank you for your hard work on our behalf. Our country 
     desperately needs people like you in the government, 
     especially during these times.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Nancy K. Ulmer.
                                  ____



                                         Twentynine Palms, CA,

                                                   April 11, 1994.

                Immediate Attention on Senate Bill S. 21

       Dear Senator: The desert cities remain steadfast in their 
     opposition to Senate bill S. 21. Please see the poll results 
     from the Desert Heartland in San Bernardino County.
       Please join with the full Republican delegation in 
     opposition to this unacceptable expenditure. We are 
     requesting a filibuster to kill this bill in this Congress.
       Major issues of contention include:
       1. The taking of over 500,000 acres of private property and 
     the associated loss of property tax to fund public education 
     and health and safety services.
       2. The creation of 6.37 million acres of new wilderness 
     despite studies demonstrating over half the proposed areas 
     are non suitable under existing federal guidelines.
       3. Ignoring the public hearings and opposition from the 
     desert communities in favor of the radical special interests 
     of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and Earth First.
       4. Wasteful deficit spending in the billions to acquire the 
     private property and keep people out of areas where the 
     routes and trails date back to California's earliest history.
       5. The loss of jobs in mining, ranching, and recreation 
     industries affecting the economy of the whole State of 
     California.
       6. Senator Feinstein wants this Bill in her re-election 
     resume despite the actual consequences to our desert 
     communities.
                                                       Jim Bagley,
                                                    Mayor Pro Tem.
                                  ____



                                  Lone Valley Mining District,

                                Lucerne Valley, CA, April 1, 1994.
     Subject: California Desert S-21. Loss of 500 Jobs or more for 
       100 years--Smart Ranch Carbonate Deposit, Proposed Big Horn 
       Mountain Wilderness in San Bernardino Mountains, San 
       Bernardino National Forest (former Granite Peak RARE II 
       area 12,500 acres excluded from 1983 Cranston-Wilson Forest 
       Service Wilderness Act)

     Hon. Senator Diane Feinstein,
     Hon. Senator Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer: As you may be aware S-21 
     / HR 518 includes about 140,000 acres of National Forest 
     adjacent to the California Desert Conservation Area. All of 
     these ``RARE II Areas'' were found unsuitable by Senators 
     Cranston and Wilson in the RARE II process in the early 
     1980's because of cabins, roads, mines, and other impacts of 
     man and because of high mineral potential in some RARE II 
     areas.
       In S-21 / HR 518 the 12,500 acre Granite Peak RARE II was 
     lumped with the adjacent BLM Big Horn Mtn. WSA which 
     comprises most of the Ruby Mining District in the NE San 
     Bernardino Mountains outside the San Bernardino Mountains. 
     The Ruby Mining District has been an area of small scale gold 
     mining for more than 100 years. It is roaded with many RS 
     2477 or class 4 and 5 U.S. Geological Survey Roads as are 
     portions of the Granite Peak RARE II Area, now included in 
     the S-21 / HR 518 ``Big Horn Mountain'' proposed wilderness.
       Your California ``Desert'' bill proposes to make wilderness 
     out of about 50% or more of one of the more important 
     carbonate deposits that is currently under small scale 
     operation, but is the most important reserve for the existing 
     carbonate rock producers in the adjoining Lucerne Valley 
     Limestone producing District, the largest supplier in the 
     Western U.S.A. The ``Smart Ranch Limestone Deposit'' has been 
     classified by the State of California (1989) for mineral 
     extraction. It is a major mineral deposit granted protection 
     from incompatible land use by the State of California (1989) 
     for the benefit of society. This deposit is at least as 
     important as the one in the New York Mountains (Pluess-
     Staufer) mentioned by Governor Pete Wilson in the 
     accompanying letter (attached) to Senator Feinstein. In fact, 
     it is probably more important because it is about 150 miles 
     closer to the `California' Market area, saving about $10/ton 
     in transportation costs for many millions of tons of valuable 
     mineral commodities.
       The State Report Mineral Classification of the Smart Ranch 
     Limestone Deposit of 1989 was approved after thorough field 
     examination by the State Geologist and a year-long public 
     hearing process. The U.S. Geological Survey Studies in the 
     area indicate it may be three thousand feet deep. It's 
     reserves will extend the life of The Lucerne Valley Limestone 
     District for many years. This is significant because this 
     district produces about $200 million dollars in finished 
     products each year and sustains thousands of jobs in 
     California in addition to local jobs in mining, processing 
     and transportation.
       Senators, the simplest solution to this problem with S-21 / 
     HR 518 is to exclude The ``Granite Peak RARE II Area'' and 
     the San Bernardino National Forest proposed Wilderness from 
     the ``Desert Bill.'' California cannot afford to have more of 
     its industrial job base destroyed. Your assistance in 
     resolving this economic loss would be greatly appreciated.
           Most sincerely,
                                                       Lori White,
                             Coordinator for Governmental Affairs.
       Enclosures: Mineral Classification, Smart Ranch Limestone 
     Deposit. OF 89-12, State Board of Mines and Geology, 
     Sacramento (Summary & Map)
                                  ____


[From the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and 
                  Geology; DMG Open-File Report 89-12]

Mineral Land Classification of the Smart Ranch Limestone Property, Big 
 Bear City and Rattlesnake Canyon Quadrangles, San Bernardino, County, 
             CA, for High-Grade and Cement-Grade Limestone

       Note: This deposit meets the state's minimum value for 
     classification with the top two (2) inches of the deposit. 
     The U.S. Geological survey estimates it's up to 2,000+ ft, 
     deep!


                           executive summary

       In response to a petition submitted under the provisions of 
     the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the 
     State Geologist has investigated and subsequently classified 
     portions of the Big Bear City and Rattlesnake Canyon 
     quadrangles, San Bernardino County, for both high-grade 
     limestone and cement-grade limestone resources. The property, 
     referred to as the Smart Ranch Limestone Property, is 
     currently under claim by members of the Fife family, 
     represented by Donald L. Fife.
       This study is an evaluation of the high-grade and cement-
     grade limestone potential of the 5,3000-acre Smart Ranch 
     Limestone Property based upon data provided by the 
     petitioner, Donald L. Fife. The date was analyzed and 
     confirmed by means of a two-day field examination of the 
     property in December, 1988 and April, 1989. This report 
     explains the classification of the property and presents the 
     conclusions reached in this study. It is intended for use by 
     the State Mining and Geology Board (Board), the petitioner, 
     and the lead agencies who have decision-making authority in 
     the area.
       For a mineral deposit to be considered significant and 
     therefore eligible for classification as MRZ-2, it must meet 
     criteria established by the Board for material quality, 
     marketability, and economic value. The significance of the 
     resources was determined by evaluating the quality of the 
     deposit and its suitability as a marketable commodity, and by 
     calculating the available volume, tonnage, and value of both 
     the high-grade and cement-grade limestone resources contained 
     within the property. Data necessary to evaluate the property 
     were compiled from geologic literature, proprietary files, 
     and limited field study by Division of Mines and Geology 
     (DMG) staff.
       It is concluded that:
       High-grade and cement-grade limestone resources occur in 
     the study area.
       Part of the deposit classified as MRZ-2 for high-grade 
     limestone contains resources that meet the published 
     specifications for use as limestone whiting.
       Part of the deposit classified as MRZ-2 for cement-grade 
     limestone contains resources that meet the published 
     standards for use in cement.
       Limestone resources within the Smart Ranch Limestone 
     Property exceed the minimum threshold value of 1 million 1978 
     dollars (approximately 1,740,000 1987 dollars) established by 
     the Board for both high-grade and cement-grade limestone.
       The Smart Ranch Limestone Property has been classified as 
     MRZ-2 for high-grade limestone and MRZ-2 for cement-grade 
     limestone as shown on Plate 1.
                                  ____


         [From the California Mining Journal, September, 1989]

      Huge Wollastonite Deposit Jeopardized by Desert Closure bill

       Fawnskin, CA.--The National Association of Mining Districts 
     (NAMD) has advised the House Committee on Interior and 
     Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 
     Lands, of yet more problems with HR. 780 (Levine companion 
     bill to Cranston Desert Bill S.11).
       NAMD points out that this bill encompasses dozens of 
     existing mining districts with mining potential and proven 
     reserves, one of the most obvious being the world class 
     Hunter Mountain Wollastonite deposit. It was first discovered 
     by a small miner-prospector in the late 1950s. The deposit 
     has been drilled and millions of tons of this valuable non-
     metallic energy conserving mineral are proven and reserves 
     are shown in reports by the California Division of Mines and 
     Geology, according to NAMD.
       The Hunter Mountain Wollastonite deposit is in the early 
     stages of development with enough production to prove its 
     economic value, said the NAMD report. The association went on 
     to say that while this mineral commodity may not have the 
     romance of gold, silver, or base metals that were the prime 
     interest in this mining district in the past, wollastonite 
     plays an exceptionally important role in conserving energy. 
     Wollastonite significantly lowers the fuel consumption for 
     firing certain ceramics and related products. In paints and 
     plastics it also saves resin feed stocks derived from crude 
     oil by replacing them in significant amounts. Not only does 
     wollastonite conserve a strategic commodity--crude oil, says 
     NAMD--but it is one of the few safe substitutes for asbestos 
     in many industrial products.
       HR. 780 would lock up more than 8.5 million acres in the 
     Mojave Desert in the southwestern United States, primarily in 
     California. HR. 780 would vastly increase the geological area 
     designated as ``Wilderness'' and National Parks, and would 
     remove over 13,000 square miles from present or future 
     productive use. The area involved is larger than the states 
     of Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia.
                                  ____


          Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Desert

                (By Donald L. Fife and Arthur R. Brown)

 [From the South Coast Geological Society, Santa Ana, CA, Oct. 11-12, 
                                 1980]


                                FORWARD

       The California Desert is a vast region that includes all of 
     southeastern California from Owens Valley on the north to 
     Imperial Valley on the south; from Antelope Valley on the 
     west to Death Valley on the east. The boundaries of the 
     Desert, drawn arbitrarily in places, encompass 25 or 30 
     percent of California--an area equal in size to the State of 
     Ohio or Pennsylvania.
       This area was selected by the South Coast Geological 
     Society for its 1980 project to focus on the diverse geology 
     and to document some of the California Desert's tremendous 
     mineral wealth. The South Coast Geological Society is a 
     nonprofit independent organization of more than 100 earth 
     scientists in Southern California. This volume has been 
     produced and published by the volunteer efforts of numerous 
     geologists and others interested in the Desert. The papers in 
     this volume represent many thousands of hours of work from 
     individuals, private corporations, academic institutions and 
     local, state and federal governments.
       A study released September 30, 1980 by the Bureau of Land 
     Management listing the ``known in-place value'' of 25 
     selected energy and mineral commodities valued them at 
     greater than $600 BILLION in 1978 dollars for a portion of 
     the desert. It is obvious that the total mineral wealth of 
     the California Desert far exceeds one TRILLION 1980 DOLLARS.
       The difficulty of the task of ``inventorying'' mineral 
     potential of such a large and diverse area is not generally 
     appreciated by the layman. The objective of making a ``real 
     inventory'' is so monumental that no organization has the 
     time nor the financial resources to complete an accurate 
     inventory. An undertaking of this magnitude may not even be 
     feasible over such a vast region as the California Desert. 
     The very words ``exploration'' and ``discovery'' allude to 
     the complexities of geology and mineral economics.
       In 1920 uranium was a curiosity, not an economically 
     valuable element; in 1940 europium and cerium had few or no 
     commercial uses, nor did zeolites prior to 1960; and in 1970 
     aggregate producers would not have considered deposits with 
     20 percent waste. However, deposits of these commodities are 
     now economic in the proper context. Uranium exploration now 
     abounds in the California Desert, and on the Southern 
     California urban fringe, aggregates are profitably mined with 
     up to 50 percent waste!
       This volume is intended to bring to the reader a 
     perspective on one of the most diverse and complex geologic 
     regions in the United States. The greatest land use decision 
     in the history of the State of California is being considered 
     with little understanding by the general public of the 
     importance to the economic well-being of the nation.
                                  ____


 Mineral Resources of the California Desert and Their Significance to 
                        California's Economy\1\

                        (By Shirley C. Anderson)


                                abstract

       The California desert is one of the most important mineral 
     repositories in the world. Currently over $1.3 billion of 
     minerals are produced from the desert annually, from over 25 
     different minerals. The importance of desert minerals to 
     California's economy is demonstrated by descriptions of the 
     current uses and trends in cement, boron, rare-earth 
     minerals, saline minerals, gypsum and gold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Data for this report were gathered during the later half 
     of 1987. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of 
     the members of the California Mining Association in providing 
     the desert mining data base necessary for this study. Also 
     the information contributed by many geologists, in particular 
     staff members of the California Division of Mines and 
     Geology, is greatly appreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Mining jobs affect the region directly and indirectly. 
     Direct effects include providing mining wages, mining 
     equipment, sales, transportation and other services sold to 
     the mining industry. Indirect effects include wages and 
     salaries in industries in which mining products are used to 
     manufacture other goods and services.
       The California desert mining industry directly and 
     indirectly supports 17,276 people in the five-county area of 
     Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino. It 
     employs 20,354 people in Southern California.
       Each $1 million in mineral production (current desert 
     production is $1.3 billion) directly accounts for 12.8 jobs 
     in the five-county area; 15.1 jobs in the greater Southern 
     California region.
       Value added, which reflects direct effects on regional 
     employment and the production of materials, equipment, and 
     services supported by that employment, accounts for $754,799 
     per $1 million production in the five-county region ($981.2 
     million total) and $898,422 per $1 million production in the 
     Southern California area ($1.1 billion total).
       Within the five-county region, every $1 million of minerals 
     production annually accounts for $26,439.04 ($34.3 million 
     total in local taxes and $41,877.18 ($54.4 million total) in 
     state taxes. For the greater Southern California region, each 
     $1 million in production accounts for $28,854.39 ($37.5 
     million total) in local taxes and $47,182.85 ($61.3 million 
     total) in state taxes.
       Precluding resource development from this mineral rich 
     area, as would occur under the California Desert Protection 
     Act, is not necessary. Mining companies are able to meet and 
     exceed stringent environmental regulations in order to 
     produce materials needed by our society, while providing a 
     strong economic base to the desert region.
                                  ____


            [From the Orange County Register, Apr. 9, 1994]

               Feinstein Announces Senate Reelection Bid

       U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein formally launched her re-
     election campaign Friday in San Francisco, promising ``to 
     devote my next six years to creating jobs and eradicating 
     violence.''
       The 60-year-old freshman senator told a rally of about 300 
     supporters that during her first 17 months in office she has 
     proven she can make a difference in the Senate. She cited her 
     efforts to ban assault weapons and enact a California Desert 
     Wilderness Act as her major achievements.

                                  ____



                                  Lone Valley Mining District,

                                Lucerne Valley, CA, April 2, 1994.
     Re: S-2 ``Big Horn Mountain Wilderness in San Bernardino N.F. 
       12,500 acres.

     Attn: J. Mark Eaton, et al.

     Subject: Request for GAO Audit and Investigation for 
       Misappropriation of Funds, Abuse of Discretion, and 
       Probable Criminal Actions, Staff of the San Bernardino 
       National Forest, Big Bear Ranger District 1990-1993.

     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Agricultural Committee, SD-403 Dirksen Building, Washington, 
         DC.

       Dear Senator Helms: This is a request to investigate a 
     series of events that have occurred in the San Bernardino 
     National Forest over the past few years. The attached 
     criminal complaint, newspaper articles and photographs 
     outline what appears to be illegal use of funds and abuse of 
     discretion, costing the taxpayers perhaps $100-$200,000 in 
     wasted funds.
       The individuals associated with these actions appear to be 
     Supervisor Gene Zimmerman, former District Ranger Rebecca 
     Aus, Minerals Officer George Kenline and others. It is my 
     understanding that the SBNF archeologist was sent into Horse 
     Thief Flats by Ranger Rebecca Aus with a bulldozer to bury 
     the evidence (debris) of the historic rock cabin blown to 
     ``kingdom come'' by the U.S. Marines in September 1991. From 
     the observations of myself and others, the September 1991 
     incident included not only blowing up the historic cabin but 
     detonating high explosives in the nearby sensitive raparian 
     habitats of Arraster Creek and the miners root cellar 
     (alleged ``WWII ammo bunker'') at the Horse Thief Spring. 
     This was follow up with four (4) high explosive charges that 
     ``bombed out'' Forest Service Road 3N03A and started dozens 
     of small forest fires on my family's mining claims.
       The cost of these activities and the resulting fire 
     suppression activities probably cost the taxpayers $100-
     $200,000 dollars. Fire suppression activities took 4 to 5 
     hours according to the U.S. Forest Service and California 
     Division of Forestry Fire dispatchers logs (attached). 
     According to the San Bernardino National Forest geologist 
     burying the fragmented remains of the historic cabin (the 
     evidence,) rebuilding Road 3N03A and dragging junk cars onto 
     our Smart Ranch Limestone quarry staging area cost another 
     $40-$50,000 dollars.
       In addition, our roads are being blocked and destroyed 
     along 3N03 apparently using misappropriated state ``Green 
     Sticker'' OHV funds (see attached complaint to State of 
     California).
       Your assistance in this matter would be greatly 
     appreciated. Not only are the taxpayers' funds being used 
     questionably; our small family mining business is losing 
     thousands of dollars per month and is being destroyed.
           Most sincerely,

                                               Donald L. Fife,

                     Certified Professional Geologist, AIPG #4735.
                                  ____



                                               Certified Mail,

                                                 January 12, 1993.
     Subject: Copy of letter sent to Mr. David C. Scheper, Chief 
       of the Criminal Complaints Division, U.S. Department of 
       Justice.

     Leon Sneed,
     Inspector General, USDA, 14th Street & Independence Ave. SW., 
         Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the U.S. 
     Department of Justice. This letter documents what appears to 
     be a serious illegal act or acts by employees of the federal 
     government, in the San Bernardino National Forest.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Larie K. Richardson,
                                  General manager, Right Star Inc.
                                  ____



                                               Certified Mail,

                                                  January 9, 1992.
     Subject: Falsification of Official Document (Back dated USFS 
       letter ``10/10/90'') to deny approval of an Operating and 
       Reclamation Plan for an existing mine by the staff of San 
       Bernardino National Forest.
     Mr. David C. Scheper,
     Chief, Criminal Complaints Division, Department of Justice, 
         Los Angeles, CA.
       Gentlemen: This is a citizens' request for investigation 
     into what appears to be a serious illegal act or acts on the 
     part of several employees of the federal government, in the 
     San Bernardino National Forest, (1824 S. Commercenter Drive, 
     San Bernardino, CA).


                   Background Statement for Complaint

       On or about April 10, 1990 the undersigned Donald L. Fife, 
     representing the Fife family owners, and Larie Richardson, 
     representing Right Star Inc. met Rangers Rebecca Aus and 
     George Kenline at the existing Smart Ranch Limestone quarry 
     at the west end of Lone Valley. The purpose of this meeting 
     to discuss our plans for submitting an operating and 
     reclamation plan for producing highgrade limestone from the 
     quarry periodically mined since 1949. Two major government 
     projects adjoin the quarry (The Dobie Landfill, and the Lone 
     Valley Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) trail system). These 
     projects were recently approved with an Environmental 
     Assessment (E.A.) We were told it would take about 3-4 months 
     to get a permit to produce limestone and this led us to 
     believe we would be producing from this existing quarry by 
     August 1990. It is now approaching three years; far in excess 
     of reason to reactivate an existing mine using inplace 
     infrastructure.
       A very complete ``Operating and Reclamation Plan'' for an 
     estimated maximum 40,000 tons of limestone/year was prepared 
     by Larie Richardson and Donald Fife, working with U.S. Forest 
     Service specialists in geology, biology, archeology, 
     planning, hydrology, etc.
       This plan was submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Big 
     Bear Ranger District on or about July 15, 1990. Under 
     National Environmental Policy Act standards (NEPA), the 
     Forest Service has thirty days to review the plan. If the 
     Forest Service does not respond, the plan is automatically 
     approved. We didn't expect any problem as we were told by 
     USFS that ``this was one of the most complete and 
     professional plans that has ever been submitted to the Big 
     Bear Ranger District.'' Only a few minor items were 
     questioned by U.S. Forest Service staff.
       The Operation and Reclamation Plan was revised to respond 
     to Forest Service staff questions. This revision was sent by 
     Certified Mail to the Big Bear Ranger District, and was 
     received on or about August 22, 1990, triggering a NEPA 60-
     day review period which would expire on October 21, 1990.
       October 21, 1990 came and went without any notice or 
     objection from the USFS, and according to NEPA regulations, 
     our revised plan was thus automatically approved. Upon 
     checking with Larie Richardson to make sure there was no 
     legal notice received by him or Right Star, Inc. by the 
     deadline, Mr. Fife called Mr. Buster Lamoure, our permitting 
     consultant in Montana. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Lamoure 
     was Chief of Land and Minerals for the USFS in Washington DC 
     and he is an expert on federal permitting regulations. Mr. 
     Lamoure requested Mr. Fife arrange a field meeting at the 
     Smart Ranch Limestone quarry with Charles Irby, Forest 
     Supervisor, and Rebecca Aus, District Ranger, the persons 
     responsible for the reclamation plan approval.
       After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Ranger Aus or 
     her assistant Ranger George Kenline in the Big Bear Ranger 
     District, Mr. Fife was successful in reaching Ranger Ernie 
     Dierking, Land and Minerals Officer in The San Bernardino 
     N.F. Headquarters in San Bernardino. Mr. Dierking set up a 
     meeting at the Smart Ranch quarry on November 1, 1990 with 
     staff of the Big Bear Ranger District, the San Bernardino 
     N.F. Headquarters, representatives of Right Star Inc. and the 
     Fife family as suggested by Buster Lamoure and requested by 
     Mr. Fife.
       On the morning of November 1, 1990, Messrs. Ernie Dierking 
     and George Kenline, staff of the San Bernardino National 
     Forest, met with Messrs. Larie Richardson and John Klinge of 
     Right Star Inc., Mr. Buster Lamoure, consultant to Right Star 
     and Messrs. Donald Fife and consultant Dick Brown, 
     representing the owners. To our great surprise, on November 
     1, 1990, Mr. George Kenline hand-delivered to Mr. Larie 
     Richardson a letter (Certified Mail R.R.R. #P 104 794 594) 
     dated October 10, 1990 (See exhibit A) regarding the 
     Operating and Reclamation Plan submitted on August 22, 1990. 
     This letter dated October 10, 1990 was never received by 
     Right Star or Fife until the field meeting of November 1, 
     1990 . . . which was more than a week past the legal 
     deadline. This Forest Service letter denied approval of our 
     operating and reclamation plan for a maximum of 40,000 tons 
     per year, and required a costly and time consuming 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Under NEPA regulations, 
     the permit was automatically approved since the Big Bear 
     Ranger District had not denied our revised plan by October 
     21, 1990.
       We are now in our third year of attempting to permit an 
     already existing mine; thousands of additional dollars have 
     been paid directly to the USFS to speed up the EIS because 
     they claimed they didn't have staff to do the EIS in a timely 
     fashion. The Big Bear Ranger District said if Right Star paid 
     the USFS, staff would work on the project on an overtime 
     basis or extra staff would be put on the EIS project.
       It seems that everything has been done to misinform the 
     public about this project and to make it controversial, such 
     as: (1) Suppressing the fact that this is an existing quarry 
     periodically operating since 1949; (2) misinforming the press 
     that the proposed operation was for 200,000 tons/year rather 
     than the actual maximum of 40,000 tons/year; (3) illegally 
     blasting historic structures and a public access road (3N03A) 
     out of existence in the proposed adjoining Big Horn 
     Wilderness area in order to qualify portions of the Smart 
     Ranch Limestone deposit as a roadless wilderness; (4) dumping 
     junk cars in our quarry staging area to give us a bad public 
     image; and (5) targeting Right Star and other limestone 
     producers with biased studies alleging that several specific 
     plants are endangered and were ``limestone endemic,'' growing 
     only on limestone, when the only areas they looked at were on 
     the 5% of the National Forest underlain by limestone. In one 
     field season, an independent Botanist working in the field 
     found most of the five allegedly endangered plants growing on 
     other soil/rock types such as dolomite, scarn, schist, 
     quartzite and granite that make up about 80% of the San 
     Bernardino National Forest! Now the Big Bear Ranger District 
     refuses to process our applications because they are waiting 
     for the newly alleged endangered limestone plants to be 
     listed as ``rare and endangered,'' based on their biased 
     information.
       The October 10, 1990 letter (exhibit A) denying our permit 
     appears to be falsified (backdated) with specific intent of 
     denying us of our Constitutional, Civil and Property Rights 
     to use our property. The content of the October 10, 1990, 
     letter itself is incriminating--the last paragraph states; 
     ``The next meeting with you is scheduled for November 1, 1990 
     at the mine site.'' This November 1, 1990 meeting was not 
     even conceived until after the October 21, 1990 deadline; and 
     it was at the specific suggestion of Buster Lamoure to Donald 
     Fife that he arrange the meeting on November 1, 1990 at that 
     location which was accomplished via Ranger Ernie Dierking in 
     the San Bernardino National Forest headquarters.

  Mr. CRAIG. The National Association of Mining Districts, a group that 
I worked very closely with in California; the mining interests that 
employ thousands and thousands of people in the desert.
  But another group that really went unspoken to in a lot of this was 
the California Outdoor Recreation League, off-road vehicle people.
  When we were in Palm Springs several years ago holding hearings, we 
met with thousands of these people who pour out of the urban areas of 
the Los Angeles basin into the deserts of California on a weekend basis 
to recreate on their RV's and get out into the countryside. Much of 
this land has now been taken off limits to that kind of recreation. And 
that is a disappointment, because public land and public land 
resources, while we ought to protect them, also ought to be able to be 
utilized by people instead of telling the American public ``No, that is 
off limits. You can't touch it.''
  Well, let me tell you there is an awful large part of the California 
desert that in the middle of the summer you just cannot walk out into. 
You do not walk out into 100-plus degree temperatures, but you do ride 
out into it on four-wheel drive vehicles, or RV's, or those kinds of 
recreational type facilities. Much of that is denied and, of course, in 
a wilderness area, all motorized vehicles are denied.
  That is part of the debate. This issue has been thoroughly debated. I 
will not ask my amendment be read and placed before the Senate for 
consideration. I am disappointed that we could not have made a few 
other adjustments that really would have accommodated jobs, the kind of 
jobs we are talking about here, some 400 jobs that would have put a lot 
of high-paying salaries into some of those rural communities in the 
California Desert. But that is not the will of the Senator from 
California today.
  But I do in all respect appreciate the kind of work she has put in to 
accommodate many of the broad interests, as we deal with this issue. 
Having said that, Mr. President, and having asked all of this be 
printed in the Record, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think we are about to get everything 
worked out. There is one minor boundary modification amendment which is 
left to be done. It has been cleared. Am I correct, that the boundary 
modification has been cleared?
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is correct. It has been cleared by the 
minority.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. In that case, I ask it be in order for the Senator from 
California to offer a minor boundary modification amendment prior to 
the vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1624

(Purpose: To amend the boundary of the Mojave National Park to exclude 
approximately 170 acres of private land at Nipton and Goffs on the park 
                               boundary)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. 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 California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1624.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. 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:

       On page 135, line 22, strike all through page 136, line 4 
     and insert in lieu thereof
       ``There is hereby established the Mojave National Park, 
     (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ``park'') 
     comprising approximately one million one hundred eighty-one 
     thousand three hundred and fifty acres, as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled ``Mojave National Park Boudnary--
     Proposed'', dated March 1994, which shall be on file and 
     available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     National Park Service, Department of the Interior.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment. It 
amends the boundary of the Mojave National Park to exclude 
approximately 170 acres of private land, at Nipton and Goffs, in those 
two locations. The private lands have some improvements on them; they 
are located on the Mojave park boundary; and the private property 
owners do not wish to sell their land to the Federal Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1624) was agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1623

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think we now go to the Bennett 
amendment, to vote on it. We are in hopes this constitutes all the 
amendments. We will see as Senators show up on the floor. There may be 
some conversation prior to final passage. There may be a vote or two. 
But we are in hopes this is final and we put Senators on notice, if 
they have further business on this bill, to let us know. Otherwise, we 
will be going rapidly toward final passage.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
Bennett amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Chair.


                       vote on amendment no. 1623

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bond
     Shelby
       
  So the amendment (No. 1623) was rejected.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, as I understand it, there are only two 
amendments that are still viable, one by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner, and one possible amendment by Senator Murkowski, and also an 
amendment with which we will agree by Senator Brown. I wonder if we 
would be ready for a unanimous-consent request that only those three 
amendments be in order.
  Mr. WALLOP. Has the Senator received information from Senator 
Hatfield? I would be willing to enter into the consent, but I would 
reserve that place for him. We know the circumstances under which----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. All right. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 
only amendments in order would be an amendment by Senator Brown with 
respect to park fees, by Senator Murkowski with respect to hunting, by 
Senator Warner with respect to national parks, Civil War national 
parks, a Johnston amendment, which would be a place holder amendment, 
and a Hatfield amendment which would be a payments-in-lieu-of-taxes 
amendment.
  Mr. WALLOP. I have not been informed by the Senator from Arizona that 
he has withdrawn his amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. With only relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. WALLOP. Yes. But I would say again that I have----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Relevant to the amendment to which it is offered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Yes. But I have not been informed by the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain], that he has withdrawn his amendment on 
overflights.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I was not advised of that, but I would ask that we put 
in a McCain amendment on overflights under the same conditions of no 
second degree--only second degrees which are relevant to the amendment 
to which they are offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I understood that the Senator from 
Virginia wanted to offer an amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is it in the agreement?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, it is in the agreement. But I thank my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would defer to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the unanimous-
consent request is agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. It is my understanding the Senator from Alaska wishes to 
proceed, but I would like to make one observation.
  On the vote just taken, the Senate has come down squarely on the side 
of giving the Government the biggest hammer in dealing with people. The 
argument was who should have the biggest hammer when it comes to the 
acquisition of private property: Is it the obligation of this Congress 
to see to it that the Government is operated for the convenience of the 
Government or is it the obligation to see to it that it is operated for 
the convenience and service of the people.
  We came down this time on the side of the Government. I regret that. 
But I think the Senate will be advised that there will be more than one 
opportunity to see to it we make a statement that the private property 
right of the citizens of this country is a very significant right that 
ought not to be so casually dismissed.
  I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I was prepared to offer an amendment concerning 
private property rights relative to the application of S. 21 and what 
it does and how it threatens private property.
  On the other hand, there may be a better opportunity and a more 
opportune time to bring that issue before this body.
  I had also given some thought to offering an amendment with regard to 
access and to ensure inholders of the right to have egress and exit 
into their own lands. But I am convinced that there is another 
opportunity that might be better directed toward addressing that 
injustice.
  However, with regard to S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act, 
there is one segment that I feel very strongly about. That is title V 
because title V of the bill and the creation of the Mojave National 
Park creates a reality that I do not think has been considered 
adequately by the sponsors of the legislation, because it would dictate 
that all hunting--Mr. President, all hunting--would be prohibited 
despite the fact that the East Mojave is and has been a traditional 
area for hunting, managed by the State of California Department of Fish 
and Game, and I might say managed quite effectively.
  The National Park designation would also prohibit a number of 
wildlife enhancement programs in the area. I intend to go into these in 
some detail because these very activities have helped create what has 
become an extraordinary set of wildlife values that this bill 
jeopardizes by its very nature.
  In effect, this body is being sold a bill of goods. As it stands now, 
this bill is an absolute catastrophe, an absolute disaster, for 
wildlife in the East Mojave Desert. Some of you would ask why, when we 
are talking about creating a wilderness, are we also talking about 
creating a park? Well, Mr. President, designating this area as a park--
with a large area designated as wilderness--prohibits the enhancement 
programs and the active management which has been so efficiently 
performed under the State department of fish and game in California.
  Designating this area as a park prohibits habitat enhancement 
activities. But these are precisely the activities that have led to the 
abundant wildlife populations now being used to justify the designation 
as a park.
  I would venture to say that 90 percent of my colleagues are not aware 
of what the terminology means to the maintenance of the natural 
wildlife in the area. In a park which includes wilderness --and in the 
case of S. 21 we have what we call park wilderness--there is no 
hunting, but there also is no feeding. No feeding. You cannot bring in 
feed during a time of severe drought or a time of severe winter. No 
enhancement of any kind is going to be allowed in this area.
  What does that mean? Healthy wildlife populations in the desert 
environment require active and not passive management. But this 
legislation allows no management because there will not be any access 
into the area. We really have to gain access to the East Mojave to 
restore its habitat.
  We have seen evidence over the years that the natural areas 
containing water have been damaged by the wild burros and the salt 
cedar, a nonnative plant that consumes considerable water. But with 
access to the area by the BLM--and working with the State department of 
fish and game, working with private organizations, off-highway vehicle 
clubs, environmental groups, private landholders, and hunting clubs--we 
have restored those areas, those natural springs, and we have built 
numerous rain catchment basins or guzzlers, as they are called. These 
water sources are vital to all wildlife in the desert--all wildlife: 
deer, bighorn sheep, quail, chukar partridge, you name it.
  There are 771 such water sites for wildlife in San Bernardino County. 
And their periodic repair requires heavy bags of cement and equipment 
that cannot be carried in on foot. Much of this effort has come from 
volunteers and private donations. Mr. President, all this will be 
limited to what you can haul in on your back. For all practical 
purposes, it will simply be eliminated.
  Mr. President, look at some of the wildlife benefits that we have 
seen. We have seen the growth of the bighorn sheep as a consequence of 
management, management that has been dependent on access. We have been 
able, through utilization of vehicles and helicopters, to make the 
range bloom. The bighorn sheep has been a real success story in 
California. Now we are talking about sealing off this vast region. Mr. 
President, the spirit of conservation is being dampened severely by 
closing off this huge area of the East Mojave as a consequence of this 
proposed legislation.
  So the implications are significant for wildlife populations. And I 
think they support my contention that this bill, as far as wildlife is 
concerned, is an absolute disaster.
  I said about 1\1/2\ million acres of East Mojave is home to the 
desert bighorn sheep. The sensible thing to do and the right thing to 
do for the wildlife was to separate certain areas of the eastern Mojave 
and designate them as national park preserves. This would have allowed 
traditional activities on behalf of the wildlife to continue. While 
this would also allow hunting, that is not the main point. The health 
and well-being of the local wildlife populations is the issue here.
  Mark my words, Mr. President. Californians associated with management 
and Californians who appreciated the growth of these wildlife 
populations are going to rue the day that this body adopted the 
restrictive access provisions in S. 21. The variety, the abundance of 
wildlife in this area has been directly attributed to the interests of 
sports people and those having access and those who have built and 
maintained the guzzlers. The guzzlers are the water catchments that 
benefit the varieties of wildlife.
  Altogether, as I have said previously in my reference, there has been 
a lot of money spent--tens of thousands of dollars, and uncounted 
volunteer man-hours by various groups to reopen these springs. In 1992 
alone over $8,000 and some 19,000 manhours of labor were donated to 
ensure the welfare of the East Mojave wildlife.
  These efforts of enhancement, Mr. President, will be abandoned. They 
will be lost. So those who commit to game management based on sound 
science and technology will have no access into the area. Many of the 
animals, obviously, will have to rely on the springs' natural state. 
That cannot be improved upon under the bill. Indeed, if the water 
supplies begin to dwindle, game herds also will dwindle because no one 
can have access into these areas to provide for the necessities.
  According to the State of California--and I would refer specifically 
to a letter that we have from Mr. Boyd Gibbons with regard to his 
concern over this legislation--the animals will suffer if this area is 
made into a national park.
  Mr. President, I further note that last year when the issue was 
before the Energy Committee, Mr. Gibbons, who is director of the 
California Department of Fish and Game, wrote the following:

       We have to gain access to the East Mojave to restore its 
     habitat.
       Because of our active involvement in the East Mojave, the 
     desert bighorn sheep has come back from its low levels of the 
     early 1900's to the viable populations that Californians 
     enjoy today.
       The bighorn sheep population in the Old Dad Mountains, near 
     Baker in San Bernardino County, is a source stock for 
     reestablishing sheep populations elsewhere in their historic 
     range. From this productive herd, we have captured and 
     relocated more than 200 bighorn sheep safely, efficiently, 
     and with minimum disturbance to the desert, because we've 
     been able to use vehicles and helicopters.

  Mr. President, this spirit of sensible, practical, professional 
wildlife game management will be lost if this bill is passed. The 
spirit of conservation, as I have said, must not be dampened by closing 
off the East Mojave to hunting. One would ask an obvious question, and 
I am sure it moves some of my colleagues: Why is hunting important to 
the ``spirit of conservation''? Those are the words of the California 
State wildlife director. There are two answers: First, the hunters have 
a major and significant interest in wildlife conservation. It is that 
interest that has led to the donation of time and money--both in vast 
quantities--to the rehabilitation and the health of all wildlife in the 
East Mojave. Repeating that, it is ``all wildlife.'' There is no 
species in the East Mojave that has not benefited from professional 
game management and access for water-source rehabilitation.
  The second question is perhaps economic, but the reality is that 
hunters pay for licenses and tags, and with today's tight budget, that 
is an important factor for fish and game managers everywhere. In this 
case, money from a nonrefundable application fee for bighorn sheep tags 
goes straight back into bighorn sheep research, management, and 
improvement of the area.
  So the designation of the East Mojave as a national park preserve is 
the appropriate action by this body. As a national park preserve, the 
Park Service would have had jurisdiction but not the dictatorial power 
it has under this bill, and the real interests of wildlife populations 
would be protected. We have in Alaska some park preserves where hunting 
is allowed, and we know that in these areas you have the capability of 
professional game management, the utilization of the research and real 
benefits to the resource itself. I offered an amendment in committee, 
and it was rejected almost on a straight party line. I think the vote 
was 9-11. I was very much inclined to offer a specific hunting 
amendment today on this bill. But what is important is the welfare of 
the resource, and I am hopeful that the other body, the House, is 
prepared to address this matter and to make these changes. So I do not 
intend to offer the amendment today.
  But the Members of this body would be well advised to take the time 
to think deeply about this matter. The spirit of conservation rests 
with those willing to put their time and money into ensuring that 
wildlife thrives and repopulates.
  It does not lie with those who really enjoy feeling environmentally 
``aware,'' but who in their narrow-minded desire to raise preservation 
for preservation's sake to the level of a religion, are willing to 
watch wildlife populations degraded by lack of attention and 
management.
  I am reminded of John James Audubon, who himself was an avid hunter. 
I suggest that he would be shocked at how skewed our perception of 
conservation has become and appalled at what we are doing in this 
restrictive legislation. In the opinion of the Senator from Alaska, it 
is a travesty, and in an all-too-real sense, it is a crime against 
sensible, science-based natural resource management. I can only hope 
that the House is perceptive enough to address it more realistically.
  On the other hand, I commend the Senator from California for the 
manner in which she has been open to constructive changes in this 
legislation. Unfortunately, our minds have not been able to mesh on the 
merits of professional game management in the Mojave, with regard to 
the extraordinary game resources that are there and the tremendous 
record that the State of California has had in enhancing and managing 
those game resources.
  So I commend the Senator on the overall effort, but I stand my ground 
on the concern over the game resources that are going to be, I think, 
substantially reduced as a consequence of this. I speak today for the 
desert bighorn sheep, and I conclude my remarks.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1625

(Purpose: To establish the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields and 
  Commission in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for other purposes)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  This is known as the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Partnership Act of 
1994.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 1625.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to be very brief, because I have 
had the cooperation, procedurally, from the two managers, and I see the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee within which the jurisdiction rests for this proposed 
piece of legislation. The Senator from Arkansas and I have taken the 
floor many times in this Chamber to discuss certain historical facts 
relating to the Civil War, and I hope that we will have a few minutes 
this afternoon to address this very important amendment.
  This amendment applies to eight pieces of land, battlefields in the 
valley of Virginia, fought over by two famous military figures in 
American history--Gen. Stonewall Jackson, one of the most revered men 
in the State of Virginia, and Gen. Philip Sheridan. These are eight 
pieces of ground, hallowed ground, ground which is visited each year by 
literally hundreds of thousands of Americans and other visitors of this 
country, your constituents, my constituents. Indeed, I had not seen one 
or more of these battlefields myself until over the past 2 years. I had 
the opportunity to visit it while we were putting this legislation 
together. Senator Robb is a cosponsor with me. My staff assistant, Ann 
Loomis, and I, and others from the Park Service, historians, have 
traveled every one of these battlefields. It is fascinating. I urge my 
colleagues, given the time some day, to go learn for themselves about 
this piece of history in the 1860's.
  But it is eight pieces of ground that are going to be donated to the 
United States of America, to the people of this country, or in some 
manner integrated into this national park in such a way it does not 
require the taxpayers to spend the money.
  Several of these pieces of ground have been held in the same family 
since that epic struggle. Those families want to continue, but they 
want to share this property with citizens all across this Nation.
  This is a unique piece of legislation. Yes, it is a national park, 
but it is a national park created in cooperation with landowners 
donating the property or otherwise acceding to certain provisions which 
enable it to be shared with visitors in partnership with the local 
communities anxious to preserve this ground against further 
encroachment from sprawling growth of small towns and large towns in 
the local area. That is why we call it a partnership, and I think you 
will find, I say to my colleagues with all due respect, that this can 
serve as a model for the future to hold down the costs associated with 
the creation of national parks.
  The distinguished Senator from Wyoming, the ranking member on this 
committee, is very concerned and properly so. I supported him earlier 
today in his amendment to hold down the costs associated with national 
parks, and I hope that he and other Senators would look at the 
uniqueness of this bill and consider it on its merits and also as a 
model piece of legislation to guide other Senators and Members of 
Congress as they desire to create parks in their own community.
  The Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act is the 
product of an in-depth study by the National Park Service which was 
authorized by the Congress in 1990.
  In the draft report issued in 1991, the Park Service conducted field 
surveys of 15 battlefields in the valley and concluded in their 
analysis that because of their size and unprotected status, the 
battlefields of the Shenandoah Valley were its most important, most 
neglected, and most threatened resource.
  Mr. President, throughout my service in this body, I have been 
actively involved in the preservation of several Civil War battlefields 
in Virginia. One of my first legislative initiatives was to sponsor 
legislation in 1980 to expand the boundaries of the Manassas National 
Battlefield Park by 1,522 acres. While some battlefield preservation 
efforts in Virginia have been accomplished by a consensus of support 
from local governments, the preservation community and the Federal 
Government, other battlefield issues have involved a great deal of 
acrimony.
  I am pleased today that I bring to the Senate legislation which 
represents a significant investment of time, understanding, and 
accommodation by preservation groups and local governments which has 
resulted in legislation to protect and preserve these treasures of our 
American heritage.
  Each party interested in fostering the protection of the Shenandoah 
Valley battlefields has worked for the past year to craft a consensus 
proposal that recognizes the limits on the Federal Government's 
resources to acquire substantial acreage in the valley and balances the 
needs of property owners and local governments to provide for their 
economic future.
  The Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act can be, I 
believe, a responsible method of preserving unprotected, yet 
significant Civil War sites.
  While authorizing limited Federal acquisition of eight battlefields 
in the valley, the core of this legislation is to foster and encourage 
an atmosphere of cooperation between the Federal Government, State and 
local governments, property owners, and preservation groups who 
currently own some of this historic property.
  Local governments will benefit from, and have endorsed, the creation 
of a new national park within their jurisdictions because they 
recognize that the Park Service can provide technical assistance about 
the location of Civil War engagements. This assistance will allow local 
governments to plan appropriately for new growth and development within 
their borders.
  Mr. President, specifically, my legislation establishes the 
Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields consisting of the boundaries of 
1,140 acres of 8 battlefields throughout the valley.
  They include Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862 of the 
battles of McDowell, Cross Keys, and Port Republic; the Gettysburg 
Campaign in 1863 marked by the Second Battle of Winchester; the 
Lynchburg Campaign of 1864 at the Battle of New Market; and Union 
General Sheridan's Valley Campaign of 1864 of the battles of Fishers 
Hill, Toms Brook, and Cedar Creek.
  As the Park Service's draft report identified more than 33,000 acres 
as core battlefield engagement areas, I propose the creation of the 
Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Commission to make 
recommendations on which of these core areas should be added to the 
battlefields.
  These recommendations will be developed as the Commission discharges 
its duties of preparing a heritage plan with the assistance of the Park 
Service and active public involvement. The heritage plan must be 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior and transmitted to the 
Congress for approval. The heritage plan will identify the final 
boundaries of the battlefields and identify which areas are part of the 
core engagement areas and which areas contributed in a significant way 
to the historical events that occurred in the valley from 1862 to 1864.

  Mr. President, there is no question about the value of these 
properties. They are essentially undisturbed and continue to tell an 
important story of the military strategy employed during the battles of 
Thomas J. ``Stonewall'' Jackson's valley campaign of 1862 and the 
battles associated with Union Gen. Philip Sheridan's ``Burning'' of the 
Shenandoah Valley in 1864.
  Approximately one-third of the recorded events of the Civil War 
occurred in Virginia. Dyer's ``Compendium of the War of the Rebellion'' 
records 297 incidents of armed conflict in the Shenandoah Valley during 
the Civil War: 6 battles, 18 engagements, 21 actions, and 252 
skirmishes. The Shenandoah Valley--referred to as the ``Granary of 
Virginia''--was the richest agricultural region in Virginia, providing 
provisions to the Confederate forces. In addition, the Confederates 
used the valley as a natural corridor for invading or threatening 
invasion of the North, while the Union forces realized the importance 
of denying the valley's use to the Confederacy.
  One of the most brilliant and most studied military campaigns in 
history was Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862. During this 
campaign, Jackson's army of 17,000 men defeated 3 Northern armies with 
a combined strength of 33,000 in a single month, winning 5 battles: 
McDowell, Front Royal, Winchester, Cross Keys, and Port Republic. Most 
importantly, Jackson's valley campaign created a strategic diversion to 
draw strength from the Federals' advance on Richmond. It was Robert E. 
Lee who unleashed Jackson in the valley. Lee realized the importance of 
creating a diversion in the valley to keep Union troops from moving 
toward Richmond.
  Jackson's performance during the 1862 valley campaign had transformed 
this southern, VMI professor into a military legend. As James McPherson 
recounts in ``Battle Cry of Freedom'':

       Jackson's victories in the Valley created an aura of 
     invincibility around him and his foot cavalry. They furthered 
     the southern tradition of victory in the Virginia theater 
     that had begun at Manassas * * * Stonewall became larger than 
     life in the eyes of many northerners; he had gotten the drop 
     on them psychologically, and kept it until his death a year 
     later.

  Confederate advances preceding August 1864--including Jubal Early's 
victories at the Battle of Cool Springs and the Second Battle of 
Kernstown--led Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to instruct Gen. Philip H. 
Sheridan to put an end to the Confederate threat to the lower 
Shenandoah Valley. In October 1864, Sheridan introduced the concept of 
total warfare to the Shenandoah Valley--later to be referred to as 
``The Burning'' or ``Red October.''
  In Sheridan's own words he described his actions in the fall of 1864 
in this way:

       I have destroyed over 2,000 barns, filled with wheat, hay, 
     and farming implements; over 70 mills, filled with flour and 
     wheat * * * When this is completed, the Valley from 
     Winchester up to Staunton, ninety-two miles, will have but 
     little in it for man or beast.

  Even with the incredible devastation wrought by Sheridan during the 
Battle of the Opequon, the Battle of Fishers Hill, and the Battle of 
Tom's Brook, the Confederates refused to surrender the valley, even 
successfully pulling off a surprise attack on Union forces at Cedar 
Creek.
  However, Sheridan counterattacked, and as James McPherson states in 
``Battle Cry'':

       Within a few hours Sheridan had converted the battle of 
     Cedar Creek from a humiliating defeat into one of the more 
     decisive Union victories of the war.

  With the Confederate threat in the Valley eliminated, Sheridan moved 
on to Petersburg to participate in the final campaign of the Civil War 
in Virginia.
  The events which occurred in the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil 
War deserve a permanent place in history, just as Manassas, Gettysburg, 
and Antietam. As stated in the National Park Service's 1991 draft study 
of the civil war sites in the valley:

       Few regions in the United States have experienced the 
     horrors of systematic destruction, and the memories are still 
     close to the surface for many long-time valley residents. 
     Family histories are filled with stories that relate to the 
     hardships of that time. It took a generation to repair the 
     savages of ``The Burning'' and another generation before life 
     in the Valley returned to its pre-war condition. There can be 
     found there today a fierce pride in ancestors who survived 
     the war and who struggled to rebuild all that was lost.
       The history of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley bears 
     witness to the devastation and waste of warfare, but more 
     importantly, it underscores the irrepressible human will to 
     survive, to rebuild, to carry on. The historic events and the 
     human players of the Valley--heroic and the tragic alike--
     have contributed significantly to the texture of our American 
     cultural heritage.

  Mr. President, I am confident that these battlefields will make a 
very positive contribution to the Park Service's preservation of this 
tragic chapter in our American history. These lands are important to 
our understanding of the events that occurred from 1862 to 1864 when 
the momentum and tide of the Confederacy's struggle turned and the 
Union forces began to take hold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I, first of all, express my sincere 
admiration and respect to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for 
having labored in the vineyards for a very long time in an effort to 
get the Shenandoah Valley battlefields the national designation they 
deserve.
  I am on the advisory council to the Association for the Preservation 
of Civil War Sites, which is based in Fredericksburg. They have been 
very interested in this legislation. Every Civil War buff is interested 
in this legislation.
  As chairman of the subcommittee that is considering this bill, I can 
tell you that we are working as diligently as we can to draft language 
that will accomplish precisely what the Senator wants.
  There are a lot of interests to be accommodated, but any time you can 
get local governments, private individuals, and the Federal Government 
all involved in protecting an area that badly needs to be preserved, 
the language has to be drafted very carefully.
  I am hoping that the Senator's staff and the subcommittee staff will 
have this bill in final draft form. I hope they will have the language 
in final draft form by the time we go to the next markup in the full 
committee.
  I have to say with all candor to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia he is much more likely to find opposition on his side of the 
aisle than he is on this side. But having said that, I think the bill 
has tremendous merit. It is certainly at the present time my intention 
to support the bill very strongly.
  When the Senator asked me about offering the amendment on the 
California Desert Protection Act, I appealed to his good nature to 
offer it and perhaps not go to a vote on it at this time with the 
knowledge that I am going to do everything I can to assist him in 
passing this bill.
  The chairman of the committee is seated on the floor, and I know he 
shares my hope that we go to markup on this just as soon as we can get 
the amendment drafted.
  I want to make my commitment to the Senator from Virginia now if he 
would be willing to postpone action on this amendment until we can 
draft the amendment to his bill, then I will do everything I can to 
accommodate him.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Arkansas, and I would just like to engage in a brief 
colloquy on several technical changes.
  I feel that this bill indeed does need some drafting because this is 
a bit of an innovation to ask landowners to make the land available for 
public inspection and to assume associated risk with tort liabilities 
with visitors coming on, and that is an important provision of the bill 
we have to work out, and that to me is one of the reasons why this 
delay would be in the interest of getting a bill that can meet that 
requirement as well as others. That is visitor access.
  This land, I stress, some of it will remain in private ownership, 
private ownership, which is unique, am I not correct, in the formation 
of a public park like this?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is always the thorniest issue we have to deal with, I 
say to the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my good friend.
  I wish to inform the managers at this time I will ask that the 
amendment be withdrawn, and I accept the assurances of my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas and the managers of this bill that we will 
proceed to fair consideration in the forthcoming markup and we will 
once again address this matter on the floor of the Senate.
  I would just hope my friend from Arkansas would further make the 
commitment that perhaps the debate on the final bill could take place 
in the hours of 1 to 3 in the morning as we did the Manassas bill and 
kept up about a third of America on C-SPAN watching us on battle 
engagements that the two of us and other Senators joined in during the 
course of that historic moment. I remember it very well.
  I also remember my position lost and that the Senator from Arkansas 
won.
  Mr. BUMPERS. As I have said, and this sounds a little self-serving, 
but I say it again, in the 19-plus years I have been in the Senate, 
that is the only time, about 9 o'clock that evening, on the Manassas 
battlefield bill that Senators have actually walked into this Chamber--
this in a way is a terrible admission--have walked into the Chamber, 
sat in their seats, not having a clue as to what that bill was about, 
and sat at rather rapt attention for about 2 or 3 hours while the 
Senator from Virginia and I gave them little Civil War battlefield 
lessons on the battles of Manassas. And I think they voted that night 
based on what they heard in the debate and not by weighing their mail 
or telephone calls or anything else.
  I thought it was one of the healthiest moments I ever witnessed. 
Actually I won. So I feel that way. I feel it was a healthy thing for 
the country, especially the United States Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I acknowledge the win by the distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas but in a way Virginia won because there is a 
magnificent addition to a park that has been in existence for many 
years, preserving the history of the first and second battlefields of 
Manassas, and while in the early 1980's I was successful in persuading 
the Senate to add a large section to it, it was the legislation that 
the Senator from Arkansas and I worked on that made a third important 
addition to that historic park, and I would hope that we would have a 
similar, although less contentious this time, debate on this matter.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I could make one observation to show the Senator my 
good faith, I was also an author of a bill to establish the Civil War 
Battlefield Sites Advisory Commission. As the Senator knows, James 
McPherson and others of his stature were on that. They studied all the 
battlefields of the Civil War and came back to Congress and presented 
us with the battlefields that they thought were most important from an 
historical standpoint, the battlefields that were most threatened by 
development or encroachment.
  I am more or less committed to that Commission because it was my 
legislation and in the future it is my intention to only champion those 
sites that they very studiously selected as the sites most in need of 
preservation. While portions of the Senator's bill, may be at slight 
variance with the Commission's report, I am willing to work with the 
Senator to accommodate his concerns.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague and I 
thank the managers.
  I would like the Record to reflect that the Park Service did a study 
of this area in 1990 and there the Park Service recommends the 
incorporation of the sites I referred to in this amendment.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor and 
strong supporter of the amendment offered by my senior colleague from 
Virginia, Senator Warner, to help preserve for future generations the 
many significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of 
Virginia. The amendment would create a new national park in Virginia 
and establish a commission, made up of local landowners and historians, 
to devise a plan for further preservation in the Valley.
  Virginia is filled with many places that summon images of the Civil 
War; but few places can evoke a sense of truly being there like 
Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I do not think there is any doubt that 
the Shenandoah Valley is rich in Civil War history--it is the site of 
both Gen. ``Stonewall'' Jackson's 1862 valley campaign and General 
Sheridan's 1864 Union campaign. In fact, a visitor to the area in 1994 
would see the same view Stonewall Jackson had over 130 years ago. While 
rich in history, this area is also rich in controversy, spurring a 
complex public debate between preservationists and private property 
owners. Despite all of this present conflict, agreement has been 
reached with this piece of legislation and I am pleased to point out 
that this amendment before us today is a result of cooperation and 
compromise.
  It is the product of a grassroots effort by preservationists, local 
government officials, local residents, and private property owners, who 
came together to find a way to preserve our national heritage without 
unduly infringing on the rights of property owners. It is not often 
that you find a legislative effort that enjoys such a wide range of 
participants and supporters. This bill encourages cooperative 
agreements between the Federal Government and private individuals. This 
is the bill's strength and its backbone. This bill is indeed about 
partnership and is named accordingly.
  It is time to complete work on this legislation. A great part of 
Virginia's cultural and historical heritage hangs in the balance. We 
can look to Stonewall Jackson himself for guidance: ``If this valley is 
lost, Virginia is lost.'' This is as true today as it was in 1862. I 
urge the committee to move to this bill quickly and act on this 
legislation before the opportunity is lost.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 1625) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 1626

(Purpose: To establish the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park in 
                        the State of Louisiana)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. I ask that the amendment be inserted 
at the end of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], for himself, Mr. 
     Breaux, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Cochran, proposes 
     amendment numbered 1626.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. 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:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

                               TITLE ----

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``New Orleans Jazz National 
     Historical Park Act of 1994''.

     SEC.   . FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Jazz is the United States' most widely recognized 
     indigenous music and art form. Congress previously recognized 
     jazz in 1987 through Senate Concurrent Resolution 57 as a 
     rare and valuable national treasure of international 
     importance.
       (2) The city of New Orleans is widely recognized as the 
     birthplace of jazz. In and around this city, cultural and 
     musical elements blended to form the unique American music 
     that is known as New Orleans jazz, which is an expression of 
     the cultural diversity of the lower Mississippi Delta Region.
       (3) Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was 
     established to commemorate the cultural diversity of the 
     lower Mississippi Delta Region including a range of cultural 
     expressions like jazz.
       (b) Purpose.--In furtherance of the need to recognize the 
     value and importance of jazz, it is the purpose of this Act 
     to establish a New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park to 
     preserve the origins, early history, development and 
     progression of jazz; provide visitors with opportunities to 
     experience the sights, sounds, and places where jazz evolved; 
     and implement innovative ways of establishing jazz 
     educational partnerships that will help to ensure that jazz 
     continues as a vital element of the culture of New Orleans 
     and our Nation.

     SEC.   . ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--In order to assist in the preservation, 
     education, and interpretation of jazz as it has evolved in 
     New Orleans, and to provide technical assistance to a broad 
     range of organizations involved with jazz music and its 
     history, there is hereby established the New Orleans Jazz 
     National Historical Park (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``historical park''). The historical park shall be 
     administered in conjunction with the Jean Lafitte National 
     Historical Park and Preserve, which was established to 
     preserve and interpret the cultural and natural resources of 
     the lower Mississippi Delta Region.
       (b) Area Included.--The historical park shall consist of 
     lands and interests therein as follows:
       (1) Lands which the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter 
     referred to as ``the Secretary'') may designate for an 
     interpretive visitor center complex.
       (2) Sites that are the subject of cooperative agreements 
     with the National Park Service for the purposes of 
     interpretive demonstrations and programs associated with the 
     purposes of this title.
       (3)(A) Sites designated by the Secretary as provided in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B)(i) No later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary is directed to complete a national 
     historic landmark evaluation of sites associated with jazz in 
     and around New Orleans as identified in the document entitled 
     ``New Orleans Jazz Special Resource Study'', prepared by the 
     National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 101-499. In 
     undertaking the evaluation, the Secretary shall, to the 
     extent practicable, utilize existing information relating to 
     such sites.
       (ii) If any of the sites evaluated are found to meet the 
     standards of the National Historic Landmark program and 
     National Park Service tests of suitability and feasibility, 
     and offer outstanding opportunities to further the purposes 
     of this title, the Secretary may designate such sites as part 
     of the historical park, following consultation with the 
     owners of such sites, the city of New Orleans, the 
     Smithsonian Institution, and the New Orleans Jazz Commission, 
     and notification to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC.   . ADMINISTRATION.

       (a)(1) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historical park in accordance with this title and with 
     provisions of law generally applicable to units of the 
     National Park System, including the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes'', 
     approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4); 
     and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-
     467). The Secretary shall manage the historical park in such 
     a manner as will preserve and perpetuate knowledge and 
     understanding of the history of jazz and its continued 
     evolution as a true American art form.
       (2) To minimize operational costs associated with the 
     management and administration of the historical park and to 
     avoid duplication of effort, the Secretary shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, utilize the facilities, 
     administrative staff and other services of the Jean Lafitte 
     National Historical Park and Preserve.
       (b) Donations.--The Secretary may accept and retain 
     donations of funds, property, or services from individuals, 
     foundations, corporations, or other public entities for the 
     purposes of providing services, programs, and facilities that 
     further the purposes of this title.
       (c) Interpretive Center.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     construct, operate, and maintain an interpretive center in 
     the historical park on lands identified by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 3(b)(1). Programs at the center shall 
     include, but need not be limited to, live jazz interpretive 
     and educational programs, and shall provide visitors with 
     information about jazz-related programs, performances, and 
     opportunities.
       (d) Jazz Heritage Districts.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to the city of New Orleans and other 
     appropriate entities for the designation of certain areas in 
     and around New Orleans as jazz heritage districts. Such 
     districts shall include those areas with an exceptional 
     concentration of jazz historical sites and established 
     community traditions of jazz street parades.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements, Grants and Technical 
     Assistance.--In furtherance of the purposes of this title--
       (1) the Secretary, after consultation with the New Orleans 
     Jazz Commission established pursuant to section 7, is 
     authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with owners 
     of properties that are designated pursuant to section 3(b)(3) 
     which provide outstanding educational and interpretive 
     opportunities relating to the evolution of jazz in New 
     Orleans. The Secretary may assist in rehabilitating, 
     restoring, marking, and interpreting and may provide 
     technical assistance for the preservation and interpretation 
     of such properties. Such agreements shall contain, but need 
     not be limited to, provisions that the National Park Service 
     will have reasonable rights of access for operational and 
     visitor use needs, that rehabilitation and restoration will 
     meet the Secretary's standards for rehabilitation of historic 
     buildings, and that specify the roles and responsibilities of 
     the Secretary for each site or structure;
       (2) the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the city of New Orleans, the State of 
     Louisiana, and other appropriate public and private 
     organizations under which the other parties to the agreement 
     may contribute to the acquisition, construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of the interpretive center and to the 
     operation of educational and interpretive programs to further 
     the purposes of this title; and
       (3) the Secretary, in consultation with the New Orleans 
     Jazz Commission, is authorized to provide grants or technical 
     assistance to public and private organizations.
       (f) Jazz Educational Programs.--The Secretary shall, in the 
     administration of the historical park, promote a broad range 
     of educational activities relating to jazz and its history. 
     The Secretary shall cooperate with schools, universities, and 
     organizations supporting jazz education to develop 
     educational programs that provide expanded public 
     understanding of jazz and enhanced opportunities for public 
     appreciation. The Secretary may assist appropriate entities 
     in the development of an information base including archival 
     material, audiovisual records, and objects that relate to the 
     history of jazz.

     SEC.   . ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

       (a) General Authority.--The Secretary may acquire lands and 
     interests therein within the sites designated pursuant to 
     section 3(b)(1) and (3) by donation or purchase with donated 
     or appropriated funds or long term lease: Provided, That 
     sites designated pursuant to section 3(b)(3) shall only be 
     acquired with the consent of the owner thereof.
       (b) State and Local Properties.--Lands and interests in 
     lands which are owned by the State of Louisiana, or any 
     political subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by 
     donation.

     SEC.   . GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       Within 3 years after the date funds are made available 
     therefor and concurrent with the national landmark study 
     referenced in section 3(b)(3), the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the New Orleans Jazz Commission, shall prepare a general 
     management plan for the historical park. The plan shall 
     include, but need not be limited to--
       (1) a visitor use plan indicating programs and facilities 
     associated with park programs that will be made available to 
     the public;
       (2) preservation and use plans for any structures and sites 
     that are identified through the historic landmark study for 
     inclusion within the historical park;
       (3) the location and associated cost of public facilities 
     that are proposed for inclusion within the historical park, 
     including a visitor center;
       (4) identification of programs that the Secretary will 
     implement or be associated with through cooperative 
     agreements with other groups and organizations;
       (5) a transportation plan that addresses visitor use access 
     needs to sites, facilities, and programs central to the 
     purpose of the historical park;
       (6) plans for the implementation of an archival system for 
     materials, objects, and items of importance relating to the 
     history of jazz; and
       (7) guidelines for the application of cooperative 
     agreements that will be used to assist in the management of 
     historical park facilities and programs.

     SEC.   . ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS JAZZ COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--To assist in implementing the purposes 
     of this title and the document entitled ``New Orleans Jazz 
     Special Resource Study'', there is established the New 
     Orleans Jazz Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of 17 members 
     to be appointed no later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. The Commission shall be appointed by 
     the Secretary as follows:
       (1) One member from recommendations submitted by the Mayor 
     of New Orleans.
       (2) Two members who have recognized expertise in music 
     education programs that emphasize jazz.
       (3) One member, with experience in and knowledge of tourism 
     in the greater New Orleans area, from recommendations 
     submitted by local businesses.
       (4) One member from recommendations submitted by the Board 
     of the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Foundation.
       (5) One member, with experience in and knowledge of 
     historic preservation within the New Orleans area.
       (6) Two members, one from recommendations submitted by the 
     Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and one member from 
     recommendations submitted by the Chairman of the National 
     Endowment of the Arts, who are recognized musicians with 
     knowledge and experience in the development of jazz in New 
     Orleans.
       (7) Two members, one from recommendations submitted by the 
     Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and one member from 
     recommendations submitted by the Director of the Louisiana 
     State Museum with recognized expertise in the interpretation 
     of jazz history or traditions related to jazz in New Orleans.
       (8) Two members who represent local neighborhood groups or 
     other local associations; from recommendations submitted by 
     the Mayor of New Orleans.
       (9) One member representing local mutual aid and benevolent 
     societies as well as local social and pleasure clubs, from 
     recommendations submitted by the Board of the New Orleans 
     Jazz and Heritage Foundation.
       (10) One member from recommendations submitted by the 
     Governor of the State of Louisiana, who shall be a member of 
     the Louisiana State Music Commission.
       (11) One member representing the New Orleans Jazz Club from 
     recommendations submitted by the club.
       (12) One member who is a recognized local expert on the 
     history, development and progression of jazz in New Orleans 
     and is familiar with existing archival materials from 
     recommendations submitted by the Librarian of Congress.
       (13) The Director of the National Park Service, or the 
     Director's designee, ex officio.
       (c) Duties of the Commission.--The Commission shall--
       (1) advise the Secretary in the preparation of the general 
     management plan for the historical park; assist in public 
     discussions of planning proposals; and assist the National 
     Park Service in working with individuals, groups, and 
     organizations including economic and business interests in 
     determining programs in which the Secretary should 
     participate through cooperative agreement;
       (2) in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary, 
     develop partnerships with educational groups, schools, 
     universities, and other groups to furtherance of the purposes 
     of this Act;
       (3) in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary, 
     develop partnerships with city-wide organizations, and raise 
     and disperse funds for programs that assist mutual aid and 
     benevolent societies, social and pleasure clubs and other 
     traditional groups in encouraging the continuation of and 
     enhancement of jazz cultural traditions;
       (4) acquire or lease property for jazz education, and 
     advise on hiring brass bands and musical groups to 
     participate in education programs and help train young 
     musicians;
       (5) in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary, 
     provide recommendations for the location of the visitor 
     center and other interpretive sites;
       (6) assist the Secretary in providing funds to support 
     research on the origins and early history of jazz in New 
     Orleans; and
       (7) notwithstanding any other provision of law, seek and 
     accept donations of funds, property, or services from 
     individuals, foundations, corporations, or other public or 
     private entities and expend and use the same for the purposes 
     of providing services, programs, and facilities for jazz 
     education, or assisting in the rehabilitation and restoration 
     of structures identified in the national historic landmark 
     study referenced in section 3(b)(3) as having outstanding 
     significance to the history of jazz in New Orleans.
       (d) Appointment.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed for staggered terms of 3 years, as designated by 
     the Secretary at the time of the initial appointment.
       (e) Chairman.--The Commission shall elect a chairman from 
     among its members. The term of the chairman shall be for 3 
     years.
       (f) Terms.--Any member of the Commission appointed by the 
     Secretary for a 3-year term may serve after the expiration of 
     his or her term until a successor is appointed. Any vacancy 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     shall serve for the remainder of the term for which the 
     predecessor was appointed.
       (g) Per Diem Expenses.--Members of the Commission shall 
     serve without compensation. Members shall be entitled to 
     travel expenses under section 5703, title 5, United States 
     Code, when engaged in Commission business, including per diem 
     in lieu of subsistence in the same manner as persons employed 
     intermittently.
       (h) Administrative Support.--The Secretary shall provide 
     the Commission with assistance in obtaining such personnel, 
     equipment, and facilities as may be needed by the Commission 
     to carry out its duties.
       (i) Annual Report.--The Commission shall submit an annual 
     report to the Secretary identifying its expenses and income 
     and the entities to which any grants or technical assistance 
     were made during the year for which the report is made.

     SEC.   . AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this title.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment adds a new title at the 
end of S. 21. The amendment incorporates the text of a bill which has 
been reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
overwhelmingly and awaits passage here. I know of no objection to its 
consideration on the floor of the Senate.
  What the amendment does is create the New Orleans Jazz National 
Historical Park, the cost of which would be $1 million a year or less.
  Mr. President, jazz is a uniquely American art form and New Orleans 
likes to think of itself as the cradle of jazz. What this bill would do 
would be to propagate jazz in the country by having an archive for 
jazz, education for jazz, particularly in the Dixieland jazz epitomized 
by Louis Armstrong, who is perhaps the best known New Orleanian who 
engaged in jazz, as well as the performance of jazz.
  We do not have in mind the acquisition of private property. Rather, 
it will be through cooperative agreements and using in some respects 
leased land, in other respects using existing buildings.
  Mr. President, this park has now been studied by the National Park 
Service, and this amendment incorporates the results and 
recommendations of the study.
  This amendment will, in fact, preserve and propagate jazz as 
practiced in the city of New Orleans. It would be administered in 
coordination with the Jean Lafitte National Park and Preserve, and we 
believe it would be one of the jewels in the crown, to be sure a small 
one and an inexpensive one, but a very important one, because it would 
preserve this uniquely American art form.
  I ask for favorable consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, though I will not 
call for a vote on it.
  This is an amendment that is the reflection of dozens of other 
amendments over the years and is the point I was trying to make in the 
morning hour. We add and we add to this poor benighted agency we call 
the National Park Service and we are killing it with a thousand hooks.
  It is not that I have an objection to a jazz park. It is not that I 
had an objection to a Mojave Park. It is that I cannot understand how 
people who feel responsible can add to this burden and continue and 
continue and continue. When comes the final straw?
  A few years back, we put in the house of the famous Mexican painter, 
Georgia O'Keeffe. After awhile, we had to take it back. A little while 
ago, we had the orchestra leader Lawrence Welk's dwelling.
  Mr. President, the Park Service and America's concept of parks has 
been so good that all of us somehow or another seek to satisfy a 
constituent by making yet another park. One of the worst that we have 
done is in the State of the occupant of the Chair, and I regret to say 
it, is Steam Town. It costs millions of dollars to the National Park 
Service to create an entity that is not worthy of being called a 
national park.
  That is not to say that I do not believe that a jazz park is contrary 
to the interests of the National Park Service, although the Director 
said that he could not afford it when he testified about it.
  But, I say to my colleagues that we might just as well pile them all 
in there and then someday we will have a National Park Service that can 
no longer function and we will have then the opportunity perhaps to get 
the Secretary of Interior, who refuses to prioritize, the Director of 
the Park Service, who refuses to give us the issue that has been 
directed of him about which parks and which park properties we should 
keep and which are the priorities in which we should acquire them. They 
refuse to do that. Why? Because it is political.
  Everybody in here has put a park on because it is in his own direct 
political interest and by prioritizing, the National Park System is 
going to have to say, ``Yes, I want the Senator from Louisiana's park 
but not the Senator from Wyoming's park.'' And no matter how it comes 
to that decision, he is going to be found hateful by somebody, so they 
refuse to do it.
  The Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of 
Interior are allowing the park system to degrade in this country before 
our very eyes. We are doing it again.
  I will not stand in the way of this amendment, but I say to the 
Senate that I will raise this question on park after park and issue 
after issue until we come to grips with the fact that this marvelous 
entity we have created called a National Park Service is being killed 
by the very people who praise it every day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment
  The amendment (No. 1626) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                wildlife management in california desert

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there has been active public 
participation in installation and maintenance of wildlife watering 
devices in many of the Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas 
designated under this bill.
  In recognition of these activities, the desert bill includes language 
clarifying State jurisdiction over fish and wildlife and allowing 
management activities to maintain and support fish and wildlife 
populations and their habits. This language is identical to language in 
the recent enacted Arizona Desert Wilderness Act.
  It is my understanding that this language gives the Bureau of Land 
Management the discretion to allow the use of motorized vehicles in 
wilderness areas on a case by case basis to maintain these wildlife 
watering devices, commonly referred to as guzzlers. The vehicles are 
used to transport pipes and other necessary equipment.
  As the sponsor of S. 21, it is my intent that the Bureau of Land 
Management utilize the authority provided in this bill and continue to 
work with the public in the continued maintenance of these devices and 
use motorized vehicles when appropriate.
  I would like to ask the manager of the bill if he concurs on this 
matter.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I agree with the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, there also have been longstanding events such as 
organized horseback rides that have taken place in some wilderness 
areas and park units designated under S. 21. For example, Equestrian 
Trails, Inc., has an annual horseback ride through Death Valley 
National Monument. I understand the National Park Service and Bureau of 
Land Management have worked cooperatively with the sponsors of the 
event. It is my intent that this cooperative relationship continue 
within the units of the National Park System and wilderness areas 
designated under the desert bill.
  I would like to ask the manager of the bill if he agrees that these 
events may continue in the areas designated under S. 21.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I agree with the Senator from California.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to take this opportunity to ask Senator 
Johnston and Senator Wallop a question regarding the section of the 
California Desert Protection Act dealing with military overflights.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Committee has recognized the importance of low-level 
military flight training exercises that take place in desert regions of 
Arizona and California, that continuation of these activities is 
critical to national defense and that they are not incompatible with 
the protection of areas designated as wilderness.
  In this bill, as in the Arizona Wilderness bill, the ability of the 
military to conduct these essential flight training exercises is 
protected. However, the language in the California bill is not 
identical to the language in Public Law 101-628.
  Would the chairman agree that the language in the Arizona bill is 
consistent with and is as protective of overflight activities as the 
pending legislation? Isn't it the intent of the committee that training 
exercises, whether conducted in Arizona or California, shall not be 
restricted or precluded by the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, the 
California Desert Protection Act, nor the Wilderness Act?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. We do not 
intend for the designation of wilderness to infringe on the ability of 
the military to conduct exercises above designated wilderness land in 
Arizona or California.
  Mr. WALLOP. I agree. The committee recognizes the importance of these 
exercises, that they are not incompatible with designated wilderness 
and that they will be permitted to continue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
distinguished ranking Republican for his courtesy and his response to 
my inquiry.


                           mining operations

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to commend the 
senior Senator from California for her efforts to exclude from the park 
and wilderness boundaries of this legislation several sizeable and 
important mining operations. I know that she went to great lengths to 
do so and I am grateful for her willingness to accommodate the mining 
industry to the extent she could and I am sure they do as well. These 
mineral operations--gold, borates, and so forth--provide well-paying 
jobs and are vital to the economic prosperity of the California desert 
area. But, Mr. President, there is still one troubling aspect about 
these exclusions I would like to raise with the senior Senator and that 
is the issue of suitability.
  Because these mining operations are adjacent to park and wilderness 
boundaries, I believe they may encounter some access problems or other 
problems associated with mining and mineral exploration activities. I 
sincerely hope that is not the case, and I will remain optimistic that 
this is not the case.
  But as the Senator from California may be aware, there are also 
efforts being made by this administration to put certain areas off 
limits to natural resource development simply because of their close 
proximity to a park or wilderness boundary. Similar language is found 
in H.R. 322, the House version of mining law reform and we may soon be 
in conference with the House on that issue.
  It is my hope that the senior Senator from California would not only 
oppose any mining law reform bill which contains a suitability 
provision, but that she would oppose future efforts, regulatory or 
otherwise, that would jeopardize the exclusions for mining operations 
she has made in this desert protection legislation. I do not think for 
a moment that it would be the Senator's desire to allow that to happen, 
but I wonder if she would be willing to comment on this particular 
subject.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns of the 
senior from Idaho. I am sure he can appreciate the fact that I am very 
reluctant to take a position on a bill which has not yet been 
finalized. I realize that the mining industry plays an important role 
in the economy of my State. I made numerous boundary adjustments to 
accommodate their concerns and did so in a good faith effort to not 
preclude further development. I would say to the Senator from Idaho 
that I will make every effort to ensure that the exclusions I have made 
are retained in any final California Desert Protection bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the senior Senator from California for her 
clarification.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will join with my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], to vote against this legislation. I 
believe that designating this particular area of land in California as 
a ``wilderness'' is a major departure from tradition. ``Wilderness'' 
has a unique meaning: it is an area that has remained nearly untouched 
by man and is valuable because of its unique and pristine quality--
being ``untouched'' by human activity. That is not to say that there 
can be no record of human presence, only that such a presence did not 
alter or otherwise change the fundamental character of the wild 
country.
  From what I have heard in this debate, most of the land which is now 
to be designated as wilderness does not fit that basic, fundamental, 
criteria.
  Despite receiving negative ratings from some of the more vocal 
environmental groups, my voting record shows that I have always 
supported legislation to protect our country's true wilderness 
resources. Wilderness land is one of the great treasures which our 
generation must protect for future generations. However, I do not 
believe that we should continually search for new areas which really do 
not fit with the traditional wilderness designation.
  It is clear from the debate that this area for which ``wilderness'' 
designation is being sought has been extensively managed for multiple 
use. Many of the local communities depend on the multiple use and 
recreational opportunities currently available on these lands.
  I share the concerns expressed by my colleague from Wyoming that once 
the National Park Service gains control of all of these lands, we will 
see a severe restriction of recreational use. Indeed, if our experience 
in Wyoming is any guide, we will soon see efforts to permanently ``lock 
up'' vast areas from all but a select few.
  It is also true that for much of this area, land management policies 
will not be changed. The BLM already manages much of this land as 
wilderness.
  So, then, this legislation becomes nothing more than a ``land grab'' 
between two Federal agencies. Tragically, however, that will result in 
even greater cutbacks in services and funding for our existing national 
parks. Senator Wallop has been very clear on that critical point.In 
short, Mr. President, I would refer to the old saying in the west; ``If 
it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Current management of the Mojave Desert 
appears to work well--it ``ain't broke.'' I fear that this ``fix'' will 
cause more harm than good--the already strapped funding for existing 
parks will suffer. Furthermore, land will be closed off to multiple 
use. Innocent people will suffer economically and will lose access to a 
recreational resource. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before we close debate on this legislation, 
I want to say a few words about the reserved water language which is in 
the measure. I will reluctantly defer to my colleagues from California 
on the bill because it concerns their State, and they will have to 
explain to their constituents what they have done. I certainly expect 
they will extend the same courtesy to me when we take up legislation 
which affects my State of Idaho.
  Although once again we are passing legislation which says the 
reserved water rights language is not a precedent, it is becoming 
abundantly clear that the misguided language from the Arizona 
Wilderness legislation is a prerequisite for having wilderness 
legislation enacted. The committee did not even allow us to pass an 
amendment which would have cleaned up an erroneous characterization of 
the McCarran amendment.
  What particularly concerns me is the continuing laissez-faire 
approach which the Energy Committee takes with respect to water. I am 
troubled that the committee won't ask simple questions about whether 
any water is needed, if water is needed then how much, and whether it 
is absolutely essential to preempt State law. I'm also concerned that 
the committee ignores questions concerning how much this legislation 
will cost, how many additional personnel will be required, or what the 
annual costs of management will be.
  That attitude is especially perplexing when we are dealing with 
Southern California. For the past two Congresses, every critically 
needed reclamation bill has been held hostage to legislation dealing 
with the Central Valley project. The effect of that legislation, and 
the implementation by the Department of the Interior, will be to put 
even more pressure on Southern California to find additional water 
supplies. I suppose they will look to the Colorado, but I do not 
understand why California would choose to enact a broad and undefined 
reservation of water given, California's water law.
  California has a mix of appropriation and riparian doctrines for 
surface waters. The Federal Government holds riparian rights under 
State law. The reserved rights doctrine, as my colleagues know, is an 
appurtenancy doctrine, and therefore, the Federal Government already 
holds riparian rights under State law.
  The Federal Government also holds groundwater rights under California 
law. Has anyone asked why those correlative rights as well as the 
riparian rights are not adequate? Has anyone asked what the effect of 
the reserved rights language will be on the desert communities? Perhaps 
some just don't want to know the answer.
  Mr. President, I also find it perplexing that the California 
delegation would seek to override California's public trust doctrine. 
What possible need is there for the California delegation to embrace 
the Arizona Wilderness language and override California law? Why should 
they negate the public trust doctrine? The answer to me seems simple. 
If they didn't we would not be debating this legislation.
  Mr. President, I will not offer any amendments because I do believe 
that this is a local decision which only affects California. I wish the 
delegation had taken a different approach or at least had proposed 
their own language crafted to address California's water law rather 
than blindly adopting the Arizona language and reaffirming the policy 
that only language which passes the litmus test is allowed to be 
brought up. I attended the field hearing on this bill and it was 
abundantly clear that the delegation could have responsibly addressed 
the needs of each area within the context of California water law. They 
chose not to, but because the Senators agree, they should be allowed to 
live by their decision.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider an amendment by the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Feinstein] to ensure private property owners be allowed to build or 
improve residences on private land within the Mojave National Park. 
This, I believe, has been worked out on both sides.
  Mr. WALLOP. It has. But before we take a vote on it, I would like to 
make an observation about it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1627

  (Purpose: To ensure private property owners be allowed to build or 
  improve residences on private land within the Mojave National Park)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 1627.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. 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:

       On page 145, line 25 strike ``title.'' and add ``title: 
     Provided, however, That the construction, modification, 
     repair, improvement, or replacement of a single-family 
     residence shall not be determined to be detrimental to the 
     integrity of the park or incompatible with the purposes of 
     this title.''

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, it had been my intention, and I have 
assured the Senator from California that I would not exercise that 
intention, of second-degreeing this amendment. She makes a compelling 
argument in favor of allowing owners of single-family residences in the 
proposed Mojave National Park to occupy private land, to construct, 
modify, replace or improve those residences.
  Now the backlog of authorized but unacquired lands within our 
National Park System is absolutely staggering and many of these lands 
are occupied by single family dwellings. And there is no way in our 
lifetime that this service will be able to properly compensate those 
owners of private property who, in many cases through no fault of their 
own, landed in the middle of a park.
  In the interim, they are paying taxes. They cannot sell their house 
because the Park Service will eventually buy it, or so they say. They 
cannot improve their house because the Park Service views it as 
incompatible with the purposes of the park. They cannot reconstruct it 
if it burns down. They cannot add a garage. They cannot add a room or a 
deck unless they want the property to be condemned. They cannot get the 
price they wish without going to court and seeing the Government's deep 
pockets run them up a legal bill that takes anything that they might 
get extra out of the process of administration.
  These people throughout the rest of America are left in limbo, and no 
relief is in sight short of an amendment similar to that of the Senator 
from California which provides the residents of Mojave with some 
relief. They are special residents. They are constituents of the 
Senator from California. But I have constituents, and all of us, I 
believe, who have parks in our States have constituents whose property 
is trapped, whose rights are confounded by a Federal Government whose 
arrogance is unbounded in its willingness to abuse the property and 
feelings of good and ordinary Americans.
  This is a good amendment. I support it. I wish somehow or other we 
could find the way to extend the same privileges to other Americans. We 
in this Congress, and in those that have preceded us and I daresay in 
those that are coming, find it in our hearts absolutely simple to 
trample the rights of good and ordinary citizens of this country in the 
name of protecting property for future generations.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WALLOP. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me express my agreement with the 
expressions of the Senator from Wyoming that this is an excellent 
amendment. But I hope it is a reflection of the sentiment of the Senate 
that public policy well ought to recognize the right of private 
property owners and inholders in the ability for them to utilize in 
responsible ways their property instead of the very dictatorial way 
that we have allowed to go forward.
  We have records replete with horror stories of Federal bureaucrats 
operating in very, very heavy-handed ways as it relates to the right of 
the private property owner effectively and responsibly, within the 
context of scenic values and all of those kinds of things, to manage 
their property, to do what this amendment allows to be done in a 
responsible way. I hope if I were to come with a similar amendment in 
behalf of the citizens of Idaho, who find themselves locked in these 
kinds of circumstances --and in several instances it has occurred and I 
have had to go to the issue and to the agency and ask them to back away 
from the little black book that some of their folks on the ground use 
to play this ``I am more powerful than thee on your private land'' 
attitude--I hope this will be a reflection of a growing sentiment in 
the U.S. Congress that private property owners have legitimate and 
responsible rights under our Constitution. If we will not pay, if we 
will not reimburse through scenic easement and other types of easement 
that would somehow keep whole the private property owner, I hope that 
we would recognize the importance of this kind of legislation as being 
our sentiment in public policy.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I will not continue this except to say one 
of the experiences I have had since I have been on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee was meeting a gentleman in Kentucky, in a 
national park, who had an inholding that he could not get the National 
Park Service to acquire. It was his family's only resource. He, 
unfortunately, was stricken with cancer. He had no means of getting 
from the Government what was his entitlement. So we had to suggest to 
him he hire bulldozers to begin to bulldoze a property which he adored 
in order to gain the attention of the Government so they would pay him 
for his property.
  I say to the Senator from California, this ought to be a precedent. 
It ought not to be one that is forgotten once the residents of East 
Mojave are taken care of. We are doing bad things to Americans, and we 
better realize it. The backlog is growing, and our ability or desire to 
take care of it is diminishing.
  Mr. President, as I spoke I would have offered an amendment to extend 
the same privileges offered to California residents to other residents 
in parks in other States.
  It is a fair and equitable way to deal with all private property 
owners in parks and should alleviate the taking of rights without 
compensation issue to some degree.
  As I considered this issue, I could not help but think how I would 
feel about residents in Yellowstone and Teton Parks--in my own State of 
Wyoming, building onto their properties. I really would not care much 
for it. But I also do not care much for those residents being deprived 
of their rights as property owners.
  But then, Yellowstone and Teton do not have the massive inholding 
problems that are evident here in the East Mojave. Yellowstone and 
Teton, or for that matter Yosemite are without question the type of 
areas that have unrivaled park values.
  No one would question their qualifications to be included in the U.S. 
National Park System.
  But many people have questioned the qualifications of the East Mojave 
to be included in the U.S. National Park System.
  The only thing that has made this area of desert with its historic 
structures and its remote canyons seem like park material is the fine 
management of the area by the Bureau of Land Management.
  If there is something wrong with the idea that we should extend the 
right of owners of inholdings in the East Mojave area to all inholders 
in all parks in the system, then maybe there is really something wrong 
with the quality of the East Mojave area.
  Maybe East Mojave is not up to the standards we have set for National 
Parks like Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Yosemite, Kings Canyon, or Sequoia 
National Parks.
  I ask my colleagues to either approve my amendment to extend this 
right to all parks in the system, or to reject both my amendment and 
the amendment giving this right to landowners in the Mojave.
  When we get to the subject of approving East Mojave as a national 
park, I plan to submit an amendment which will recognize the good 
condition of this diverse area of multiple uses by allowing the Bureau 
of Land Management to continue to operate the area as a national 
monument.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1627) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WALLOP. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we are now prepared, I think, to accept 
the Brown amendment, which I trust will be the final amendment. Do we 
know about Senator Hatfield?
  Mr. WALLOP. We still have no word from the Senator from Oregon, and I 
am not certain whether or not we have accepted the colloquy from the 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe the colloquy from the Senator from Arizona 
has been worked out. We have agreed to it. It is just being typed up.
  Mr. WALLOP. I would say about that colloquy, that the reason we have 
it is because we failed to act appropriately on it when we did it in 
the first place. Again, dealing with these public land issues, what 
happened was we chose to duck the issue sufficiently so that we are now 
faced with a colloquy, trying to bring the Arizona wilderness areas 
into the same kind of circumstance that would be the case that we had 
if the California Desert plan passes. It is a lesson, again, that we 
ought to do the whole job the first time, because we knew that what has 
happened was going to happen and it need not have.
  The colloquy basically says we had it in mind to treat those lands 
the same way that the Senator from California has to treat the lands in 
her State. We accept the colloquy as well.
  But I still say to my friend I will try to find out what the 
circumstance of Senator Hatfield is while Senator Brown offers his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1628

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary to study and make recommendations 
           regarding fees set by Federal facilities managers)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1628.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . FEDERAL FACILITIES FEE EQUITY.

       (a) Policy Statement. It is the intent of Congress that 
     entrance, tourism or recreational use fees for use of federal 
     lands and facilities not discriminate against any state or 
     any region of the country.
       (b) Fee Study.--The Secretary of the Interior, in 
     cooperation with other affected agencies, shall prepare and 
     submit a report to the Appropriate Committee of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the United States Senate and any other 
     relevant committees by May 1, 1996, which shall--
       (1) identify all federal lands and facilities that provide 
     recreational or tourism use; and
       (2) analyze by state and region any fees charged for 
     entrance, recreational or tourism use, if any, on federal 
     lands or facilities in a state or region, individually and 
     collectively.
       (c) Recommendations.--Following completion of the report in 
     (b), the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 
     affected agencies, shall prepare and submit a report to the 
     Appropriate Committees of the House and the Energy and 
     Natural Resource Committee of the United States Senate and 
     any other relevant committees by May 1, 1997, which shall 
     contain recommendations, which the Secretary deems 
     appropriate for implementing the congressional intent 
     outlined in (a).
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the amendment involves three parts. One is 
a simple statement of policy. It is to suggest there should not be 
discrimination in the kind of fees we levy across this country; 
discrimination among the States and discrimination between the various 
regions of the country. In other words, we ought to be working toward a 
uniform policy that affects the Nation fairly and evenhandedly.
  Second, it calls for a study of the fees we charge for entrance to 
public facilities, whether they involve tourism or other public 
facilities.
  Third, it calls for recommendations to achieve the policy statement 
that is for evenhandedness and fair treatment. It relates specifically 
to this bill because it is not beyond the realm of possibility that 
fees will relate, but its ramifications are broader than that. I think 
it moves us toward a position of equity for the whole Nation.
  My understanding is both sides have agreed to this and signed off on 
it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we accept this amendment. We think it is 
good. We are glad to accept it at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1628) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, while we wait to hear from the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], I want to express my appreciation to 
several members of the staff who have worked particularly hard on this 
legislation.
  Kathy Files Lacey, of Senator Feinstein's staff, was formerly a 
member of Alan Cranston's staff and has literally spent thousands of 
hours working on this legislation. She knows it inside out, is a great 
resource, has a great institutional memory, and has been invaluable in 
the passage of this legislation.
  I also want to recognize the work of David Brooks, Tom Williams, Mike 
Harvey, Jason Dilg, Diane Balamoti, and Susan McGill of the Energy 
Committee majority staff; and on the minority side, Gary Ellsworth, Jim 
Beirne, Jim O'Toole, Jim Tate, Marian Marshall, and Kelly Fischer, who 
have done particularly good work. All of those staff members have.
  When a bill is passed in 1 day, sometimes it is easy to think it was 
an easy task to get it through. But these staffers who worked hard on 
it, as well as Senator Feinstein particularly, know this bill is a 
monumental task, one of the most complicated, one of the most 
difficult, involving more interests, more people, more groups, more 
controversy, more difficulty than most bills that ever see the light of 
day on the floor of the Senate.
  So my hat is off to these staffers, first of all, and most especially 
to Senator Feinstein who has worked very, very hard on this bill.
  Let me also, Mr. President, commend the ranking minority member, my 
dear friend, Senator Wallop from Wyoming, who, in his persuasive and 
reasoned way, I hope has brought the attention of the Senate to a very 
important issue, which is the issue of the underfunding of the National 
Park Service. At less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal 
budget, it is hardly a contributor to the Federal deficit, and we 
should not hold hostage this very small and very important part of the 
budget because entitlements are going up. We really ought to find a way 
adequately to fund it.
  If we just went to one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget, we would 
probably take care of the National Park Service's needs. We are at 
substantially less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
  So I know the Senator from Wyoming will continue to work for adequate 
funding for the National Park Service, and I will be at his side, and 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], in whose 
subcommittee this lies. We will use all of our best efforts to persuade 
them and other Members of the Senate that this, in fact, is something 
the Senate ought to do.
  I also thank the Senator from Wyoming for being so reasonable, along 
with the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], in working out 
amendments. The way legislation gets to be good legislation is by this 
cooperative effort on behalf of both the majority and the minority.
  While there are deeply held differences about the bill, there was 
never any obstruction. There was never any debate other than 
constructive debate on this bill. So I think both sides, particularly 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, but also Senator Wallop, Senator 
Craig, Senator Bennett, and others, who worked on this deserve a lot of 
credit for making, in my judgment, the bill better and for allowing it 
to go through, for allowing the Senate to work its will on this bill.
  Mr. President, my commendations to all of those people.
  At this point, I yield the floor, and I hope we will find out soon 
whether we are ready for third reading.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I say to my friend, we are not. There is 
still a possibility that Senator Hatfield will offer his PILT amendment 
yet tonight. They are trying to work it out. They are close to having 
it worked out, but it is not worked out, and it is his intention to 
offer it if it is not.
  Let me say to the Senator from California that she has been fair and 
square with me on these issues. I felt deeply about them, still do, and 
intend to vote against this bill. But it has not been because she has 
not been a very square shooter in the dealings which we have had, both 
through the committee and through our staffs personally, and I thank 
her for that.
  I say to my friend from Louisiana that I echo the praise and thanks 
to his staff and my staff that he issued. There is no sense in going 
through their names one by one again, but they are unique, I think, 
perhaps amongst Senate staffs for their ability to work constructively 
together. As Senator Johnston pointed out, they do not agree on a 
number of things, but they do agree on not allowing that to stand in 
the way of constructive progress.
  We have had some remarkable disagreements which have been resolved 
and some which have been resolved by others, those sitting in the 
Senate on one side or the other. But they have never allowed that to 
get in the way of the professional relationship on both sides.
  I particularly thank the staff of the Senator from Louisiana for 
keeping that arrangement with my staff. They feel it, they work on it, 
and they are professionals completely. My thanks to everybody.
  I had clearly wished that the amendments had turned out a different 
way, but that is why we are here. This is an arena and not a stage. 
What we have done is indulged in the combat of ideas. The Senate has 
spoken, and I am perfectly willing to accept that. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much. I would like to 
respond to those comments by saying that I think this has been an 
exercise, really, in government at its finest: The ability to work with 
talented people of differing points of view to achieve something.
  To begin with, I want to say, particularly to the committee chairman, 
whose help and advice has been unparalleled all the way through this, 
that I am just very grateful for all that he has done to have been of 
help to me. It has been very, very meaningful.
  The Senator from Wyoming, the ranking member of the committee, 
although we have not always agreed on this issue, I want to say to him 
that I have developed a very real liking and a very real respect. I 
want to thank him for that. I do agree, I think our dealings have been 
aboveboard and honest. He has been a square shooter with me, and I 
respect that very, very much.
  Mr. President, I say to Senator Johnston that I am very grateful to 
him for recognizing Kathy Lacey. I should tell the Senator from 
Louisiana that my nickname for her is ``Britannica'' because as much as 
an encyclopedia, she retains facts and figures in a way that I have 
never thought possible. Her work on this bill, I am sure, has put some 
circles under her eyes, but I hope she feels they are worthwhile; that 
we have delivered, in fact, a good bill to the House of 
Representatives.
  I would also like to thank Senator Bumpers, chairman of the 
subcommittee. Without his help, the bill would not have gotten the push 
it needed to move ahead.
  And I would like to particularly thank two people on each side of the 
aisle. One of them is Senator Nighthorse Campbell whose vote was vital. 
We sat down and we worked out his problems. And also Senator Hatfield, 
whose vote at a critical time was very vital. I am very grateful for 
his support. He keeps his word and he keeps his commitment. That, to 
me, is the sign of a real class act.
  I would also like to thank what are now 49 cosponsors of the bill. 
They have listened, they have asked questions, they have studied, and 
they have come forward and helped.
  Last, but far from least, my colleague and friend, Senator Boxer, 
who, when I approached her and said I was going to do this, would she 
be the primary cosponsor, she said of course. She was there in the 
beginning with an energy and a spirit and absolute consistency. It is 
clear from everything I know about this body and particularly about the 
7- to 8-year history of the bill, that unless both Senators from the 
State were in agreement, this bill would not be where it is today.
  So I thank her as well.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Could the Chair tell me the parliamentary matter before 
this body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 21 is pending.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, there have been many statements made on this floor the 
last couple of days about the area that this legislation encompasses.
  Now, I have been, of course, to Death Valley. As you know, the 
entryway that carries most of the people to Death Valley is in Nevada, 
and I know a lot about Death Valley. I know a little bit about the 
Joshua Tree Monument, this area through here. But I would venture a bet 
to anyone in this body that I know more about this area than anybody in 
the Senate and probably in the City of Washington. I was born and 
raised right over the border in a little place called Searchlight, NV. 
Mr. President, I can remember as a little boy my father gathering up 
the four children, the Reid boys. It did not happen often, but he said, 
``We are going to go to Paiute Springs.''
  In this very arid area there is very little water. Where I was born 
and raised, we did not have trees. There was no water. Once in a while 
somebody would try to grow a tree. It would not live very long because 
there was simply a lack of water.
  But Paiute Springs is a remarkable place. It is a place that used to 
be a cavalry outpost called Fort Paiute. When we went there as boys, it 
still had the walls up. You could walk where the cavalry was actually 
there. It was an area that was built to protect the mail routes, U.S. 
mail, from particularly the native Americans.
  We would go there, Mr. President. It was a washout of this very dark 
volcanic rock. In a place where there should not be water, water gushed 
out of the side of this mountain. It washed down through what we called 
the gully, and there were lots of birds. This was one of the rare 
places where there were lots of birds.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Certainly.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator would allow me to make a unanimous 
consent request, then go to third reading, then again to be recognized?
  Mr. REID. That is fine with the Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________