[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.
____________________