[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to 
explain my reasoning for voting against S. 21, the California Desert 
Protection Act. While I support efforts to protect the desert 
ecosystem, I have concerns that the California Desert Protection Act is 
not the appropriate vehicle to accomplish this goal.
  As the sponsor of legislation to designate more than 3.5 million 
acres of wilderness lands in Arizona, I am fully aware of the need to 
protect the valuable natural resources we have in the west. The fragile 
desert ecosystem of California is very similar to that in Arizona. They 
are both resources which must be preserved for future generations.
  I realize that this bill has been under consideration by the Senate 
for several years. The actions, taken by Senator Feinstein to negotiate 
many of the troublesome provisions are admirable, and I commend her for 
her work. Nevertheless, I have a number of concerns about this bill. In 
particular, I am concerned about Governor Wilson's continued opposition 
to this bill, the status of low-level military overflights of new 
wilderness and park areas and the cost associated with this 
legislation. Please allow me to further explain these concerns.
  The Senate has had a long tradition of allowing Senators from a state 
to have a predominate say so on public land matters affecting their 
states. In fact, lack of agreement among the California Senator has 
been a major impediment to the consideration of this bill. 
Nevertheless, I have been greatly concerned that Governor Wilson 
opposes the bill.
  Prior to mark-up of this bill in the committee, Governor Wilson 
stated these objections in a letter to Senator Feinstein. While some of 
his concerns have been addressed in the markup, he is still opposed to 
the bill before us today. In contrast, Arizona, Wilderness enjoyed the 
support of the congressional delegation and the State.
  Governor Wilson has said that S. 21 fails to address the concerns of 
the State of California which will affect more than 8 million acres of 
land in his State. A bill of such magnitude and importance should have 
the support of the State's top official before congressional approval.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have a particular 
interest in the protection of military flight training routes. This 
section of the California desert is used extensively for low-level and 
other types of training that are invaluable to the proper training of 
our Nation's military pilots. The Senate bill contains language which 
should preserve the ability of the military to conduct these flights. 
However, I am concerned that these provisions may be weakened during 
conference with the House or that the flights may be challenged through 
the courts.
  Again during consideration of the Arizona Wilderness Act, we took 
similar steps to protect military overflights. The flights were still 
challenged by interest groups on the basis of another law. Even though 
there is some language to protect these training flights, I have 
serious concerns that in conference the protection will be weakened by 
some other means.

  Some of my colleagues may believe that these flights are no longer 
warranted, but one only needs to read the front page of the newspaper 
to know that the world is still a dangerous place and this training is 
still vital. Proper training is essential to the protection of the 
lives of the men and women of our military who place themselves in 
danger in order to preserve the rights of others. The creation of this 
much parkland and wilderness areas will only serve to complicate issues 
affecting airspace and the military's ability to train.
  My final concern regarding this bill is the cost associated with it. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that land acquisition alone 
could amount to $100-to-$300 million. The administrative cost could 
range between $6 and $9 million a year. It should be obvious to 
everyone that under today's fiscal constraints the already strained 
Park Service budget is not going to increase accordingly to meet these 
new costs.
  The park system is already in need of increased funding to properly 
manage the resources it has now. The Interior Department has estimated 
that it will cost $53 million in the near term to manage these three 
new parks. The addition of this land to our park system without the 
proper funding to manage it is irresponsible to say the least. Since 
funding will not increase, all of my colleagues should be aware that 
passage of this bill will affect funding at other national parks, 
including the Grand Canyon.
  Mr. President in light of these concerns I cannot support this 
measure as it is currently written. Again, I understand and am 
supportive of efforts to protect the desert ecosystems and of the 
wilderness program. I would support a desert bill that had the 
consensus, ensured the protection of military training routes, and 
could be paid for responsibly without harming other parks.

                          ____________________