[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             THE CALIFORNIA DESERT BILL AND THE BRIGGS MINE

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on April 13 the Senate passed 
S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act. I would like to take this 
opportunity to explain section 106 of the bill.
  In 1991, when the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
marked up H.R. 2929, a forerunner of S. 21, certain wilderness areas in 
the southern Panamint Range that would have been designated by the bill 
were eliminated--Middle Park Canyon Wilderness--or reduced in size--
Manly Peak, Surprise Canyon, and Slate Range Wilderness Areas--in order 
to allow mineral exploration and development on the affected lands. I 
agreed with this amendment, and I excluded the same lands from 
wilderness designation in S. 21 when I introduced the California Desert 
Protection Act in January 1993. I am pleased the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee concurred with this decision and these 
areas are not designated as wilderness in the bill reported by the 
committee and passed by the Senate.
  The principal beneficiary of this reduction in wilderness designation 
is a proposed gold mine--the Briggs Mine--that is now in the final 
stages of permitting. The mine site is located in a cherry-stemmed 
intrusion in the excluded lands. As the excluded lands are now BLM 
wilderness study areas in which all mineral activities are prohibited, 
the mine is confined to the cherry-stemmed area. S. 21 removes the 
excluded lands from wilderness study area status and thereby will allow 
the Briggs Mine operators to mine the Briggs deposit more efficiently 
and to explore and possibly develop their larger claim block on the 
excluded lands. Other companies may also become active in exploring 
these excluded lands.
  In approving the California Desert bill in 1991, the House Committee 
recognized, however, that if these excluded lands are not developed for 
their minerals, a future Congress may want to consider again whether 
they should be designated as wilderness. To that end, the committee 
included a provision to require the Secretary of Interior to report to 
Congress in 10 years on the status of mineral exploration and 
development or mining activities in these areas and on their 
suitability for future designation as wilderness. I agreed with this 
provision and included it in S. 21 as section 106.
  The reporting requirement of section 106 does not bind the Secretary 
or a future Congress to make any particular decision as to the 
subsequent management of the excluded lands after the submission of the 
report. However, section 106 clearly contemplates that the Secretary 
will manage the excluded lands prior to the reporting date so as to 
facilitate mineral exploration and development. The provision must not 
be read to require the Secretary to protect the wilderness 
characteristics on those lands during the 10-year period as that would 
defeat the purpose of the provision. Moreover, section 104 releases 
these excluded lands from the requirement of section 603(c) of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 pertaining to the 
management of wilderness study areas so that the management 
restrictions applicable to wilderness study areas no longer apply. It 
would be completely inconsistent with my intent if these lands were to 
be managed as if they were still wilderness study areas between now and 
the submission of the report to Congress in 10 years.
  Since section 106 was not discussed during the Senate debate on S. 
21, I have discussed it here to place on record the purpose and effect 
of the provision.

                          ____________________