[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 422 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 518.

                              {time}  1855


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
518) to designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness, 
to establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National P,arks and the 
Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes, with Mr. Peterson of 
Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the first reading of the bill is 
dispensed with.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 518, 
the California Desert Protection Act. It is a significant and 
comprehensive measure.
  It addresses in a comprehensive manner the future management of 
millions of acres of public lands in California's southeastern quarter 
that are now primarily under the management of the BLM and other 
agencies of the Department of the Interior. The resources of California 
involve lands that encompass three distinct types of deserts: The 
Mojave, the Sonoran and the Great Basin Area. The parks that are 
currently in existence will be expanded substantially and a new park, 
the Mojave National Park, will be created or designated in this 
legislation. About 4 million acres of those lands within the parks that 
are expanded, the Joshua Tree Monument and Death Valley Monument, would 
be changed to national park nomenclature, they would be expanded and 4 
million acres of land would be designated wilderness in this area.
  In fact, in terms of expansion of the national park system and 
national wilderness preservation system, the measure before us, H.R. 
518, is the most far-reaching single measure to come before the House 
since the 1980 enactment of the Alaska Lands Act.
  This, however, Mr. Chairman, is not a new matter. Bills similar to 
H.R. 518 have been under consideration since 1985, for the last 9 
years. During the 101st Congress, the Subcommittee on National Parks 
and Public Lands held extensive hearings on the version of the bill 
introduced by our former colleague from California, Mr. Levine. In 
fact, including in those hearings three field hearings in California, 
we heard more than 600 witnesses at all of those hearings. They were 
well attended and they were very lively.
  Mr. Chairman, during the last Congress there were further hearings 
and our committee reported out a bill that was taken to the floor under 
an open rule and was passed by the House of Representatives by an 
overwhelming majority vote. Regrettably the Senate did not complete 
action on that bill before the end of the last Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately they persist in pursuing a policy wherein 
a single Senator from a State can, in fact, stop or block action on any 
proposal before their body. I suggest that that, this one-Senator veto, 
is a process that we ought not to accept.

  This year forthwith with the change in terms of leadership from 
California, however, there has obviously been a much different reaction 
to the measure, and that measure now, a measure similar to the one 
before us, has passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote.
  Mr. Chairman, as was the case in 1991, the bill reported out today 
does not address the renewal of military withdrawals for certain public 
lands in California, nor the relationship between the desert bill's 
land designations and continued military overflights of those 
wilderness and national park lands.
  Such provisions were included in the bill passed by the Senate but 
omitted from the measure before us because they involved areas where 
our committee shares jurisdiction with the Committee on Armed Services. 
However, it is appropriate for these matters to be addressed as part of 
the California Desert bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the House actually addressed this matter separately and 
it was at the insistence of the Senate that they were included 
initially. In 1991 I joined the Delegate from Guam, Mr. Blaz, who 
served on both our committee and the Committee on Armed Services in 
offering an amendment that offered similar provisions to the California 
Desert bill. I will offer a similar amendment dealing with these 
matters when we reach the appropriate point in the process on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services, and other members on the Committee on Armed Services 
have worked with us and we, I think, have a satisfactory resolution of 
that matter.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill reported by the Committee on Natural Resources 
is a good, sound, and balanced bill. During the committee's 
consideration of this measure, some amendments were adopted. Others 
were rejected.

                              {time}  1900

  I anticipate one of the amendments rejected by the committee will be 
offered again here today on the House floor that deals with hunting in 
the Mojave National Park or National Preserve. In fact, the sponsors 
propose not to have a park but to have a preserve, in fact, 
accommodating not the general needs of a park but that of hunting.
  I would suggest this is not whether you are for or against hunting. 
It is a question of whether or not we ought to have a park, and I think 
this area is worthy. The Mojave Desert, as a basic theme, is worthy of 
being designated as a park, notwithstanding the fact that there are 
some game species, a small number, I might add, and many more nongame 
species which will be in fact hunted year-round and change the basic 
character of the populations that inhabit this 1.5-million-acre 
proposed park.
  I am convinced that amendment should be defeated on the floor as it 
was in committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill gives us an opportunity to restore a little 
bit of gold to the Golden State, that State famous for its Gold Rush 
and many other things in recent years which has been challenged and has 
had a lot of difficulties. But the fact of the matter is that this 15-
million-acre land designation that we are doing here close to 25 
million people in southern California and other areas is very important 
in terms of recreation, in terms of designation and preservation, 
conservation, restoration of what is a great ecosystem in that area.
  I think by these actions we will, in fact, take positive steps. The 
Congress has reserved to itself these positive steps to take these 
actions, to in fact accord the type of protection that these lands 
deserve and the type of use that is necessary for the military, for the 
other types of economic activities that are important to some of the 
people in southern California.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to strongly support this bill and 
the amendments that will be offered. It has been through a deliberative 
process. It is a good bill, a good product that has been before the 
Congress for nearly 10 years. It is time to act. It is time to save 
these dessert lands for future generations.
  I urge the Members to support it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] .
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time at the opening of the debate on this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this so-called California 
Desert Protection Act.
  As we debate the bill over the next several days, it will become very 
clear who this legislation does not protect. It certainly does not 
protect the taxpayer, and, in fact, it will cost more than $300 million 
and probably much more than that. It does not protect the constituents 
who will be affected by the legislation. In fact, the four Members of 
Congress who represent the districts impacted by this bill strongly 
oppose it.
  It does not protect the legislative process. This bill was discharged 
from the subcommittee without so much as a markup. Fourteen new members 
of the committee were denied their opportunity to consider and amend 
this legislation, all because the distinguished chairman of the 
committee was in a hurry to get this bill to the floor.
  It does not protect the economic growth of the State of California or 
the country. It makes future mining in one of the most important 
mineral areas of the United States virtually impossible, thereby 
limiting the growth of a vital national industry.
  It does not protect our Nation's borders relative to drug 
interdiction. In fact, by not allowing the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency to use airplanes 
and motor vehicles, illegal immigrants and drug smugglers are given 
easy access through many of the border areas included in this 
legislation.
  And if the legislation does not protect the taxpayers, the 
constituents, the process, the economy, or the Nation, who does it 
protect? Well, it protects the narrow views of environment zealots, to 
be perfectly frank, who would rather put the Nation's resources out of 
touch of middle-class America from Wyoming to Montana, from Colorado to 
now California.
  This legislation represents another chapter in President Clinton's 
war on the West. By taking property rights away from the ordinary 
citizen and by limiting the economic potential of the Western States, 
the President ignores the wishes of the people in favor of the special 
interests.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, stand up 
against the President's war on the West. We need quite frankly to 
strike a balance between environmental concerns on the one hand and the 
people's concerns on the other hand, and in my judgment this bill does 
not.
  For that reason, I am compelled to oppose it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman].
  (Mr. LEHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 518.
  The California desert is a vast and mysterious land, a land far more 
subtle than our Sierra Nevada Mountains, a land wild and untamed in 
contrast to our cultivated agricultural valleys, a stark and virtually 
unpopulated land juxtaposed against the nearby urban sprawls of 
southern California. It spans some 25\1/2\ million acres, of which the 
Bureau of Land Management administers nearly half and the Department of 
Defense over 3 million acres, and the National Park Service over 2 
million acres, and the State of California over 1 million acres.
  It is an area inhabited by only the most hardy, some including 
ranchers and homesteaders whose families have been there for 
generations.
  The desert is not a wasteland but, rather, a home to diverse people, 
diverse species of animal and plant life. It is an area that richly 
deserves the protection warranted and created by this legislation.
  Over the years I have taken a judicious approach to legislation to 
protect the desert, and encouraged people of different points of view 
to come together to discuss their many ideas about how this vast 
territory could best be managed. I have been involved in desert-
protection legislation since 1987 when Senator Cranston introduced the 
first bill.
  In 1991 I teamed with former Representative Mel Levine to craft 
compromise legislation that integrated many of the concerns not 
included in previous desert bills. In that bill, we eliminated 271,000 
acres from wilderness designation and left it available for off-road-
vehicle use, utility purposes, and mining interests. We eliminated all 
known active mines from wilderness areas. We resolved the specific 
concerns of every single utility in California. None of them are 
opposed to this legislation. We trimmed 75,000 acres and 114 miles from 
the bill for off-road-vehicle use. We included language to provide a 
land exchange for two of the largest private landholders on the desert, 
the California State Lands Commission and the Catellus Corp.
  We included language that allowed grazing within the Mojave National 
Monument for up to 25 years and directed the Secretary of the Interior 
to give priority to those acquiring the base property of ranchers 
willing to sell.
  We kept three proposed wilderness areas totaling 160,000 acres near 
Fort Irwin in study status pending expansion proposals from the 
Department of Defense.
  Senator Feinstein, for her part, has actively engaged in the process 
of crafting compromise legislation in the Senate that would protect 
California jobs as well as the fragile ecosystem enveloped in S. 21, 
the Senate version of H.R. 518. She and the U.S. Senate made over 50 
subsequent changes to the bill, many of which have been incorporated 
into the bill before us today and when it was heard in our Committee on 
Natural Resources 2 weeks ago.
  Senator Feinstein deserves tremendous credit for quickly absorbing 
vast amounts of information and skillfully maneuvering S. 21 through a 
committee on which she has no seat. It is because of her that a desert-
protection bill has passed the Senate for the first time and will 
likely be amended with the legislation which we are now considering.
  There has been an open process on the Natural Resources Committee 
from the inception. We have had over six hearings in our committee 
alone on this legislation. We have had numerous field trips to the 
desert on behalf of any member of that committee who has wanted to go. 
Since I became involved in the administration, or in the legislation, 5 
years ago, my office door has been virtually every day to anyone who 
wanted to come in and discuss this legislation.
  There are going to be further amendments offered here on the floor, 
and I noticed the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], the 
distinguished leader on the other side, just referred to the question 
of immigration and law enforcement on the desert in this bill. The only 
reason that is not included in the transcript on the floor before us 
today is because the Natural Resources Committee did not have 
jurisdiction over it, and there will be amendments to that effect, and 
I am sure they will satisfy the objections of the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  In this bill we have been sensitive to the rights and needs of 
private property owners within the desert and the need to adequately 
preserve large enclaves of land.
  In the House Natural Resources Committee, I offered a successful 
amendment to delete 59,000 acres of private landholdings from the 
Lanfair Valley portion of the proposed Mojave National Park, the area 
which contains the largest concentrations of inholdings in the entire 
bill.

                              {time}  1910

  The committee did not delete the entire Lanfair Valley as the other 
body proposed, because the area contains a multitude of very valuable 
natural historical and cultural resources that deserve inclusion on a 
Mojave national park.
  Mining in the California desert, often cited as a reason the National 
Park Service should not manage the current East Mojave national scenic 
area, is allowed by this legislation. All active mines have been 
deleted from the park and wilderness designations and valid and 
existing claims are given an opportunity to be proven up.
  Mr. Chairman, we are aggressively changing the way land in the 
California desert is managed and our land management agencies will be 
presented with new and exciting challenges in the next few years. This 
bill makes the important step of transferring land within the current 
BLM-managed East Majave national scenic area to the National Park 
Service to create a new Mojave national park. The Mojave national park 
should be a park, and not a hunting preserve that allows a limited 
amount of hunting that currently takes place there to continue. There 
is no good reason to noticeably downgrade the area's level of 
protection from park to preserve. I believe the bill we have before us 
is a measured and appropriate way to safeguard a very fragile area. I 
do believe it considers the views of the people who have previously 
opposed similar desert legislation, and I know it would make good law. 
As we approach consideration of this bill, it is important to note here 
that the vast majority of Californians support desert protection, 
including 69 percent of desert county residents, according to a 1993 
Field Institute poll. As well, 16 cities and 36 counties representing 
over 70 percent of the State are on record as endorsing this 
legislation.
  This is a popular bill in California. This body passed similar 
legislation in 1991 by a vote of 297 to 136. The other body recently 
voted 69 to 29 in favor of S. 21.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed, debated, and amended this bill now 
for 8 years. Finally, we are at this point in time where the Senate has 
passed legislation. We stand on the verge of a historic conference here 
to work out the last remaining details in this act, which is sorely 
needed by the people of California and the people of the United States 
to protect this valuable resource and manage it in all of our best 
interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I urge 
opposition to amendments to weaken it.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat dismayed with this Natural Resources 
Committee bringing up H.R. 518 before us today. This bill seems to me 
to be not so much a compromise but more of a land grab in that area.
  I remember 5 years ago going to Barstow, California, with my friend, 
Jerry Lewis, and we had one of the largest meetings I think I have ever 
been to in my life. There were literally hundreds of people there 
talking about the potential of this particular piece of legislation.
  Mel Levine, our former colleague, was conducting the meeting. We had 
the opportunity to talk to this massive crowd on a one-to-one basis 
before and after.
  Listening to them, we got quite a difference of opinion on how this 
thing would be put together.
  I think those people who represent the area of Mr. Lewis, Bill 
Thomas, Duncan Hunger, Al McCandless, have a pretty good approach to 
it. And the people who live around that area and those who are close to 
it and live on the land, I do not think they go along with this H.R. 
518. I think they feel it is an extreme approach to the things that the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] 
was talking about, which is the will and desire of some people who 
believe in tying up the West and those people who believe in taking 
away our natural resources.
  Somewhere there is moderation. I do not know whoever made the 
statement, ``Moderation in all things,'' if it is not scriptural, it 
ought to be. This is something that we ought to find ourselves where we 
can live together without this extreme approach that we are looking at 
at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, I personally feel that some of the 
amendments that are coming up would make this a better piece of 
legislation, and I strongly support the LaRocco/Lewis amendment to 
preserve hunting in the East Mojave; the Lewis substitute, which 
follows the BLM's recommendation.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why we put so much money into the 
Forest Service, the Park Service and BLM and say, ``Now, guys, go out 
and work hard and come up with a recommendation,'' and we totally 
ignore it.
  In my own home State of Utah, BLM spent $10 million, 13 years, to 
come up with a BLM recommendation. We totally ignored it.
  If we are going to do anything, we ought to take these guys out of 
the process because Congress is the one that does it. I cannot think of 
one bill in my 14 years on that committee that we have paid any 
attention to these people.
  Then I hope that we can come up with a compromise.
  I appreciate the work of my colleagues on this who have worked on it. 
I think it would be a better piece of legislation if we could represent 
more of the needs of the people who live in that area.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] who represents this area.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first I would express to the 
House my appreciation for the committee's courtesy today on the floor, 
particularly the time being yielded by my colleague. It is a most 
frustrating moment for Jerry Lewis and for Al McCandless, Duncan 
Hunter, Bill Thomas, the people who do represent districts involved in 
the vast desert territory of California. Frustrating, yes; not quite so 
disconcerting if we had truly had an opportunity to consult with the 
committee, have some open and fair exchanges regarding the real needs 
of our people in that process.
  We discussed that earlier. So I am going to spend my time here 
discussing a few elements of this bill that are of concern to me and 
indeed point to some of those items we will be discussing sometime in 
the near future relative to amendments that might improve this 
legislation.
  Over the past 8 years I have addressed the complex issues raised by 
this bill and similar legislation introduced by Senator Feinstein and 
her predecessor, Alan Cranston.
  Today I intend to restate many of my previous comments and ask 
questions, trying to shed light on the effort by the House to craft a 
formula that would make some sense for California's crown jewel, the 25 
million acres of California desert.
  I have come to this position of opposition to H.R. 518 and to a 
position of very strong opposition to S. 21 introduced by the 
gentlewoman from California, with no small reservation in terms of my 
taking such a position as it relates to questions of our environment 
and its protection.
  I want the House, my colleagues, to know that I take no back seat to 
anyone relative to environmental concerns. During my years in the State 
legislature, it was my privilege to serve as the chairman of a standing 
select committee on air quality. There, I was the author of a bill 
which fashioned the toughest air quality management district in the 
entire country. Indeed the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
is recognized everywhere as a model in that field in terms of 
attempting to improve our environment with regard to air quality.
  While in the legislature, I fashioned legislation to try to protect 
my desert district as well. In those days, there were people who saw 
the beauty of the desert and they decided to come across the lines from 
Nevada and Arizona. We would find, after going to sleep at night, 
looking at a beautiful scene, that scene would have changed because 
people were coming and stealing whole stands of cacti to take off and 
put in somebody's garden or used for nursery purposes.
  Indeed, we improved law enforcement to stop that kind of activity. 
Time and time again we have taken steps to protect the desert from 
people across State lines who want to take advantage of its beauty.
  Since being a Member of the House, I played a role in doubling the 
number of BLM Desert Rangers available for protecting the eastern 
Mojave, where largely we have difficulty some 20 to 30 miles outside of 
the urban centers where people use offroad vehicles and otherwise in an 
abusive fashion. Past that, the terrain is largely undisturbed. That 
does not address the questions, however, that are a part of this bill.
  Since coming to Congress, from the very earliest days I began 
attempts to communicate with this committee. I remember the former 
chairman, Phil Burton, who was a very talented legislator in this area, 
who worked with my predecessor fashioning the Federal Lands Policy and 
Management Act. I would submit that he was a gentleman of compromise 
who recognized the value of dealing with his colleagues one on one and 
dealing with his colleagues especially where their districts were 
involved. I remember Phil Burton back there right at the end of that 
aisle put his arm around me when I first arrived and he said, ``Jerry, 
know what wilderness is.''

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. Chairman, we talked often about that. If he had not, 
unfortunately, passed away, I would suggest we would have fashioned a 
bill that provided for compromise and made sense some time ago.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my personal view that, if H.R. 518 does become 
law, it is going to have several very, very serious and negative 
impacts, not the least of which is the negative impact it will have 
upon our national park system. This bill proposes three new national 
parks, one dealing with Death Valley, one dealing with Joshua Tree, one 
dealing with the east Mojave.
  Within the process there are four million acres of wilderness 
proposed. Nowhere within this process, however, is there any stream 
which logically suggests where the funding will come from. That is left 
for another time, and the answer really is coming forth in 
subcommittee. It is that it is going to come from the rest of the 
park's budget at the very moment when the really beautiful sections of 
our country, in terms of national parks that already exist, are highly 
pressured by a lack of funding, cannot keep up the roads, cannot build 
housing for employees, et cetera, et cetera. Yellowstone, Yosemite, all 
are under great, great pressure, and yet there is no answer to where 
the funding is going to come from.
  The eastern Mojave's 1.5 million, almost that many acres of a new 
national park, are in territory that absolutely has almost none of the 
elements that justify designation as a national park. It has endless 
thousands of miles of roadways through it. There are transmission lines 
used by utility companies. Currently there is a great controversy 
because it has been decided that just outside its borders is a great 
location for one of our low level radioactive waste locations.
  Ward valley is a great controversy. I say to my colleagues, ``If you 
go to that location, drive 3 miles across the desert, same land, 
exactly the same land, you would suddenly be in a national park.'' 
Somebody has decided that we ought to put the whole world of the east 
Mojave into national park when we are under great pressure in terms of 
financing the parks that already exist. The mining question is not a 
light question. Of the thousands of mines within the desert region, Mr. 
Chairman, 10,000 of those mining claims are located in the east Mojave.
  Many, many of the elements and potential riches of that area are yet 
to be untapped. We are developing new technology for discovering where 
these vital resources are located, and, as time goes on, there is going 
to be a virtual fortune available to the interests of America in terms 
of not just our fundamental wealth that relates to minerals, like gold 
and silver, but in terms of minerals that relate to our national 
defense and our industrial capacity. It is fundamental to recognize 
that there are few areas in the world that have this kind of potential, 
and yet there are people in common desert territory that does not 
deserve designation as a park per se where the BLM would protect the 
areas that do deserve protection and in the meantime would make 
available to us the kinds of resources of which I speak.
  Mr. Chairman, this will destroy the mining industry of our region. 
Under park direction if will be impossible for any of the small miners 
to really operate. They will end up vacating those claims. Hundreds, if 
not thousands, of jobs will be lost, and certainly the amount of money 
is even yet to be within the realm of calculation.
  There are some 800,000 acres of known in-holdings within the region. 
It happens. Nobody has really discussed this before. I have not because 
wanted to wait until this moment. Within those in-holdings I personally 
have a little 40-acre parcel. I say to my colleagues,

       You know, frankly this is going to really help me a lot. I 
     ought to be voting for this think because that parcel happens 
     to be right on the edge of one of the slopes that will 
     probably be part of the park system. However, the 
     overwhelming numbers of my constituents don't want a park. 
     May be I can convince someone to make a ski run right down to 
     my property. Indeed I may benefit, so I am not worried about 
     that per se.

  But it is interesting the way in-holders are handled by the 
legislation developed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and 
his colleagues within the committee. Two major land holders; one 
involves roughly 244,000 acres in the ease Mojave. That involves the 
California Lands Commission. The other involves a minor little 
corporation that also has in excess of 300,000 acres. That little 
corporation is known as Catellus Development Corporation, and, my 
colleagues, listen to this:
  It is actually the land holding company of the Sante Fe Railroad. And 
guess what? Those two big land holders are somehow treated especially 
well by this bill. They are put at the front of the line, and they are 
allowed to really get the first action for trading out of that land as 
the park decides they have got to take over that property. Indeed over 
time, if appropriate trades are not available, they will eventually be 
given chits which have value for which Catellus will be able to trade 
for other Federal assets or even sell to a third party.
  To suggest that they are treating in-holders fairly in this process, 
is to pay no attention to the real benefit being given to very special 
interests in this case.
  I have no idea what kinds of conversations have taken place by the 
committee and the representatives of Catellus, and I would not suggest 
anything direct, but it surely is interesting to note that a 
significant piece of Catellus is owned in a stock sense by the 
employees association in California.
  I am a former employee in California in the legislature. I suppose I 
may benefit from that as well, but frankly, I think the average people 
who are going to be effected negatively, who are small property 
holders, need at least the kind of care, and service, and attention 
that these two huge property owners are getting from the committee.
  Additionally it seems to me, Mr. Chairman and Members, we ought to be 
very, very careful about guesstimates.
  Let me kind of shift gears by saying that there are all kinds of 
materials that can be presented to the committee relative to what these 
kinds of land transactions actually cost. In the interests of time I 
will reserve those until we get to the amendments that will be ahead of 
us sometime in the near future. I think it is awfully important for us 
to keep in mind though that, unlike many of our national parks, the 
California desert is not directly threatened, especially in the east 
Mojave.
  I say to my colleagues,

       It is a fact of life, when you get 25 miles outside of 
     Victorville, or Barstow, or otherwise, the desert has done 
     awfully well all by itself for a long, long time. Much of it 
     is beautiful territory, but the two areas that we are talking 
     about that are national monuments, about which I have no real 
     argument, but monuments that involve Death Valley and the 
     Joshua Tree, are already doing very, very well under current 
     management. No one has suggested they have not done very, 
     very well. The east Mojave has a pretty far reach. The 
     current managing agency of the east Mojave, the BLM, has done 
     a fine job with limited resources. Let's adequately the BLM, 
     and let them continue to provide protection for multiple 
     uses. It is very apparent that one way or another this 
     legislation is the result of the direct influence of a very 
     special group of interests rather than the general public, 
     let alone the elected representatives of any of the counties 
     that represent this territory.

  Mr. Chairman, every county involved here opposes this legislation, 
and I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] for having yielded 
this time to me.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McCandless].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
518, the bill now before us.
  Once again, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues the false 
promises made by H.R. 518, and underline the fact that this is not just 
another California issue. It has extremely serious budget and policy 
implications, which will be of no small interest to each of our 
constituencies. Let me also clarify that despite claims which will be 
made to the contrary, I and my desert colleagues are not opposed to 
protecting the desert. However, we are interested in doing it right, 
and H.R. 518 fails miserably in this regard. Fortunately, a workable 
alternative exists, which we will be discussing later.
  I have been intrigued by some of the arguments in favor of this bill 
which have been set forth by its proponents. We have heard repeatedly 
from the ``alleged'' environmental community that anything short of 
this bill is an affront to our great deserts. This bill will ultimately 
affect roughly 8 million acres, in both parks and wilderness areas. The 
mindset here is evident--``bigger is better''. Never mind that much of 
the ``wilderness'' it would create makes a mockery of the original 1964 
Wilderness Act; never mind that we lack the funds to pay for and manage 
these newly designated areas; and never mind our inability to 
adequately manage existing natural resource areas. We all know by now 
about the funding backlog at the Park Service, and its perennial budget 
shortfalls. It is clear to me that if we do not have available the 
proper assets to care for our parks and wildlands, then they will 
deteriorate.
  It may be that it is only clear to me because I am actually from the 
desert in question here, unlike any of my colleagues in either chamber 
who support H.R. 518.
  My question is this: what resource management or conservation goals 
are being met when our policy for such things consists of bestowing an 
eloquent title on a given area, knowing full well that we cannot 
properly care for it? What good is it, for example, to congratulate 
ourselves for creating three new National Parks, as H.R. 518 would, 
when the superintendent of Yosemite National Park says on a popular 
morning T.V. show that his park absolutely lacks the resources it needs 
to do just basic things, like repair trails or maintain restrooms? If 
this is the case at Yosemite, one of the ``crown jewels'' of our park 
system, what chance do three brandnew parks have of being properly 
funded and cared for?
  Make no mistake, some money will be found for these new areas. But 
because it will be drawn from a finite and shrinking pot of dollars, 
national park service facilities in each State, and the Americans who 
visit them, will feel the pinch. This is why I have a hard time with 
criticism in my own backyard from so-called environmentalists, who in 
the name of their own narrow agenda are willing to gamble on the future 
viability of our natural resources. It raises the question of motive--
what would these professional chicken littles do for a living, if we 
actually had our house in order, and were able to take proper care of 
these resources nationwide? What shrill warnings could be sounded, what 
breasts could be beaten, if our park system was properly maintained? 
Mr. Chairman, it is cause for wonder.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also make it abundantly clear that there is a 
true alternative, despite the clucking of the chicken littles. 
California now boasts a nearly 6 million acre wilderness system, which 
in my humble opinion is unparalled in magnificence. It is the largest 
such system outside of Alaska. The Lewis substitute would expand that 
by 2.3 million acres. However, unlike H.R. 518, it would recognize the 
need for common sense management of the diverse desert environments. It 
is a fair compromise, shaped after considerable public input, dozens of 
hearings, and years of give and take between varied user groups. So 
make no mistake, friends, you can vote for a sound wilderness proposal 
without all the negative baggage of H.R. 518. Let us not give in to the 
fantasy of ``bigger is better''. We know we can make a smarter choice 
than that.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Utah, 
the ranking Member, Mr. Hansen, who has done a wonderful job on this 
bill, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me address what I think are the three important 
elements of this so-called desert bill, a bill that I call the desert 
lockout bill. The first of those elements is people. You know, there 
was a movie made a couple of years ago about motorcycle racing called 
``On Any Sunday'' That title went directly to the appeal of that 
particular sport, because that sport was one that was enjoyed by blue 
collar America. The idea was that ``On Any Sunday'' you would see 
thousands of Americans going out to the out-of-doors to race their 
motorcycles on off-road races, to enjoy with their families some time 
away from the boss, away from the job, and, without needing to be 
independently wealthy, they could take a little time in America, away 
from their home and away from the urban area, and enjoy a great sport.
  I like to think that title, ``On Any Sunday,'' often applies to the 
blue collar Americans who live in the urban areas in southern 
California. All of my colleagues know when you fly into southern 
California, you get close to the coast, you see a ton of concrete. You 
see wall-to-wall concrete in Los Angeles. You can fly in a high-speed 
aircraft for 30 minutes and still be over Los Angeles. And it is 
getting so Orange County and San Diego areas are similar.
  Yet blue collar Americans, without needing the type of money that is 
required if you want to take your vacation in New Zealand and go fly 
fishing, or take an around the world vacation, or do any of the other 
things you can do if you have a lot of money, blue collar Americans who 
live in these urban areas in southern California can get in their 
campers, they can hook up the dune buggy, they can hook up the 
motorcycles, they can get the kids, and get away from the boss by going 
to the California desert.
  If you go out there, like I have and my colleagues the gentleman from 
California, Mr. McCandless and Mr. Lewis and others, if you go out 
there and talk to them when they are camped under that particular 
paloverde tree, they might tell you, including one of the last groups I 
talked to, where the grandmother camped out under that same tree with 
her husband, now gone, and where the children had camped out under that 
tree, and now the grandchildren were camping under that very tree, 
policing the desert, taking good care of it, but, nonetheless, enjoying 
the fact that they could go back year after year, to their favorite 
place. That is what the desert means to hundreds of thousands of blue 
collar Americans. And, let us be blunt about it, that is what we are 
taking away in thousands of instances.

  The chairman has said you can still enjoy this off-roading in parts 
of the California desert, but you cannot enjoy it where you have 
enjoyed it for 20 or 30 or 40 years, and that is a fact. And a lot of 
California families are going to be leaving these favorite places.
  You know, that is a real tragedy, because that is part of the joy and 
part of the lifestyle and part of the freedom of living in California, 
being able to get a little bit remote, get away from that boss, forget 
about the work, and spend a little time with your family.
  Let me talk a little bit about crime control, because crime control 
is a major defect in this particular bill. We have massive smuggling 
taking place, of both illegal aliens and illicit narcotics, heavy on 
the cocaine, coming across the Mexican-California border.
  Now, the smugglers are very flexible and they are very creative. And 
as we have built a border, including a border fence, on the western 
part of the California-Mexican border, extending to the Pacific Ocean, 
the smugglers have begun to go east. They have gone into what is my 
district in Imperial County, a part of Imperial County that is abutted 
by several of the wilderness areas, proposed wilderness areas, where no 
vehicles are going to be allowed.
  Now, what does that mean to a smuggler? It means a smuggler, who cuts 
across the border in a vehicle, whether he is carrying 20 pounds of 
cocaine in a back bag and riding a motorcycle or pickup or some other 
type of four-wheel drive, looking to make some fast money, it means 
once he goes into this refuge that has been created that will operate 
to his benefit, that has been created by the desert wilderness bill, by 
this body, it means that law enforcement agents cannot follow.
  In other cases, it means that law enforcement agents, whether they 
are driving four-wheel drive vehicles or flying aircraft, cannot run 
reconnaissance over this particular piece of land.
  What that means is we are creating thoroughfares or smuggling 
corridors for these smugglers. Let me tell you how creative and how 
flexible and responsive these smugglers are. We have built this border 
fence and put more border patrol on the 14-mile smuggler corridor 
between Tijuana and San Diego, where about 50 percent of all the dope 
and illegal alien smuggling nationwide takes place. Since we have done 
that, they have started to flank that operation by going out in the 
California desert. We now have see the figures, the drug seizures, go 
up from about $113 million a year, 2 years ago, to almost $600 million, 
four times that, in just 1 year.

                              {time}  1940

  So what we are doing here is creating a haven at the same time when 
the administration is saying we have got to crack down on the smuggling 
of narcotics and illegal aliens, we are creating a haven, a 
thoroughfare for the smugglers. And that provision, unless we have a 
provision in this bill that gives law enforcement people total access 
to those wilderness areas that abut the border, we are going to see the 
same creativity and the smugglers moving into those areas that they 
have shown in moving into other areas to the east of the border fence.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, let me say this about wildlife and about access 
to desert water. Desert Wildlife Unlimited has built 59 watering holes 
that has singlehandedly brought back the desert bighorn sheep and the 
desert mule deer in the desert just north of Mexico.
  Under this Wilderness Act that is proposed, we will not be able to 
take vehicles into this area, and we cannot maintain these guzzlers 
without having vehicles in the area. If we do not bring in the 
jackhammers and the other equipment that is necessary to maintain these 
drinking water holes where the bighorn sheep can go down into the deep 
tenhaas without slipping down and drowning, we are going to see these 
sheep and these deer going into the All-American Canal where they wear 
their hooves out trying to climb back up the canal after they have 
slipped down.

  Three reasons, people, wildlife, and crime control, for us to vote 
against this bill.
  Let me just amplify on the last point that I made. I was very 
distressed to see the Sierra Club being against this wildlife 
preservation amendment that we are going to offer to allow 
vehicularized access by State fish and game so that they can go in and 
service these 59 watering holes that have been dug by real 
conservationists, people who went out in 120-degree heat into the 
desert that is actually below sea level during the summertime, in the 
wintertime and built 59 watering holes that has brought back this great 
resource.
  Let me tell my colleagues, I will bring out tomorrow photographs of 
desert bighorn sheep and deer that have literally worn out their hooves 
trying to get out of the All-American Canal in the days when we did not 
have those watering holes out there in the desert. And I am going to be 
reading letters from some of these wildlife conservation groups that 
have put their blood and sweat and tears into preserving these species. 
I think it is a little bit unsettling to real conservationists to see 
armchair conservationists in the Sierra Club dismiss all their hard 
work and all their expertise with a few papers on the House floor.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague's comments. He is hitting right at home on a number of the 
basic issues that we will be addressing by way of amendments when the 
bill comes back up. We are not sure exactly when it will. It may be 
somewhat beyond tomorrow.
  I must say from there, the old saying that says ``A man's home is his 
castle'' is very much related to our great desert.
  In this bill, we are taking away people's property rights in an 
arbitrary fashion. We are cutting off America's access to one of the 
most beautiful spots in the entire country. And they presume that 
people who are trying to protect the bighorn sheep someway are hurting 
the environment. And indeed, the gentleman makes a number of points 
that I hope the public as well as my colleagues will focus upon very 
carefully as we go forward with amendments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. He is absolutely right. 
A lot of California families, when this lockout bill goes through, will 
lose their home or a part of their home.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address one aspect of H.R. 
518 which concerns me gravely. The bill circumvents the discipline of 
the Budget Act by including spending outside the 10-year time frame 
covered by current budget law. H.R. 518 allows the California State 
Lands Commission and the Catellus Development Corp., a private 
development company, to be compensated for land exchanges with 
unfinanced monetary credits after the year 2004.
  If these credits were first effective before October 1, 2004, there 
would be a violation of the budget resolution. H.R. 518 is saved from 
problems with House or Senate budget rules only because the credits do 
not become effective until fiscal year 2005. CBO estimates that the 
potential value of the monetary credits could be as high as $180 
million.
  I am convinced of the importance of protecting the California Desert, 
and I will not oppose passage of H.R. 518. However, I am concerned 
about this funding mechanism. Clearly, sound fiscal policy is not well-
served by legislative provisions that are designed to bypass budgetary 
constraints. I urge my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee to 
do all that they can to ensure that the final bill which emerges from a 
conference committee with the Senate does not include this provision.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Wise] having assumed the chair, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 518) 
to designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness, to 
establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the 
Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________